^ I’m confused as to how it matters, whether it was “none” or “100”.
I wasn’t taught there was a single cause to the Civil War. A root cause, yes, but not a single one. That the US is a blip on the dataset is something worth knowing. Something I didn’t before I asked.
I can’t think of any, unless you count the Haitian Revolution in 1796, and other slave rebellions throughout history.
I am Spartacus. Oh wait they lost.
There’s been some talk on this thread about delaying childbirth and avoiding teen pregnancy as contributors to achieving socioeconomic success. I thought this article from NYT was interesting - and definitely something implementable elsewhere.
.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/06/science/colorados-push-against-teenage-pregnancies-is-a-startling-success.html?mabReward=A3&action=click&pgtype=Homepage®ion=CColumn&module=Recommendation&src=rechp&WT.nav=RecEngine&_r=0
"Over the past six years, Colorado has conducted one of the largest experiments with long-acting birth control. If teenagers and poor women were offered free intrauterine devices and implants that prevent pregnancy for years, state officials asked, would those women choose them?
They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school."
The article contains details on how it was privately funded by a grant from one of Buffett’s foundations and the challenges of continuing it under public funding. Costs would be involved but measurable and lasting benefits to both individuals and society at large.
“They did in a big way, and the results were startling. The birthrate among teenagers across the state plunged by 40 percent from 2009 to 2013, while their rate of abortions fell by 42 percent, according to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school.”
The article contains details on how it was privately funded by a grant from one of Buffett’s foundations and the challenges of continuing it under public funding. Costs would be involved but measurable and lasting benefits to both individuals and society at large"
Yes! And I would strongly consider offering women a monetary bonus to do it, if that would help. If public funding wasn’t available, I think they could get a ton of donors.
It’s definitely something I would contribute to as well, @busdriver11, although - wondering outloud here - not sure about the bonus part as some might deem it unethical?, but I don’t think that would even be needed to obtain measurable results and benefits, as young women seemed quite willing to take advantage of the free contraceptive understanding the benefits involved.
Another interesting quote from the article: “The state health department estimated that every dollar spent on the long-acting birth control initiative saved $5.85 for the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than three-quarters of teenage pregnancies and births. Enrollment in the federal nutrition program for women with young children declined by nearly a quarter between 2010 and 2013.”
I thought the Colorado legislature already put a stop to this program because they considered the birth control a type of abortion.
? How could that type of birth control be considered abortion? And how could they stop something privately funded?
Perhaps some would find giving a bonus to be unethical, but I consider it a moral imperative that goes beyond saving tax dollars, but helps the community in many other ways. Preventing poverty, children born to young single women, whatever it takes. But it sounds like just offering it free is very helpful.
Some groups/people feel that if the IUD prevents an already fertilized egg from implanting in the uterine wall it is abortion.
Yes, it is one of the “hobby lobby” exclusions that employer covered health insurance plans don’t have to cover since a corporation might believe it causes abortion, even though it doesn’t.
The program was, I believe, funded privately to show it worked and would save taxpayers substantially more money than it cost. The legislature has in fact stopped it. From USA Today (note, I omitted some paragraphs and did not insert ellipses.)
Are you guys trying to make a case that restricted access to IUDs is to blame for America’s problems?
Maybe just the idiocy regarding access to IUDs.
I wasn’t making a case at all. I offered no editorial comment.
However, Since you mention it, I know many people who believe that one of America’s problems is poverty caused by high rates of single women giving birth to children they can’t support. But those same people don’t support a program that shows a lot of success in preventing pregnancy and abortions among those same single women because, contrary to what science shows, they associate it with causing abortion.
If that’s not anti-intellectual, I don’t know what is.
Edited to add: @GMTplus7, love your avatar!
“Are you guys trying to make a case that restricted access to IUDs is to blame for America’s problems?”
No, but the case in Colorado indicates the anti intellectualism of this country and one of the fundamental problems we have. The religious right is the classic example of anti intellectualism, where everything to them is based in rigid belief. For example, many on here have posted about the very real problem of poverty, of young unmarried women having kids, that reinforces poverty, and that is true. So someone comes up with a possible solution, that seems to be working, and what do we have? The religious wackjobs throwing away something that works, because of some religious belief. It is the same way the whackjob right is anti abortion, but then also doesn’t want sex ed and such but rather ‘abstinence only’, when sex ed can help reduce unwanted pregnancies. If something is proven to work, versus the religious beliefs of the minority, allowing the religious beliefs to outweigh everything else is anti intellectual,pure and simple, if you disregard facts for belief, especially when it is nebulous, that is allowing the irrational to outweigh the rational.
" However, Since you mention it, I know many people who believe that one of America’s problems is poverty caused by high rates of single women giving birth to children they can’t support. But those same people don’t support a program that shows a lot of success in preventing pregnancy and abortions among those same single women because, contrary to what science shows, they associate it with causing abortion.
If that’s not anti-intellectual, I don’t know what is."
I have to agree. Extreme religious fundamentalism, when used to apply to the masses, is not a good thing. And it is disappointing that private funding hasn’t picked up the Colorado experiment, I’m surprised it hasn’t, since people were pleased with the result. I doubt the legislature can ban private funding, and when these kind of things are successful and people like them—there’s a lot of money out there looking for a place to land.
I have no issues with teaching abstinence as the goal, much better to present that as the norm to young people. However, common sense says that if you actually want results, you make getting birth control easy. And birth control that lasts for several years is as easy as it comes. Though if we’re talking IUD’s, have they actually made those risk free for women? Too bad birth control couldn’t come in the form of chocolate bar, then nobody would be having babies. Hmm, there’s a thought. ;
@busdriver11:
Despite what the religious whackjobs think, schools that actually teach sex ed use a program called various names, usually abstinence plus, that encourages kids to hold off having sex until they are ready to use it, but also give them detailed information on things like birth control, STD’s and so forth. The sad part is abstinence only education (which is an oxymoron) is the rule in many places. The religious right claims that sex ed causes kids to have sex, that they are promoting it, but what every study has shown is that abstinence only and similar programs, both religious and secular, only delay the onset of first sex on average (somewhere around 18 months), but the percent having sex in both groups pretty much matches dead spot on. The bad part is the kids with abstinence plus are a lot more likely not to use birth control, not know the reality of STD’s (one of the things religious kids do to fool themselves “they haven’t had sex?”…they have oral and anal sex), and are a lot more likely, by I vaguely recall, a 30% higher chance of an unwanted pregnancy. It is funny, I can respect the pro life position, even though I don’t agree with them that making abortion illegal is the answer, but many (not all, but many) of those who are pro life are also anti sex ed, anti birth control, anti condom distribution and so forth, if they really want to reduce abortions, then a better way is to catch it at the head end, and telling kids ‘sex only after marriage’ is not going to cut it, hasn’t and never will, all that will do is create more demand for abortions.
It is amazing how much this IUD topic underscores how much culture matters and how it is possible to ignore the fundamental causes of societal ills.
This highlights why some groups will never get out of the predicament they are in because they are waiting for others to solve their problems. And, unfortunately, the proposed solutions, often reinforce their bad choices, rightly or wrongly.
The obvious question that jumps out is this one - how is it so many dirt poor, uneducated immigrants can come here and succeed at rates many multiple times than certain native-born American populations, all without the need of other people’s money to stop them from having kids as teenagers and generally making bad choices? Clearly, culture and proper training at home matters.
However, it goes deeper, the bad choices, which require an IUD to mask, are just symptoms of a larger set of bad choices, i.e., high rates of teenage pregnancy do not happen in the a vacuum. Therefore, it is not surprising many social programs have not changed the landscape of certain groups - the programs are just the use of others people’s money without ever addressing the more fundamental destructive behaviors that are part of the larger problematic culture.
And this is here I do think self-proclaimed intellectualism does a huge disservice - instead of being honest and calling out the chain of behaviors that are the causes systemic failure, the response is moral relativism (the intellectually accepted meme), and the solution that other people’s money need be used to mask other’s failings.
One example of my own anecdotal life observation - none of the immigrant high schoolers, male or female, who are from first and second immigrant families go on to be teenage parents and 99% go on to college and beyond. It is too depressing to give the stat for the black kids who are interns at the same time and who have the same opportunity to intern from the same poor high school and represents just over 35% of our interns. Same neighborhood, same schools, and all too predictable outcomes based on their familes.
Behavior and what is expected of one matters and too many social programs reinforce the bad behaviors under the guise of being a program designed by the intellectual people, while never addressing the the big picture - thus a certain segment of people is stuck forever in that cycle and dependent on other people’s money, essentially forever. Even dependent on other’s to stop them from being teenage parents. If that isn’t the definition of a community that can no longer help itself, I do not know what is.
The Colorado program worked. The government actually saves money in the long run with the program. If this is an example of intelligent people pushing a program that doesn’t work…this is a pretty bad example.
Here is an example of anti-intelligence. Saying that government programs don’t work. Some government programs do work.
Oh, boo hoo, people aren’t perfect. A society that WORKS is a society that meets the needs of those who are self reliant and make no mistakes ever, while also addressing those who need help and guidance. A society that punishes and/or ignores the latter is doomed to failure. I prefer to live in the former – and foster its CULTURE based on the understanding that we’re all different and have different needs. The latter sounds a bit too Lord of the Fliesish, frankly sort of Third Reich-ish, too.