Colorado offered free birth control — and teen abortions fell by 42 percent[W:88]

[Removable Mind]

I don't have any problem with this program. It appears to be having some affect (how much is not certain) on a problem and it's privately funded so there's no affect on the State budget.

But let's keep it that way, eh? There is no reason for ALL taxpayers to foot this bill. Supporters of this program should have no problem keeping the private funding coming.


Having said that, I'm not naive. It's pretty obvious this private funding scheme was designed to generate data that could be used to convince lawmakers to fork over public money. I'm glad our State Republican lawmakers aren't falling for that scheme.

You've just joined the ranks of folks like Henrin.

How much funding would the state be seeking if the 40% drop in unwanted pregnancies - due to FREE LONG-TERM BIRTH CONTROL (paid by the taxpayers) - was alternatively being sought after to pay prenatal care, giving birth, postnatal care, and gawd only knows how much social service funding like food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc FOR EACH UNWANTED CHILD BORN to an indigent mother.

Let me give you a clue. All of the cost to the state/feds - ultimately the taxpayers = $200 - $300,000 a child from birth until legal adult age. Now...think of just how little it would cost to provide long-term birth control to those who are likely to impose the cost of children on taxpayers.

In other words...

It would seriously help doing some elementary cost benefit analysis of paying for long-term birth control vs all of the cost of gestation/giving birth/and subsequent cost till age 18.

Oh and...one might want to spend a few months studying about generational poverty. Therein lies a multitude of information that gives substantial perspectives on why we have an ongoing problem with ever growing social services costs. And just as important - why we see the perpetual behaviors leading to unwanted pregnancies within a given population - at much higher rates than other populations.

 

[JayDubya]

was alternatively being sought after to pay prenatal care, giving birth, postnatal care, and gawd only knows how much social service funding like food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc FOR EACH UNWANTED CHILD BORN to an indigent mother.

So eliminate "food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc."

 

[Scrabaholic]

I don't have any problem with this program. It appears to be having some affect (how much is not certain) on a problem and it's privately funded so there's no affect on the State budget.

But let's keep it that way, eh? There is no reason for ALL taxpayers to foot this bill. Supporters of this program should have no problem keeping the private funding coming.


Having said that, I'm not naive. It's pretty obvious this private funding scheme was designed to generate data that could be used to convince lawmakers to fork over public money. I'm glad our State Republican lawmakers aren't falling for that scheme.

So then, private funders should get the money saved on govt programs, right?

 

[ocean515]

It's no secret how to reduce teen pregnancy, unwanted pregnancy, and abortions. It's just a matter of will, and seeing past religious or other ideological blinders.

Colorado offered free birth control

Interesting. What was the rate of decline in the teen abortion rate in counties not served by the CFPI?

 

[Removable Mind]

Interesting. What was the rate of decline in the teen abortion rate in counties not served by the CFPI?

Gezzzzzzzzz, why not take a few minutes of research time - find out the answer to your question - and share the results with us. We'd all be happy to see what you come up with.

 

[Removable Mind]

So then, private funders should get the money saved on govt programs, right?

Ahhhh...interesting question, Scraba...

 

[ocean515]

Gezzzzzzzzz, why not take a few minutes of research time - find out the answer to your question - and share the results with us. We'd all be happy to see what you come up with.

Gezzzzzz. Like a good attorney, I never ask a question I don't already have the answer to. I'm interested to see if the question, or even the concept of the question, can be understood and answered.

 

[Mycroft]

So then, private funders should get the money saved on govt programs, right?

???

I have no idea what you are trying to say here. Please clarify.

 

[Removable Mind]

Gezzzzzz. Like a good attorney, I never ask a question I don't already have the answer to. I'm interested to see if the question, or even the concept of the question, can be understood and answered.

Uhmmmm...nice dodge - like a good attorney.

 

[Mycroft]

You've just joined the ranks of folks like Henrin.

How much funding would the state be seeking if the 40% drop in unwanted pregnancies - due to FREE LONG-TERM BIRTH CONTROL (paid by the taxpayers) - was alternatively being sought after to pay prenatal care, giving birth, postnatal care, and gawd only knows how much social service funding like food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc FOR EACH UNWANTED CHILD BORN to an indigent mother.

Let me give you a clue. All of the cost to the state/feds - ultimately the taxpayers = $200 - $300,000 a child from birth until legal adult age. Now...think of just how little it would cost to provide long-term birth control to those who are likely to impose the cost of children on taxpayers.

In other words...

It would seriously help doing some elementary cost benefit analysis of paying for long-term birth control vs all of the cost of gestation/giving birth/and subsequent cost till age 18.

Oh and...one might want to spend a few months studying about generational poverty. Therein lies a multitude of information that gives substantial perspectives on why we have an ongoing problem with ever growing social services costs. And just as important - why we see the perpetual behaviors leading to unwanted pregnancies within a given population - at much higher rates than other populations.

Hat tip to JayDubya for getting my response out there before me.


You know, Removable Mind, you are giving the usual failed liberal argument...

First, you initiate "programs" to help people. Then, you use the monetary results of those programs as an excuse to enact even MORE programs.

It's kind of like what happened with the health industry. Government tells hospitals they have to treat people whether they can pay or not and then, when costs go up because hospitals have to get the money from someplace, it's used as an excuse for Obamacare.

Now the SMART thing to do is let the private/charitable sector supply these services if they want to...and let them pay for it. Let people take responsibility for their OWN actions. And keep the government out of it.

 

[ocean515]

Uhmmmm...nice dodge - like a good attorney.

It's not a dodge at all. It's a question designed to stimulate thinking beyond a headline. From what I have learned, not every county in Colorado participates in the CFPI program.

 

[Removable Mind]

Hat tip to JayDubya for getting my response out there before me.


You know, Removable Mind, you are giving the usual failed liberal argument...

First, you initiate "programs" to help people. Then, you use the monetary results of those programs as an excuse to enact even MORE programs.

It's kind of like what happened with the health industry. Government tells hospitals they have to treat people whether they can pay or not and then, when costs go up because hospitals have to get the money from someplace, it's used as an excuse for Obamacare.

Now the SMART thing to do is let the private/charitable sector supply these services if they want to...and let them pay for it. Let people take responsibility for their OWN actions. And keep the government out of it.

Great...LIBERAL - LIBERAL - LIBERAL...yadda, yadda, yadda. Gezzzzzzzzzzzus, man. :shock:

Earth to Mycroft...Earth to Mycroft...

If PRIVATE/CHARITABLE Sectors are to replace social services established and ran by our government....then government just needs to simply kill them all and transfer the responsibility. But you and I both know that's not reality.

And if you're buying Jay's comment...now I'm an atheist...but you agreeing with Jay makes me want to say, "Oh my Lord, save us all!".

 

[Removable Mind]

It's not a dodge at all. It's a question designed to stimulate thinking beyond a headline. From what I have learned, not every county in Colorado participates in the CFPI program.

So you want to claim that Colorado Family Planning Initiative program wasn't the silver bullet. Okay...then explain what your perspective is. Share what you've learned. Allow people the privilege of scrutinizing what you're alluding to - and possibly being informed as you claim that you are.

 

[Mycroft]

Great...LIBERAL - LIBERAL - LIBERAL...yadda, yadda, yadda. Gezzzzzzzzzzzus, man. :shock:

Earth to Mycroft...Earth to Mycroft...

If PRIVATE/CHARITABLE Sectors are to replace social services established and ran by our government....then government just needs to simply kill them all and transfer the responsibility. But you and I both know that's not reality.

And if you're buying Jay's comment...now I'm an atheist...but you agreeing with Jay makes me want to say, "Oh my Lord, save us all!".

shrug...

If you don't like being associated with liberal arguments, don't present them. Simple, eh?

In any event, your patronizing attitude is offensive and it demeans any relevant discussion that might follow.

You are dismissed.

 

[Removable Mind]

shrug...

If you don't like being associated with liberal arguments, don't present them. Simple, eh?

In any event, your patronizing attitude is offensive and it demeans any relevant discussion that might follow.

You are dismissed.

If you don't mind being associated with nonsensical hard-right extremists conservative perspectives...please...continue to present them.

 

[Jerry]

Because the funds that were privately donated for the program ran/ are running out .

IUDs are covered by health insurance only if the women have health insurance.
Many are too poor to pay for Health insurance yet do qualify for Medicaid.

So? It's free, meaning no funds are needed. Free means the BC was made at no cost. The materials cost nothing, the labor cost nothing, the shipping and distribution cost nothing. There is nothing to fund if it's free.

 

[ocean515]

So you want to claim that Colorado Family Planning Initiative program wasn't the silver bullet. Okay...then explain what your perspective is. Share what you've learned. Allow people the privilege of scrutinizing what you're alluding to - and possibly being informed as you claim that you are.

:roll:

I've claimed nothing. Why don't you tone it down a bit? You appear to be knee jerking into projections and assumptions. I asked a simple question.

The fact is, not every county in Colorado participates in the program. Wouldn't it be interesting to learn, for example, what the teen abortion rates are for counties that didn't participate in the program?

In considering the question, I came across the article linked below. It would appear, according to quantified data, the teen abortion rate in counties not participating in the program dropped 29.1% during the same period.

That is an interesting result.

No, One Program Did Not Reduce Colorado's Teen Pregnancy Rate by 40 Percent | National Review Online

I think teen pregnancy is something that needs to be addressed. I encourage every effort to deal with it. I cast NO JUDGEMENT on the program.

 

[Fearandloathing]

You've just joined the ranks of folks like Henrin.

How much funding would the state be seeking if the 40% drop in unwanted pregnancies - due to FREE LONG-TERM BIRTH CONTROL (paid by the taxpayers) - was alternatively being sought after to pay prenatal care, giving birth, postnatal care, and gawd only knows how much social service funding like food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc FOR EACH UNWANTED CHILD BORN to an indigent mother.

Let me give you a clue. All of the cost to the state/feds - ultimately the taxpayers = $200 - $300,000 a child from birth until legal adult age. Now...think of just how little it would cost to provide long-term birth control to those who are likely to impose the cost of children on taxpayers.

In other words...

It would seriously help doing some elementary cost benefit analysis of paying for long-term birth control vs all of the cost of gestation/giving birth/and subsequent cost till age 18.

Oh and...one might want to spend a few months studying about generational poverty. Therein lies a multitude of information that gives substantial perspectives on why we have an ongoing problem with ever growing social services costs. And just as important - why we see the perpetual behaviors leading to unwanted pregnancies within a given population - at much higher rates than other populations.

Nice opinion, but you have no stats.

If this is what happens, then there are stats to prove it out, unless you made it up on the spot.

As I try to follow this thread, it appears you are butting heads with scientific data and arguing with myth.

 

[Removable Mind]

Nice opinion, but you have no stats.

If this is what happens, then there are stats to prove it out, unless you made it up on the spot.

As I try to follow this thread, it appears you are butting heads with scientific data and arguing with myth.

Please don't let us from preventing you from supporting YOUR claim that stats prove differently. Where is your link to the contrary?

 

[clownboy]

It is my understanding this program was funded privately as a donation using ONE particular company's brand of IUD. If that is indeed the case, how is this not just a loss leader sales tactic.

 

[Henrin]

You've just joined the ranks of folks like Henrin.

How much funding would the state be seeking if the 40% drop in unwanted pregnancies - due to FREE LONG-TERM BIRTH CONTROL (paid by the taxpayers) - was alternatively being sought after to pay prenatal care, giving birth, postnatal care, and gawd only knows how much social service funding like food stamps, subsidized housing, medicaid, etc FOR EACH UNWANTED CHILD BORN to an indigent mother.

Let me give you a clue. All of the cost to the state/feds - ultimately the taxpayers = $200 - $300,000 a child from birth until legal adult age. Now...think of just how little it would cost to provide long-term birth control to those who are likely to impose the cost of children on taxpayers.

In other words...

It would seriously help doing some elementary cost benefit analysis of paying for long-term birth control vs all of the cost of gestation/giving birth/and subsequent cost till age 18.

Oh and...one might want to spend a few months studying about generational poverty. Therein lies a multitude of information that gives substantial perspectives on why we have an ongoing problem with ever growing social services costs. And just as important - why we see the perpetual behaviors leading to unwanted pregnancies within a given population - at much higher rates than other populations.

If you want to help the poor then get out your pocketbook and do it. Stop being a self righteous ass and just help people you want to help without involving everyone.

 

[Removable Mind]

If you want to help the poor then get out your pocketbook and do it. Stop being a self righteous ass and just help people you want to help without involving everyone.

Tsk, tsk, tsk...stop pretending it matters to you if the poor gets help - from anybody.

 

[Henrin]

If you don't mind being associated with nonsensical hard-right extremists conservative perspectives...please...continue to present them.

This has to do liberals like yourself wanting to provide women with birth control and it doesn't make a damn bit of difference to you if it lowered the cost of welfare or if it increased the cost of welfare.

 

[clownboy]

Tsk, tsk, tsk...stop pretending it matters to you if the poor gets help - from anybody.

He's not the one doing the pretending.

 

[Henrin]

Tsk, tsk, tsk...stop pretending it matters to you if the poor gets help - from anybody.

It's true, I generally don't care. A few years ago I would give on average 11% of my income to help the poor, but these days I just don't care anymore.