if this keeps up. the nasa budget will be completely replaced by our epic abortion/birth control budget.

3/5/2012 1:25:47 PM

Quote :

"Is it your contention that birth control methods have become harder to get and learn about since the 1980's? I would certainly like to see some statistics on that claim. "

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_States

Quote :

"In 1996, the federal government attached a provision to a welfare reform law establishing a program of special grants to states for abstinence-only-until-marriage programs. The program, Title V, § 510(b) of the Social Security Act (now codified as 42 U.S.C. § 710b), is commonly known as Title V. It created very specific requirements for grant recipients. Under this law, the term “abstinence education” means an educational or motivational program which: 1.Has as its exclusive purpose teaching the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity; 2.Teaches abstinence from sexual activity outside marriage as the expected standard for all school-age children; 3.Teaches that abstinence from sexual activity is the only certain way to avoid out-of-wedlock pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, and other associated health problems; 4.Teaches that a mutually faithful monogamous relationship in the context of marriage is the expected standard of sexual activity; 5.Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects; 6.Teaches that bearing children out of wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child’s parents, and society; 7.Teaches young people how to reject sexual advances and how alcohol and drug use increase vulnerability to sexual advances, and 8.Teaches the importance of attaining self-sufficiency before engaging in sexual activity. Title V-funded programs were not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates.[24] The program dedicated $50 million annually to be distributed among states choosing to participate. States accepting the funds were required to match every four federal dollars with three state-raised dollars. For the first five years of the initiative, every state but California participated in the program.[26] After its first five years, many states evaluated the effectiveness of their programs. A comprehensive review of 11 state evaluations conducted by Advocates for Youth showed some short-term benefits, but did not find any programs with lasting positive impact.[26] Research conducted by the Kaiser Family Foundation in 2002 indicated that, by that time, about a third of U.S. secondary schools were using an abstinence-only approach.[2] However, after their five-year evaluations, more states began declining the funding.[27][28][29][30][31] By 2009, only 25 of the 50 states continued to receive and pursue Title V funding.[32] In 2000, the federal government began another large program to fund abstinence education, Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE). CBAE became the largest federal abstinence-only funding source, with $115 million granted for fiscal year 2006. The CBAE awards bypass state governments, offering federal grants directly to state and local organizations that provide abstinence-only education programs. Many of these grantees are faith-based or small non-profit organizations, including crisis pregnancy centers, which use their grants to provide abstinence-only programs and services in local public and private schools and to community groups.[30] Within the last decade, the federal government has encouraged abstinence-only education by steering over a billion dollars to such programs.[33] Some 25 states now decline the funding so that they can continue to teach comprehensive sex education.[28][34][35][36] Funding for one of the federal government's two main abstinency-only funding programs, Title V, was extended only until December 31, 2007; Congress is debating whether to continue it past that date.[37] Congress extended funding of Title V several times, through fiscal year 2006. In October 2007, Congress again extended funding, only until December 31, 2007.[37] In 2010, the Obama administration and Congress eliminated two federal abstinence-only programs - the Community-Based Abstinence Education (CBAE) grant program and the Adolescent Family Life Act (AFLA) Prevention program.[38] This leaves the Title V program as the only remaining federal abstinence education program. "

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 1:39 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2012 1:39:05 PM

^ awesome, i'll be sure to read some of that once someone puts some of it in bold.

3/5/2012 1:49:34 PM

tldr, starting 96 and then really expanded in 00, the government had a vested interest in preventing teenagers from getting birth control and education on birth control. (and still does to a very minor extent once the states said that it wasn't working)

3/5/2012 2:07:11 PM

^^^

Quote :

"Title V-funded programs were not permitted to advocate or discuss contraceptive methods except to emphasize their failure rates"

That probably answers the question from the post.

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 2:52 PM. Reason : .]

3/5/2012 2:52:24 PM

More fun facts

3/5/2012 3:01:35 PM

Quote :

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_education_in_the_United_States"

Certainly that is an issue, but it's only one part of the pie. The graph on the previous shows that the rates were on the rise prior to that 96 law until 87. It would be interesting to see if there was a massive increase in sex ed from 97 - 94, or if there was another issue at hand (for example, AIDS was all over the media in the 80's).

But the schools aren't the only (or even a primary) source of contraceptives, and they're not the only source of sex ed (although sadly that's becoming less true). Also, from what I presume to be the same site SF is grabbing these graphs from:

[quote]•The use of contraceptives during first premarital sex has been increasing, rising from 56% among women whose first premarital sex occurred before 1985, to 76% among those who first had sex in 2000–2004, to 84% among those whose first sex occurred in 2005–2008.[9][quote]

That said, I can't really find any studies that have been done on actual access to contraceptives and instructions on their use, so until otherwise demonstrated, I guess I was wrong.

3/5/2012 7:15:40 PM

All you asked was whether they had become less available. I provided evidence that it was the case.

3/5/2012 8:09:19 PM

You provided incomplete evidence that it was the case. But as I said, I can't find any studies in either direction for the other pieces (such as the availability of contraceptives from free / low cost clinics).

3/5/2012 8:30:21 PM

with all the girls on government safe and sponsored birth control... here is the silver lining to all of it:

1) finally i'm not gonna feel guilty about unsafe sex on the first date
2) maybe we can get a lid on population control in the USA
3) rape can finally be considered a misdemeanor, since really not much damage will be done
4) if the US ever needed to quickly vaccinate women or something they could spike their BC pills and get a mass vaccine going without the women even knowing

i'm really starting to warm up to all this free medicine.

3/5/2012 8:36:51 PM

2/10

3/5/2012 8:44:35 PM

0 response. thought so


but c'mon. even the alpha male (if there is any) inside of you is agreeing with the part about worrying less about first dates

i mean just admit it

3/5/2012 8:50:09 PM

i already don't feel guilty about it

1/10

3/5/2012 8:52:48 PM

hahaha all debate is totally debased to this

win for the good guys:

here's some more!

"birth control is not all that Ms. Fluke believes private health insurance must cover. She also, apparently, believes that it is discrimination deserving of legal action if "gender reassignment" surgeries are not covered by employer provided health insurance. She makes these views clear in an article she co-edited with Karen Hu in the Georgetown Journal of Gender and the Law."



lolololol

3/5/2012 8:55:24 PM

^^^4/10

^2/10

you can do better

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 8:56 PM. Reason : ]

3/5/2012 8:55:57 PM

Male contraceptive in India...its a shot that messes up your spunk. Apparently, its completely reversible...here's a link

http://malecontraceptives.org/methods/risug.php

3/5/2012 8:56:40 PM

you are perma 0/10 status until you admit you are homosexual and come out of the closet.

3/5/2012 8:57:04 PM

^1/10

Don't talk to pdrankin that way

3/5/2012 8:58:29 PM

those words were for you ya closet case.

cmon bro. give in to your fears and learn to embrace the truth. that #1 you like men. the flirting with me tonight is the second evidence of that. then embrace that you would rather give more liberties to the people than absolute powers to a government of people you don't even know telling you they 'care' about special groups.

3/5/2012 9:00:52 PM

^3/10 awkward pivot from the gay thing to the big government thing

3/5/2012 9:01:48 PM

pack_bryan proof that TSB has no moderator.



[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 9:07 PM. Reason : Post fail]

3/5/2012 9:06:51 PM

^fail

^^ yeh it was an awkward pivot. i'll work on that.

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 9:10 PM. Reason : x]

3/5/2012 9:08:27 PM

Big Pharma is the bootlegger in the contraception mandate.

Quote :

"Forget for a minute the religious question and look at who wins big here: Big Pharma. This mandate is not really about condoms or generic versions of “the pill,” which are available free or cheap in lots of places. This is about brand-name birth control drugs and other devices that some consumers swear off because they are too expensive. The Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requires health-insurance companies provide contraceptive coverage for all “FDA approved contraceptive methods.” It does not insist on generics. And it does not offer any cost containment. What’s more, the mandate prevents health-insurance companies from having copays or deductibles for the benefit. This is the perfect set up for Big Pharma. Since the drugs will be paid for by a third party (insurance companies, who will pass the cost on to employers and the rest of us), the consumer won’t worry about the price. So welcome to the world of crony contraceptives, which means good times for both the bedroom and the corporate boardroom. Follow the money seems like good advice, even when it comes to some of these thorny social issues. "

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/02/peter-schweizer-big-pharma-s-role-in-the-contraception-debate.html

3/5/2012 9:28:58 PM

cmon liberals step up your game. if you're going to promise free shit. at least make it a clean operation


so what's it gonna be. big money to corporations and saving the poor, or stick it to the poor and fuck the big pharma. you're gonna have to take a pick on this one.

i have an idea. let govt take over the pharma industry too

[Edited on March 5, 2012 at 9:35 PM. Reason : ,]

3/5/2012 9:33:21 PM

I'll take the generic alternative.

3/5/2012 11:35:23 PM

^^^ Eh, the no co-pay / no deductible thing is really where the brand guys will win. Anything with a generic may not be legally mandated, but I assure you that if a generic is available, between your insurance co and the pharmacy, unless you get your doctor to sign off DAW, you will get the generic. Insurance co's pay the same for brand or generic, so no pharmacy is going to lose their ass to give you brand.

That's why they spent so much money running commercials for Lipitor for the last 2 years. Every single commercial said that "If you get a generic, it will be a different drug" which was perfectly true at the time. It isn't now, but they're hoping that enough patients begged their doctors to write the scripts DAW to keep the patients. It's also why they're now marketing the crap out of being able to "help you afford" lipitor prescriptions.

3/5/2012 11:54:21 PM

Quote :

"Insurance co's pay the same for brand or generic"

Are you seriously suggesting a pharmacy agreed to be paid less for a drug than they must pay for it wholesale? I'm going to go ahead and call BS on that.

3/6/2012 8:03:22 AM

Quote :

"The graph on the previous shows that the rates were on the rise prior to that 96 law until 87."

Are you sure we're looking at the same graph? The low point in unintended pregnancies is 1994 but bear in mind the sampling rate is 5 year intervals so the actual spike could have occurred anywhere between '94 and '01. Bear in mind there were also massive welfare cuts during this time period, that means poor families having less money from which to budget contraception.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 8:53 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 8:51:50 AM

Quote :

"Are you seriously suggesting a pharmacy agreed to be paid less for a drug than they must pay for it wholesale? I'm going to go ahead and call BS on that."

Pharmacies normally agree to be paid based on something called Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC), and usually it's WAC - x% since WAC has about as much relation to real costs as the MSRP does to the purchase price of your car. WAC is recalculated every so often, and when a drug goes generic, WAC gets recalculated and obviously gets much lower. There's usually a brief window immediately after a generic becomes available where the old payments remain in effect, but it's rarely longer than about 3 weeks. Reimbursements are higher if the doctor writes the script DAW, but usually a lower margin than using a generic and getting reimbursed at the normal rates (which is why your pharmacy doesn't encourage you to ask for DAW prescriptions).

Quote :

"Are you sure we're looking at the same graph?"

From 81 - 87, the two low income groups had increasing rates. From 87 to 94, that rate was decreasing, and then after 94, the rate resumed the increase. Unfortunately, that graph doesn't go back any farther to tell whether the 81-87 trend, or the 87-94 trend was more reflective of the overall trend. I guess what I'm questioning is whether 87-94 was a result of pre 96 availability of comprehensive sex ed in schools and contraceptive availability, or whether it is an outlier in an overall trend of increasing pregnancies, despite increased access to sex ed and contraceptives. But again, as I said, I can't find any good information on overall access to contraceptives and sex ed, so I have no good way of determining. I swear it seems like you and disco_stu are just itching to argue rather than accept that I have my reservations about the incompleteness of the data, but concede the point since I can't find the data I would need to back up my own assumptions.

3/6/2012 9:41:38 AM

To be fair, I didn't say I offered proof or a complete evidential support for the claim. Just adding some facts to the conversation that support the claim. That's all 'evidence' is.

[Edited on March 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM. Reason : .]

3/6/2012 9:53:20 AM

Same. There's no "completeness" to be had in any practical means for this. You just take in the evidence you can find and draw conclusions based on that. A lack of completeness isn't a reason to retreat to your intuition, which is even MORE incomplete.

3/6/2012 9:57:50 AM

Quote :

"A lack of completeness isn't a reason to retreat to your intuition, which is even MORE incomplete."

I didn't retreat to my intuition. In fact, I specifically said:

Quote :

"That said, I can't really find any studies that have been done on actual access to contraceptives and instructions on their use, so until otherwise demonstrated, I guess I was wrong."

I realize this is TSB, and people admitting they're wrong is about as common as an honest politician, but it would be nice if you would read what I wrote instead of assuming I'm operating at the same 60 cycle hum that pack_bryan is.

3/6/2012 10:21:29 AM

I don't understand why it is so hard to control births of people in this era?

Just don't have sex. Self control.

3/12/2012 4:37:42 PM

Quote :

"Just don't have sex."

Well yeah, easy for you to say. Some of us actually have to put effort into this.

3/12/2012 4:43:02 PM

What? Don't walk down dark alleyways?

3/12/2012 7:41:08 PM

Quote :

"I don't understand why it is so hard to control births of people in this era?"

My expectation is that people in "this era" are going to have more sex than almost any other time in history. If we're supposed to be well-off then we're going to be having fun, amirite?

But yes, getting birth control should be trivial. That's what this is all about.

3/12/2012 7:57:34 PM

Quote :

"What? Don't walk down dark alleyways?"

Swing and a miss.

Quote :

"My expectation is that people in "this era" are going to have more sex than almost any other time in history. If we're supposed to be well-off then we're going to be having fun, amirite? But yes, getting birth control should be trivial. That's what this is all about."

And I'd have a feeling that you're wrong. People have been fucking like animals since forever. It's the only reason there are still people around today to talk about it. Chastity is a relatively recent phenomenon.

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 9:43 AM. Reason : .]

3/13/2012 9:41:48 AM

well, that is what we say to men who don't wanna pay child support: shouldn't have had sex. meanwhile, a woman doesn't want to bay for a child, fuck it, hoover that sucker out of there!

3/13/2012 7:39:25 PM

I love how hardly any women are responding in this thread.


It still baffles me how men freak out so much over what a woman can do about her body. It's like (certain) men can't handle NOT being in control of it. Blows my mind.

3/13/2012 9:13:05 PM

because men are going to yell and tell them that they're wrong no matter what they say

not worth the effort.

3/13/2012 9:46:15 PM

Quote :

"It still baffles me how men freak out so much over what a woman can do about her body"

fact check: most american women are getting obese and losing qualities that alpha males find desirable for mates and mothers to have children with anyways...

so why call up the democratic large government control party to force them from breeding with free and easily accessible birth control?

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 10:21 PM. Reason : ,]

3/13/2012 10:20:40 PM

Yay I get to respond to multiple people.

aaronburro

Quote :

"well, that is what we say to men who don't wanna pay child support: shouldn't have had sex. meanwhile, a woman doesn't want to bay for a child, fuck it, hoover that sucker out of there!"

That's what *you* say. Rational people who recognize that pleasure fucking isn't a sin don't.

LunaK

Quote :

"because men are going to yell and tell them that they're wrong no matter what they say not worth the effort."

It's never not worth the effort. You may not convince aaronburro but there are plenty of men and women reading that you can sway.

pack_bryan

Quote :

"fact check: most american women are getting obese and losing qualities that alpha males find desirable for mates and mothers to have children with anyways... so why call up the democratic large government control party to force them from breeding with free and easily accessible birth control? "

I'm not certain why I'm responding to you but just saying "fact check" doesn't make it a fact.

3/14/2012 8:45:11 AM

hahaha, you dumbasses think this is an issue.


It's 2012. Birth control has long been settled

3/14/2012 9:30:50 AM

You'd think so, wouldn't you? Evidence suggests that there's a lot of people out there that disagree with you. Oh, and they vote a lot.

3/14/2012 9:34:04 AM

http://www.statepress.com/2012/03/12/senate-judiciary-committee-endorses-controversial-contraceptive-bill/

Quote :

"Arizona House Bill 2625, authored by Majority Whip Debbie Lesko, R-Glendale, would permit employers to ask their employees for proof of medical prescription if they seek contraceptives for non-reproductive purposes, such as hormone control or acne treatment."

... just wow ....

Even if you think the federal government has no right to impose that insurance companies cover contraceptives (which they don't), the solution is not to pass a law that oversteps the bounds of government even further. If the company owners have religious objections to covering contraceptives, then they can stop providing health coverage.

3/14/2012 7:45:41 PM

Which they will. The fine is only $2000 per employee and the subsidies the employees will receive from the government to buy their own coverage on government exchanges will make up most of that.

3/15/2012 12:04:08 AM