The IUD was considered the MBZ of contraception according to one poster while we were talking in a Politics thread on Republicans, Abortion, Women's Rights, and the chalenges facing them.
Josh was kind enough to share this with us:
QuoteI have been a victim of Project SOS. It is one of the worst programs ever. It doesn't EVEN TEACH worth a shit about sex and its consequences. They drive FEAR into every students by seeing these horrible photos and keep lot of the information restricted. They even "PREACH"(or teach) AS EARLY AS 7th grade.
I would love to call for a reform to bring the Planned Parenthood ALONG with the SOS to make sure they both stay on their toes.
-Josh
http://www.metrojacksonville.com/forum/index.php/topic,11662.msg214379.html#msg214379
Everyone here knows I am pro-choice but anti-abortion through free contraception, as my free IUD (placed in the Netherlands), with a 99% effectiveness rating, lasted me over 10 years until I was 28 and had my first baby.
The same poster who called the IUD the MBZ was also adamant that contraception should not be Free (even though it's the only proven method to prevent teenage pregnancies), and later..........I ironically became aware that this person had herself become a single mom at age 18. So clearly she was not aware of or did not use effective contraception as a teenager. Could cost have been a reason as well, since most teenagers work part-time minimum wage jobs?
She is also the one who believes a diaphram is the cheapest option, even though the diaphram has only a 85% effectiveness rating.
Well, the birth control that works best for any particular woman is the one that is the MBZ for that woman.
For example: Before I started using the IUD at age 18, I had already tried the pill. Not only did I have weight gain, but I also developed mood swings. And as a teenager the incidence of sex is less than when you are living with a male partner, so I did not want to flood my body with all those artificial hormones.
It was then that I decided on the IUD.
After my first child ( I was 28 years old by then) I briefly used the diaphram but I found it inconvenient and rather difficult to place,............also somewhat uncomfortable since it needs to be a snug fit. Plus I am not a fan of spermicide, which you could add for additional protection.
So I ended up using the rhythm method to have four more children. ;D My last one was born at age 36.
That is my experience in a nutshell.
Something Project SOS does not feel is important to share. The only thing we should share is abstinence.
Yet, those who are fully informed, do not become a "teenage pregnancy" statistic. THAT much has been proven over and over again.
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 07, 2011, 06:13:09 PM
I am pro-choice but anti-abortion
In a related story, did anyone else see that herd of unicorns cruising through downtown today?
Faye for the last time please quit misquoting me. You are just maing stuff up and it is becoming very frustrating. Just flat out lies at this point.
Are there no rules on this site? Can someone PLEASE explain to Faye how to use quotes properly? There is a huge difference between being against providing birth control for free and being against giving everyone $550 birth control from free.
Is this what we can expect from people who run on the democratic ticket? Hmmmmm I think I saw those Unicorns, only they were really donkeys blowing rainbows out their rearends.
Penny Wise and Pound foolish again. You worry about the cost of free contraception or does it make you feel uncomfortable?
Don't worry about the cost, there is plenty of savings to be had:
QuoteWednesday, January 21, 2009
Statistics on Teen Pregnancy
These are some statistics I found on Adolescent Pregnancy. Reading them is shocking and going through it is overwhelming. It creates hardships between Parent, teens and even the future of the unborn baby. This is an epidemic that can be dealt with and should.
~ Approximately One Million teens become pregnant each year in the United States. This results in approximately 520,000 births, 405,000 abortions & 80,000 miscarriages.
~ Over forty percent of adolescents will become pregnant before reaching age twenty.
~ The United States has the highest teen pregnancy rate of any developed country. It is twice as high as England, France & Canada, three times as high as Sweden and four times as high as The Netherlands.
~ Nearly one in five teenagers who experience a premarital pregnancy will get pregnant again within a year.
~ Of prison inmates between 15 & 19 years of age, 90% are products of an adolescent pregnancy.
~ Of the top ten disciplinary problems confronting public school teachers, pregnancy is third.
Not only is this problem among those who are living it but it is also a problem for our country. These statistics list the cost of teen pregnancy withing our country. In these hard economic times it would be a great thing to decrease and over come.
~The cost to our government for teen pregnancy is estimated by several different agencies. Various estimates put it as high as $50,000,000,000 annually, while the low side estimate is a staggering $25,000,000,000. This does not consider the cost of factors other than direct payments. Education, food subsidies, incarceration, WIC and other programs are not included, nor the costs in time and actual money contributed by charitable organizations.
But yeah, we do not have a deficit to worry about ::)
Oh, and whether you like contraception to be free or not, it will be anyway, because people who are not penny wise and pound foolish have determined it saves them money:
QuotePreventing Pregnancy: Should Patients Get Contraceptives From Health Plans At No Cost?
PrintShareEmailTopics: Public Health, Health Reform
By Michelle Andrews
Jul 06, 2010
The average American woman who wants two children spends roughly five years trying to get pregnant or being pregnant. She spends a much longer time - 30 years, on average - trying to avoid pregnancy, often at no small expense.
That may soon change, at least the expense part. Starting this fall, the health-care overhaul will require new health plans to begin providing a range of preventive health services at no cost to patients. Many people, including women's health advocates and some employer groups, think contraception should be one of the required free services.
More From This Series: Insuring Your Health
"It's basic preventive health care," says Laura Hessburg, a senior health policy adviser at the National Partnership for Women and Families. Among other health benefits, women who plan their pregnancies are more likely to get necessary prenatal care and avoid closely spaced births, which can put a strain on their bodies and their parenting skills, and may result in low-birth-weight babies.
Many health plans already cover prescription contraceptives. Twenty-seven states have laws that require some level of coverage. Improving access and coverage even further could help reduce the estimated 3 million pregnancies a year that are unplanned.
One of the reasons for unintended pregnancies is the cost of contraception, say experts. Even if a health plan covers contraceptive services, women often face hefty co-payments, ranging from $20 to $50 per month for birth control pills to several hundred dollars for a longer-acting method such as an intrauterine device.
"For young women, $40 or $50 is a lot of money," says Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. According to Richards, it's not uncommon for young women to come to a Planned Parenthood clinic and buy three months' worth of pills rather than a year's worth, because that's all they can afford.
Experts say another important benefit of eliminating out-of-pocket costs is that it could encourage the use of more-reliable and cost-effective contraceptives, such as IUDs and hormonal implants. These methods may provide protection for several years, without relying on women to remember to take a pill or insert a device. But their higher upfront costs currently discourage many women from using them.
Not everyone agrees that contraception belongs on the list of free preventive services, however. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, for example, opposes it. "Preventive care should be about preventing disease," says spokeswoman Deirdre McQuade. "Fertility is not a disease to be cured, and the government should not treat it as that."
Allison Nichols says she'd be grateful for help covering her contraceptive costs. The 25-year-old owner of a natural foods store in Brooklyn pays $77 a month for her birth control pill, Ortho Tri-Cyclen Lo. There's no generic version of that pill available, and her health plan covers only generics. She has tried other pills, but they made her moody and caused weight gain. Her options now seem limited. "I'm just going to pay for it," she says.
At this point, it's unclear whether contraception will make the list of free covered preventive services. A few specific women's health services, such as mammograms, are required by the new law. But many others will be determined based on guidance from the federal Health Resources and Services Administration, and it could take up to a year for the federal agency to develop its recommendations, says Judy Waxman, vice president of health and reproductive rights for the National Women's Law Center.
Many employers support covering contraception because it ultimately saves them money: Even the priciest birth control is a lot cheaper than the $8,000-to-$11,000 price tag for an employee's prenatal and maternity care. "We don't think there's any benefit to cost-sharing on contraceptives," says Helen Darling, president of the National Business Group on Health, which represents large employers.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Features/Insuring-Your-Health/cost-of-birth-control.
Precisely what I've been saying. Look, I understand Clem thinks differently (his religion plays a role). But for uptowngirl not to understand this is beyond the pale.
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 07, 2011, 07:32:19 PM
Quote from: FayeforCure on April 07, 2011, 06:13:09 PM
I am pro-choice but anti-abortion
In a related story, did anyone else see that herd of unicorns cruising through downtown today?
Pro-choice and anti-abortion are not mutually exclusive states of being.
I am anti-abortion, in the sense that it shouldn't be needed in a wealthy, industrialized nation except in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother's health; however, due to shamefully inadequate sex education and equally shameful lack of access to affordable, effective birth control, unwanted pregnancies do occur. Sometimes contraception just fails, even for well educated, responsible people who meticulously use preventative measures against accidental pregnancy when they have sex.
Therefore, I am also pro-choice, because nobody should be punished for their sexuality by being forced to carry and give birth to a child that they didn't plan and don't want.
Quote from: DeadGirlsDontDance on April 07, 2011, 08:49:38 PM
Pro-choice and anti-abortion are not mutually exclusive states of being.
They absolutely are. I know this is going to sound awfully blunt, but that's just a line to sooth conscience.
It's pretty straightforward - outside of barrier methods (condoms, diaphragms and the like), medical birth control always acts as an abortifacient. That's the entire point - birth control doesn't prevent conception, it prevents implantation, thus intentionally aborting the newly conceived life.
So it goes one of two ways - either life doesn't begin at conception, which makes "pro-choice/anti-abortion" a nice talking point but a completely useless position since there's no reason to be anti-abortion in that case, or life begins at conception, and saying "contraception will solve it" just creates chemically induced abortions, at which point it's false to claim being "anti-abortion."
No matter how people want to pretend, it is simply not possible to be pro-choice yet anti-abortion.
Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2011, 09:29:53 PM
In the world according to CLem.
You should try joining us in the real world some time. Oh, I know it's tough work, but it's worth it. ;)
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 07, 2011, 09:41:53 PM
Quote from: stephendare on April 07, 2011, 09:29:53 PM
In the world according to CLem.
You should try joining us in the real world some time. Oh, I know it's tough work, but it's worth it. ;)
So you can just declare your view the correct one, beg off the discussion while declaring everyone else wrong, and that's supposed to be that? You realize you're not changing anyone's mind right? Roe v. Wade isn't going anywhere, time to move on to the next nonsensically invasive social non-issue. The die is cast on this one.
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 07, 2011, 09:17:26 PM
medical birth control always acts as an abortifacient. That's the entire point - birth control doesn't prevent conception, it prevents implantation, thus intentionally aborting the newly conceived life.
This is incorrect. Please research this.
Quote from: Lunican on April 08, 2011, 12:09:00 AM
Quote from: Clem1029 on April 07, 2011, 09:17:26 PM
medical birth control always acts as an abortifacient. That's the entire point - birth control doesn't prevent conception, it prevents implantation, thus intentionally aborting the newly conceived life.
This is incorrect. Please research this.
The way I understand it, is that medical birth control tricks the body into believing it is pregnant .........no ovulation............no release of egg( hence the weight gain commonly associated with the pill ;D)
Now if you want to claim your point with the IUD, then maybe, except that I KNOW for a fact that a pregnancy cannot start until implantation in the uterus..........hence pregnancy tests don't show a positive result until implantation.
THAT is the point from which a new life actually CAN start............once you make it past the first trimester when the vast majority of miscarriages occur.
If we are to protect the sanctity of life, as defined by the fact that both sperm and ovaries are living cells, we're going to need to stop eating plants and animals.
That's just for starters.
The constitution doesn't protect all life. It protects the life of a human.
I do believe we have failed to meet that standard as it relates to abortion policy. To suggest contraception violates that precept is silly.
Fighting silly battles can make all stances one takes seem less valid in the eyes of others.