Wasn't this called "racist" 20 years ago?

[tardfarmer]

I distinctly remember hearing the lefties say that planned parent hood was a racist organization meant to dwindle the numbers of minorities.. but now the STATE which is controlled by lefties is pouring my tax money into contraception FOR MINORS WITHOUT THEIR PARENTS PERMISSION.

=========================================
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/mar05/309076.asp


Program says it saved $3.3 million by reducing pregnancies
But assistance to low-income women has critics, who want more than savings
By STACY FORSTER
sforster@journalsentinel.com
Posted: March 12, 2005
Madison - A state program that allows low-income women to receive reproductive health care and contraceptives has saved more than $3.3 million by reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies, a preliminary analysis shows.

Known as the "family planning waiver," the controversial state program was started in January 2003 to provide contraceptives and reproductive health coverage for low-income women, ages 15 to 45.

Enrollment is growing more than twice as fast as officials expected, with 50,980 women in the program at the end of February, greater than the enrollment target of 50,000 that was anticipated after five years.

But Sen. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend), a longtime critic of the program, questioned the analysis and said the savings claims are based on numbers that distort the results.

Criticism of the program extends to provisions that allow minors to receive contraceptives without their parents' consent. That gives fuel to detractors who say preventing teen pregnancy is about more than just saving money and argue the program sends the wrong message.

"Let's take that money and put it in some really fine abstinence education," said Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin.

The initial analysis of the program's cost savings was compiled for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which provides 85% of the program's five-year, $48.2 million budget.

The state Department of Health and Family Services, which administers the program, said its report shows the program has saved more than $3.3 million because of the number of pregnancies prevented.

"The idea of the waiver is that it's intended to reduce unwanted pregnancies and in the process save money," said Mark Moody, the state's Medicaid director. "This is one of the most cost-effective programs we have for reducing Medicaid costs."

The state's Medicaid program is facing a $620 million deficit for the 2005-'07 budget.

State officials, using projections based on 2000 figures, said 1,278 pregnancies were averted in the last quarter of 2003 because women in the program were provided with contraceptives; none of the averted pregnancies were due to abortions, said Jason Helgerson, executive assistant at the state Department of Health and Family Services.

If those children had been born, it would have cost Medicaid $7,132 to deliver and care for each of those newborns, for a total of $9.1 million.

Instead, the program spent $5.8 million to provide family planning care to those women, saving $3.3 million.

[Strut&Rut]

There is a very interesting op-ed piece in the latter portion of the newest Time magazine. It was written by a pro-lifer, who gives Hillary Clinton large amount of respect for coming out and saying one thing:

The bottom line, whether we are pro-choice or pro-life, is we all want to reduce the number of abortions. Whether it be a personal, civil, judicial or religious reason for your choice, the absolute last resort to a pregnancy should be an abortion.

So in essence Tard, does it really matter how an unplanned was prevented, or would you rather be arguing about abortion?[&:]

[tardfarmer]

So in essence Tard, does it really matter how an unplanned was prevented, or would you rather be arguing about abortion?

How about 'SELF CONTROL" -- for god's sake, the people in this country are coming closer to the animal kingdom every day.

"we just can't stop ourselves when we get a stiffy, so lets have the goob step in"...

what a pathetic bunch of pukes this country has become.

Now we have UW madison telling their students to bring the newly FDA approved abortifacient "MAP" along with them on spring break.

anyone that can rationalize this type of behavior needs to be euthanized.

[Clint.]

ORIGINAL: tardfarmer

How about 'SELF CONTROL" -- for god's sake, the people in this country are coming closer to the animal kingdom every day.

"we just can't stop ourselves when we get a stiffy, so lets have the goob step in"...

what a pathetic bunch of pukes this country has become.

Now we have UW madison telling their students to bring the newly FDA approved abortifacient "MAP" along with them on spring break.

anyone that can rationalize this type of behavior needs to be euthanized.

You are absolutely correct Tard. We are becoming more and more like a bunch of dogs in heat--with no inhibitions or self control. True intimacy is lost in what becomes a merely physical act of coition for recreational purposes.

Clint

[ELKINMTCWB]

Let me gess you old guys forgot waht it was like to be 17 years old? I do not think there is any way to tell most kids at 17 or so that they should not have sex. We are just animals and this is the age that people start to come in to heat so to speak.

Well I had sex with my now wife at 17 many many time she allso went to A state program.If in fact we would not have had the states help and guidence in this area we may have had kids at 17.The way it went we waited TILL WE GOT MARIED to have kids. Now at 35 I have 2 kids one boy that is 4 and a little girl that is just over a year.I think geting your feet under you befor you have kids helps them and you.

I do think there is a ton roung.I think there needs to be an age that girls can get help not just at any age.I allso think the parents should get told and not left in the dark.I allso think kids should be showed more of what happens if you do have kids at a very young age. Not just told it is bad. Most rich kids never even have seen what it is like to live on food stamps.

[Chilidog]

You don't start raising your children when they turn 17. It starts out with strong values at an early age and if all goes well, they are not animal"™s that have to have sex and State provided conception when they do turn 17. If parents feel that way they are more than likely willing to let the State raise their children.

These are the same people who argue to the death about all their Rights being violated. It must be the "œI"˜ll take the easy road, if it feels good do it"� mentality with pleasures and the hard line with the rules that cause a little effort or control in their lives.

So you"™re proud of the fact that you knew enough to use State provided conception at 17 and wait to get married to stop using it. I guess that is why you believe things like this;

Most rich kids never even have seen what it is like to live on food stamps.

Kids from all economic backgrounds have poor values and make mistakes.
Your saying, living on food stamps justifies behaving like a dog in heat?

[tardfarmer]

Kids from all economic backgrounds have poor values and make mistakes.
Your saying, living on food stamps justifies behaving like a dog in heat?

Very interesting point.

So now money = morals or self control.

to take your point further, we could actually say that if you don't have money, hence no self control, you're an animal that needs to be made a gelding by the state.

Bet the lefties would have a hard time arguing against that point.

Funny thing is, I didn't have any money and I waited until I was 27 years old, with my wife.

guess i'm just an oddity in this world. .......

[ELKINMTCWB]

Chilidog
Yell at me if you ever make it to HELENA MT I would love to eat lunch with you.

1ST of all I think this did help my wife and I. AS I said befor there is many problems with it .I do think there is many probems out there with all state help.My wife and I did not use any food stamps or state help to live at any time at all.Even when she went to school at Kstate and only hade an income of 8000 for the year.

One of the main reasions that I think this is not the worst deal out there is.Most parents do not want to think there kids will have sex till they are old.So in turn will not teach there kids what they need to know.This plan helps the kids that the parents will not help.Some people will not wait till they are maried and I would like my kid [If I am such a knot head not to help them] to have some where to go if they need. I will teach my kids what is best for them. From there they will need to make there road.I do hope they will do better than I did as all good parents do.

As for the crap coment about the state raesing my kids.Did you eat with your family to night? My family sets down every night for dinner TOGETHER. I stoped working so my kids did not have to go to daycare.I sold my 2003 dodge cumings to make sure I could allso a ton of hunting and fishing items.So far in my sons life of 4 years he has spent a hole tottal of 60 days at a babby setter.

What dose the state giving you a rubber have to do with people loosing there rights?Was this just one more way to insult me? From what I read you had NO piont at all but insults plz soot me some pionts and save the insults for if you every come to mt to see me:}

What I was saying was having kids to early sends you ot food stamps.Most all my friends in school had kids befor they where even 20 years old. Every one of them had to use some kind of state help to make it.So if ALL the kids could see what it was like to be POOR maby they would save sex till older.Sorry I wroat it in a way you could not get.

tardfarmer
I am glade to see there is people out there that do wait.I will try to theach my kids that I hope it takes.If not I will do what I can to help them.In most state help programs they just teach you to be more lazzyer In this case I think it is being more of an adult to use the state, if you are going to have sex. Than to have a kid.

I do thank you for posting facts and not just calling people names.Most of the time I think you are totaly corect in most of your post.

[tardfarmer]

I do thank you for posting facts and not just calling people names.Most of the time I think you are totaly corect in most of your post.

In the words of mel brooks... It's good to be the king.. he he.



Just razzing ya bro.

[Strut&Rut]

"Let's take that money and put it in some really fine abstinence education," said Julaine Appling, executive director of the Family Research Institute of Wisconsin.

Yeah, that sounds like sound financial advice. Let's pay someone to council our kids and tell them to wait to have sex, so they go out and have unprotected sex and end up pregnant anyway. You want to preach about morals and ethics...this lady wants the state to pay for parental guidance. Sorry, but that's like pi$$ing your money away down a rat hole, and painting a really bad picture. Hey, if your kid does not want to come to you for oral contraceptives or a condom, that's one thing. But if there is such a stigma in your household that your child can't come to you, the parent, and talk about sex, then that's a major communication problem that has bad signs written all over it...

State officials, using projections based on 2000 figures, said 1,278 pregnancies were averted in the last quarter of 2003 because women in the program were provided with contraceptives; none of the averted pregnancies were due to abortions, said Jason Helgerson, executive assistant at the state Department of Health and Family Services.

If those children had been born, it would have cost Medicaid $7,132 to deliver and care for each of those newborns, for a total of $9.1 million.

Instead, the program spent $5.8 million to provide family planning care to those women, saving $3.3 million.

Tard...

You never answered my question, which is illustrated by my last quote (and part of your original post) and was...isn't it better to provide contraceptives---even without parental consent---than to have unwanted pregnancies and abortions? It is obviously better from a state aid point of view...