Quote:
Originally Posted by dc_dux
"...Ultimately, the health risks to adolescents are so impelling that legal barriers in deference to parental involvement should not stand in the way of needed care," the groups said.
|
How did they arrive at that conclusion?
Quote:
|
(editorial comment.....in numerous discussions, you appear to trust editorials/columns you read in IBD, WSJ, etc or studies from conservative/libertarian think tanks with an agenda that support you position despite the fact that they are not independent unbiased sources. Trust based on ideology, not independence?)
|
I have never had a problem with providing addition support of items I have shared from the various publications that I routinely read. I often read the footnotes and look at their source data. The issue here is we never get beyond the superficiality of the source being "conservative".
Quote:
|
You have yet to provide any source that PPH's system is one of "tolerance (no questions, almost no conditions for service)..."
|
Do you need proof? Are you suggesting PP does not have a system of tolerance?
Quote:
Putting that unsubstantiated allegation aside and addressing a core issue instead, in 1999, the University of Wisconsin surveyed sexually active girls in Wisconsin who received sexual health care at 33 Planned Parenthood clinics.
In an additional sample that was included in the study, "99% of adolescent girls in our additional sample who would stop using sexual health care services with parental notification indicated that they would continue having sexual intercourse....Given this information, requiring parental notification for obtaining prescribed contraceptives would likely increase unintended pregnancies, abortions, and out-of-wedlock births. "
ace ..it is not a leap to further conclude that "potentially increasing teen pregnancies and the spread of STDs" will result in higher societal costs down the road.
|
When will you ever simply read what I write. I do not dispute that PP provides beneficial services. My question is what is the net impact? My concern is, should some of there policies change regarding children if funding continues. I am not attacking PP simply because they provide abortion services. The questions and concerns I present are shared by all reasonable people.
---------- Post added at 04:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:55 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Speaking as a parent, I would hope that my children were comfortable enough with me to let me know when they needed sex-related health care, however, I do recognize that even if I were the best parent in the world, it is entirely likely that they might feel too uncomfortable, embarrassed or independent to actually do so. This is why I support the right of the qualified, medical professionals who work at organizations like Planned Parenthood to provide their services without my parental consent.
I know that as a teenager I made use of the local free STD clinic when I needed to verify a "clean bill of health" for my own peace of mind and the peace of mind of a new lady friend. I likely wouldn't have gone had I needed permission from my parents (though the desire to get laid just might have overpowered the desire to keep my getting laid a secret from my parents).
|
I have a 13 year-old son who will be 14 in a few months. At various times our family doctor has prescribed medication for him and he has told us that he should not eat certain foods or combine the prescribed medication with other drugs. He also tells us what to look for and how to determine if follow up is needed. My son would not be able to manage this information on his own - so if he goes to a PP clinic, how would they know what they need to know regarding his medical history?
---------- Post added at 04:17 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:01 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Derwood
Just catching up on this thread, so let me get this straight:
a) GOP wants to get rid of Planned Parenthood, which distributes free birth control and helps the poor deal with unplanned pregnancies
b) GOP wants to make abortion illegal
c) GOP wants to get rid of (or massively cut) welfare and unemployment benefits
In other words, all out war on the lower classes? Is their utopian world view one where we have thousands and thousands of new babies born into poverty while also making it harder and harder for the impoverished to survive?
|
a) PP can exist without government funding.
b) Some see it as a form of murder.
c) The welfare state has created a permanent underclass that has perpetuated a cycle dependence.
Some see the GOP approach as helpful to the lower classes. We can have a system that has compassion for the poor without big disincentives for responsible behavior.
---------- Post added at 04:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:17 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paq
Derwood: nail meets head.
|
I know a number of people with conservatives that have been or are poor. Including being aligned with a, b and c. Why would that be true?