• commentary
  • MONDAY NOVEMBER 19 2007 4:00 PM

Noticed Your Birth Control Costing More? Tell Congress



Remember this piece about birth control costs for college students going up because the Bush administration cut the funding that helps subsidize it?

Well, college students around the country, with the help of NARAL, organized petition drives on campus, and as a result of their work, there's a bill wending its way through Congress now--HR 4054, the Prevention Through Affordable Access Act--that does just what its title suggests: restores college and university access to low-cost birth control.

this fall, college women returned to campus to discover that the birth control that previously cost them $5–10 for a monthly supply now cost $40–50 per pack, making it far more difficult to afford. Due to a provision included in the Deficit Reduction Act (DRA), as of January 1, 2007, every college and university health center and hundreds of safety-net providers were unintentionally cut off from accessing low-cost birth control and passing on the low price to college women and low-income women. The result has been an increase in the average price of birth control on college campuses, often to 10 times the previous cost.

Rep. Crowley’s legislation, The Prevention Through Affordable Access Act, would bring down the soaring cost of birth control at college health clinics and safety-net providers and increase access to affordable birth control. This legislation will not cost the taxpayers a single dime, and would restore the voluntary benefit to college health clinics and safety-net providers. (My emphasis.)



Should be a no-brainer, but you can't count on that in a world where plenty of legislators think Plan B causes abortion (it doesn't) or that it's a-okay for pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions to women.

So take half a minute to click through and send a letter to your representative urging them to support HR 4054.

Bitch_PhD can't wait for a decent national health program that'll cover birth control for everyone.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Next

Comments
MrOuijaAK

MrOuijaAK

Anchorage, AK
September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 03:14 PM

PointBlank said:

MrOuijaAK said:
How is it stupid that I don't want to pay for other people's shit?


Um.... you get paid by the rest of us to live in Alaska, so I'd really shut the fuck up with this bullshit.



I'm guessing you're misguidedly referring to the Permanent Fund Dividend. The PFD is a split of the stock market profits (after compensation for inflation) earned from investing oil revenues. It was established in 1980 by the Alaska state legislature, and has nothing at all to do with the federal government.

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 20, 2007 03:28 PM

MrOuijaAK said:
My "oh-so-important" job that paid well enough to cover my college tuition, rent, food and... *duhn duhn duhhh* birth control for my girlfriend at the time. I really don't give a shit about "impressing" anyone. But I do find it ironic that you make a condescending remark about someones job while defending people that can't hold one.



I suppose we're meant to be impressed by your "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitude and your financial success. But really, the fact that you "made it" has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact that you keep bringing it up, however, shows your ignorance, as you clearly think that because it worked for YOU, it must work for everyone. Obviously no one in the world is truly down on their luck, they just aren't as awesome and highly motivated as you, right?

MrOuijaAK said:
My stories aren't made up, but I'll never be able to convince any of you of that since you'd rather just deny their truth and believe what you want to. It's almost like arguing with Creationism-supporters. I'm glad Deunan came in to back me up a bit, despite all the blind sharks in the water.



And you missed the main point, which is that it doesn't matter if your stories are made up or not. Your anecdotes do nothing to prove a damn thing about welfare. Statistics say something very different from what you've been spouting off in this thread. But of course to you that doesn't matter, because you have a handful of random personal stories that you think disproves study after study on welfare.

MrOuijaAK said:
Yes I suppose I am an asshole..



Well at least you admit that much.

CyberEdZ

CyberEdZ

United Kingdom
January 2005

NOV 20, 2007 03:35 PM

Ahhh, Americans. What would we do without you. Probably laugh a whole lot less.

MrOuijaAK

MrOuijaAK

Anchorage, AK
September 2005

NOV 20, 2007 04:05 PM

Morgan said:
I suppose we're meant to be impressed by your "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" attitude and your financial success. But really, the fact that you "made it" has nothing to do with this discussion. The fact that you keep bringing it up, however, shows your ignorance, as you clearly think that because it worked for YOU, it must work for everyone. Obviously no one in the world is truly down on their luck, they just aren't as awesome and highly motivated as you, right?



Why do you keep insisting that I'm attempting to impress anyone? I don't think I did anything impressive. I think I did what should be expected of a person. People don't deserve a free ride, just because they can't succeed.

Morgan said:
And you missed the main point, which is that it doesn't matter if your stories are made up or not. Your anecdotes do nothing to prove a damn thing about welfare. Statistics say something very different from what you've been spouting off in this thread. But of course to you that doesn't matter, because you have a handful of random personal stories that you think disproves study after study on welfare.



The statistics show that most welfare recipients are in their 20s, white or black, unwed mothers of 1-2 children who leave the program after 2-5 years. Certainly not an easy situation to handle on one's own, but also not impossible. I'd rather see more laws put in affect for required paternity tests, and greater responsibility for deadbeat dads, than just handing out money.

But statistics also can't show you how many of those couples are together but unmarried. They don't show you how many of those men have jobs, but they don't marry because that would eliminate the welfare benefits. And there's still the 20% that continue to have babies on the system, and stay on it more than 5 years and cost a lot more than the ones who are just on the system for a moment.

PointBlank

PointBlank

New York, NY
November 2004

NOV 20, 2007 04:23 PM

CyberEdZ said:
Ahhh, Americans. What would we do without you. Probably laugh a whole lot less.



You'd be laughing in German, pal!!

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 20, 2007 04:24 PM

Cite your sources, MrOuijaAK. Without REAL sources, your argument fails completely.

PatrickY

PatrickY

Vancouver, WA
December 2003

NOV 20, 2007 04:36 PM

PointBlank said:

CyberEdZ said:
Ahhh, Americans. What would we do without you. Probably laugh a whole lot less.



You'd be laughing in German, pal!!



Impossible. Germans are physiologically incapable of laughter. Sinister chuckles sure, and possibly a maniacal chortle now and again, but never laughter.

fountainofdreams

fountainofdreams

Batavia, IL
January 2005

NOV 20, 2007 08:27 PM

PatrickY said:

PointBlank said:

CyberEdZ said:
Ahhh, Americans. What would we do without you. Probably laugh a whole lot less.



You'd be laughing in German, pal!!



Impossible. Germans are physiologically incapable of laughter. Sinister chuckles sure, and possibly a maniacal chortle now and again, but never laughter.



Except under the influence of beer.

MrOuijaAK

MrOuijaAK

Anchorage, AK
September 2005

NOV 21, 2007 02:35 AM

Morgan said:
Statistics say something very different from what you've been spouting off in this thread.



Morgan said:
Cite your sources, MrOuijaAK. Without REAL sources, your argument fails completely.



You can claim statistics differ from what I say without citing sources but I have to provide them?

OK here's what the good old internet has to offer for you:

The first thing that pops up on a google for welfare statistics:
1973 and 1992
Traits of families on AFDC (1)

Race
--------------
White 38.8%
Black 37.2
Hispanic 17.8
Asian 2.8
Other 3.4

Time on AFDC
---------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6

Number of children
-------------------
One 43.2%
Two 30.7
Three 15.8
Four or more 10.3

Age of Mother
------------------
Teenager 7.6%
20 - 29 47.9
30 - 39 32.7
40 or older 11.8

Status of Father 1973 1992
-------------------------------------
Divorced or separated 46.5% 28.6
Deceased 5.0 1.6
Unemployed or Disabled 14.3 9.0
Not married to mother 31.5 55.3
Other or Unknown 2.7 5.5

Here are some statistics from 1996:
http://www.acf.dhhs.gov/programs/ofa/cfc_fy96.htm
3,431,682 Female Parents
44.8% 20-29 Years Old

501,119 Male Parents
35.4% 25-34 Years Old

31.6% White Children
38.4% Black Children
22.4% Hispanic

0 Adult Household # of Recipient Children
928,312
52.6% One
30.3% Two
11.8% Three
3.5% Four
1.8% Five+

1 Adult Household # of Recipient Children
3,223,242 Total
43.1% One
29.3 Two
15.5% Three
6.2% Four
2.2% Five+

2 Adult Household # of Recipient Children
351,754 Total
27.0% One
34.8% Two
19.9% Three
9.0% Four
7.8% Five+

One or Both Parents Absent
8,754,106 Children
12.4% Divorced/Legally Separated
11.9% Separated But Not Legally
25.6% Not Married, Paternity Established
33.0% Married, Paternity Unestablished
1.8% Other
0.6% Child Not Born Yet
8.3% Unemployed Parent
1.6% Deceased Parent
4.3% Incapacitated Parent
0.6% Unknown

Length of Time on Welfare
34.3% 1 Year or Less
16.3% 1-2 Years
27% 2-5 Years
22.4% 5+ Years
0.1% Unknown

Prior Receipt of Welfare
43.5% Have received welfare before.
43.1% Have not.
13.5% Unknown

Edit: I found 2006 data, it basically lines up with previous data.
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/ofa/character/FY2006/indexfy06.htm
The ACF Website is not fun to navigate.

Morgan

Morgan

SUICIDEGIRL

Illinois, USA

NOV 21, 2007 04:32 AM

Um. You do realize that those statistics don't support a thing you've said, right?

erleichda

erleichda

Germany
May 2003

NOV 21, 2007 04:38 AM

PatrickY said:

PointBlank said:

CyberEdZ said:
Ahhh, Americans. What would we do without you. Probably laugh a whole lot less.



You'd be laughing in German, pal!!



Impossible. Germans are physiologically incapable of laughter. Sinister chuckles sure, and possibly a maniacal chortle now and again, but never laughter.



*chortles maniacally*

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

NOV 21, 2007 10:13 AM

MrOuijaAK said:
Length of Time on Welfare
34.3% 1 Year or Less
16.3% 1-2 Years
27% 2-5 Years
22.4% 5+ Years
0.1% Unknown


I hope you notice this contradicts absolutely everything you've said about people with welfare having no motivation to get off it.

Formus

Formus

Milwaukee, WI
May 2007

NOV 21, 2007 10:14 AM

Morgan said:
Um. You do realize that those statistics don't support a thing you've said, right?



No no, it's totally in there. See:

Buy candy with Welfare check in MrOuijaAK's grocery store:
99%

PRockGirlScout

PRockGirlScout

Portland, OR
October 2005

NOV 21, 2007 10:20 AM

This thread is just...wow. surreal

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

NOV 21, 2007 12:29 PM

CyberEdZ said:
Ahhh, Americans. What would we do without you. Probably laugh a whole lot less.



Oh you English are soo superior aren't you? Well you know where you'd be without the good old U.S. of A? The smallest fucking province in the Russian Empire, that's what!

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Next