Texas Loses Women's Health Care - Page 6Register Today!
- Mar 27, '12 by sharpeimomquite simply stated, azhitchhiker, in a very poor, underinsured, uninsured area such as where we live, having access to pp
means having access to basic woman's health care such as pap smears, mammograms, annual physicals, prenatal care, regular
checkups for teenage girls, apart from reproductive issues. they hand out prenatal vitamins, calcium, fe supplements to
disadvantaged woman of all ages who are either too poor to be able to buy them or whose insurance plans no longer cover
any otc meds whatsoever.
our insurance used to pay for things like tylenol, bandaids, vitamins, calcium, fe supplements, folic acid, etc. but not now.
we are fortunate enough to be able to buy them anyway. many women aren't so lucky and without access to pp, will have
to do without.
saying that pp only provides birth control and abortion services, is as absurd as saying that our local gas quick mart only offers
gas, oil, and rest rooms. you can also buy something to drink, a coney dog, a magazine or a newspaper, use your computer, or walk
your dog while you're stopped. imagine a vending machine that only sold one brand of gum and no candy bars, m&ms, cheese
crackers, peanut butter crackers... that seems to be your vastly mistaken idea of what pp really is.
- Mar 27, '12 by heronIn other words, eliminating PP as a provider of women's health services will do nothing to change the number of abortions they do provide, since that part of the business is private pay, anyhow.
A "solution" that doesn't affect the perceived problem but does do enormous collateral damage ...
The argument just doesn't make any sense.
What does make sense is the demonstrable fact that PP has been a thorn in the side of social conservatives for over a century, as ACORN was for political conservatives. The "collateral damage" isn't collateral at all ... it's the goal.
- Mar 28, '12 by azhiker96Quote from mazywhat i think happened is texas decided to dare the feds to cut funding by dealing pp out of the game. the feds called them on it and cut off funds which is apparently not what they did in other states. politics figures heavily into it. why would they care about texas unless it's either the size of the state or the governor?the difference is that pp serves low-income women.
the other clinics that accept medicaid also serve low-income women.
a woman with insurance who goes to a private practice doctor is just as able to access abortion services. if you have insurance you need to understand that the doctor you are seeing, that your insurance dollars are paying for, either performs abortions or refers women to abortion providers.
pp does not provide free abortions. the do not dedicate federal moneys to abortion services. women who get abortions at pp have to pay out of pocket, the same as any women seeking an abortion in the private sector.
but again we have come full circle back to the issue of abortion.
correct, that is the root of the issue.
and i can see from your posts that you are a man, and that you are now on your second wife.
i am male but i'm on my third wife although that's neither here nor there.
so i don't understand how you could think that you have the right to tell any woman that they do not have the right to basic healthcare.
i don't think that you or i have the right to tell anyone they cannot have healthcare. i don't think you'll find that anywhere in my posts. i support contraception being available although i'm not big on hormone therapy because of it's effects on the environment. better water treatment might be able to mitigate those effects though. personally i think the feds should provide free tubal ligations to anyone who desires it but that's another topic entirely.
if pp wanted to defang the beast it could split into two separate organizations. one would provide abortion services. the other would provide all other manner of women's health care. in arizona they actually stopped doing abortions at some of their facilities so they could continue offering other services to women in need. http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/newsroom/local-press-releases/new-abortion-restrictions-arizona-women-have-fewer-health-care-options-37728.htm
btw sharpeimom, i am surprised. i thought you would be above purposely mistyping someone's handle. it doesn't really add to the discussion. also, i don't think anyone here has said that pp only offers birth control and abortion services. they certainly offer much more than that but the other services are not the reason why texas de-funded pp as evidenced by other providers of women's health and screening services who were not de-funded.Last edit by azhiker96 on Mar 28, '12
- Mar 28, '12 by azhiker96Quote from heronI agree with you on this. I also believe that PP does a ton of good. From their 2009-2010 annual report; STI/STD testing and treatment 38%, contraception 33.5%, cancer screening and prevention 14.5%, other women's health services 10.4%, abortion services 3%, other services 0.6%. Apparently the 3% slice of services is important enough that it's all or nothing in the Lone Star state.In other words, eliminating PP as a provider of women's health services will do nothing to change the number of abortions they do provide, since that part of the business is private pay, anyhow.
http://issuu.com/actionfund/docs/ppf...ode=doublePageLast edit by azhiker96 on Mar 28, '12 : Reason: adding link
- Mar 28, '12 by aknottedyarnThank you for the link. It is the national annual report. I had hoped to see the Texas one,if there is such a thing. It looks like PP has separate entities by area in TX.
I wonder what is included in abortion services. Is it pre counseling, post counseling as well as procedure itself? I could not find definitions.
- Mar 28, '12 by mazyAbortion is not the issue. Women's health care is the issue. Abortion is a diversion that keeps getting thrown up to distract us from the real issue, which is for women to have access to healthcare services, and to carry the line of thought further, for women to have some control over their bodies, which leads us into an uncomfortable conversation about women having control over their own sexuality.
Because somehow, from the way this dialogue has developed in this country, sex is tied so inextricably to their women's healthcare choices that it does not seem possible to have a conversation about women's health without getting sucked in to a debate about women having sex.
So again. The conversation is about women's health, not their sexual choices and behavior.
And as someone mentioned upthread, all you have to do is listen to the conservative rhetoric, and Limbaugh especially, with his condoned rant against sl**ts and their ability to obtain their sex pills, to know that this goes much further than abortion. It is about women and sex.
I don't think federally funded tubal ligations are the answer to a very interesting and quaint question; I doubt that such a plan would be supported by anyone, given that it is costly, and because most sexually active women do not want to be sterilized in order to have a sexually active lifestyle.
PP is a national organization and it is easier to go after a national organization than to start going after individual public health clinics, which are owned and operated independent of any large umbrella organization, although some are connected to hospitals.
It would be interesting to see how this defunding would be handled if it were to extend to a hospital; I have a feeling it would be nipped in the bud, though.
- Mar 30, '12 by sharpeimomi usually try to avoid discussing hot button topics such as abortion on bb such as allnurses, but i will make an exception
in this case. i feel abortion must remain a legal option but not for the usual reasons. leaving aside, for a moment, the
customary "woman's right to control her body and what happens to it" argument (which i firmly believe in) i want to
approach the discussion from another angle.
when my parents were law students, my mom got pregnant despite using regular birth control. inconvenient yes.
insurmountable? no. in her third month, she miscarried the baby. however, she had conceived twins and one baby
survived. my mom developed an infection which nearly killed her. none of the hospitals in that large city would do
what the specialist said must be done to save my 24 year old mom's life, because it was considered to be an abortion
and not a d&c.
that was in the middle 1940's when there weren't a great many antibiotics as there are today. she was allergic to sulfa
ans there was no penicillin to be had. solution suggested by the ob/gyn? a back street abortion. it really was her only
chance to stay alive.
she had the procedure, which was done by a 4th year med student and nearly bled to death afterward. there needs to be
a safe way for abortions to be done. abortions are not just another form of birth control, but it must remain a safe
and legal choice.
- Mar 30, '12 by aknottedyarnHow terrible for your mother and the rest of the family. Thank you for sharing such a personal story. I am sure there are lots more out there but I am also sure it became one of the family secrets that were taken to the grave with terrible feelings of shame. How wonderful that in your family it was not a sick secret. As they say in AA it is our secrets that keep us sick.
- Apr 3, '12 by herring_RNfor some life experience turns "black and white" to gray.
abortion bill hit home for state rep. ron stephens
stephens is one of 17 house republicans the peach tea party scolded on monday for failing to vote to reduce from 26 weeks to 20 the period when a woman could end a pregnancy.
but few members of the brunswick-based group likely have had to walk in the savannah lawmaker’s shoes — or those of his daughter, ashlin.
if the measure were law a few years ago, stephens says, she would have had to carry to term a baby that would have lived only seconds after birth. ...
abortion bill hit home for state rep. ron stephens | savannahnow.com