Medical Students for Life

[smq123]

Sure it is. Once they're "de-uterinized" we feel obligated to provide free Health Care, free vaccines, three hots and a cot.

But if you get to them before everyone sees how cute they are, you don't have to feel morally obligated to have the state take care of them.

<sigh>

I stand by my belief that abortion isn't the way to keep kids off welfare.

THIS, however, is:

(I got the picture from the Placebo Journal, which is a fantastic medical spoof journal.)

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[thechad]

Uhhh...it wasn't. I had the same reaction as Noeljan to your post.

I don't see how:

"I don't see a need for any such group since it is unethical for a doctor to try to persuade a patient to have or not to have an abortion based on their own personal beliefs."

Equals: Pro-Choice groups are ok, but not pro-life.

Maybe you should read the sentence again.

 

[smq123]

I don't see how:

"I don't see a need for any such group since it is unethical for a doctor to try to persuade a patient to have or not to have an abortion based on their own personal beliefs."

Equals: Pro-Choice groups are ok, but not pro-life.

Maybe you should read the sentence again.

When you wrote "I don't see a need for any such group," it sounded like you were referring ONLY to the pro-life groups that the OP was talking about.

While I see the source of the misunderstanding, when more than one person misunderstands you....you can't assume that it's just everyone else!

 

[alfonzarel]

Don't people realize who ******ed they look when they start spouting off about their own personal views in front of 150 people who couldn't give less of a rat's ass.

hmm... sort of like on an anonymous internet forum?

It was good. So sorry Mommy couldn't afford to buy you that new Barbie you just had to have.

dang, if she would have aborted you, i would have got my barbie. how unfair is that? i didn't get a barbie AND there's one more person preaching the virtue of abortion to reduce social problems. what a gyp.

 

[shantster]

Everyone names themseleves in a way that sounds most positive.

And while I am religious I am pro-choice because its a religious belief and we don't put religion into law so abortions should stay legal.

However, I can see both sides pretty well. And most prolifers would say there is a choice - to use a condom, to PROPERLY use birth control, to use half a brain when having sex. Any of the above would severely cut down on the number of abortions. So they would argue they aren't anti-choice, the choice was already made, now there are consequences to deal with.

Except for the fact that saying that one that opposes abortion is pro-life suggests that the people for abortion are only saying that we are for abortions for everyone. I'm completely for providing people with information about options prior to having sex and this becoming an issue (abstinence only education is horribly against this and is supported by many more "anti-choicers" than pro-choice people) as I am with providing information about all the options once the pregnancy occurs.

And the idea that there is a choice in birth control is completely idealistic for many reasons:

1. Birth control is not 100% effective, so if someone that does not want to have a child was being careful and using the birth control methods gets pregnant, they should have the additional choice to have the abortion. They tried as well as they could to not get pregnant, and that did not work for them.

2. Pills and condoms are rather expensive so this only works for people that have some income to spend on those measures. Yes Planned Parenthood does provide some help, but they are underfunded and not everyone is aware of their services. Further, they might not be accessible to people based on location and hours that they are open for them to be able use the services.

3. Abstinance only education has led to many problems. People aren't being informed on how to properly use birth control methods, and again, don't know where to seek services to help them.

4. Studies are showing that teenagers rarely use birth control methods due to peer perception and pressure, not understanding the importance, cost, not wanting parents to know about them being on the pill, etc.

So unless these measures are ever fixed, which will never happen, I don't understand the "anti-choice" argument that people have a choice prior to having sex. This also does not take into account other relevant issues of having abortions of pregnancies due to rape, that pose a risk to the mother's health, or where there are major congenital abnormalities of the fetus. In the first case, the woman obviously had no choice on becoming pregnant, and in the other two, the woman had made the choice that she wanted to have a child but there were circumstances outside her control that might lead her to consider it as an option.

 

[87138]

dang, if she would have aborted you, i would have got my barbie. how unfair is that? i didn't get a barbie AND there's one more person preaching the virtue of abortion to reduce social problems. what a gyp.

.....thus confirming the original "bad at insults" hypothesis, and generating a new "tries too hard to play along with jokes" hypothesis.

 

[smq123]

1. Birth control is not 100% effective, so if someone that does not want to have a child was being careful and using the birth control methods gets pregnant, they should have the additional choice to have the abortion. They tried as well as they could to not get pregnant, and that did not work for them.

<shrug> Generally speaking, you make a choice to have sex. For the average female of reproductive age, they willingly entered into a sexual relationship. You can protect yourself as best you can with birth control, but you also have to accept the risk that you might get pregnant despite that.

The relatively small risk of birth control failure does not mean, though, that it is idealistic to say that "there is a choice in birth control." You can either choose to use birth control and decrease your risk of unwanted pregnancy, or you can choose not to use it, and make an abortion in your near future almost a certainty.

2. Pills and condoms are rather expensive so this only works for people that have some income to spend on those measures. Yes Planned Parenthood does provide some help, but they are underfunded and not everyone is aware of their services. Further, they might not be accessible to people based on location and hours that they are open for them to be able use the services.

Condoms are actually, in the grand scheme of things, not THAT expensive.

To be totally frank, I HATE Planned Parenthood. They spend so much damn money on being able to provide abortions that I feel like they tend to neglect the other ways of actually preventing abortions. They can spout all the crap that they want about how they just "provide abortions," but don't believe that abortions are a good method for birth control....but that's going to be difficult to believe until they put more effort into improving both their birth control counselers (some of whom barely speak understandable English) and their birth control provision services.

</soapbox>

3. Abstinance only education has led to many problems. People aren't being informed on how to properly use birth control methods, and again, don't know where to seek services to help them.

4. Studies are showing that teenagers rarely use birth control methods due to peer perception and pressure, not understanding the importance, cost, not wanting parents to know about them being on the pill, etc.

Abstinence only education refers to sex education that is provided by a state or federal body - i.e a school. Not to sex education that were to be provided by a private body (i.e. Planned Parenthood).

Like I said, if Planned Parenthood were that committed to actually improving the health of young women, they'd put more time and money into community outreach and providing education that actually got people thinking about birth control.

I know that they're underfunded. Trust me, I know that. I just don't agree with their focus.

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I find it a little suspicious that they have patients who have gone to Planned Parenthood MULTIPLE times (think 7-9 times) for an abortion each time....and yet STILL aren't on any birth control!! While the people who work at PP aren't the brightest bulbs in the box, they can't be THAT stupid as to not sit her down and say that she needs to really pull her act together.

I don't understand the "anti-choice" argument that people have a choice prior to having sex. This also does not take into account other relevant issues of having abortions of pregnancies due to rape, that pose a risk to the mother's health, or where there are major congenital abnormalities of the fetus. In the first case, the woman obviously had no choice on becoming pregnant, and in the other two, the woman had made the choice that she wanted to have a child but there were circumstances outside her control that might lead her to consider it as an option.

Most "anti-abortion" advocates are actually in favor of allowing abortions in the case of rape/incest, when the mother's health is in danger, or when there is a significant chance that the child would not survive due to either birth defects or other problems in the pregnancy.

 

[87138]

Most "anti-abortion" advocates are actually in favor of allowing abortions in the case of rape/incest, when the mother's health is in danger, or when there is a significant chance that the child would not survive due to either birth defects or other problems in the pregnancy.

This hasn't been my experience, but maybe I've mostly only met the crazies. Usually what I hear is "no abortions, no matter what, there's always another alternative regardless of circumstances."

 

[alfonzarel]

.....thus confirming the original "bad at insults" hypothesis, and generating a new "tries too hard to play along with jokes" hypothesis.

roger wilco. nothing but failed hypotheses over here - that and a bunch of static. over and out.

 

[87138]

edit: not worth it

 

[alfonzarel]

 

[lilnoelle]

Most "anti-abortion" advocates are actually in favor of allowing abortions in the case of rape/incest, when the mother's health is in danger, or when there is a significant chance that the child would not survive due to either birth defects or other problems in the pregnancy.

I don't know about MOST of prolifers, but the majority of the individuals I grew up with (in my conservative, very religious upbringing) feel this way.
I don't believe there are very many individuals who spout that ALL abortions are wrong - just elective abortions.

I certainly would support abortions if allowed for only medical reasons or in cases of rape/incest.

 

[Water011]

To be totally frank, I HATE Planned Parenthood. They spend so much damn money on being able to provide abortions that I feel like they tend to neglect the other ways of actually preventing abortions. They can spout all the crap that they want about how they just "provide abortions," but don't believe that abortions are a good method for birth control....but that's going to be difficult to believe until they put more effort into improving both their birth control counselers (some of whom barely speak understandable English) and their birth control provision services.

</soapbox>

Actually, only 3% of Planned Parenthood's services are abortion services.

Here's a breakdown:

Medical Services Provided by Planned Parenthood Affiliate Health Centers in 2006

Contraception&#8212; 38 percent of services in 2006
Reversible Contraception Clients, Women 2,441,768
Emergency Contraception Kits 1,436,846
Tubal Sterilization Clients 618
Reversible Contraception Clients, Men 95,188
Vasectomy Clients 2,913
3,977,333
STI/STD Testing and Treatment &#8212; 29 percent of services in 2006
STI Procedures, Women and Men 2,703,917
HIV Testing Clients, Women 203,478
HIV Testing Clients, Men 67,795
HIV Testing Clients, Gender Not Reported 42,887
3,018,077
Cancer Screening and Prevention &#8212; 19 percent of services in 2006
Pap Tests 1,070,449
Breast Exams/ Breast Care 882,961
Colposcopy Procedures* 47,557
LEEP Procedures* 3,036
Cryotherapy Procedures* 3,368
2,007,371
Other Women's Health Services &#8212; 10 percent of services in 2006
Pregnancy Tests 1,097,397
Prenatal Clients 11,058
Midlife Clients 11,206
Infertility Clients 316
1,119,977
Abortion Services &#8212; 3 percent of services in 2006
Abortion Procedures 289,750


Other Services &#8212; 1 percent of services in 2006
Primary Care Clients, Women and Men 19,557
Adoption Referrals to Other Agencies 2,410
Other Services, Women and Men** 140,968
162,935

Total Services
10,575,443

Total Unduplicated Clients
3,140,540

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/issues-action/birth-control/pp-services-17317.htm

Of course, it doesn't list the amount of money they spend on each service, but I think it's pretty fair to say that abortion is not what they spend most of their funding on if it only comprises 3% of services. Yes, abortion is more expensive than contraception, STI testing, and most other GYN procedures that are performed by Planned Parenthood, but it's not that expensive.

They provide contraception to over 12x the number of pts to which they provide abortions. And 10x as many services go towards STI testing as abortion. I think your characterization of Planned Parenthood is totally off base.

 

[Perrotfish]

I think this thread has derailed into a prolife vs prochoice and will be closed soon. I also think I have the answer I need, though.

1. Birth control is not 100% effective, so if someone that does not want to have a child was being careful and using the birth control methods gets pregnant, they should have the additional choice to have the abortion. They tried as well as they could to not get pregnant, and that did not work for them

Anyway, quick response to this. I think you're probably intelligent enough to understand the pro-life argument, even if you don't agree with it. The argument is that, once the mother has conceived, that embryo/fetus is a human being, actual and whole. A basic principle of medical triage is that the only thing that you can trade a life for is another life, so I believe that you should only be allowed to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.

It might not be in the best interests of the mother to have the child, and it might not be fair to her. However the protection of innocent life always should be the priority. We as a society have always valued innocent life, even if it means sacrificing what, in all other situations, would be our basic freedom of self determination. A mother/father has every right to decide how to spend the hours of her day. It is none the less a crime for her/him to spend a weekend in Vegas while her child is at home in a crib with no one to care for it. On a grander scale, we've always recognized that our individual rights to self determination can be suspended to defend innocent lives in a time of war. We do this because if we did not, our freedoms really wouldn't amount to anything more than national selfishness.

I think the fair thing to do is make sure that, when a mother truely isn't responsible for her situation (rape, incest, etc.) or isn't capable of handling the child (down syndrome or other genetic disorder) we as a society are there to speed the child's adoption process, or to provide the kind of social support that the mother and child are going to need need throughout their lives. Also, I fully support every possible government program to pay for birth control (I wouldn't mind if the government paid for a mechanical IUD for every 13 year old that wanted one). However I see an abortion as morally equivalent to ending the child's life after it's been born. We, as a society, are better than that.

Anyway, end explanation. Mods can lock thread at their convenience.

 

[Steiner]

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/medstudents

Here's more info

 

[Perrotfish]

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

http://www.studentsforlife.org/index.php/medstudents

Here's more info

http://www.physiciansforlife.org/

Wow, thanks, that's pretty much exaclty what I needed.

 

[DrZeke]

I think this thread has derailed into a prolife vs prochoice and will be closed soon. I also think I have the answer I need, though.



Anyway, quick response to this. I think you're probably intelligent enough to understand the pro-life argument, even if you don't agree with it. The argument is that, once the mother has conceived, that embryo/fetus is a human being, actual and whole. A basic principle of medical triage is that the only thing that you can trade a life for is another life, so I believe that you should only be allowed to perform an abortion to save the life of the mother.

It might not be in the best interests of the mother to have the child, and it might not be fair to her. However the protection of innocent life always should be the priority. We as a society have always valued innocent life, even if it means sacrificing what, in all other situations, would be our basic freedom of self determination. A mother/father has every right to decide how to spend the hours of her day. It is none the less a crime for her/him to spend a weekend in Vegas while her child is at home in a crib with no one to care for it. On a grander scale, we've always recognized that our individual rights to self determination can be suspended to defend innocent lives in a time of war. We do this because if we did not, our freedoms really wouldn't amount to anything more than national selfishness.

I think the fair thing to do is make sure that, when a mother truely isn't responsible for her situation (rape, incest, etc.) or isn't capable of handling the child (down syndrome or other genetic disorder) we as a society are there to speed the child's adoption process, or to provide the kind of social support that the mother and child are going to need need throughout their lives. Also, I fully support every possible government program to pay for birth control (I wouldn't mind if the government paid for a mechanical IUD for every 13 year old that wanted one). However I see an abortion as morally equivalent to ending the child's life after it's been born. We, as a society, are better than that.

Anyway, end explanation. Mods can lock thread at their convenience.

Here's what I essentially heard in your post:

"blahblahblah organized religion blahblah argument about the beginning of life that has been going on for centuries blahblahblah greater good of the people"

Hmm...greater good of the people = pro-life = republican?

something to ponder. I know I know it's not "political". Whatever...

 

[DrZeke]

Here's what I essentially heard in your post:

"blahblahblah organized religion blahblah argument about the beginning of life that has been going on for centuries blahblahblah greater good of the people"

Hmm...greater good of the people = pro-life = republican?

doesn't make any sense to me... but maybe that's just because I'm a raging liberal.

Someone please lock down this thread for the love of G-d. It's really pointless. The kid got what he/she wanted and now we can all wonder about it.

 

[Tired]

Here's what I essentially heard in your post:

"blahblahblah organized religion blahblah argument about the beginning of life that has been going on for centuries blahblahblah greater good of the people"

That probably explains your complete inability to formulate anything near an intelligent response.

Followed, of course, by the plaintive wail to close the thread.

Kudos to you!

 

[smq123]

Of course, it doesn't list the amount of money they spend on each service, but I think it's pretty fair to say that abortion is not what they spend most of their funding on if it only comprises 3% of services. Yes, abortion is more expensive than contraception, STI testing, and most other GYN procedures that are performed by Planned Parenthood, but it's not that expensive.

- The list is nice, but it's totally useless. If it doesn't outline how much money is being allocated to each service (and not just outlining the NUMBER of procedures produced), then it doesn't tell me anything.

I mean, come on. Any 17 year old with half a brain would be able to guess that there are more contraceptive counseling sessions than abortions performed. Obviously.

A hospital naturally performs more cholecystectomies than it does liver transplants. Again, that's obvious. But it would be fair to say that one liver transplant is going to cost the hospital more than, say, 10 cholecystectomies. Unless you provide a financial breakdown of where the money is going (and this is something that Planned Parenthood does NOT seem willing to share), you're not really proving anything that a person of nominal intelligence couldn't tell you.

- You haven't provided any proof that providing abortions is "not that expensive," so you haven't really proven your case at all.

Here's what I essentially heard in your post:

"blahblahblah organized religion blahblah argument about the beginning of life that has been going on for centuries blahblahblah greater good of the people"

That probably explains your complete inability to formulate anything near an intelligent response.

Followed, of course, by the plaintive wail to close the thread.

Kudos to you!

 

[Perrotfish]

Hmm...greater good of the people = pro-life = republican?

something to ponder. I know I know it's not "political". Whatever...

Not personally, or at least not on any other issue. You're mixing up cause and effect. Religious Catholics, for example, used to vote almost exclusively Democrat for years and years (the Catholic church is a big supporter of labor rights, universal health care, and other social justice programs that democrats like). However the abortion issue has steadily driven more and more people who would otherwise vote democrat to the Republican party.

So, again, people aren't pro-life because they're Republican, but some of them are Republican because they're pro-life.

 

[Tired]

So, again, people aren't pro-life because they're Republican, but some of them are Republican because they're pro-life.

Are you suggesting that people might choose their political affliliation based on their stance on certain issues, rather than vice versa? You mean voting isn't like a clique in high school where you just go along with what the cool kids say, instead of reasoning things out yourself?

This concept of "free will" scares and confuses me.

 

[DwyaneWade]

Are you suggesting that people might choose their political affliliation based on their stance on certain issues, rather than vice versa? You mean voting isn't like a clique in high school where you just go along with what the cool kids say, instead of reasoning things out yourself?

This concept of "free will" scares and confuses me.

Have you looked at the country surrounding you?

Democrats, Republicans, whatever. People are NOT considering issues and are just going mindlessly with party alliances more so than twenty years ago.

 

[Tired]

Democrats, Republicans, whatever. People are NOT considering issues and are just going mindlessly with party alliances more so than twenty years ago.

Because you say so?

 

[DrZeke]

Have you looked at the country surrounding you?

Democrats, Republicans, whatever. People are NOT considering issues and are just going mindlessly with party alliances more so than twenty years ago.

That was kind of my point. Most people are uninformed on the issues and hardly know a party's or candidate's platform. I found myself finding out new things daily during the weeks leading up to the election. If I based my opinions solely on CNN and foxnews I would be making some big mistakes.

ALSO...FWIW, I have several friends in my class who when asked why voting Republican it was pretty much because the Republican party are "better Christians" than the democrats. Don't act like that doesn't happen, because you're just lying to yourself. These aren't necessarily people who have party loyalty and have no clue, but they will refuse to vote for someone unless they claim that they will change abortion laws and teach abstinence. Meanwhile, many of us know that promising to work on changing abortion laws is usually just a ploy to win the christian vote or continue having it...

Even on the website www.lifenews.com and whatever other website this guy listed a few posts above me, it's clear that this pro-life issue is heavily invested in RELIGION and that there is a lot of democrat bashing. Just go to websites.

 

[Water011]

- The list is nice, but it's totally useless. If it doesn't outline how much money is being allocated to each service (and not just outlining the NUMBER of procedures produced), then it doesn't tell me anything.

I mean, come on. Any 17 year old with half a brain would be able to guess that there are more contraceptive counseling sessions than abortions performed. Obviously.

A hospital naturally performs more cholecystectomies than it does liver transplants. Again, that's obvious. But it would be fair to say that one liver transplant is going to cost the hospital more than, say, 10 cholecystectomies. Unless you provide a financial breakdown of where the money is going (and this is something that Planned Parenthood does NOT seem willing to share), you're not really proving anything that a person of nominal intelligence couldn't tell you.

- You haven't provided any proof that providing abortions is "not that expensive," so you haven't really proven your case at all.

I admitted that the list didn't unequivocally prove that PP doesn't spend more on abortion than on other services. I don't know why you are being intentionally argumentative here. And I don't know why you are talking to me like I am some kind of an idiot when I admitted to you that the list of services didn't tell us as much as one with dollar amounts would. I'm just saying that 3% is a very small percent. It does not take up a majority of their time, and the majority of pts who go to PP do not get abortions. You said that you felt PP neglected contraceptive services, and I'm just saying that they provide millions of clients with contraception services while providing less than 300,000 clients with abortions. I don't think it is fair for you to say that they neglect contraception. Obviously abortions are more expensive than contraception, but that's just how it is. If that means they have to spend more money on abortion than contraception, that doesn't negate the fact that they prevent far more abortions than they provide.

 

[DrZeke]

And Tired, I can't really figure out your opinion on this issue, but I guess it doesn't matter. The reason I didn't write an eloquent response, is because yes, sometimes I'm just lazy

This thread doesn't bother me, I think that it is important for people to have student organizations on campus. When they are religiously motivated it makes me a bit uncomfortable, but I guess that's because I'm a big advocate of the separation between church and state.

What bothers me about the issue between pro-life and pro-choice is that my opinions on believing in choice is not based on the women that are using abortions as birth control. I'm not into that and I think it stands as a message about how our education and values as a people are failing us. Parents, teachers, government, they all have a role in educating children and young adults and these values are founded in adolescence, late childhood. But, I don't believe the issue is so black and white. I know several women who have had abortions because they felt an additional child would be a huge burden on their marriage/family/career. They were using protection and contraception - I even know a woman whose IUD moved and became pregnant. Now, while some of you make think that this is terrible, I don't think it's our position to judge. Quite frankly, I think it's nice that some people are able to come to terms with what an additional child might mean to them and the same we can't judge when someone has no means to keep a child but still does, we can't really judge when someone decides the opposite.

Either way I think that as physicians, it's terrible when we inform women of one side and not the other. But for those of you who are advocating abortion if you think someone can't handle things, find out your patient's views first. For those of you are advocated keeping a child with spina bifida, or any disorder, maybe some patients can't handle a child like that... Just find out your patient's views and try and respect them but also inform them of both sides if they will hear it. It's pretty unethical to convince your patient of one side and after working in research for a while, I know that it's easy for doctors to omit certain details of a procedure/choice/whatever if it means that they will get what they think is best for the patient...

 

[smq123]

I'm just saying that 3% is a very small percent. It does not take up a majority of their time, and the majority of pts who go to PP do not get abortions. You said that you felt PP neglected contraceptive services, and I'm just saying that they provide millions of clients with contraception services while providing less than 300,000 clients with abortions. I don't think it is fair for you to say that they neglect contraception. Obviously abortions are more expensive than contraception, but that's just how it is. If that means they have to spend more money on abortion than contraception, that doesn't negate the fact that they prevent far more abortions than they provide.

The point is NOT that they "provide a lot of contraception."

The point is that Planned Parenthood does a ****ty job of providing contraception.

Planned Parenthood ought to be embarrassed that, at its centers, it takes 7 hours to get contraception. Planned Parenthood ought to be embarrassed that it costs a week's worth of groceries to get the three months of the CHEAPEST OCPs available at their centers. And Planned Parenthood ought to be making a concerted effort at improving its contraceptive counseling services, because it is an embarrassment that the country's largest "reproductive rights advocacy group" has to have medical/nursing assistants explain the risks of OCPs....and many of those nursing assistants don't speak English very well.

My point is that I feel that Planned Parenthood is not allocating its resources well. If they were TRULY that committed to "preventing the need for abortion," it would take a good hard look at its organization and what a half-*****ed, crappy job they do of distributing contraception. More money and more resources to contraceptive counseling/distribution would definitely help. They need a different approach, because the one that they're using now is barely cutting it.

 

[Tired]

ALSO...FWIW, I have several friends in my class who when asked why voting Republican it was pretty much because the Republican party are "better Christians" than the democrats. Don't act like that doesn't happen, because you're just lying to yourself. These aren't necessarily people who have party loyalty and have no clue, but they will refuse to vote for someone unless they claim that they will change abortion laws and teach abstinence. Meanwhile, many of us know that promising to work on changing abortion laws is usually just a ploy to win the christian vote or continue having it...

People consider certain candidates "better Christians" because of their positions on certain issues. This is called issue-based voting. The fact that they attach a name to it (Christianity) doesn't alter that fact. Ditto on party allegiance. "I would never vote for a Republican" isn't so much a statement of party loyalty as it is a recognition that the Republic platform has issues that some people find unpalatable.

Believe it or not, other people do have well-thought out opinions on issues, do watch the news, do listen to candidates speak, and can have opinions contrary to your own without being uninformed.

Bush promised to work on changing abortion laws, and was accused of using it as a "ploy" to energize his base. Then everyone bitched when he appointed Roberts. Hmm, maybe he was serious?

[BTW - I'm amazed I have to explain this. It just goes to show how much the "other people are stupid" mindset has invaded this country.]

 

[Tired]

And Tired, I can't really figure out your opinion on this issue, but I guess it doesn't matter.

I think we should harken back to the original mission of Planned Parenthood.

Subsidized abortions and contraception for poor people and minorities. Populate America with the spawn of rich, white Protestants.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Planned Parenthood ought to be embarrassed that, at its centers, it takes 7 hours to get contraception. Planned Parenthood ought to be embarrassed that it costs a week's worth of groceries to get the three months of the CHEAPEST OCPs available at their centers. And Planned Parenthood ought to be making a concerted effort at improving its contraceptive counseling services, because it is an embarrassment that the country's largest "reproductive rights advocacy group" has to have medical/nursing assistants explain the risks of OCPs....and many of those nursing assistants don't speak English very well.

Where are you getting your information?

Most planned parenthoods can get you in and out in about 2 hours which is pretty on par with free clinics.

As far as the Cheapest OCP costing a week's worth of groceries. Who said that? If you show up at PP all you do is sign a paper says that you don't have other insurance or can't use the other insurance because you don't want parents/SO/etc to know you're using birth control and they hand it over free of charge.

I went once because I left my birth control at college and got 3 months of pills plus a ton of condoms in about 30 minutes at absolutely no cost to me.

I'm not really sure where your info is coming from but I'm thinking its inaccurate propaganda.

 

[Water011]

Where are you getting your information?

Most planned parenthoods can get you in and out in about 2 hours which is pretty on par with free clinics.

As far as the Cheapest OCP costing a week's worth of groceries. Who said that? If you show up at PP all you do is sign a paper says that you don't have other insurance or can't use the other insurance because you don't want parents/SO/etc to know you're using birth control and they hand it over free of charge.

I went once because I left my birth control at college and got 3 months of pills plus a ton of condoms in about 30 minutes at absolutely no cost to me.

I'm not really sure where your info is coming from but I'm thinking its inaccurate propaganda.

Yeah.

Also, I think they charge based on a sliding scale, so there may be some people who report paying what they would spend on a week's worth of groceries (how much is that, though??) for 3 months of OCPs. That doesn't mean that low-income women without insurance are being charged that much.

Honestly, I'm not some kind of expert on Planned Parenthood. I was just sticking up for them because I think they provide important services, and I thought your characterization was a little unfair.

 

[smq123]

Where are you getting your information?

Most planned parenthoods can get you in and out in about 2 hours which is pretty on par with free clinics.

As far as the Cheapest OCP costing a week's worth of groceries. Who said that? If you show up at PP all you do is sign a paper says that you don't have other insurance or can't use the other insurance because you don't want parents/SO/etc to know you're using birth control and they hand it over free of charge.

I'm not really sure where your info is coming from but I'm thinking its inaccurate propaganda.

From my personal experience.

It took me close to eight hours to get out of there, the first time. I had to take an entire day off of rotations, which I could manage - but not everyone can. And I was LUCKY - there were people there who got there before I did, and were still waiting when I left!

The second time I went, they did NOT charge me on a sliding scale. Apparently, being a broke medical student who has more debt than anyone in that Planned Parenthood COMBINED is still not enough to qualify me as "poor."

The woman who explained the risks of OCPs to me spoke such poorly grammatical English, she was unable to manipulate the conditional form of verbs. She basically promised me a DVT, and a PE.

When I explained that no, I didn't want my parents to know, and that actually my crappy student insurance would NOT cover the OCPs, they bullied me, and would NOT stop nagging me.

Honestly, I'd rather be pregnant than go back to Planned Parenthood. When I came home after my second visit, having been nagged to death by two women (who barely knew me!), I lay on the sofa, close to tears for an hour. If I had to choose, I'd rather scrub in on a 19 hour lung transplant with the most malignant surgeon, than go back. At least I wouldn't have to pretend to be "grateful" to the transplant surgeon.

Also, I think they charge based on a sliding scale, so there may be some people who report paying what they would spend on a week's worth of groceries (how much is that, though??) for 3 months of OCPs. That doesn't mean that low-income women without insurance are being charged that much.

They wanted to charge me close to $150 for three months of OCPs. Seeing as I spent ridiculous sums of money on my credit card, in order to have the "privilege" of participating in the NRMP match....wasn't going to happen. And these were for the cheapest OCPs out there!

Evidently, I'm not alone. A VERY brief google search showed these:

http://www.alternet.org/story/32759/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009144816AAfHBBL

$92 for an STD test?!?! That's bull****.

 

[alwaysaangel]

From my personal experience.

It took me close to eight hours to get out of there, the first time. I had to take an entire day off of rotations, which I could manage - but not everyone can. And I was LUCKY - there were people there who got there before I did, and were still waiting when I left!

The second time I went, they did NOT charge me on a sliding scale. Apparently, being a broke medical student who has more debt than anyone in that Planned Parenthood COMBINED is still not enough to qualify me as "poor."

The woman who explained the risks of OCPs to me spoke such poorly grammatical English, she was unable to manipulate the conditional form of verbs. She basically promised me a DVT, and a PE.

When I explained that no, I didn't want my parents to know, and that actually my crappy student insurance would NOT cover the OCPs, they bullied me, and would NOT stop nagging me.

Honestly, I'd rather be pregnant than go back to Planned Parenthood. When I came home after my second visit, having been nagged to death by two women (who barely knew me!), I lay on the sofa, close to tears for an hour. If I had to choose, I'd rather scrub in on a 19 hour lung transplant with the most malignant surgeon, than go back. At least I wouldn't have to pretend to be "grateful" to the transplant surgeon.



They wanted to charge me close to $150 for three months of OCPs. Seeing as I spent ridiculous sums of money on my credit card, in order to have the "privilege" of participating in the NRMP match....wasn't going to happen. And these were for the cheapest OCPs out there!

Evidently, I'm not alone. A VERY brief google search showed these:

http://www.alternet.org/story/32759/
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081009144816AAfHBBL

$92 for an STD test?!?! That's bull****.

Well in all fairness it depends on the person and the planned parenthood. But I don't think you should be making absolutest arguments on the failure of PP with your personal experience. Some stats would help your argument, personal issues do not. I'm sure planned parenthood posts the actual costs going towards what procedures, average wait times, and the cost to patients somewhere.

And I was going to say I've never known anyone to pay for anything at PP but then I realized why our experiences are so different. I'm in Cali. Anything reproduction related is 100% covered.

 

[smq123]

But I don't think you should be making absolutest arguments on the failure of PP with your personal experience. Some stats would help your argument, personal issues do not. I'm sure planned parenthood posts the actual costs going towards what procedures, average wait times, and the cost to patients somewhere.

It's nice when you are "sure" that they post the actual costs somewhere, etc..... but YOU don't do any actual research into finding it and posting it either.

It doesn't sound like you're "sure," but more that you are "assuming."

In all honesty, if you could find these stats, I'd appreciate it. I'd love to have my mind changed. But they DO NOT post it. Which is what I find so disturbing about it.

Planned Parenthood promises many things to young women - things that (in my case, and in many other cases), they did not deliver on. Unlike hospitals, they do not make it clear that there are places to turn to complain. They don't follow standardized, clearly outlined guidelines for providing care. And then when you ask what their ACTUAL costs are, or what their ACTUAL wait times are....the information is no where to be found!!



And this is one of the things about Planned Parenthood that absolutely puzzles me. It is one of THE most controversial organizations in the country. Of any organization, it needs to be absolutely, totally squeaky clean and transparent....but it ISN'T. That makes no sense to me whatsoever, and does little to help their reputation.

For instance, things like this lawsuit do NOT help their reputation.

I believe in free (or at least very cheap) and ready access to contraceptives. I just don't understand why, many times, it seems like Planned Parenthood doesn't either.

(By the way: Be glad you live in California, and not, say, in Baltimore where you'd be forced to use THIS Planned Parenthood. That just sounds awful.)

Look, I agree with you that the IDEA behind Planned Parenthood's contraceptive counseling/provision services is wonderful. But the way that it's carried out is puzzling, sometimes a little shady, and often times a direct contradiction of what they promised.

 

[alwaysaangel]

It's nice when you are "sure" that they post the actual costs somewhere, etc..... but YOU don't do any actual research into finding it and posting it either.

It doesn't sound like you're "sure," but more that you are "assuming."

In all honesty, if you could find these stats, I'd appreciate it. I'd love to have my mind changed. But they DO NOT post it. Which is what I find so disturbing about it.

Planned Parenthood promises many things to young women - things that (in my case, and in many other cases), they did not deliver on. Unlike hospitals, they do not make it clear that there are places to turn to complain. They don't follow standardized, clearly outlined guidelines for providing care. And then when you ask what their ACTUAL costs are, or what their ACTUAL wait times are....the information is no where to be found!!



And this is one of the things about Planned Parenthood that absolutely puzzles me. It is one of THE most controversial organizations in the country. Of any organization, it needs to be absolutely, totally squeaky clean and transparent....but it ISN'T. That makes no sense to me whatsoever, and does little to help their reputation.

For instance, things like this lawsuit do NOT help their reputation.

I believe in free (or at least very cheap) and ready access to contraceptives. I just don't understand why, many times, it seems like Planned Parenthood doesn't either.

(By the way: Be glad you live in California, and not, say, in Baltimore where you'd be forced to use THIS Planned Parenthood. That just sounds awful.)

Look, I agree with you that the IDEA behind Planned Parenthood's contraceptive counseling/provision services is wonderful. But the way that it's carried out is puzzling, sometimes a little shady, and often times a direct contradiction of what they promised.

Sorry I didn't even read your whole post too many smileys and too obviously angry.

I don't disagree with you. But I've never really understood why people want to discuss their opinions and think they're going to convince people of things but never actually apply any logical arguments or concrete proof.

All I was saying is YOUR experience proves nothing. If you're trying to change minds on here, which by your discussion you are, then you might want to use hard facts instead of a single experience.

I neither care enough nor have the time to find stats - its your argument not mine. I was just recommending a way you could better it and perhaps actually convince some people to agree with you instead of screaming inanely about nothing. But I guess I got the wrong impressions from your posts. I thought you were trying to make a valid argument, but I guess you're the typical prolifer who doesn't want a good argument and just likes yelling propaganda that mean nothing.

 

[DrZeke]

People consider certain candidates "better Christians" because of their positions on certain issues. This is called issue-based voting. The fact that they attach a name to it (Christianity) doesn't alter that fact. Ditto on party allegiance. "I would never vote for a Republican" isn't so much a statement of party loyalty as it is a recognition that the Republic platform has issues that some people find unpalatable.

Believe it or not, other people do have well-thought out opinions on issues, do watch the news, do listen to candidates speak, and can have opinions contrary to your own without being uninformed.

Bush promised to work on changing abortion laws, and was accused of using it as a "ploy" to energize his base. Then everyone bitched when he appointed Roberts. Hmm, maybe he was serious?

[BTW - I'm amazed I have to explain this. It just goes to show how much the "other people are stupid" mindset has invaded this country.]

I didn't say people were uninformed. I said it's surprising, because I've only lived in a country where there is no separation between church and state for a few years. It's a foreign concept.

 

[smq123]

Sorry I didn't even read your whole post

But I guess I got the wrong impressions from your posts. I thought you were trying to make a valid argument, but I guess you're the typical prolifer who doesn't want a good argument and just likes yelling propaganda that mean nothing.

This is a very insulting and ridiculous cop-out.

You don't take the time to read my posts....just assume that I'm a "typical pro-lifer who doesn't want a good argument."

I AGREED with you that the idea behind Planned Parenthood is a good one.

And I'm hardly a typical "pro-lifer" in that I actually firmly believe that contraception IS a key component of good healthcare. I don't know how that escaped your attention.

And OBVIOUSLY, I'm angry. Planned Parenthood has the potential to be such a great resource....so why DOESN'T it make its statistics and budget more easily available to the public? Why don't they talk about these things openly? Where is the money going? Could the money be spent in better ways?

I've LOOKED for these statistics. Looked hard, because I'm willing to have my opinion changed. But they're nowhere to be found. Why is that?

And I'm angry that you're so close-minded that you can't even take the time to a) try to find statistics that might prove or disprove your argument, and b) try and read someone else's post.

Great, you had a great experience. Doesn't mean that everyone does, and doesn't mean that Planned Parenthood is doing a good job. And just because I disagree with the way that Planned Parenthood does its job does NOT mean that I disapprove of the organization itself! Why is it so hard for you to understand the distinction?

 

[Water011]

Hey, I see more what you are saying now. At first it seemed like you just didn't agree with Planned Parenthood because you thought they provided too many abortions. I realize you had a bad experience, and that sucks. I agree that it is frustrating that they won't publicize their financial info. I didn't look that hard, but I couldn't find it in the first couple of pages of a google search, and that is pretty messed up, in my opinion.

However, things can't be easy for them with so many people out to get them for providing abortions. I would guess that that has something to do with their refusal to publish their data. I mean, who gets to say how much they should be spending on abortion services? It is one of the services they provide, it's legal, and they probably don't want anti-choicers bullying them into spending less than is needed.

While I still don't think you should be using a personal anecdote as if it is the way every PP operates all the time, everyone is free to complain about bad service. You should complain. I'm just not sure that the reason you got bad service is because Planned Parenthood spent too much money providing abortions. But, we have different views on choice, so that makes sense that our opinions would differ here.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Again, not my argument, I don't care that much. I neither agree nor disagree with you. But you were doing a decent job avoiding meaningless platitudes until you started spouting that all planned parenthoods take 7 hours and cost a weeks worth of groceries as if it were fact. I was actually trying to be nice and pointing out a way to improve your argument in the future, but you got all defensive and rude.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report.htm

Pretty transparent to me. First thing that came up when I googled planned parenthood annual report.

Then if you search their site you can find info about how much a single abortion costs and the fact that federal money cannot be spent on abortions that aren't essential for the life of the mother.

They can't print every stat that anyone could ever want but I bet if you really wanted it and contacted them they would give it to you.

Just because YOU can't find it - doesn't mean they're hiding it.

 

[smq123]

However, things can't be easy for them with so many people out to get them for providing abortions. I would guess that that has something to do with their refusal to publish their data. I mean, who gets to say how much they should be spending on abortion services? It is one of the services they provide, it's legal, and they probably don't want anti-choicers bullying them into spending less than is needed.

Well, "anti-choicers" are going to bully Planned Parenthood no matter what Planned Parenthood does. A lot of people who are very strictly pro-life don't even believe in contraception, so I imagine that everything that Planned Parenthood does is an anathema anyway.

But, like I said - Planned Parenthood is arguably one of the most controversial organizations in the US, besides (maybe) the NRA. In my mind, that's all the more reason to prove that they actually ARE fulfilling their mission statement of providing good, low-cost reproductive health services to all women who walk in their door.

I'm just not sure that the reason you got bad service is because Planned Parenthood spent too much money providing abortions. But, we have different views on choice, so that makes sense that our opinions would differ here.

I don't think this really has THAT much to do with differing opinions on choice.

And I actually disapproved of Planned Parenthood's methods before I was ever a patient there. There are lots of things about the way they provide care that I disagree with, and are definitely not things that I'd like to do when in practice.

Yes, I'm not in favor of abortions. But Planned Parenthood has publically stated that they'd prefer to "prevent the need for abortions." Well, in order to do that, they should be spending the bulk of their resources on contraceptive counseling. So....are they, in fact, doing so? There doesn't seem to be a good way of proving that.

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/annual-report.htm

Then if you search their site you can find info about how much a single abortion costs and the fact that federal money cannot be spent on abortions that aren't essential for the life of the mother.

They can't print every stat that anyone could ever want but I bet if you really wanted it and contacted them they would give it to you.

Thanks for the link.

Yes, I got angry. It didn't seem like you were even reading what I was saying....just assuming that because I'm "anti-abortion" that I naturally disapprove of Planned Parenthood on principle. I don't - I think that the way they provide care is crap.

I'd still like to see exactly where their money is going, which the annual report does NOT provide, but....like I said, the less transparent Planned Parenthood is, the more it hurts them.

(Where does it say how much a single abortion costs to perform? THAT's what I was looking for, and that's what I can't find.

With hospitals, you can find out how much it costs the hospital to perform a single appendectomy, etc. THAT's the kind of info I'd expect from a healthcare provider....which is why I'd find it a little weird that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide that info.)

 

[All4MyDaughter]

Well, I had a completely different experience than the one described here with Planned Parenthood. But my experience with PP is no more CONCLUSIVE PROOF of anything than anyone else's experience. It's just one person's experience and can't be extrapolated into a characterization of how the ENTIRE organization operates.

I also don't think PP owes the public any more (or less) transparency/disclosure than any other nonprofit organization. Anyway, there is plenty of information out there. Guidestar has information about 331 different PP affiliates here: Planned Parenthood. You have to register to view the reports, 990's, etc but registration is free.

I'm also a little suspicious at the claim of $150 for a 3 month supply of OC's. That's higher than the cash price for the same drugs in a retail pharmacy. There are several options for generic OCs that are around $1/day. For example, TriNessa (ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate) is $27.99/month. Tri-Sprintec (same active ingredients) is $34.99/month. These are FDA approved generics for Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a commonly prescribed OC. My prices come from Lexi-Comp ONLINE, a subscription only service for pharmacists and pharmacy students.

There ARE plenty of contraceptives that run $55-$65/month (retail/cash price) but if someone is only offering products in that price range to a patient they AREN'T offering the patient "the cheapest OCP's out there." BS.

 

[alwaysaangel]

(Where does it say how much a single abortion costs to perform? THAT's what I was looking for, and that's what I can't find.

With hospitals, you can find out how much it costs the hospital to perform a single appendectomy, etc. THAT's the kind of info I'd expect from a healthcare provider....which is why I'd find it a little weird that Planned Parenthood doesn't provide that info.)

Then if you search their site you can find info about how much a single abortion costs and the fact that federal money cannot be spent on abortions that aren't essential for the life of the mother.

Search their site as in type what you're looking for into their search bar - gives you an article that lists all sorts of numbers for different years and different trimesters.

 

[alwaysaangel]

I'm also a little suspicious at the claim of $150 for a 3 month supply of OC's. That's higher than the cash price for the same drugs in a retail pharmacy. There are several options for generic OCs that are around $1/day. For example, TriNessa (ethinyl estradiol and norgestimate) is $27.99/month. Tri-Sprintec (same active ingredients) is $34.99/month. These are FDA approved generics for Ortho Tri-Cyclen, a commonly prescribed OC. My prices come from Lexi-Comp ONLINE, a subscription only service for pharmacists and pharmacy students.

There ARE plenty of contraceptives that run $55-$65/month (retail/cash price) but if someone is only offering products in that price range to a patient they AREN'T offering the patient "the cheapest OCP's out there." BS.

Agreed, Yaz runs about $140 but thats the ONLY one I can think of that would be that pricey. If a person chooses Yaz over all of the generics available then that is their choice and they get to pay for it. Plus with all the $4 generic programs around these days you could just ask Planned Parenthood for the prescription and then go get it elsewhere if you felt they overcharge for those.

 

[smq123]

I'm also a little suspicious at the claim of $150 for a 3 month supply of OC's. That's higher than the cash price for the same drugs in a retail pharmacy. There are several options for generic OCs that are around $1/day.

There ARE plenty of contraceptives that run $55-$65/month (retail/cash price) but if someone is only offering products in that price range to a patient they AREN'T offering the patient "the cheapest OCP's out there." BS.

The entire visit was a little shifty.

First - I'm well aware of what OCPs should cost. And, for my first visit, the birth control was free (because I'm a full time student, up to my ears in debt, and don't have a paying job). Mysteriously, for my second visit, even though I was in even MORE debt, they charged me $150 for 3 months of OCPs. What gives?

No one was able to give me an answer, other than "You earn a lot of money." Which confused me even more, because I don't earn anything!

******​

Why IS it so verboten to criticize Planned Parenthood? Is it because all of you honestly believe that it's doing a great job with no room for improvement? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to someone who is openly anti-abortion? Is it a belief that "reproductive rights" are under attack, and that there needs to be an automatic defense of all such organizations?

I'm not even advocating that we close down Planned Parenthood. As crappy a job as I think it does, it IS the only option for a lot of women/girls....which is a pity, but the truth.

But you have to wonder about Planned Parenthood sometimes. I have had a number of patients (more than I should) who HAVE used abortion as birth control. One patient, who was younger than me, had had NINE abortions.....and she came in to our office, two months after her last D&E, with another positive pregnancy test.

If birth control is so cheap (and I believe that Planned Parenthood will even offer free Depo Provera shots in certain cases), then why not offer her a Provera shot immediately after her D&C? We routinely give women Provera shots after vaginal deliveries (and all women leave the hospital after a delivering with SOME kind of contraception)....so why doesn't Planned Parenthood do this too?

There are lots of reasons why I don't like/trust Planned Parenthood. Not because I'm anti-abortion, but because I don't really understand the reasoning behind some of their decisions and practices.

I have equally big criticisms for the far right, which naively believes that telling people to be sexually abstinent is enough.

And I think one of the biggest problems is that there is the far right (which preaches abstinence only), and the far left (which tells you that abortion is totally fine), but very little information in between. And I feel like that traps patients between two equally uncomfortable (and unfeasible) extremes. It's fine to be an extremist when you're not taking care of patients, but when you do....honestly, it's not as cut-and-dried as everyone wants to think it is.

 

[sparkleflower]

If birth control is so cheap (and I believe that Planned Parenthood will even offer free Depo Provera shots in certain cases), then why not offer her a Provera shot immediately after her D&C? We routinely give women Provera shots after vaginal deliveries (and all women leave the hospital after a delivering with SOME kind of contraception)....so why doesn't Planned Parenthood do this too?

Um, because the patient doesn't want it? Maybe they offered the shot and the pt said no. Maybe the pt got BCP/whatever and didn't use it. Who knows. That's not PP's failure... that's the patient's choice.

 

[smq123]

Um, because the patient doesn't want it? Maybe they offered the shot and the pt said no. Maybe the pt got BCP/whatever and didn't use it. Who knows. That's not PP's failure... that's the patient's choice.

Do you think we didn't ask?

We asked. They didn't offer it. They didn't offer it the previous eight times either. She'd gotten pregnant pretty much right away after having an abortion (and yes, I agree, that's pretty stupid).

Should she have taken it upon herself to go get birth control? Sure. Of course.

Do I think that someone should have sat her down and said, "You know....once you're unable to count the number of abortions that you've had on one hand....there's something really wrong here...."? YES.

 

[sparkleflower]

They didn't offer it. They didn't offer it the previous eight times either.

Well, not that a pt would lie or anything...

Seriously, maybe they did offer it and she refused, but doesn't want to admit it. Being on birth control means accepting the fact that you are sexual and taking responsibility for yourself and your body. Some people would prefer not to deal with that, and continue to be surprised when the inevitable happens. Lots of conflicting emotions around sexuality.

 

[All4MyDaughter]

The entire visit was a little shifty.

First - I'm well aware of what OCPs should cost. And, for my first visit, the birth control was free...

That's the first time, to my knowledge that you mentioned that the initial supply of contraception was free.

Why IS it so verboten to criticize Planned Parenthood? Is it because all of you honestly believe that it's doing a great job with no room for improvement? Is it a knee-jerk reaction to someone who is openly anti-abortion? Is it a belief that "reproductive rights" are under attack, and that there needs to be an automatic defense of all such organizations?

Planned Parenthood is not sacred. I'm just not particularly swayed by the some of the criticisms that you've raised. I don't think I have to believe PP is perfect in order to find your viewpoint less than compelling. As someone upthread eluded, as your argument has evolved, so has your story about your experiences with PP. It isn't helping your argument.

I disagree with your technique of extrapolating your own experiences with PP into a generalization about how ALL Planned Parenthood affiliates are run or about their policies on a national level. I am suspicious that you've made liberal use of hyperbole to bolster your arguments. I think any legitimate points you've raised about PP have gotten lost in the anger and (possible) exaggeration.

But you have to wonder about Planned Parenthood sometimes. I have had a number of patients (more than I should) who HAVE used abortion as birth control. One patient, who was younger than me, had had NINE abortions.....and she came in to our office, two months after her last D&E, with another positive pregnancy test.

This is on the patient. Abortions generally aren't free at PP or any other abortion provider. People I know who have obtained them (including people with zero income - students) have paid $350 - $600 for the service. Why this particular patient would choose that cost X9 over the very manageable cost of OCP or condoms is hard to understand. But it's not the fault of PP. And I agree with other poster who said you can't absolutely rely upon the patient to be honest wth you in a situation like this. Patients lie all the time.

If birth control is so cheap (and I believe that Planned Parenthood will even offer free Depo Provera shots in certain cases), then why not offer her a Provera shot immediately after her D&C? We routinely give women Provera shots after vaginal deliveries (and all women leave the hospital after a delivering with SOME kind of contraception)....so why doesn't Planned Parenthood do this too?

Underlined part...All women? This may be policy at your hospital but it is by no means universal. Speaking from my own personal experience on this point.

 

[Tired]

I didn't say people were uninformed. I said it's surprising, because I've only lived in a country where there is no separation between church and state for a few years. It's a foreign concept.

You have to refine your use of the statement "separation of church and state". You have used that multiple times in this thread, when what you really mean is something along the lines "keeping the church out of public life."

The basis of the concept is the 1st Amendment text: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " In other words, the "separation of church and state" is to keep government out of the free exercise of religion, not vice versa. This was intended to prevent government sponsorship of preferred political sects, one of the reasons early migrants from Europe came to this nation.

Like many others in America, you're falling into the trap of considering any political/social activity by religious groups as violating a supposed "separation", but really this is a misuse/misunderstanding of the concept.

There is nothing in either the Constitution or common law to prevent churches from advocating for social/political changes, nor should their be. It may affect their tax status, but that is based on an entirely different priniciple.