Posts tagged: facts
Here’s the link to my old abortion references mega-post.
Some more factoids:
Seriously though, banning it doesn’t stop it from happening.
Pro-lifers get abortions too, though they cleverly justify them.
Abortion existed before Roe v. Wade. In fact, it’s existed since the premodern world.
Mother Jones wrote a great piece about what life was like before Roe v. Wade. (Spoiler alert: Harrowing.)
When someone can’t access a legal abortion, they’ll find another way to have one.
The pro-life protesters who stand outside of clinics frighten women into finding a non-public alternative. Patients of Kermit Gosnell (who performed illegal abortions and killed several patients and infants) said they saw him because they were afraid of the protesters at Planned Parenthood.
The Bible actually goes back and forth a lot about the whole abortion thing.
Public funding for places like Planned Parenthood prevent about 800,000 abortions every year.
Ugh, don’t get me started (oops, too late)
This is all about more austerity cuts for conservatives. Period.
The 4th Estate has been beyond derelict in simply reporting the facts of the shutdown. It is dangerously misleading and helps create misinformation to the point that the media could be considered co-conspirators in the shutdown
The point of journalism is supposed to be to accurately inform the public, but there are at least five informative and basic facts that most media/journalists/pundits have miserably failed to make a part of the national discourse surrounding the shutdown:
1) The shutdown is not a result of partisan politics gone bad. The “debate” on spending levels on the Continuing Resolution (CR) is a red herring. The journalistic “both sides are to blame” mantra doesn’t work here. Republicans put quite a lot of planning into bringing about the shutdown to extract even greater partisan demands from the Obama Administration
2) In the dead of night, literally hours before their engineered shutdown, Republicans John Boehner (R-OH) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) slipped in an underhanded House rule to prevent Democrats from reopening the government
3) There is a clean CR languishing in the House of Representatives—as in, right now, today! And even though there are enough votes to pass the clean CR and end the shutdown, John Boehner refuses to bring it to the floor for a vote. Instead, Republicans insist on adding “defund Obamacare” riders to their “compromises”
4) The clean CR (aka the budget) that Republicans claim to be so dissatisfied with—the budget that supposedly sparked the shutdown—is Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget! Let me say that again; the government is shutdown because even after Democrats
compromisedcapitulated to the GOP’s draconian budget demands, Republicans are essentially saying, “Yeah, we got what we wanted even though we lost the 2012 election, but that’s still not good enough. Not even Sequestration budget cuts are good enough. We want even moar budget cuts”
5) Thus far, the “compromises” Republicans have offered Democrats and the president have had a very bitter poison pill which would permanently disable the ability of the U.S. Treasury to fund pensions, among other things
Why that fact isn’t more news worthy is beyond me, but I suspect I know why most journalists are afraid to do so much as whisper it
But…to answer your question, what can we do to help end the Republican shutdown? Aside from knowing the basic facts so we can speak from a position of fact and knowledge, it’s the same old answer as always:
Go raise some hellreach out to your local congress man or woman. By phone, by email or (peaceably) in person if possible. Let them know how you really feel and that you want the Tea Party shutdown to end
And then maybe reach out to your local news station and ask them why they’re being so factually inaccurate when reporting on this
Forget the blather. Here’s what is actually going on.
At its core, the dispute over the budget and the debt ceiling isn’t complicated at all. But it isfull of misconceptions and urban myths. Here are the 10 facts worth remembering past all the obfuscation:
1. Democrats have already agreed to fund the government at Republican levels.
2. Despite what you might have heard, there have only been two serious government shutdowns in recent history, and both were the result of Republican ultimatums.
3. Democrats in the Senate have been begging the House to negotiate over the budget for the past six months, but Republicans have refused.
4. That’s because Republicans wanted to wait until they had either a government shutdown or a debt ceiling breach as leverage, something they’ve been very clear about all along.
5. Republicans keep talking about compromise, but they’ve offered nothing in return for agreeing to their demands—except to keep the government intact if they get their way.
6. The public is very strongly opposed to using a government shutdown to stop Obamacare.
7. Contrary to Republican claims, the deficit is not increasing—it peaked in 2009 and has been dropping ever since, declining by $200 billion last year with another $450 billion drop projected this year.
8. A long government shutdown is likely to seriously hurt economic growth, with a monthlong shutdown projected to slash GDP in the fourth quarter by 1 percentage point and reduce employment by over a million jobs.
9. No, Democrats have not used debt ceiling hostage taking in the past to force presidents to accept their political agenda.
10. This whole dispute is about the Republican Party fighting to make sure the working poor don’t have access to affordable health care.
What dafuq? This is so stupid and ignorant. We white people need to suck it the fuck up and accept the fact that we have privilege WHICH MEANS WE TAKE TIME TO SPREAD AWARENESS OF UNEQUAL OPPORTUNITIES IN OUR SOCIETY AS WELL AS DOWNRIGHT RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION PRESENT ALL AROUND US
Unequal opportunities based on race? I can agree with that… Just not in your context. Being white, I have access to fewer scholarships than a minority. I had to join the military just to be able to go to college at all.“Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population.
Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. These statistics demonstrate that, as a whole, private sector scholarship programs tend to perpetuate historical inequities in the distribution of scholarships according to race.”
BUT WHAT ABOUT FINANCIAL NEED BASED SCHOLARSHIPS????
It debunks the race myth, which claims that minority students receive more than their fair share of scholarships. The reality is that minority students are less likely to win private scholarships or receive merit-based institutional grants than Caucasian students. Among undergraduate students enrolled full-time/full-year in Bachelor’s degree programs at four-year colleges and universities, minority students represent about a third of applicants but slightly more than a quarter of private scholarship recipients. Caucasian students receive more than three-quarters (76%) of all institutional merit-based scholarship and grant funding, even though they represent less than two-thirds (62%) of the student population. Caucasian students are 40% more likely to win private scholarships than minority students.
REMEMBER THAT TIME YOU STARTED PARROTING RACIST MYTHS INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY FACT CHECKING?
Tumblr law: you are obligated to delete your blog if you put “common sense” in your URL and then talk absolute nonsense.
Original post - are you fucking serious?
Everyone else’s responses? Spot on. Also I wanted to reblog for the scholarship / merit facts.
This is hormonal birth control.
As you can see on the box, you take exactly one pill per day. To make sure it works, you need to take one pill every day at the same time, or it stops working. You take only one pill, and you keep taking them regardless of what you are doing that day.
Hormonal birth control can be used to treat a lot of different diseases, like anemia caused by excessive menstruation. It is a prescription medication that can cost around $15-50 a month. Because it is a prescription medication, it should be covered by insurance, as it treats legitimate health problems.
This is Viagra.
It, too, can treat legitimate health problems like altitude sickness and pulmonary hypertension, but it is usually prescribed for erectile dysfunction. Unlike the Pill, Viagra is taken every time you want to have sex. A lot of health insurance companies cover Viagra, so it costs about as much as your co-pay.
This is a condom.
It is not a prescription medication, and has no health benefits (besides the prevention of STIs and pregnancy). Like Viagra, you must use one before you have sex: indeed, before each sex act. They cost about a dollar per condom.
This is Sandra Fluke.
She testified before a small, Democrat-led hearing after she was cut out of the actual birth control/insurance discussion. Her testimony was about a friend of hers who, because her insurance did not cover birth control, lost an ovary due to an ovarian cyst.
This somehow translates into “I, myself, personally, am having so much sex I can’t afford birth control, and so I want the government to pay for it.”
This is wrong for multiple reasons.
- It was about a friend, not her. To say her testimony was about her personally is factually incorrect.
- Sex had nothing to do with the testimony - her friend lost an ovary because of medical condition that was left untreated. A medical condition that was completely treatable, but wasn’t, because her insurance wouldn’t cover it. To say that her testimony was about her being “a slut” or “a prostitute” is factually incorrect.
- Even if she was having loads of sex, she would still only have one pill a day, not one pill per sex act, so to say “I’m having so much sex I can’t afford birth control” is completely erroneous. The Pill is not Viagra or condoms. To say that she is such “a slut” that she constantly needs more pills is factually incorrect.
- The current political debate is not “should the government pay for birth control?” The debate is “should insurance companies, that people and their employers pay for, on their own, be required to cover birth control?” To say that Sandra Fluke wants the government to pay for her birth control is factually incorrect.
- Religious organizations do not want to have birth control covered by their insurance, even for employees not of their faith, even if their employees never actually use their insurance to cover birth control. By this logic, they should also not pay their employees, because they could use that money to pay for birth control out of pocket. To say that this issue is about religious freedom and not about women’s health is disingenuous, as Ms. Fluke’s testimony demonstrates.
Hopefully this makes things a little clearer.
Very helpful. Thanks, OP!
This is a perfect post.
ALSO even if Sandra Fluke and/or all the women at her college were having loads and loads of all the sex …. it wouldn’t be anyone else’s fucking business.
The stats upset and disappoint me every time I read them.
For everyone who thinks women are totally equal.
I know my lovely readers knew this already, but thought it can never be reiterated too many times.
Now, researchers Jane Mertz of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Jonathan Kane of the University of Wisconsin-Whitewater have performed the most comprehensive exploration yet of math performance. They took in data from 86 different countries, many of which had not previously kept reliable records of math performance and so their addition allowed for much stronger cross-cultural analysis. So what did they find?
First, in many countries, there’s no gender gap at all both at the average and very high levels of performance. Some countries, including the United States, do show a gender gap, but that gap has decreased substantially over the last few decades, and some test scores suggest American girls have already caught up to their male counterparts.
Conservatives are fond of willfully ignorant statements like: Our tax dollars shouldn’t go to abortion, so Planned Parenthood should have its funding stripped. We all know this is a lie. The information to debunk this claim is widely and readily available. Aside from the three percent of PP’s budget that goes to abortion care (and that 3% is privately funded, duh), PP’swide range of health care services include:
- birth control
- emergency contraception
- checkups for reproductive and sexual health problems
- gynecological exams
- pregnancy tests and pre-natal care
- routine physical exams
- checkups for reproductive or sexual health problems
- colon cancer screening
- erectile dysfunction services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
- jock itch exam and treatment
- male infertility screening and referral
- premature ejaculation services, including education, exams, treatment, and referral
- routine physical exams
- testicular cancer screenings
- prostate cancer screenings
- urinary tract infections testing and treatment
General Health Care
- anemia testing
- cholesterol screening
- diabetes screening
- physical exams, including for employment and sports
- flu vaccines
- help with quitting smoking
- high blood pressure screening
- tetanus vaccines
- thyroid screening
- STD testing, treatment, and vaccines
So conservatives: tell me again why Planned Parenthood’s funding should be eliminated?
We’re having a political discussion. Please be respectful and exclude any mention to any religion or any god. It would be really appreciated.
Ok. Here’s another question. Can anything and everything be justified by its nature of “choice”? I might say that raping little girls is a choice. But certainly you’d not want me to do that.
So what are you doing? You’re restricting my “choice.” You believe that I should not be granted a choice to rape little girls. So by your own definition you are an immoral person, because you are restricting my choice. MY position is that there are some things that are never justified, and require restriction. Human choice needs to be restrained.
But what you are saying is that everything should be a choice. You’re saying ‘it’s immoral to believe that someone shouldn’t be granted a choice.’ Well in most causes I’d agree. But get to human life, and whether or not to kill it, and I will stand up and say, “I will not let you make that choice.”
The choice to rape an actual sentient girl is extremely incomparable to ending a pregnancy. You’re taking the word “choice” out of context. By eliminating a person’s choice to end a pregnancy is immoral, if you’re looking for specificity. Why? Because you are now taking this person’s control of hir body away. Telling people that you believe that this person must bear the punishment of a pregnancy that was completely unwanted and sometimes unwarranted, then that is immoral. For one thing, it is not your body. It is none of your business. You may be uncomfortable with abortions, but to believe no one else is allowed to make a choice within their reproductive rights is wrong. To think otherwise is regressive.
Ok, let me ask another question. You said that murder is wrong.
Does that mean that you value human life? Do you believe that the life of a grown man is precious and ought not to be violated or destroyed?
I do value human life. And I also value the quality of life. I do believe that a life of a person separate from another person’s womb to be precious and to be not violated or destroyed.
Safe for who? The little baby being ripped apart by a suction device? Or being scalded to death by a highly acidic salt solution? Or, when all of his body excepting the head is outside the mother, his skull being punctured and collapsed, and his brain sucked out to make the delivery more convenient?
Oh that’s all good and fine, but we want the “safety of the mother” because the convenience of the mother means more than the life of her baby.
And you said it’s fine with you as long as it’s legal? Does something being legal morally justify it? For a long time it was legal in medieval Spain for Christians to go around torturing “heretics.” Same reasoning?
If you want to continue this discussion, you have to use the correct terms so that everything would remain accurate. There is no baby involved with an abortion. Only embryos and fetuses, which are insentient and again, incomparable to those who are sentient and separate and physically autonomous. Thank you.
Many of the procedures you are describing have been outlawed for a while now, these things can only happen before the viability of a fetus, deemed viable if extracted, the fetus can survive without the use of someone else’s body. And if brought to such a case, the fetus was wanted to begin with.
The removal of a mere embryo/fetus via suction aspiration or medically seems fine. Except here’s some more accurate medical information, the suction aspiration does not rip apart a fetus since this surgery 9/10 happens before the first trimester. It sucks out the fetus as a whole. It can also be used after a miscarriage to clear leftover uterine content. In every suction aspiration procedure, the fetus extracted is examined for completeness.
And yes, the life of an actual person should always be valued over an insentient fetus that is not viable to begin with. If the fetus is viable, it will be saved. That is always the case in a late term abortion.
You’re taking my words out of context.
I said that abortion should always remain legal and I would be fine with that.
But thanks for trying.
And again, avoid comparing fetuses to actual people. It takes away from an accurate and factual discussion.
Empathy for who? It seems as if the pro-choice position is anything but empathy. You are highly concerned for the mother, who doesn’t want to have the responsibility of a baby, or who will be inconvenienced by its existence, and who has already had decades of lifetime (and, unless she is killed in childbirth, will have decades more,) but you treat like trash her infant, who hasn’t even seen the light of day, cannot speak out in defense of itself, and has its entire LIFE ahead of it. Think about all the people that were murdered before they were even born, and think of the happiness and fulfillment that they could have had from life, just as you and I do. But no, we value the woman’s convenience more than that.
Again, it is an insentient fetus. It cannot speak or think for itself because it is insentient, without sense or feeling or thought. The mother should always have more empathy and sympathy than a mere fetus. It is her body after all. To be against such an idea is anti-woman and extremely oppressive. The death of actual people is a tragedy. The removal of someone’s fetus is simply a person’s choice. It isn’t yours. If you were ever pregnant, you will be granted the choice of keeping it or removing it. It will be your choice. If you are not able to get pregnant, then this conversation has been very silly.
What matters more, the convenience that someone has from avoiding the consequences of their actions and living childless, or the life of a human being? I’m surprised you believe in objective morality and favor the former. Even if I were to have to choose between the life of a woman who would die in childbirth and the life of her baby, I would encourage the woman to sacrifice her life for her child, because she has already had decades of life, and it is supremely selfish to choose your life over that of an innocent, who is in existence because of your actions. It is hard but if I were in that position I wouldn’t hesitate to give my life for my child.
And what people don’t realize most of the time is that there are other options. People rush into these choices not realizing that child-raising is a tremendously rewarding, enriching experience that brings so much joy. In their youthful foolishness, to paraphrase with all due respect, people imagine that life with a child would be horrible and miserable, and that you’d never have a free moment of your own. But simply isn’t true. Might be when you have ten kids, but just one? Come on.
And has everyone forgotten about adoption? I’d rather put my kid up to have a good life with people who love him, then allow myself to kill him simply because I wouldn’t. Who is the immoral one now, I ask.
The thing about the pro-choice position is the paradoxical position of empathy and caring concerning the woman who only wants an abortion because she doesn’t want to have to make a commitment, and the hateful murdering and cold disposition of a helpless infant. They just seem like polar opposites, yet people seem to support them simultaneously. Don’t think I will ever understand it.
I have to say it again, to make sure you get it: It is not an infant, child, or baby. It is a fetus.
What matters most in this debate is the life of the person who will be forced to continue a pregnancy because it would make others uncomfortable if this person didn’t. Getting pregnant is a consequence and abortion is not an easy decision for most. Sometimes an abortion itself can be traumatic, especially with those who aim to harass the person in every way. But overall, a pregnancy should never be a punishment.
Again, it is a fetus. And you think people should give up our lives for mere insentient embryos and fetuses?
It seems that you need more education on this topic. The only reason a person would be saved during a late term abortion would be because the fetus is not viable to begin with. There is no reason for a person to simply die for a fetus that will not even be viable.
Not every person wants to be a parent. You may feel that way about parenting being enriching, but that does not mean simply feeling it will make someone else share that sentiment. It is self-centered to think otherwise.
You’re not even mentioning ectopic pregnancies.
No one excludes the option of adoption.
It’s a valid choice.
But there are still people who do not want to be pregnant for another nine months just to cast off this child to a most likely terrible life. There are already way too many unwanted children in the system, and this child would only be another one.
According to the National Adoption Information and National Family Survey, for every adoption seeker there are four children. Annually, there is about 500,000 adoption seekers, four times that is how much? How many unwanted children? You can do the math.
If abortion was made illegal, that’s a possibility of another 1.2 million+ unwanted children in the system.
People support the pro-choice movement on a factual and logical basis, and basic empathy for actual people who would actually experience suffering unlike a fetus being removed.
An embryo/fetus does not feel or think until well after 24 weeks, when it is wanted. But since pregnancy has several complications, more so than abortions, things happen. And sometimes, a fetus must be removed during a late term abortion. If it is viable, it will be saved.
Again, an embryo/fetus does not feel or think.
The person who you think should be forced into a pregnancy does feel and think.
I’m reblogging this for the FACTS & also the resource links