• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

CDC:Teen Abortions Lower in States Accepting Abstinence$

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
CDC Figures Show Teen Abortions Lower in States Accepting Abstinence Funds

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 13, 2009

Email RSS Print

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new report relying on data from the Centers for Disease Control finds the states that accepted abstinence education funding saw greater reductions in teen abortions compared to states that didn't. The information provides another argument in favor of funding abstinence education programs.

The Texas-based pro-life group San Antonio Coalition for Life has put out the new report and it compared CDC abortion figures to the list of states accepting or rejecting the funds.

From 2001 through 2005, abortion advocates were successful in getting 17 states to reject the federal grants for abstinence funding. The results show they were worse off for their decisions.

For teen girls under the age of 15, the CDC figures showed a 7.5% decrease in abortions in states rejecting the abstinence funding but a larger 23.1 percent decrease in abortions among states accepting the grants.

Examined another way, the group says, "The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 208% greater reduction in abortions among girls 14 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education."

Overall, abortions on girls under 15 were 37.3 percent higher in states that rejected the monies.

The group also examined the abortion rates for teenage girls between the ages of 15 and 19.

While states rejecting the funding saw a 5.2 percent decrease in abortions, states accepting the funds experienced a much larger 20.5 percent decrease.

Viewed another way, states accepting abstinence funding showed a 294.2% greater reduction in abortions among girls 19 years old and younger compared with states that rejected the funds.

"Overall, the teen abortion rate among girls 19 years old and younger for states which rejected abstinence only funding was 48.2% higher than in states which had accepted funding," the group indicated.

Jill Stanek, a pro-life nurse and blogger, noted the study and said the results have significant consequences for abortion and abstinence policy.

"What I'd like to know is when the Obama administration will prove they truly want 'common ground' by endorsing the benefits of abstinence education," Stanek said. "Oh, but wait, that type of education won't line the pockets of the abortion industry or Planned Parenthood. No wonder their denial is so strong."

She said members of Congress should have paid attention to these figures before making decisions to cut abstinence funds.

"Even with these facts (certainly not publicized by the mainstream media) from the CDC, a Senate Panel voted to effectively end abstinence-only education funding," she said.

"With all of their crowing about how 'abstinence education doesn't work,' pro-aborts may want to take note," she says.

States rejecting the abstinence funding included Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

http://www.lifenews.com/printpage.php
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
CDC Figures Show Teen Abortions Lower in States Accepting Abstinence Funds

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 13, 2009

Email RSS Print

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A new report relying on data from the Centers for Disease Control finds the states that accepted abstinence education funding saw greater reductions in teen abortions compared to states that didn't. The information provides another argument in favor of funding abstinence education programs.

The Texas-based pro-life group San Antonio Coalition for Life has put out the new report and it compared CDC abortion figures to the list of states accepting or rejecting the funds.

From 2001 through 2005, abortion advocates were successful in getting 17 states to reject the federal grants for abstinence funding. The results show they were worse off for their decisions.

For teen girls under the age of 15, the CDC figures showed a 7.5% decrease in abortions in states rejecting the abstinence funding but a larger 23.1 percent decrease in abortions among states accepting the grants.

Examined another way, the group says, "The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 208% greater reduction in abortions among girls 14 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education."

Overall, abortions on girls under 15 were 37.3 percent higher in states that rejected the monies.

The group also examined the abortion rates for teenage girls between the ages of 15 and 19.

While states rejecting the funding saw a 5.2 percent decrease in abortions, states accepting the funds experienced a much larger 20.5 percent decrease.

Viewed another way, states accepting abstinence funding showed a 294.2% greater reduction in abortions among girls 19 years old and younger compared with states that rejected the funds.

"Overall, the teen abortion rate among girls 19 years old and younger for states which rejected abstinence only funding was 48.2% higher than in states which had accepted funding," the group indicated.

Jill Stanek, a pro-life nurse and blogger, noted the study and said the results have significant consequences for abortion and abstinence policy.

"What I'd like to know is when the Obama administration will prove they truly want 'common ground' by endorsing the benefits of abstinence education," Stanek said. "Oh, but wait, that type of education won't line the pockets of the abortion industry or Planned Parenthood. No wonder their denial is so strong."

She said members of Congress should have paid attention to these figures before making decisions to cut abstinence funds.

"Even with these facts (certainly not publicized by the mainstream media) from the CDC, a Senate Panel voted to effectively end abstinence-only education funding," she said.

"With all of their crowing about how 'abstinence education doesn't work,' pro-aborts may want to take note," she says.

States rejecting the abstinence funding included Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

http://www.lifenews.com/printpage.php

Hypo wise up on this. If the conservatives should really think about this they might want to kill the Abstinence only plan and go for full scale birth control and sex education and Abortions available for each woman that wanted one after all a conservative should see that is her body and her's to control alone without any interference that should be one of her freedoms. And also all conservative's kids are taught not to have sex, they are taught family values and sent to church to find out what is right in God's eyes and what is not. This is taught in the home and Church. Conservative kids are the only ones who are virgin at the time of marriage. Better hope a pedophile priest is not teaching the kids. Because of this teaching a conservative kid should be able to sit through a sex education class without it affecting them. Now here is what will make this work for the conservatives so well it will take time several generations or so. Liberal's raise their kids to have sex not believe in God and such. Now if abortions were available only the liberals would be aborting because they were the only ones that had sex and became pregnant. You see each time a liberal aborted there would be one less little liberal to grow up and mess up the conservative's perfect world. Finally as time went by there would be no liberals only conservatives then the world would be perfect for you. No taxes, no run away government, interfering in your lives. The ones of you that died would be in heaven with the rest of the conservatives. You better pray that God is conservative instead of a liberal.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
why not a combination of abstinence/birth control/abortion?

Why should this be a political issue? It should be a parental issue.

What did you teach your kids? Did they take responsibility for themselves or did the taxpayer?

If it's going to be a political issue...Dem vs. Repub.

....abstinence education works, why should funding be cut? If both abstinence and abortion reach the same goal, why should either funding be cut?

Which option costs the taxpayer more

Which has the most detrimental affect on the teen, abortion or abstinence?

Which are you hoping will work, to reduce teen pregnancies?

While states rejecting the funding saw a 5.2 percent decrease in abortions, states accepting the funds experienced a much larger 20.5 percent decrease.

Does the education cost more or less than the results?

Abortions available for each woman that wanted one after all a conservative should see that is her body and her's to control alone without any interference that should be one of her freedoms

this caught my attention, if it is a woman's choice, then why should the taxpayer pay for it? If it is an individual choice, then why does the Health Care reform bill take away the choice whether you carry Insurance or not?

I agree choice means freedom to choose, why are the Democrats trying to take that freedom away?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
hypocritexposer said:
why not a combination of abstinence/birth control/abortion?

Why should this be a political issue? It should be a parental issue.

What did you teach your kids? Did they take responsibility for themselves or did the taxpayer?

If it's going to be a political issue...Dem vs. Repub.

....abstinence education works, why should funding be cut? If both abstinence and abortion reach the same goal, why should either funding be cut?

Which option costs the taxpayer more

Which has the most detrimental affect on the teen, abortion or abstinence?

Which are you hoping will work, to reduce teen pregnancies?

While states rejecting the funding saw a 5.2 percent decrease in abortions, states accepting the funds experienced a much larger 20.5 percent decrease.

Does the education cost more or less than the results?

Abortions available for each woman that wanted one after all a conservative should see that is her body and her's to control alone without any interference that should be one of her freedoms

this caught my attention, if it is a woman's choice, then why should the taxpayer pay for it? If it is an individual choice, then why does the Health Care reform bill take away the choice whether you carry Insurance or not?

I agree choice means freedom to choose, why are the Democrats trying to take that freedom away?

Please post the section of the Health care bill that has to with abortions
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Is she misinformed, or just hopeful that elective abortions will be covered?


Democrat Congresswoman admits abortion covered under HR 3200
Aug 12, 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTYvK4h44RU

since what this Congresswoman is essentially saying is that abortion is an absolute right, and therefore should not be denied by any insurance, private or otherwise.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
What i do not understand is you folks cry for less goverment intrusion into your personal lives but yet you are ok with themto knowing what is between a women and her doctor....It should be no ones business what medical procedures any person has done....It is simply not anyones business but the doctors and the patients ....Or has your tunes changed and you want more government involvement in you personal matters?..
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
They haven't changed whatsoever on my part Nonothing. If a woman wants to have an abortion, consult with a doctor, pay for it and deal with the consequences.

Why should taxpayers fund abortions, if it is her business and her business alone?

Why should the Government have access to those records?

Both things that are included in the Health Care reform bill.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
They haven't changed whatsoever on my part Nonothing. If a woman wants to have an abortion, consult with a doctor, pay for it and deal with the consequences.

Why should taxpayers fund abortions, if it is her business and her business alone?

Why should the Government have access to those records?

Both things that are included in the Health Care reform bill.


So your ok with Abortion if it is not government funded?...As its not yours or the governments business?...
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
A woman's choice, I don't have a problem with it. A doctor should also have the choice if he/she performs abortions.

No Government funding. Tax dollars should not go towards her choice, or clinics that help her with her choice.

Now in saying that, this thread is about teenage abortions and the effectiveness of abstinence education.

This study shows that abstinence education reduces the number of abortions, a worthy cause in my opinion.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
nonothing said:
hypocritexposer said:
They haven't changed whatsoever on my part Nonothing. If a woman wants to have an abortion, consult with a doctor, pay for it and deal with the consequences.

Why should taxpayers fund abortions, if it is her business and her business alone?

Why should the Government have access to those records?

Both things that are included in the Health Care reform bill.


So your ok with Abortion if it is not government funded?...As its not yours or the governments business?...

Abortion goes against my values. You expect me to pay for it. It is not my choice and I am free to express my opinion.

Do you support terrorists? What if Obama forced you to buy them bombs? What if he forced you to buy matches for an arsonist?

Widespread abortion is wrong in my opinion. Don't come back with your rape and incest obortion remarks and try to change the subject. We are talking abortion on demand (thus far). I am against it and I don't want to pay for it.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
backhoeboogie said:
nonothing said:
hypocritexposer said:
They haven't changed whatsoever on my part Nonothing. If a woman wants to have an abortion, consult with a doctor, pay for it and deal with the consequences.

Why should taxpayers fund abortions, if it is her business and her business alone?

Why should the Government have access to those records?

Both things that are included in the Health Care reform bill.


So your ok with Abortion if it is not government funded?...As its not yours or the governments business?...

Abortion goes against my values. You expect me to pay for it. It is not my choice and I am free to express my opinion.

Do you support terrorists? What if Obama forced you to buy them bombs? What if he forced you to buy matches for an arsonist?

Widespread abortion is wrong in my opinion. Don't come back with your rape and incest obortion remarks and try to change the subject. We are talking abortion on demand (thus far). I am against it and I don't want to pay for it.

What if he forced you to buy bombs for terrorist?......Are you that F$%king stupid?...If you were a JW you would not believe in blood transfusions,so should that not be paid for with thier tax dollars.?....Just because your beliefs are against something does not make it tax exempted...

Each Abortion is an individaul case..you should not even know about it unless the women invovled tells you...I have no Idea what would make a women abort but I am not the one to judge her.....Like you seem to be..
 

alice

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Oh yes, forget, if you're sick and without health insurance it's your fault. You caused an economy where there are no jobs. You caused whatever cancer you have.

I'm sure they don't consciously think they blame the victim but it's ubiquitous in these threads.

Compassionate is not a virtue these people admire.

I'm sure they don't consciously think they blame the victim but it's ubiquitous in these threads.

You give these people more credit than I, R2.

Alice
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
Oh yes, forget, if you're sick and without health insurance it's your fault. You caused an economy where there are no jobs. You caused whatever cancer you have.

I'm sure they don't consciously think they blame the victim but it's ubiquitous in these threads.

Compassionate is not a virtue these people admire.

A liberal has no call wagging their finger at a conservative and preaching about compassion. Conservatives donate more of their wealth than liberals do. Where is the liberal compassion? Oh, yeah, their compassion goes only as far as somebody else's checkbook.

You libs seem to think that everybody's job, wealth, etc.... is decided by a draw from a hat. If you have a crappy job and no money, it's just because you drew a low card. How unfortunate. "Here, this guy drew a Jack, we'll take some of his wealth and give it to you, just because he has it and you don't."

There are times that I do blame the "victim". When I see people in soup lines getting a free meal because they can't afford one, but there they are taking pictures with their cell phones, yes, I blame them. I want to take that cell phone, shove it someplace, and explain to them the difference between a luxury and a neccessity - and what comes first.
 

MsSage

Well-known member
reader ...what you keep failing to see is the cause .......you can see the effect but can not look back to the cause.'
Take you responce to me about Hitler ...you only see the holocaust you can not look back and se the cause of it.......
You only see the abortion not the cause of it.....
WHen you teach children( yes these are children we are talking about) the effect of their actions most will listen. No all will not listen and they have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
Same goes for adults if they take a job for whatever reason that does not offer health insurance they know the effects of the decission of not either saving or purchasing their own health insurance is they have to pay for everything out of their own pocket BUT some as the children play the "oh poor me" and want someone else to pay the Dr.

This whole country has gotten away from Self Responsiblity and not many are willing to accept the effect of their actions...........

Remember things dot "just happen" there is always a cause
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
reader (the Second) said:
This is part and parcel of the "holier than thou" attitude of the narrow minded.

They know that other people are inferior -- if you're poor, it's your fault. If you are pregnant and having a child without a brain, it's your fault. All those millions of people who are just well "not nice".

What amazes me is how they call themselves religious people and yet loathe and look down upon the poor and the needy. That seems the antithesis of what Christ taught.

Facts are Conservative give more to charity to help the poor, they volunteer to work more to help the poor. The fact is Churches are the ones doing more to help feed and provide shelter and medical care to the poor at home and around the world.

20/20 already proved this point with their show on who gives the most!

Don't try to demonize Conservatives because they want to add the Poor baby inside the moms womb to that list of those they want to help!
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
nonothing said:
What i do not understand is you folks cry for less goverment intrusion into your personal lives but yet you are ok with themto knowing what is between a women and her doctor....It should be no ones business what medical procedures any person has done....It is simply not anyones business but the doctors and the patients ....Or has your tunes changed and you want more government involvement in you personal matters?..

I think you are confusing a libertarian with a Conservative, you may want to do a little more studying on the differences! Sure Conservatives want less Government intervention in our lives but it is the Libertarian takes it to the level in which you try to paint.

Conservatives realize there needs to be some laws to regulate order. They also believe that an unborn baby inside the mothers womb deserves rights. Look at late term abortion, the only difference in a living baby and a dead one is rather its protected inside a few inches of flesh. If the baby was delivered that day it most times would live to be a healthy youth, but since they pull the head out an inch or so and drill a hole in the top of its head and suck the brains out it will be born dead instead. If the baby is not a living being then why do they have to suck he brains out before delivering it all the way?

Conservatives believe in laws to protect the individual including unborn babies. Libertarians are the ones that believe in virtually no intrusion into personal lives!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Has a conservative ever had an abortion? Are the liberals the only ones having the abortions?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
Has a conservative ever had an abortion? Are the liberals the only ones having the abortions?

If a person received an abortion then they would not be socially conservative, they may be a Fiscal Conservative but not a Social Conservative!
 
Top