Home     Contact Us    
Main Board Job Seeker's Board Job Wanted Board Resume Bank Company Board Word Help Medquist New MTs Classifieds Offshore Concerns VR/Speech Recognition Tech Help Coding/Medical Billing
Gab Board Politics Comedy Stop Health Issues
ADVERTISEMENT




Serving Over 20,000 US Medical Transcriptionists

Just look at statistics on infant mortality rate for mothers without prenatal care - nm

Posted By: lall on 2009-05-01
In Reply to: Neither can be demonstrated. That's my point. - TechSupport

z


Complete Discussion Below: marks the location of current message within thread

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu


Other related messages found in our database

Funny thing about those infant mortality statistics.
Rather than my doing the homework for you, I'll let you scour around and see if you can identify the problems with comparative infant mortality statistics, saying only that they don't quite prove what a lot of people think or want them to prove.

((Hint: The problems start with the definitions of "prenatal care" and "infant mortality" - which are of course the main independent and dependent variables of interest, and only get worse from there.)
He wan't taking care of a 4-mo old Down infant
nm
It's not "infanticide". It's not a developed infant -
And where is YOUR 'tolerance', Church-Lady? If you wish to chose birth instead of terminating a pregnancy, that's YOUR right. But you and your little blinker-wearin', bible-quoting friends have NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to make that decision for anyone else. PERIOD.

Religious fanatics like yourself need to get over your inadequacies, throw away the 'crutch' you lean on so heavily, keep your noses out of others' personal lives, and get some of your own.
if the infant has been temporarily-alive-outside-the-womb
x
Oh, honey - compared to me, Maxine's an infant.
x
hope a lot of these posters are not mothers
because they would be horrible role models for the younger generation.
At the rate things are going.......... sm
I'm not sure if there is going to be any wealth to redistribute in this country before long.
Obama blocked the Born Alive Infant Protection Act....sm
He said there was a law on the books in Illinois to protect these babies. In this article, he says there was a bill federally that he *would have* voted for. He killed the bill in Illinois by sitting on it as head of the Health and Human Services Committee. Which is it, Obama?

Excerpted from CNS News: Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion presidential candidate ever.

He is so pro-abortion that he refused as an Illinois state senator to support legislation to protect babies who survived late-term abortions...

...State and federal versions of this bill became an issue earlier this decade because of "induced labor abortion." This is usually performed on a baby with Down's Syndrome or another problem discovered on the cusp of viability. A doctor medicates the mother to cause premature labor. Babies surviving labor are left untreated to die.

Jill Stanek, who was a nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill., testified in the U.S. Congress in 2000 and 2001 about how "induced labor abortions" were handled at her hospital.

"One night," she said in testimony entered into the Congressional Record, "a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived."

In 2001, Illinois state Sen. Patrick O'Malley introduced three bills to help such babies. One required a second physician to be present at the abortion to determine if a surviving baby was viable. Another gave the parents or a public guardian the right to sue to protect the baby's rights. A third, almost identical to the federal Born Alive Infant Protection Act President Bush signed in 2002, simply said a "homo sapiens" wholly emerged from his mother with a "beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord or definite movement of voluntary muscles" should be treated as a "'person,' 'human being,' 'child' and 'individual.'"

Stanek testified about these bills in the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee, where Obama served. She told me this week he was "unfazed" by her story of holding the baby who survived an induced labor abortion.

On the Illinois Senate floor, Obama was the only senator to speak against the baby-protecting bills. He voted "present" on each, effectively the same as a "no."

"Number one," said Obama, explaining his reluctance to protect born infants, "whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a -- a child, a 9-month old -- child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute."

That June, the U.S. Senate voted 98-0 in favor of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (although it failed to become law that year). Pro-abortion Democrats supported it because the following language was added: "Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being born alive as defined in this section."

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer explained that with this language the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

On July 18, 2002, Democratic Sen. Harry Reid called for the bill to be approved by unanimous consent. It was.

That same year, the Illinois version of the bill came up again. Obama voted "no."

In 2003, Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate. Obama became chairman of the Health and Human Services committee. The Born Alive Infant bill, now sponsored by Sen. Richard Winkel, was referred to this committee. Winkel also sponsored an amendment to make the Illinois bill identical to the federal law, adding -- word for word -- the language Barbara Boxer said protected Roe v. Wade. Obama still held the bill hostage in his committee, never calling a vote so it could be sent to the full senate.

A year later, when Republican U.S. senate candidate Alan Keyes challenged Obama in a debate for his opposition to the Born Alive Infant Bill, Obama said: "At the federal level there was a similar bill that passed because it had an amendment saying this does not encroach on Roe v. Wade. I would have voted for that bill."

In fact, Obama had personally killed exactly that bill. Source - CNS News
Men and woman and mothers and fathers are speaking now. sm
Many of whom have fought in Iraq.  They are on television right now. But you won't watch it. It would be too hard for you.  YOu would be screaming obscenities at them.  Do you know, they had to bleep out part of the antiwar march yesterday in DC because of the obscenities and vulgar language.  That is what you are, obscene and vulgar and unpatriotic.
Do you think all mothers would choose their life over their child's?
A serious question.
If you want a lower rate -- refinance it
If you're credit score is that good, you should have no problem securing a lower rate.  By the sounds of things, you've got it pretty well paid down.  Depending on the exact amount you owe, you could refinance it into a home equity loan, rather than a new mortgage, and end up only paying about $100 in closing costs.  Check with your current lender. 
No, I didn't....it was in response to all the attacks about unwed mothers..
but i guess you feel that is okay, right?
Obama values life of babies AND their mothers.
I am not in the habit of debating with brick walls, but I will address your issue directly just as soon as you come up with something that will convince me that McCain's air quotes demontrate high regard for human life. Kill the mom, save the baby, then watch while it pulls itself up by its bootstraps, lest we turn our beloved country into a welfare state. P-U.
Correct Marmann, and as MTs this will help our pay rate and jobs sm
If companies are rewarded for staying in the U.S., bye bye philipines and barbados and india for MT cheapo transcription. Hello USA hard working MTs finally making DECENT MONEY.
AND.... getting tax breaks.
Did everyone see the post below about the UK's gun ban and crime rate rising? sm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/1440764.stm


Use of gun-related crime increased 40% during the gun ban and smuggling of guns was rampant, along with people turning every possible object into a gun.  Not the answer obviously.


I get the single rate deducted from my pays (nm)
.
Where did these statistics come from?

 Just curious. The oil supply is still finite and it is our mindset that needs to change, not the search for more sites of drilling. ANWR is a bandaid which will do more harm that good. If you cannot wrap your mind around environmental issues, how about survival. The state of our environment is a good predictor of  our future. When the animals go, and the rivers go and the trees, etc. and all those other ridiculous things that conservatives believe to be an unnecessary bother to our quest for more, more, more...we go too. We are the stewards of our world but we live in it and rely on it too. Squander it, environment first, humans next. I realize it might not happen in our lifetime so who gives a flip but it will happen.


"Only after the last tree has been cut down, only after the last river has been poisoned, only after the last fish has been caught, only then will you find that money cannot be eaten." Cree Proverb


I know conservatives see this as tree-hugging drivel, but its true. No environment, no life.


Statistics don't lie. sm
In Franklin D. Roosevelt's sixth year in 1938, Democrats lost 71 seats in the House and six in the Senate.

In Dwight Eisenhower's sixth year in 1958, Republicans lost 47 House seats, 13 in the Senate.

In John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson's sixth year, Democrats lost 47 seats in the House and three in the Senate.

In Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford's sixth year in office in 1974, Republicans lost 43 House seats and three Senate seats.

Even America's greatest president, Ronald Reagan, lost five House seats and eight Senate seats in his sixth year in office.

But in the middle of what the media tell us is a massively unpopular war, the Democrats picked up about 30 House seats and five to six Senate seats in a sixth-year election, with lots of seats still too close to call. Only for half-brights with absolutely no concept of yesterday is this a tsunami -- as MSNBC calls it -- rather than the death throes of a dying party.

During eight years of Clinton -- the man Democrats tell us was the greatest campaigner ever, a political genius, a heartthrob, Elvis! -- Republicans picked up a total of 49 House seats and nine Senate seats in two midterm elections. Also, when Clinton won the presidency in 1992, his party actually lost 10 seats in the House -- only the second time in the 20th century that a party won the White House but lost seats in the House.

Meanwhile, the Democrats' epic victory this week, about which songs will be sung for generations, means that in two midterm elections Democrats were only able to pick up about 30 seats in the House and four seats in the Senate -- and that's assuming they pick up every seat that is currently too close to call. (The Democrats' total gain is less than this week's gain because Bush won six House and two Senate seats in the first midterm election.)

So however you cut it, this midterm proves that the Iraq war is at least more popular than Bill Clinton was.

Maybe statistics should say...
Maybe instead of statistics saying how many white, hispanics, blacks or whatever races there are in America (after all it doesn't matter what nationality your heritage is from as long as you pay your taxes), maybe a better poll (statistics or whatever you want to call it) would be to tell let us know how many illegals we have versus the people who came here and are legally working and paying their taxes like the rest of us. I could give a you know what about races. I come from a family of diverse people (grandmother born and raised in Puerto Rico, grandfather born and raised in Canada, other grandmother from England, and other grandfather from Ireland - but they all went through the correct channels to be American citizens and are legal and paid their taxes along with the rest of Americans.
Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect







Angry Mothers and Trembling Grizzlies: The Sheehan Effect
by Dr. Teresa Whitehurst


"Sheehan has been involved in protests against Bush since last year. She founded Gold Star Families for Peace...She said she decided to seek another audience with Bush when she heard his comments about the war last week, after a spike in American deaths. The fallen men and women "died in a noble cause," Bush said Wednesday. "Their families can know that we will honor their loved ones' sacrifice by completing the mission."


"Sheehan said she wants to tell Bush not to use her son's death as a reason to continue the war, and to ask "why (Bush's twin daughters) Jenna and Barbara and the other children of the architects of this disastrous war are not in harm's way, if the cause is so noble." ArmyTimes.com, August 8, 2005


For some, Cindy Sheehan's lonely journey through the shock and sorrow of her son Casey's death in Iraq is of no interest. What, they ask, is the big deal? One soldier killed, one mother grieving – so what? Mothers have no business meddling in the manly business of war, or expressing inconvenient, disloyal, unpatriotic feelings like grief or anger. Get over it, critics command, and think about "the mission" instead, a mission that "we should see through" so that other people can't make fun of us for "cutting and running."


Instead of focusing on one poor misguided woman, or on how many more Americans and innocent Iraqi families will be killed in this war, we're told to think about how great it will be when other people admire us for killing every terrorist and future terrorist in the whole wide world. Instead of thinking about the new fundamentalist Islamic "democracy" that Bush's war has ushered in for the poor girls and women of Iraq, think about "the good news" way, way down the road when they get used to wearing the burqa and live happily ever after. In short, Americans should focus on "the big picture."


But for mothers – even those who've tried valiantly to believe the president when he exclaims that the war on Iraq is a "noble cause" – there IS no big picture. For mothers of slain soldiers, there are only little pictures: their lost child smiling at 10 months in his high chair; riding his first bike without training wheels; opening Christmas presents (Hot Wheels, Transformers, or GI Joe); and making silly faces for the camera.


The little picture encompasses all those times when parents stay up all night with their sick children, or protect them from bullies, or wipe away their tears after a friend's rejection. It's not just the happy times that mothers remember, it's the multitude of little moments, little pictures in a parent's mind, of time and love invested in one's offspring. When this enormous investment is squandered by reckless military adventures that zip kids into body bags, parents are owed great compensation. And they are owed the truth.


Do George and Laura Bush ever imagine how it would feel if all they had left of their beloved child was, as Cindy Sheehan has, a few snapshots and an abyss of sorrow in their hearts? Must they suppress their natural compassion in order to convince themselves of their own administration's spin – that it's "worth it" when American kids die far away from home for reasons that have consistently turned out to be false?


Do the Bushes feel the earth tremble beneath their feet at the mere thought that thousands of parents of slain soldiers are beginning to ask questions, to see the folly for which their children died…to find their voice?


Cindy remembers the little picture, which is why George has been hiding from her. She is his worst nightmare, for she is not just Cindy Sheehan, mother of Casey. She is Every Mother. And, no matter how uncomfortable it gets, she's not going to dishonor her son by saying, "Well okay, if you say so, I guess this war was worth my boy's life."


Support Our Wars or Else


What does it really mean to "honor" a soldier's death…and life? To say that he or she willingly died "to end terrorism" (impossible), or "make Iraq a democracy" (ditto)? Unless they were suicidal when they enlisted (I know one boy who was), dying in Iraq is not the soldier's "sacrifice" because by definition, a sacrifice is something that we choose and willingly make. Most young people never imagined when they enlisted – often for reasons their recruiters understood but their parents didn't, such as finding a sense of belonging, or escaping bad neighborhoods or dead-end jobs, or finding a way to afford college some day – that they'd be dead within a matter of months.


To swallow ridiculous, ever-changing reasons for the futile war that has killed over 1800 idealistic youths with their whole lives ahead of them is to take the easy, socially acceptable way out. Pro-war pundits and politicians constantly threaten parents with social disapproval and even hatred if they dare to question those reasons – and it's worked for a long time. Parents have felt pressured to mouth the hawks' lines, lest their love for their child be called into question.


What a devilishly mean but perfect system for subduing the parents of fallen soldiers! Politicians and talk show hosts threaten: "Support our troops (the war), or we'll accuse you of dishonoring your dead child." The last thing that worried or grieving parents can bear is the suggestion that they're "dishonoring" the memory of the one they love. And so they have acquiesced. They have submitted. Archie Bunker would be pleased: Like Edith, they've learned to stifle themselves.


Until now.


Protective Fury: The Tipping Point


One day, back when Americans lived in peace and we'd never even heard of the Bush dynasty or the plotting neocons whose reckless ambitions it would serve, I was watching a nature show about grizzly bears in their natural habitat. I will never forget one particularly electrifying scene that comes to mind whenever I hear about Cindy Sheehan's vigil outside Mr. Bush's gated compound.


A large male grizzly came upon two adorable little grizzly cubs, who looked up at him with wonder and naivete; clearly, they didn't realize the danger they were in. To my great surprise, however, the male grizzly stood bolt upright as though startled, then starting running away from those harmless little cubs. Why on earth did he do that, I wondered. The narrator explained that the male knew instinctively that there's nothing more dangerous than a mother grizzly who senses that her cubs may be harmed.


As the huge male ran off into the woods, the narrator continued: "While the male grizzly is larger and could probably kill the female, he knows that in the process, her protective fury would leave him seriously, if not mortally, wounded. Mother grizzly bears will fight to the death for their young, ripping the flesh of any animal, no matter how large, that threatens their cubs. Coming upon the youngsters frightened the adult male so badly that he ran and hid because the mother, unseen but without a doubt somewhere near by, could at any moment sniff his presence and roar into action."


Human males can also sense danger, and know very well the hazards of facing protective mothers – particularly when other mothers are watching, too. This explains why the mainstream media has worked so hard to make antiwar parents of fallen soldiers look pitiful, and why George Bush is hiding inside his compound, hoping that Ms. Sheehan will lose interest and go away.


But what the president doesn't understand is this: She's not going to lose interest, and furthermore it isn't just Cindy Sheehan anymore. Parents of servicemen and women all over the country are beginning to see the little picture again. This is the tipping point, a showdown fueled by motherly devotion that will embolden other families to start questioning the integrity and fitness of this administration and this president: It's what I call the Sheehan Effect.


And that's the worst news ever for a man who can only see the "the mission," the big picture, and how noble it will look under "Bush, George W." in the history books.


British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat sm
British Government Says Mothers With Babies New Terror Threat
You're either with us, or you're with the babies.

British government security advisors and the national media are doing their level best to strike rampant irrational paranoid terror into the hearts of UK citizens by identifying the latest targets of the war on terror as pregnant women and toddlers.

Absurd delirious fearmongering continues in the British media with the Sun tabloid, Britain's most braindead and unfortunately also most popular newspaper screaming, HATE-filled mums willing to sacrifice themselves and their BABIES are being hunted in the war on terror.

Yes that's right you haven't slipped into an upside down parallel universe - pregnant women and mothers with young babies are the new Al-Qaeda.

The evidence?

The nightmare is that mums carrying tiny tots would provide “very good cover” and not raise suspicions among even the most alert security guards.

The Sun cited a senior Government security adviser as their source.

So let's ignore that guy with the turban who looks like Mohammed Atta and instead focus our magic screening wand on Mrs. Smith and her newborn infant.

Extra pat downs for young mums and making toddlers take their shoes off - boy do I feel safer now.

What's the next threat? Barney the purple dinosaur?

Of course we know what this is all designed to accomplish - it's about broadening the terrorist definition to the point where everyone's a suspect and everybody's behavior is under preposterous and suffocating scrutiny.

The implication that the most benign, harmless and innocent members of our society could in actuality be terrorist suicide bombers is a sick ploy crafted to ensure that absolutely no one is allowed to escape the self-regulating stench of being under suspicion.

It is also intended to brainwash the population that terrorists are potentially hiding under their beds, that they are everywhere and that only by a system of reporting suspicious behavior and unquestionably trusting the government will they too avoid the accusing finger.

This is classic Cold War style behavioral conditioning and the Neo-Fascist architects know exactly what they're doing.

Despite the status of alert returning to previous levels in both the US and the UK, ridiculous restrictions on travelers remain in place. Every time a new bout of fearmongering washes over a stupefied public, they are more pliable to new ways of being shoved around by government enforcers, even after the alleged plot has been foiled.

The fearmongering never subsides, it is always ratcheted up another peg in anticipation for future manufactured threats.
The future of airport security?

Why don't they just ban any luggage, clothing or personal accessories whatsoever and have done with it? Better yet - why not strap every passenger into a straight jacket from the moment they enter the airport?

In Knoxville, TSA officials are testing a biometric scanner device which interrogates passengers about their 'hostile intent' by asking a barrage of questions. If you thought the current delays and blanket 'everybody's a criminal terrorist' attitude were annoying enough, you ain't seen nothing yet.

In a similar example to the mothers and babies mindlessness, the London Guardian reports that located in the tranquil and peaceful rural surroundings of the British Lake District and Yorkshire Dales are terrorist training camps where Al-Qaeda devotees are preparing for their next big attack.

What's next? Bomb making factories under the Atlantic Ocean? Islamo Fascist brainwashing schools at the North Pole?

The sheer stupidity implicit in the Guardian article is bewildering. If the police haven't even questioned the alleged terrorists, allowing them to gather evidence of terrorist activity, because they're conducting covert surveillance of the group then why in God's name have they told a national newspaper, who in turn have splashed the story all over their front page?

If these supposed terrorists didn't know they were under surveillance before then they sure do now!

I live on the edge of the Peak District nearby the kind of areas being fingered as terrorist training areas. The closest thing to Al-Qaeda like activity up here is when a discourteous rambler leaves a farm gate open.

Again, it's about people who live in the country being smothered with the same raving paranoia and cockamamie fearmongering city-dwellers are subjected to. Woe betide anyone living in a converted barn house in the middle of miles and miles of wilderness think they can escape the war on terror - it applies to anything!

Baby formula, lip gloss, mothers and toddlers included.




If we are going to rule abortion wrong, then we must support these babies and mothers who cannot do
Everyone says that there is no circumstance where an abortion would be validated, and that may well be very true, but....if we then say no to social programs to pay for food, clothing, lodging, education, warmth, etc. that the baby and mother will be needing for years, money for daycare if the mom needs to work, money for work programs for more jobs, money for educational programs like CETA for job training so the mommy, and then her child, can affod to be trained in something they can use to be employable, and of course the money it takes to give prenatal care, postnatal care, hospititalization, NICU if needed, and pediatric and well care, ...... if a woman is not in the circumstance to do this and she has no family that can provide for her and the baby, then where is the money to come from, if we are not going to put our $$$ where our collective "mouths" are and find judicious, accountable social programs to fund this all???????
I'd be happy if they just reduced everybody's mortgage rate to a fixed 3%. sm
Then everyone is still responsible for the debt they took on, yet they're still getting a break. It would free up a couple hundred bucks a month for me, which I could then use elsewhere to stimulate the economy. Fewer foreclosures, banks are still getting their money.
I seriously doubt your statistics.
And the truth is, the man whose article you posted has an agenda.  I don't listen to things like this from either side.  Conspiracy theories are tiresome.
Statistics can be spun anyway you want.
none
depression statistics

This sounds familiar:


 


http://eh.net/Clio/Publications/unemployment.html


The statistics lie then? Dont think so. They are
nm
Some interesting statistics

Cost breakdown between House and Senate"


http://www.c-span.org/special/econ_stimulus2.aspx 


How much each state will get:


http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-STIMULUS0109.html 


 


 


And where do you get your statistics, other than Canada?
#
And where do you get your statistics, other than Canada?
#
Stem cell research has no proven cure rate.
I remember years and years ago when animal experimentation was being protested.  I saw this fellow who was a soap opera actor.  He was crying and crying because they wanted to stop torturing animals to find cures.  His son had diabetes and he said they were THIS CLOSE to finding a cure.  that had to be at least 25 years ago.  Millions of animals have died and there is no cure for diabetes.  So when does it end? 
OMG. Fine...go look at the crime statistics.
nm
Abortion Rate Continues to Drop, at Lowest Level Since 1976

Abortion: Just the Data
With High-Court Debate Brewing, New Report Shows Procedure's Numbers Down


By Naseem Sowti
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 19, 2005; HE01


A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.


In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.


The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.


With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.


"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.


Who Gets Abortions?


Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.


The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.


Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:


· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.


· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.


· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.


This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).


She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.


· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.


· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.


Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.


· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.


About the Data


There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.


Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.


Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.


Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.


Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·


Resources


For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."


For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.


Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").


© 2005 The Washington Post Company


Apparently you don't understand statistics or science. Get educated, please!!

 


It's not scientifically sound to make pseudo-scientific statements about U.S. obesity based on a television program you saw that featured some obese people in it.  But it seems when it comes to scientific fact, statistics or the truth - you CONS don't have a clue.


 


Rankings: Obesity Rates Grew In Every State But Oregon


Mississippi Ranked Heaviest State



POSTED: 8:29 am PDT August 23, 2005

UPDATED: 9:34 am PDT August 23, 2005


The obesity epidemic isn't winding down -- in fact, it's expanding, according to state rankings released Tuesday by Trust for America's Health, a nonprofit health advocacy group.

Obesity rates continued to rise last year in every state but Oregon. Mississippi ranked as the heaviest state, Colorado as the least heavy, according to the report, titled F as in Fat: How Obesity Policies are Failing in America, 2005.

The rankings are based on averages of three years of data from 2002 to 2004 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Hawaii was not included in the report.

About 64.5 percent of adult Americans are either overweight or obese. The report found that more than 25 percent of adults in 10 states are obese, including in Mississippi, Alabama, West Virginia, Louisiana, Tennessee, Texas, Michigan, Kentucky, Indiana and South Carolina.

Mississippi, A Hotbed of Abstinence Education, Now Boasts Highest Teen Pregnancy Rate
The Centers for Disease Control released a new report today that found that Mississippi “now has the nation’s highest teen pregnancy rate, displacing Texas and New Mexico for that lamentable title.” The report found that in 2006, the Mississippi teen pregnancy rate was over 60 percent higher than the national average and increased 13 percent since the year before.
While the new report does not explain why the state’s teen pregnancy rate is increasing, one reason may be the poor quality of its sex ed programs. As the Sexuality Information and Education Center explains, Mississippi focuses heavily on abstinence education and teachers are prohibited from demonstrating how to use contraceptives:
Mississippi schools are not required to teach sexuality education or sexually transmitted disease (STD)/HIV education. If schools choose to teach either or both forms of education, they must stress abstinence-until-marriage, including “the likely negative psychological and physical effects of not abstaining.” […]
If the school board authorizes the teaching of contraception, state law dictates that the failure rates and risks of each contraceptive method must be included and “in no case shall the instruction or program include any demonstration of how condoms or other contraceptives are applied.
A reporter for ABC News’s Jackson, MS affiliate explained, “The Mississippi Department of Human Services says abstinence is the only birth control that is 100 percent effective. And that’s the only message teens need to hear.” Unfortunately, numerous studies show that abstinence-only education is not effective. As one study found:
Teenagers who pledge to remain virgins until marriage are just as likely to have premarital sex as those who do not promise abstinence and are significantly less likely to use condoms and other forms of birth control when they do, according to a study released today.
Further, a review by the House Oversight Committee found that “80% of the abstinence-only curricula…contain false, misleading, or distorted information about reproductive health.”
Pregnant teens in Mississippi face few options. Access to facilities that provide abortions in that state is extremely limited. Indeed, because of an unusually effective anti-choice campaign in the legislature, only a single abortion clinic remains open in the state.

UpdateThe report also found that the teen pregnancy rate is rising fastest in Alaska, where Gov. Sarah Palin (R) is a strong proponent of abstinence-only sex ed.

who could possibly care? War, financial ruin, health care needs.

nm


 


Well, I care. I also care about the constitution.nm
nm
I don't really care. sm
It just seems it has been carried on long enough.  I would rather just debate.  It sounds more like a grudge, but as I said, just my 2 cents. 
I don't really care!!! SM
All of you all need to stay over here and try and find some topics to discuss like is happening tonight. 
Do you think I care what you think of me? sm

Get over yourself.  Grow up.  Learn how to behave on an adult chat board.  Stop lying. You are such a liar.  I mean, lying all over the place.  It's really terrible. You need help.


 


How does it feel?


I don't care about that. sm
That is insignificant to what is going on in the world right now.
I don't care either
Just pointing out what a fool you are making of yourself in talking about things you have absolutely no clue about, but if it's a fool you want to be so be it. At least you're a good source of laughs for those of us living in reality.

Liberal church--that's an oxymoron isn't it?

Man, that was very Coulter of me.


And I care...not! nm
x
why do you even care?

Would you prefer to punish the child she is carrying by offering no prenatal care?  Would you sleep better if that woman went back to Mexico where her baby will receive no care at all?  Did you ever stop to think that someone in your family was once an immigrant?  Illegals don't pay taxes?  If they work, they have taxes taken out of of their check and that is free money to the government that they are not eligible to ever collect once they are old. 


Republicans are going to want to keep the illegals here to benefit big business (cheap labor) and democrats are going to want to help them, so either way, nothing will be done.  


Why do I care?
You know why I care? Because me along with my husband work our a**** off to make it. When I got accidentally pregnant at the age of 20 and had no ins. do you think Medicaid paid for me to have my baby? NO!! I didn't qualify because my husband made too much and believe me you don't have to make much to make TOO much. Well we worked our asses off and took on the responsibility for what had happened and paid for our baby. Nobody GAVE me nothing! And I am a citizen here. She does nothing but milks the system. And no taxes are not held out of her check where she works. I guess it is called contract labor. I don't know. She is ILLEGAL! Why hasn't she been shipped back to MEXICO? Our country is having to close hospitals because of people like HER!! That is why I care. Our country is going to h*** in a hurry. And it is people like you who say well what about prenatal care for the poor little illegal Mexican? If I hadn't had the money to pay for my prenatal care, guess what? I wouldn't have had any. It is not our country's responsibility to take care of every 3rd world person who comes over here for their handout. We have American citizens who can't even get benefits when truth be known some do need them. They can't get them but you let a d*** illegal Mexican stroll up in there and the world stops to kiss their a**. Hundreds of years ago someone in my family was an immigrant but they didn't sneak and scam to get what they had. They worked and did it the right way.
Cheap labor? What do you mean cheap labor?? These illegals come over here and they don't want our cheap jobs, they want the good ones Americans need. Makes my blood boil!

I should care what you think?
Not in the slightest. I don't care that you think I'm ignorant and I don't care if you don't like my posts.
Then why do you think any of us care what
?
I don't care what you think....sm
But some intelligent posters (on both sides) do care what the military on the ground, over in Iraq and Afgahanistan, how they truly think and feel.

Not just what the media feeds you.

I care what the troops on the ground, themselves, think and feel.


And let me say again...No....I don't care what you think, as obviously you don't think much at all. All you do is attack.

Kaydie was right. All that a couple of you of you dems on this do is attack, attack, attack....what children you are.


still don't care
just because she is on the committee of anything, doesn't make her opinion any better than mine.
I care very much for how this came to be. sm
To be able to fix this, we need to understand where it started, who started it, who continued it, who tried to fix it but were stopped (I think it was 12 times Bush tried to pass legislation to help, and dems shot him down each time...but no, we don't hear about that, do we), it's important which candidates now had a hand in it, which ones still do, which ones are blaming the wrong people.

It goes on and on.

Give me Republican names that contributed to this, and I will condemn them just as much. Give me Republican names of CEOs and fat cats on Wall Street who perpetuated this fraud, and I care if they did.


The truth is, there are a few Republicans that stood in the way, as well, but the dems far outweigh them, and when they had many, many changes to fix this before it occurred, they did nothing to help it.

And just today, the main players in this mess, Sen. Dodd et al., pontificate and blast everyone but themselves in a Senate haring, when they are the very ones, on the very committees and oversight, that did next to nothing, except line their own pockets.

That to me, is a disgrace, and disgusting.


Yes, I care very, very much about who did this, and how it happened. It matters.



And the only thing that will be remembered, is that it happened under Bush, and he will be blamed for all of it.


The dems will be given a free pass, yet again.





And we care what you think?
I care what everybody thinks, that's how I learn. Unfortunately, I think your thinking is wrong, nothing wrong with disagreeing. Obama needs to be honest about his past, his entire past, and everything he has had his hands in. Something is not right with him.