South Dakota Bans Abortion..Oh Wait

[Busyman™]

I read this today; from a 4/22 column by Robert Novak.

This is the sort of thing the liberal media tends to overlook, as it would provide the type of "balance" to their reportage which has the effect of turning conventional thought on it's head.

So to speak.

ABORTION FUZZY MATH

The widely publicized claim by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton that state-funded contraception aid cuts down abortion as prevention of unwanted pregnancies is contradicted by figures from the same abortion think tank the senators relied on for an April 18 op-ed in the Albany, N.Y., Times Union.

The Alan Guttmacher Institute reports that California spends more than three times as much on contraception as South Dakota for each woman who requests such services. However, California's rate of abortion per one thousand women is 31.2 percent, nearly six times as high as South Dakota's 5.5 percent.

Reid and Clinton chided South Dakota for passing an anti-abortion law while being "one of the most difficult states" for low-income women to get contraceptive devices, which the senators claim drives up abortion.

Good find. The only way contraception works is if it's used EVERY time. One slip up and all that state funded contraception to reduce the pregnancy rate means shit.

She fucks with contraception today
She fucks with contraception tomorrow
The next day she doesn't. Boom. Pregnant.

The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.

I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.

[j2k4]

Maybe in Novak Land, this comparison makes sense. Contraceptives are widely available in California, but California has plenty of abortions. South Dakota barely spends anything on making contraception available, and yet, the state has one of the lowest abortion rates in the country. This, as far as Novak is concerned, helps prove that Dems are wrong — if less contraception led to more abortion, South Dakota's wouldn't have such a miniscule abortion rate.

Except Novak is leaving out a few pertinent details, such as the overwhelming obstacles women who want to end their pregnancies face in South Dakota.

The last doctor in South Dakota to perform abortions stopped about eight years ago; the consensus in the medical community is that offering the procedure is not worth the stigma of being branded a baby killer.

South Dakota is one of only three states to have only one abortion provider — North Dakota and Mississippi are the other two — but at nearly 76,000 square miles, the Mount Rushmore State is the biggest of the three. What's more, the state's lone clinic offers abortions once a week, but which day each week depends on when out-of-state doctors will visit.

Of course, South Dakota is also home to some of the nation's poorest counties, which makes it awfully difficult for women with meager resources to travel several hundred miles.

Given these conditions, Novak's analogy is painfully stupid. Of course South Dakota's abortion rate is extremely low — they've had a de facto ban in place for years. This doesn't prove that limited access to birth control has no effect on unwanted pregnancies; it proves that if you limit a large state to one clinic that most women find inaccessible, there won't be many abortions in a state.

I don't expect much from Novak, but this is ridiculous, even for him.

You've missed the point.

Again.

Oh, well.

BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?

One more thing:

You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.

If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.

Why is this, do you think?

And then there's this:

If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary.

[vidcc]

You've missed the point.

Again.

Oh, well.

I didn't miss the point at all, what I did was c&p a response to the c&p theory of novak.. He contends that access to contraception has the reverse effect on call for abortion because there is less abortion in a place where the obstacles are many to obtaining one.
His theory was based on cherry picked snippets and ignored a whole range of other influences. It also compared two different parts of the country that are like chaulk and cheese and made no wonder as to what the same "high pregnancy" community statistics would be if the level of contraception available in that community were reduced.
It was an ideological theory..... real life doesn't play by those rules.

BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?

Could go one way or stay the same, I don't care. My stance on the subject all along is that it is a private choice. I am not for mandating abortion clinics be set up widely, I am against mandatory exclusion to access.

One more thing:

You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.

If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.

Why is this, do you think?

Whatever reason (could be the lower population levels) it doesn't matter. It is up to the individual to make their own choices on how they lead their lives. Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will, as long as they are both adults it's nobody elses concern. I am not for the kind of social engineering you appear to be. I do however think it wise to allow and possibly encourage that whatever the choice to act responsibly, and make birth control accessible......not harder to get

And then there's this:

If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary.

Probably not, but then I repeat....it's a private matter.

[What'spunk.]

The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.

I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.

Agreed

[j2k4]

I didn't miss the point at all, what I did was c&p a response to the c&p theory of novak.. He contends that access to contraception has the reverse effect on call for abortion because there is less abortion in a place where the obstacles are many to obtaining one.
His theory was based on cherry picked snippets and ignored a whole range of other influences. It also compared two different parts of the country that are like chaulk and cheese and made no wonder as to what the same "high pregnancy" community statistics would be if the level of contraception available in that community were reduced.
It was an ideological theory..... real life doesn't play by those rules.

BTW-relative to your point, do you contend that, if abortion clinics were to suddenly spring up on every street corner in South Dakota, that an abortion rate commensurate with that of California would immediately (say, within a year-or five-or ten) present?

Could go one way or stay the same, I don't care. My stance on the subject all along is that it is a private choice. I am not for mandating abortion clinics be set up widely, I am against mandatory exclusion to access.

One more thing:

You've essentially said, in past postings, that NOTHING will prevent people from having sex, as it is for any number of reasons considered to be a personal imperative.

If this is true, S.Dak's pregnancy rate must parallel that of California's, and the resulting population growth would be (relatively) very high, but alas, it is not.

Why is this, do you think?

Whatever reason (could be the lower population levels) it doesn't matter. It is up to the individual to make their own choices on how they lead their lives. Someone that doesn't want to have sex won't, someone that does will, as long as they are both adults it's nobody elses concern. I am not for the kind of social engineering you appear to be. I do however think it wise to allow and possibly encourage that whatever the choice to act responsibly, and make birth control accessible......not harder to get

And then there's this:

If nothing will stop sex/pregnancies, neither will anything stop abortions taking place, including an amorphous state boundary.

Probably not, but then I repeat....it's a private matter.

If "humans are human" as you've posited over and over in your time here, the statistics would mirror each other, period, and there is no way around the fact.

Fact.

Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway.

BTW-

Social engineering?

Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?

I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary?

[j2k4]

The only contraception that would work like they imply would be that shot that works for 6-months at a time.

I wish that was required for welfare recipient mom's.

Agreed

Cue vid's civil rights objection...

[vidcc]

If "humans are human" as you've posited over and over in your time here, the statistics would mirror each other, period, and there is no way around the fact.

rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.

Fact.

Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway.

BTW-

Social engineering?

Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?

I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary?

WHat is she going to engineer? letting people decide for themslef? dangerous social engineering indeed.... I mean that would mean you can't tell consenting adults to stop doing things in ther own homes

[vidcc]

Agreed

Cue vid's civil rights objection...

So you would be for that I was not aware that you were supportive of chinese style politics.... I mean you haven't exactly shown any love for them.

[j2k4]

rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.

Yes, humans are individual, but statistics are not, other than in a catagorical sense.

You are wrong again, again.

Fact.

Whether or not it is indeed a "private" matter is yet to be decided-in South Dakota, anyway.

BTW-

Social engineering?

Are you going to skip the next Presidential election?

I doubt you'd vote for any potential Republican nominee, but if you find yourself averse to the idea of "social engineering", how could you ever vote for Hillary?

WHat is she going to engineer? letting people decide for themslef? dangerous social engineering indeed.... I mean that would mean you can't tell consenting adults to stop doing things in ther own homes

You can't be serious.

You really have no idea?

OhmyGod...

[vidcc]

[QUOTE=j2k4]

rubbish.
humans are indeed humans...however they are also individuals and if 1 out of 1000 people in CA. happens to be (just as an example) homosexual, that figure will not be mirrored in SD.

Yes, humans are individual, but statistics are not, other than in a catagorical sense.

You are wrong again, again.

statistics are not uniform... we have red states and blue states don't we? By your theory if 60% of SD vote for one party then surely 60% of every state would vote for the same party.....they mirror each other...right ?
Humans are indiviuals and if the bulk of humans act in one way in one area that doesn't mean the bulk of humans will act the same way in another.
Perhaps if the neocons realised this then we would have been a bit better prepared in Iraq instead of thinking they would welcome us (because "they think and act the same as us").