Health Bill Includes Abortion Coverage

PostmodernProphet said:
Christie's source says it got it from another site.....I have looked through that site and find it nowhere....nobody says which year they got these numbers from, but if you follow my link you will see that the most recent year the CDC has posted on the internet is 2005....therefore my numbers ARE the updated information....and I don't for a minute actually believe Christy's numbers came from the CDC.....I would very much like to find out where they came from....be that as it may, you still haven't responded to my comments on your own error....Christy's numbers, when compared to my first site, do NOT bear out her conclusions......explain yourself....


http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/Data_Stats/Abortion.htm

here's the link to the CDC statistics on abortion going back to 1979.....which years data matches the data on Christy's chart?.....
Click to expand...

The article quoted those sources. Here's something from the CDC re: the states.

http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5713a1.htm?s_cid=ss5713a1_e

Also, the CDC has a lot of caveats in their explanation, such as:

For the 49 reporting areas, data concerning the number of women obtaining legal induced abortions were provided by the central health agency.* (* Includes state, DC, and NYC health departments.)

These agencies provided data on numbers of abortions and characteristics of women obtaining abortions by the reporting area in which the abortion was performed (i.e., state of occurrence). For the majority of reporting areas, abortion totals also were available by the woman's state or area of residence. However, three states (Delaware, Maryland, and Wisconsin) reported characteristics only for residents who obtained abortions in the state but not for women from out-of-state. Two states (Florida and Kentucky) did not report abortion totals by resident status, and three states (Arizona, Iowa, and Massachusetts) provided only the total number of abortions for out-of-state residents without specifying individual states or areas of residence.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Well, you should have read past the title, because the info they refer to is from the Guttemacher Institute. You and I are on these boards arguing a point, using info to justify our positions. Unless you can prove that this site is not honestly reflecting information, you're perceived as biased.
Click to expand...

I am biased....I am biased against Bruce and I won't even waste my time considering anything he's said.....now, if the info is from Guttenmacher (which is the info division of Planned Parenthood, it doesn't change the fact that Christy's info from the CDC doesn't match the info from the CDC....so, I don't see that you have made much of a point, anyway....
 
Last edited:
tell you what Christy....since it seems to be too much to ask you to admit that your "CDC data" isn't really CDC data, how about if you at least provide SOMEBODY's data to back up your initial claim.....the Guttmacher data doesn't either.....
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
I am biased....I am biased against Bruce and I won't even waste my time considering anything he's said.....now, if the info is from Guttenmacher (which is the info division of Planned Parenthood, it doesn't change the fact that Christy's info from the CDC doesn't match the info from the CDC....so, I don't see that you have made much of a point, anyway....
Click to expand...

Ahh, so you admit bias, which means that once you perceive information that supports your beliefs, you are not to dwell to deeply on anything that might shake those beliefs. I thought we were beginning to make headway to a good discussion here, and I was giving you credit on a good point before (if you noticed). But I'm not going to waste time banging my head against someone who is biased and proud of it....an irrantional mindset that can justify anything. So I'd say we're done here....a pity.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
I can't imagine why you thought that....you haven't even said anything intelligent yet....


lol...yeah, I'd say you are too......
Click to expand...

See folks, this is why dealing with neocon parrots becomes pointless. This postmodernfool with delusions of intelligence ADMITS that he dismisses out of hand any information from specific sources....no discussion of content, he just doesn't like them and what they represent. Anyone who is proud of that mindset cannot hold a logical conversation beyond a certain point. So, as our neocon clown laughs himself silly, we leave him to rail away the last words of a delusional victory.
 
Taichiliberal said:
ADMITS that he dismisses out of hand any information from specific sources....
Click to expand...

???....I have admitted to dismissing information taken from the website of a known liar....I expect you would as well, if only you had been smart enough not to be fooled by his lies....

meanwhile, you've been so busy trying to defend Christie's sources that you've neglected noticing something very specific....that nobody has come up with any data to support Christie's comments about liberals and conservatives.....those comments were not only incorrect, but the true data showed the exact opposite of what she alleged.....now doesn't that just make liberals look suckass?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
???....I have admitted to dismissing information taken from the website of a known liar....I expect you would as well, if only you had been smart enough not to be fooled by his lies....

Newsflash mastermind: anyone can make an accusation of liar......proving it is another story. So far, you're just blowing smoke. When you've got the guts to do a point for point deconstruction of the "lies", I'll bother responding next time.

meanwhile, you've been so busy trying to defend Christie's sources that you've neglected noticing something very specific....that nobody has come up with any data to support Christie's comments about liberals and conservatives.....those comments were not only incorrect, but the true data showed the exact opposite of what she alleged.....now doesn't that just make liberals look suckass?......
Click to expand...

No bunky, it makes YOU look like a fool, because the chronological posts shows that I was quite willing to discuss that issue and brought in more information to do just that. I even gave you credit for pointing out that the references for Chrisitie's sources were NOT direct or crystal clear. BUT, YOU WILL NOT DISCUSS THE ISSUE FURTHER, for the reasons previously explained.

So, my postmodernfool, you may bluff and bluster to your hearts content....as I don't waste time on proudly biased folk with a penchant for distorting the facts of a discussions. See ya around.
 
Taichiliberal said:
No bunky, it makes YOU look like a fool, because the chronological posts shows that I was quite willing to discuss that issue and brought in more information to do just that.
Click to expand...

uh dude?....you didn't bring in any more information....even the shit you brought from Bruce didn't support your claims.....don't try to fluff your way out of this as if you brought something I haven't considered......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
tell you what Christy....since it seems to be too much to ask you to admit that your "CDC data" isn't really CDC data, how about if you at least provide SOMEBODY's data to back up your initial claim.....the Guttmacher data doesn't either.....
Click to expand...

TaiChi is right, below is a C&P from the site and here is the link: http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=734

I didn't add any data or citations, just copied what was on the page.

Red States Are More Pro-Abortion

The numbers show that liberal influence is more effective in reducing abortions than is conservative influence. [This is info lifted from the Liberals Like Christ site. You can see Ray Dubuque's original chart there, about 1/2 way down the page.]

These numbers are important. They show actual results. They show which party’s impact over time is most effectively anti-abortion - and it’s not the so-called conservatives! Liberal policies, behaviors and attitudes apparently REDUCE abortions. Republican policies, attitudes and behaviors apparently INCREASE abortions. The results are similar regarding teen pregnancy.

THEREFORE: You WILL do more to reduce abortions by voting for pro-choice candidates than by voting for anti-abortion candidates. Weird huh? But it’s true! Your vote matters. Unborn babies’ lives are at stake.

Here’s how Rev. Dubuque states the obvious conclusion from his charts:

If indeed, as everybody says, “actions speak louder than words”, then it is conservatives and Republicans - NOT liberals and Democrats - who are “pro-abort”.


RED-STATE / BLUE-STATE ABORTION RATES COMPARED:

All but one of the ten states with the LOWEST rates of abortion are considered “LIBERAL” :

Liberal 1 Massachusetts 2.4
Liberal 2 Connecticut 2.8
Liberal 3 New Jersey 3.0
Liberal 4 Rhode Island 3.2
Liberal 5 New York 3.3
Liberal 6 Pennsylvania 3.3
Liberal 7 Wisconsin 3.4
Conservative 8 North Dakota 3.4
Liberal 9 Maryland 3.5
Liberal 10 Minnesota 3.6

All but one of the Sixteen states with the HIGHEST rates of abortion are considered “CONSERVATIVE” :

Conservative 35 Texas 5.4
Conservative 36 Alaska 5.5
Liberal 37 Washington 5.6
Conservative 38 Mississippi 5.7
Conservative 39 Kentucky 5.8
Conservative 40 Arizona 5.8
Conservative 41 Florida 5.9
Conservative 42 New Mexico 6.0
Conservative 43 Idaho 6.2
Conservative 44 Alabama 6.2
Conservative 45 Indiana 6.6
Conservative 46 Wyoming 6.5
Conservative 47 Tennessee 6.6
Conservative 48 Oklahoma 6.7
Conservative 49 Arkansas 7.1
Conservative 50 Nevada 9.0

[Compiled from Center for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics; and Election Results from CNN.]
 
christiefan915 said:
I didn't add any data or citations, just copied what was on the page.
Click to expand...

and now that we know the data is a lie, what do you have to say about your post?.....

{I know this is hard for you, so I will give you something you can cut and paste}
Christie: "I am sorry I posted something untrue about conservatives"
 
PostmodernProphet said:
and now that we know the data is a lie, what do you have to say about your post?.....

{I know this is hard for you, so I will give you something you can cut and paste}
Christie: "I am sorry I posted something untrue about conservatives"
Click to expand...

Maybe you think the data is a lie but you haven't proved it. You posted a five-year old chart from the CDC but didn't post anything about the other sources that were cited. Even the CDC wrote that their data is subject to different collection and interpretation methods.

"These ratios and rates should be viewed with consideration of the sizable variation by state in the percentage of abortions obtained by out-of-state residents. In 2000, approximately 9% of reported abortions were obtained by out-of-state residents. The percentages ranged from 0.4% in Hawaii to 56% in the District of Columbia (Table 3). Data by state of residence are incomplete because three states (Alaska, California, and New Hampshire) did not report and five states (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and Massachusetts) did not provide any data concerning the residence status of all women obtaining abortions in their state."

If you have issues with my post, that's your privilege. However, I'm certainly not going to apologize for citing something you disapprove of. If you're looking for a mea culpa you can start by apologizing for all the RW birther stupidity and then we'll talk.
 
christiefan915 said:
Maybe you think the data is a lie but you haven't proved it.
Click to expand...

well, yeah, I did....I showed that the CDC data actually said the opposite of what you claimed it did....so, I realize I'm new here, but is it typical for you, when proved wrong, to not admit it?.....should this be used as a basis to assume that everything you say is a lie?.......
 
christiefan915 said:
Maybe you think the data is a lie but you haven't proved it. You posted a five-year old chart from the CDC but didn't post anything about the other sources that were cited. Even the CDC wrote that their data is subject to different collection and interpretation methods.

"These ratios and rates should be viewed with consideration of the sizable variation by state in the percentage of abortions obtained by out-of-state residents. In 2000, approximately 9% of reported abortions were obtained by out-of-state residents. The percentages ranged from 0.4% in Hawaii to 56% in the District of Columbia (Table 3). Data by state of residence are incomplete because three states (Alaska, California, and New Hampshire) did not report and five states (Arizona, Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, and Massachusetts) did not provide any data concerning the residence status of all women obtaining abortions in their state."

If you have issues with my post, that's your privilege. However, I'm certainly not going to apologize for citing something you disapprove of. If you're looking for a mea culpa you can start by apologizing for all the RW birther stupidity and then we'll talk.
Click to expand...

Forget it, PMP is a stubborn little cuss who proudly admits he won't read/discuss information from sources he has ideological disagreements with. He sticks to what confirms his beliefs.

HOWEVER....

The site you source is vague on it's source material....I tried to find corroboration with other source material. Making a claim then generalizing a source (s) works against the credibility of the claim.

But

If you compare the two source listings of PMP with what you have and the additional material I give, you see that the ratios are NOT exactly etched in stone as PMP would like us to believe...and that goes for BOTH sides of the argument. Bottom line: The Red States are not exactly living up to their self professed doctrines.

When all is said and done, there is NO excuse for anti-abortionist to balk about any legislation that includes funds for abortions.....these are the same folk that scream bloody murder that there should be no comprehensive sex education in the school system. That's just plain dumb, because we have been living with the results of no sex ed in the schools for years (i.e., teen pregnancies, abortions, STD's, etc.).
 
Taichiliberal said:


If you compare the two source listings of PMP with what you have and the additional material I give, you see that the ratios are NOT exactly etched in stone as PMP would like us to believe...
Click to expand...

that simply isn't true....if you compare the CDC data with the nonexistent data that you have provided, you will see that the exact opposite conclusion to that raised by Christie is supported by the facts.....

Forget it, PMP is a stubborn little cuss who proudly admits he won't read/discuss information from sources he has ideological disagreements with. He sticks to what confirms his beliefs.
Click to expand...

another bold lie...the only ideological difference I have raised with respect to Bruce is that I like truth, while he doesn't....I stick to what conforms to my requirement for honesty.....which is why you are screwed on this thread....
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal


If you compare the two source listings of PMP with what you have and the additional material I give, you see that the ratios are NOT exactly etched in stone as PMP would like us to believe...
Click to expand...


PostmodernProphet said:
that simply isn't true....if you compare the CDC data with the nonexistent data that you have provided, you will see that the exact opposite conclusion to that raised by Christie is supported by the facts.....

Ahhh, but as I said I looked for information to corroborate the alleged source material that Christies' site gave. That YOU REFUSE to read or discuss my two additional sources because you have an ideological bias basically renders your claim here irrelevent because YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION.

Forget it, PMP is a stubborn little cuss who proudly admits he won't read/discuss information from sources he has ideological disagreements with. He sticks to what confirms his beliefs.
Click to expand...

another bold lie...the only ideological difference I have raised with respect to Bruce is that I like truth, while he doesn't....I stick to what conforms to my requirement for honesty.....which is why you are screwed on this thread....
Click to expand...

You're nothing of importance that I have to lie about, bunky. You admitted bias against my two sources and any information they provide. If you are NOT willing to discuss the information presented by the source, you're claim is but a fart in the wind. Anyone can accuse someone of being a liar....PROVING IT is a whole other smoke. Discuss the information within, and you might have some credibility here.
 
Last edited:
christiefan915 said:
TaiChi is right, below is a C&P from the site and here is the link: http://www.publicchristian.com/index.php?p=734

I didn't add any data or citations, just copied what was on the page.

Red States Are More Pro-Abortion

The numbers show that liberal influence is more effective in reducing abortions than is conservative influence. [This is info lifted from the Liberals Like Christ site. You can see Ray Dubuque's original chart there, about 1/2 way down the page.]

These numbers are important. They show actual results. They show which party’s impact over time is most effectively anti-abortion - and it’s not the so-called conservatives! Liberal policies, behaviors and attitudes apparently REDUCE abortions. Republican policies, attitudes and behaviors apparently INCREASE abortions. The results are similar regarding teen pregnancy.

THEREFORE: You WILL do more to reduce abortions by voting for pro-choice candidates than by voting for anti-abortion candidates. Weird huh? But it’s true! Your vote matters. Unborn babies’ lives are at stake.

Here’s how Rev. Dubuque states the obvious conclusion from his charts:

If indeed, as everybody says, “actions speak louder than words”, then it is conservatives and Republicans - NOT liberals and Democrats - who are “pro-abort”.


RED-STATE / BLUE-STATE ABORTION RATES COMPARED:

All but one of the ten states with the LOWEST rates of abortion are considered “LIBERAL” :

Liberal 1 Massachusetts 2.4
Liberal 2 Connecticut 2.8
Liberal 3 New Jersey 3.0
Liberal 4 Rhode Island 3.2
Liberal 5 New York 3.3
Liberal 6 Pennsylvania 3.3
Liberal 7 Wisconsin 3.4
Conservative 8 North Dakota 3.4
Liberal 9 Maryland 3.5
Liberal 10 Minnesota 3.6

All but one of the Sixteen states with the HIGHEST rates of abortion are considered “CONSERVATIVE” :

Conservative 35 Texas 5.4
Conservative 36 Alaska 5.5
Liberal 37 Washington 5.6
Conservative 38 Mississippi 5.7
Conservative 39 Kentucky 5.8
Conservative 40 Arizona 5.8
Conservative 41 Florida 5.9
Conservative 42 New Mexico 6.0
Conservative 43 Idaho 6.2
Conservative 44 Alabama 6.2
Conservative 45 Indiana 6.6
Conservative 46 Wyoming 6.5
Conservative 47 Tennessee 6.6
Conservative 48 Oklahoma 6.7
Conservative 49 Arkansas 7.1
Conservative 50 Nevada 9.0

[Compiled from Center for Disease Control, National Center for Health Statistics; and Election Results from CNN.]
Click to expand...


I'm late to this discussion so I apologize if this has already been discussed but I was just curious of the definition of 'conservative' states as I see at least three states Obama won labeled as conservative. Florida, Indiana and Nevada.
 
Watermark said:
So, basically, nothing changes except that the poor get the same plans the middle class has been getting all along.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

The poor could always go to work and get insurance?? Just a thought, I understand what you are saying but the poor get plenty, I have a Mother in law that hasn't worked in the last 12 years or so, the Government pays her medical, she gets free prescriptions, they pay 1/2 her rent , and get this, she now gets a free cell phone, seems anyone collecting any kind of federal assistance gets a free cell phone and 45 mins for free every month they are on assistance

My wife runs the wick program at the health dept. Yes there are truly some that need and deserve the help they get but the majority are young people very capable of working but don't, why should you or I have to pay taxes to give these people anything?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top