Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Dumbass fvcking Conks. Been fighting this for 30 years........

http://vitals.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10 ... finds?lite" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


By Brian Alexander, NBC News Contributor
A dramatic new study with implications for next month’s presidential election finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.
Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, expected both measures to fall, but even he said he was “very surprised” by the magnitude.
In all, Peipert said, one abortion was prevented for approximately every 100 women who took part (the actual estimate is 1 per every 79 to 135 women).

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert asked the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.


*******

Stupid motherfvcking Conks. We told you - making contraception readily available will have MAGNANIMOUS societal consequences. NOBODY, pro-choice or anti-choice, wants abortion. This proves the liberal thought process was the best. Again......

Eat my ass, Conks!!!!




"Fuck. Wrap it up. Time to go home, Mrs. Hogan and Mrs. Hen."

If free jimmy hats decrease the abortion rate, just think what $2 rubbers could do!

Conks want the abortion rate to decline. This proves that we could do much good handing out free condoms in high schools. Turns out libs were right the whole time!

Dumbass fvcking Conks.

Text deleted so I could consolidate three long posts into one long post and I still can't delete posts on this board. Gee I wish whoever maintains it would just put a "delete" button next to the "edit" button or something.

Ok I read the article twice and somebody please tell me if I'm missing something. I really don't mind that.

But as far as I can tell what they're reporting doesn't show a decline in anything. It appears to just be an observation that somewhere around 9,000 women who participated in this project ended up with 2008, 2009, and 2010 abortion rates that were lower than the estimated national abortion rate of 2008.

Don't get me wrong. I'd fully expect giving a bunch of women free birth control would lower the pregnancy rate to somewhat below what it otherwise would have been and a lower pregnancy rate should mean a lower abortion rate. But unless the article's author did not accurately report what was done this study is pretty much useless. Right off the bat, for instance, it's going to select for women who are inclined to use birth control.

See what I mean? The overall national rate involves all women. The 9,000+ women in the program were in the program because they wanted to use birth control. It's comparing Apples to Apples + Oranges.

Contrast that to an experimental study designed to show that providing access to free birth control reduces pregnancy and abortion rates. You take 1000 women. You randomly select 500 and tell them, "If you want birth control it's free." Then you give them the free birth control when they ask for it. And you just leave the 500 controls alone. Then over three years or so some of that 500 in the "treatment" group will choose to take advantage of the free birth control and some won't. In the control group some will choose to use birth control they pay for or get by some other means and some won't. When it's over, if the "treatment" group had "significantly" lower rates, you would have inferred an effect.

Here, every woman who is in the group being compared to the general population chose to use birth control. That's a condition or characteristic of being in the group. Plus there's the standard caveat that it's an observational study and observational studies can't legitimately be used to infer cause and effect. Because the women in the "treatment" group selected themselves there could be additional reasons for why they were characterized by a lower rate beyond the big obvious one involving having already made the decision to use birth control.

There's no "here" here. To me, unless the article completely misrepresents the crux of the study, this is yet another example supporting the view that the "peer review" journal publication process is not a serious quality control process. If the crux is accurately represented, no way should this paper have been published and thereby given that aura of credibility. For years now people are going to refer to this study as showing that providing "proof" that offering free birth control causes lower abortion rates and (again) unless it's being completely misrepresented in the article it does not do that.

Text deleted here too. See above.

JohnStOnge wrote:Text deleted here too. See above.

Great post! 1 down, 3236 posts to go.

Don't forget about the fucking catholics beating the no birth control drum for eons.

The catholic church is responsible for millions of abortions.

JohnStOnge wrote:Ok I read the article twice and somebody please tell me if I'm missing something. I really don't mind that.

But as far as I can tell what they're reporting doesn't show a decline in anything. It appears to just be an observation that somewhere around 9,000 women who participated in this project ended up with 2008, 2009, and 2010 abortion rates that were lower than the estimated national abortion rate of 2008.

Don't get me wrong. I'd fully expect giving a bunch of women free birth control would lower the pregnancy rate to somewhat below what it otherwise would have been and a lower pregnancy rate should mean a lower abortion rate. But unless the article's author did not accurately report what was done this study is pretty much useless. Right off the bat, for instance, it's going to select for women who are inclined to use birth control.

See what I mean? The overall national rate involves all women. The 9,000+ women in the program were in the program because they wanted to use birth control. It's comparing Apples to Apples + Oranges.

Contrast that to an experimental study designed to show that providing access to free birth control reduces pregnancy and abortion rates. You take 1000 women. You randomly select 500 and tell them, "If you want birth control it's free." Then you give them the free birth control when they ask for it. And you just leave the 500 controls alone. Then over three years or so some of that 500 in the "treatment" group will choose to take advantage of the free birth control and some won't. In the control group some will choose to use birth control they pay for or get by some other means and some won't. When it's over, if the "treatment" group had "significantly" lower rates, you would have inferred an effect.

Here, every woman who is in the group being compared to the general population chose to use birth control. That's a condition or characteristic of being in the group. Plus there's the standard caveat that it's an observational study and observational studies can't legitimately be used to infer cause and effect. Because the women in the "treatment" group selected themselves there could be additional reasons for why they were characterized by a lower rate beyond the big obvious one involving having already made the decision to use birth control.

There's no "here" here. To me, unless the article completely misrepresents the crux of the study, this is yet another example supporting the view that the "peer review" journal publication process is not a serious quality control process. If the crux is accurately represented, no way should this paper have been published and thereby given that aura of credibility. For years now people are going to refer to this study as showing that providing "proof" that offering free birth control causes lower abortion rates and (again) unless it's being completely misrepresented in the article it does not do that.

Did anyone read this? Reply if you did not.

Cliff notes....

JohnStOnge wrote:Don't get me wrong. I'd fully expect giving a bunch of women free birth control would lower the pregnancy rate to somewhat below what it otherwise would have been and a lower pregnancy rate should mean a lower abortion rate. But unless the article's author did not accurately report what was done this study is pretty much useless. Right off the bat, for instance, it's going to select for women who are inclined to use birth control.

Did anyone read this? Reply if you did not.

Oh alright here's a shorter version:

We already knew birth control drugs and devices reduce the "risk" of pregnancy. The manufacturers couldn't be making claims that they work if they hadn't done controlled experiments...clinical trials...to show that they do.
This study, as I read the article, compared the pregnancy and abortion rates among a group of women who were in the group specifically BECAUSE they were obtaining birth control in order to use it to rates among the general population; which includes a lot of women who don't use birth control and some number who don't even WANT to use birth control.

Finding that a group composed entirely of women who were actively seeking birth control drugs and/or devices has a lower pregnancy rate than that of a general population made up of women who are not all seeking birth control is not exactly an earth shaking revelation and it says nothing at all about the magnitude of the effect of providing free birth control. If it says anything at all it says birth control drugs and devices work and we already knew that .

Just popped in for an update. I tried getting to the study itself on line and of course I'd have to get a subscription to the journal. Not going to do that. Did find a Science News article on it though at http://esciencenews.com/articles/2012/1 ... th.control" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. The following excerpt is informative:

The women were counseled about the different methods, including their effectiveness, risks and benefits. The extremely low failure rate (less than 1 percent) of IUDs and implants over that of shorter-acting forms (8 percent to 10 percent) was emphasized. In all, about 75 percent of women in the study chose IUDs or implants.

That's another difference between the study group and the general population. They influenced the group so that it's very likely that a higher proportion of them chose more effective forms of birth control over other forms such as the pill.

Oh, and I never got around to commenting on this quote from the article the Capn' linked:

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert asked the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.

One of my "things" over the years has been arguing that, though I love and respect science as a process, people who think that the actual practice of science is an unbiased process are sadly mistaken. This situation is an excellent illustration of the point. Here we have study authors pressing to have a study that does not show what they claim it shows published in a journal in time to influence a Presidential election.

Cap'n Cat wrote:Conks want the abortion rate to decline. This proves that we could do much good handing out free condoms in high schools. Turns out libs were right the whole time!

Dumbass fvcking Conks.

Well slap my ass and call me Sally, Capn' Cat spreading hate and discontent again, and having a good time doing it. I think most would agree with your message, just not the way you deliver it.

89Hen wrote:Cliff notes....

JohnStOnge wrote:Don't get me wrong. I'd fully expect giving a bunch of women free birth control would lower the pregnancy rate to somewhat below what it otherwise would have been and a lower pregnancy rate should mean a lower abortion rate. But unless the article's author did not accurately report what was done this study is pretty much useless. Right off the bat, for instance, it's going to select for women who are inclined to use birth control.

And that matters how?

Gil Dobie wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:Conks want the abortion rate to decline. This proves that we could do much good handing out free condoms in high schools. Turns out libs were right the whole time!

Dumbass fvcking Conks.

Well slap my ass and call me Sally, Capn' Cat spreading hate and discontent again, and having a good time doing it. I think most would agree with your message, just not the way you deliver it.

Lookie, it's Gil-cs.com's annoying fat fucking play by play asshole!

D1B wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Ok I read the article twice and somebody please tell me if I'm missing something. I really don't mind that.

But as far as I can tell what they're reporting doesn't show a decline in anything. It appears to just be an observation that somewhere around 9,000 women who participated in this project ended up with 2008, 2009, and 2010 abortion rates that were lower than the estimated national abortion rate of 2008.

Don't get me wrong. I'd fully expect giving a bunch of women free birth control would lower the pregnancy rate to somewhat below what it otherwise would have been and a lower pregnancy rate should mean a lower abortion rate. But unless the article's author did not accurately report what was done this study is pretty much useless. Right off the bat, for instance, it's going to select for women who are inclined to use birth control.

See what I mean? The overall national rate involves all women. The 9,000+ women in the program were in the program because they wanted to use birth control. It's comparing Apples to Apples + Oranges.

Contrast that to an experimental study designed to show that providing access to free birth control reduces pregnancy and abortion rates. You take 1000 women. You randomly select 500 and tell them, "If you want birth control it's free." Then you give them the free birth control when they ask for it. And you just leave the 500 controls alone. Then over three years or so some of that 500 in the "treatment" group will choose to take advantage of the free birth control and some won't. In the control group some will choose to use birth control they pay for or get by some other means and some won't. When it's over, if the "treatment" group had "significantly" lower rates, you would have inferred an effect.

Here, every woman who is in the group being compared to the general population chose to use birth control. That's a condition or characteristic of being in the group. Plus there's the standard caveat that it's an observational study and observational studies can't legitimately be used to infer cause and effect. Because the women in the "treatment" group selected themselves there could be additional reasons for why they were characterized by a lower rate beyond the big obvious one involving having already made the decision to use birth control.

There's no "here" here. To me, unless the article completely misrepresents the crux of the study, this is yet another example supporting the view that the "peer review" journal publication process is not a serious quality control process. If the crux is accurately represented, no way should this paper have been published and thereby given that aura of credibility. For years now people are going to refer to this study as showing that providing "proof" that offering free birth control causes lower abortion rates and (again) unless it's being completely misrepresented in the article it does not do that.

Did anyone read this? Reply if you did not.

I did not.

His posts are too long, and think he is full of shit.

BlueHen86 wrote:

D1B wrote:
Did anyone read this? Reply if you did not.

I did not.

His posts are too long, and think he is full of shit.

ROTFLMFFAO!!!

D1B wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
Well slap my ass and call me Sally, Capn' Cat spreading hate and discontent again, and having a good time doing it. I think most would agree with your message, just not the way you deliver it.

Lookie, it's Gil-cs.com's annoying fat **** play by play asshole!

It's true that it does take and asshole to know an asshole.

Gil Dobie wrote:

D1B wrote:
Lookie, it's Gil-cs.com's annoying fat **** play by play asshole!

It's true that it does take and asshole to know an asshole.

No its not.

It doesn't take a tree to know tree.
It doesn't take a dog to know a dog.
It doesn't take (enter noun of your choice here) to know a (repeat noun used earlier).

Abortion lowers the crime rate (see Freakonomics)... thus, it follows that free birth control lowers the abortion rate, a higher abortion rate lowers crime.... Clearly, Catholics love crime.

BlueHen86 wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Text deleted here too. See above.

Great post! 1 down, 3236 posts to go.

Fucking this.

D1B wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Ok I read the article twice and somebody please tell me if I'm missing something. I really don't mind that.

But as far as I can tell what they're reporting doesn't show a decline in anything. It appears to just be an observation that somewhere around 9,000 women who participated in this project ended up with 2008, 2009, and 2010 abortion rates that were lower than the estimated national abortion rate of 2008.

Don't get me wrong. I'd fully expect giving a bunch of women free birth control would lower the pregnancy rate to somewhat below what it otherwise would have been and a lower pregnancy rate should mean a lower abortion rate. But unless the article's author did not accurately report what was done this study is pretty much useless. Right off the bat, for instance, it's going to select for women who are inclined to use birth control.

See what I mean? The overall national rate involves all women. The 9,000+ women in the program were in the program because they wanted to use birth control. It's comparing Apples to Apples + Oranges.

Contrast that to an experimental study designed to show that providing access to free birth control reduces pregnancy and abortion rates. You take 1000 women. You randomly select 500 and tell them, "If you want birth control it's free." Then you give them the free birth control when they ask for it. And you just leave the 500 controls alone. Then over three years or so some of that 500 in the "treatment" group will choose to take advantage of the free birth control and some won't. In the control group some will choose to use birth control they pay for or get by some other means and some won't. When it's over, if the "treatment" group had "significantly" lower rates, you would have inferred an effect.

Here, every woman who is in the group being compared to the general population chose to use birth control. That's a condition or characteristic of being in the group. Plus there's the standard caveat that it's an observational study and observational studies can't legitimately be used to infer cause and effect. Because the women in the "treatment" group selected themselves there could be additional reasons for why they were characterized by a lower rate beyond the big obvious one involving having already made the decision to use birth control.

There's no "here" here. To me, unless the article completely misrepresents the crux of the study, this is yet another example supporting the view that the "peer review" journal publication process is not a serious quality control process. If the crux is accurately represented, no way should this paper have been published and thereby given that aura of credibility. For years now people are going to refer to this study as showing that providing "proof" that offering free birth control causes lower abortion rates and (again) unless it's being completely misrepresented in the article it does not do that.

Did anyone read this? Reply if you did not.

I gave it a shot, but I blacked out 10 words in, and couldn't remember my name when I finally came to.

BlueHen86 wrote:

Gil Dobie wrote:
It's true that it does take and asshole to know an asshole.

No its not.

It doesn't take a tree to know tree.
It doesn't take a dog to know a dog.
It doesn't take (enter noun of your choice here) to know a (repeat noun used earlier).

....but it DOES take a village to raise a child.

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote:Cliff notes....

And that matters how?

Seriously? Bad numbers don't bother you?