Skip to main content

A new study which makes me say, "duh," and makes uber-conservatives say, "What?"

One of the most controversial aspects of the new healthcare law according to die-hard conservatives has been covering contraception - just ask Hobby Lobby. This is due to their belief that any form of contraception, especially birth control pills used by women, impede on "God's plan," and in some cases, even constitutes as abortion. This isn't true, of course, but I won't bother with reiterating facts to refute those claims for the 9,247th time. Most of these people also believe in abstinence-only education, which has made me chuckle a few times as well.

I've tried to go the common sense, logic route with these people, but it hasn't gotten me anywhere. I'll say:

"So, you want to decrease abortions, correct? Okay then... Studies show that when kids are provided comprehensive sex education, they're more apt to using contraception than those that receive abstinence-only education. If more people use contraception, there will be fewer unwanted pregnancies, and with that, fewer abortions. So, why are you against comprehensive sex education and contraception if you want to decrease abortions?"

No, even that kind of rationale doesn't seem to work with them. Well, a recent study backed up my common sense argument, but there's no telling whether or not it will have any impact on the before-mentioned ultra-conservative individuals.

The study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, said the following:

"Providing teenage girls with affordable access to long-lasting contraception, like intrauterine devices (IUDs), can cut their rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion by more than 75 percent... The data suggests that teens can effectively prevent pregnancy when they're educated about their full range of sexual health options."

There we have it, ladies and gentlemen - a study which makes the ever so far-reaching claim that if people are educated about something which could have life-altering consequences, they tend to be more cautious about the matter and thereby tend to go about it in a safer manner than they would otherwise. Who knew?!?

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/10/02/3574948/iud-study-teen-pregnancy-drop/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...