Friday, May 24, 2013
Comment Archives: stories: News
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
Birth control is fine...but "we" isn't involved in the sex act...so "we" shouldn't have to pay for it...those involved ought to pay for their pleasure and birth control...not the rest of us...we need to breed personal responsibility back into the gene pool.
Posted by
TejonTech
on 04/02/2013 at 6:08 PM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
GOD FORBID WE GIVE THEM BIRTH CONTROL SO THEY WONT HAVE UNWANTED PREGNANCIES OR ABORTIONS-
One in five teen births are repeats, CDC says Apr 2, 2013 12:59 PM by JD Downing
More than 18 percent of all babies born to teenagers in the U.S. are baby No. 2 or 3, federal researchers reported on Tuesday.
It's bad news not only because it means young mothers aren't getting the message about birth control, but also because babies born to teenagers, especially unmarried teenagers, are more likely to be underweight and to have other health problems, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention says.
"Although teen birth rates have been declining for the last two decades, in 2010, more than 367,000 teens aged 15-19 years gave birth," the CDC said in its report.
"Teen pregnancy and childbearing can carry high health, emotional, social, and financial costs for both teen mothers and their children," the CDC adds in a statement.
"Teen mothers want to do their best for their own health and that of their child, but some can become overwhelmed by life as a parent. Having more than one child as a teen can limit the teen mother's ability to finish her education or get a job. Infants born from a repeat teen birth are often born too small or too soon, which can lead to more health problems for the baby."
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg created some controversy last month with a plain-spoken anti-teen-pregnancy ad campaign that used images of crying babies to illustrate the problems faced by children of teenaged mothers.
The CDC's Lorrie Gavin and colleagues analyzed data from two major national surveys on vital statstics and pregnancy risk called the National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) and the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS).
"Based on 2010 NVSS data from all 50 states and the District of Columbia, of more than 367,000 births to teens aged 15-19 years, 18.3 percent were repeat births," they reported.
While 85 percent of mothers who'd had babies before were having a a second child, more than 12 percent of teens had a third and 1.7 percent were for baby number four, five or six.
But there was a slight decline in repeat births, from 19.5 percent of all births in 2007 to 18.3 percent in 2010.
The researchers also looked at whether these young moms were trying not to get pregnant again.
"Of teen mothers who were sexually active, 91.2 percent reported using postpartum contraception after the most recent birth," they wrote.
But just 22 percent used the most effective methods -- a birth control implant or an intrauterine device (IUD). About half used moderately effective methods such as the birth control pill, a patch, injection ring or diaphragm, which about 15 percent used "less" effective methods, such as a condom or sponge and 8.8 percent used no method.
Health care professionals and educators need to do a better job of telling these very young women about their options and helping them use them more effectively, Garvin's team said.
"Teen childbearing has potential negative health, economic, and social consequences for mothers and their children and each year teen childbearing costs the United States approximately $11 billion," the researchers wrote.
"For example, 17 percent of infants who were second teen births were born preterm in 2010, compared with 12.6 percent for first births; 11 percent of second teen births were low birth weight, compared with 9 percent of first births," they pointed out.
Leslie Kantor of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America pointed out that states such as Texas and Mississippi have some of the highest teen birth rates and some of the lowest rate of health insruance coverage.
"When young mothers postpone a second birth, they have greater educational and job opportunities. The best way to prevent teen pregnancy across the board is by investing in effective sex education, encouragingteens to talk to their parents, and ensuring access to birth control," Kantor said in a statement.
"Overall, this data clearly speaks to the importance of the Affordable Care Act - which provides funding for teen pregnancy prevention programs and gives women coverage without co-pay for the full range of FDA-approved contraceptive methods," she added.
Posted by
gurudori
on 04/02/2013 at 4:45 PM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
HERE'S A WAY FOR CC TO SUPPORT THE LOSS OF GOVERNMENT FUNDS- LMAO!
Connecticut Priest Pleads Guilty to Drug Charge By ALYSSA NEWCOMB April 2, 2013—
The former Roman Catholic priest who earned the nickname "Monsignor Meth" for his role in a cross-country crystal methamphetamine drug ring pleaded guilty today to a federal drug charge.
At a hearing in U.S. District Court in Hartford, Kevin Wallin, 61, changed his plea to guilty on a charge of conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute the drug.
Wallin, who resigned in 2011, was the first of five defendants named in a federal indictment in January to enter a guilty plea.
Authorities allege the former pastor had methamphetamine mailed to him by his alleged co-conspirators in California, which he then sold out of his apartment, raking in more than $300,000 in sales.
On six occasions between September 2012 and January 2013, an undercover officer purchased methamphetamine from Wallin, according to U.S. Attorney David Fein.
Federal authorities also used wiretaps and surveillance to monitor the operation, Fein said.
ABC News' Alexis Shaw contributed to this report. Copyright © 2013 ABC News Internet Ventures
Posted by
gurudori
on 04/02/2013 at 4:24 PM
Re: “Cheat sheet: Indy picks for the April 2 election”
Why not yes on Issue 1?
Posted by
Ben Smith
on 04/02/2013 at 2:03 PM
Re: “Local businessman tries to increase the heat on Tim Leigh”
Tejon,
Tim Leigh is far from clean and not is making sure that "ratepayer" dollars are being spent wisely when it comes to Drake. Instead, he is trying to impress the people in his district with his bizarre antics, disguised as "I ask the tough questions". It's really more like uneducated questions. Leigh was the one who said "better and cheaper technology was available", but has produced no examples. You call that clean behavior or honest? Is that what you wanted him to do? The citizens have now "peeked behind his curtain" and now see what kind of person he really is.
Posted by
80923
on 04/02/2013 at 12:55 AM
Re: “Council: About those legal bills ...”
I hope this doesn't pass. The $10k cap is phony, as written. The groups or individuals should be held accountable for their actions and statements if they are not exonerated and the accuser should be held accountable if they are exonerated. The City shouldn't have to pay for bogus allegations. Imagine how some would take advantage of that!
Posted by
80923
on 04/02/2013 at 12:25 AM
Re: “Council: About those legal bills ...”
This Neuman is trying to steal as much money from the city in whatever way he can before he dies...we ought not allow ourselves to be this guys life insurance policy.
Posted by
TejonTech
on 04/01/2013 at 7:49 PM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
happyfew...you have not a clue
Posted by
TejonTech
on 04/01/2013 at 5:14 PM
Re: “Families of children with disabilities face a new challenge — Medicaid cutbacks”
The emotional roller coaster that parents face raising a child with disabilities is different from most of their friends and one that doesn't end. Medicaid can help fill in gaps, in our state it takes a long time to get the support (Florida)
Linda Bennett
www.meetup.com/exceptionalparents
Posted by
Linda James Bennett
on 04/01/2013 at 2:37 PM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
since when do religious organizations, especially catholics, have any credibility in regard to children. deeply religious families shouldn't be able to adopt since they will be raised to be bigots. I also wonder what kind of "counseling" these kids are getting from the catholics.
Posted by
happyfew
on 04/01/2013 at 2:02 PM
Re: “Council: About those legal bills ...”
I don't think members of this current administration understand the term "conflict of interest." I wonder if they are required to take an Ethics Course required of all Public Sector employees. It is not the same as the private sector when you work in the public arena. They seem to think their actions should be accepted as unbiased just because they tell the public they are not acting in their own best interests. They should recuse themselves from anything that even has the possibility of appearing a conflict of interest.
And absolutely, having the citizens of Colorado Springs pay for their legal fees is nothing more than a get out of jail free card. We simply cannot afford to pay for city council members individual ethics violation legal fees.
Posted by
rms
on 04/01/2013 at 10:03 AM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
Guru...actually all you homosexuals were doing just fine and cultural negotiations were always possible until you decided to make public the mean spirited aspect of your disorder, and made everything a back to the wall fight, not only asking for us to respect your misbehavior, what should have been private...but also making us change what we believe, redefining our words and institutions to fit your perversions.
I used to not really care that people were gay, but now you and others have convinced me you are an enemy of peace, you are a terrorist against the proper order...you hate the family and men specifically...so, yes I am now pretty much against anything that gays put forth.
Posted by
TejonTech
on 03/30/2013 at 10:13 PM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
dori: I'm thinking you are just a wee bit sensitive. You need to get over yourself.
I wasn't sticking up for tech (he is fully capable of doing that himself). I was objecting to the silly idea of a boycott. Can't anyone read and comprehend anymore? Why does everything you read need to be filtered through your prejudicial perspective? When you do that, you generally get it wrong.
As to your link, I put about as much credence in the Huffington post as I do MSNBC or the Daily Kos, which is effectively none.
Posted by
siggie
on 03/30/2013 at 11:48 AM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
Yes, siggie, all of our politicians are now changing their story on marriage equality, and no I don't care for the hypocrisy. My point was to TT that if our own reps weren't so religious and obstinate, then there would be more harmony and goodwill in our laws instead of so black and white, this or that approach to lawmaking, with this "no marriage equality ever" attitude we have seen here in Colorado for more than 20 years since Amendment 2.
We need to stop this and have more compromise in government so that all groups can be represented and respected. Secular doesn't have to mean that our government doesn't have a heart for its people.
I laugh at TT because he insists on holding onto his homophobic attitude, not for his religious beliefs. Interesting you are always sticking up for him when just a month or so ago the boards wanted his head and to boycott his business for his blantent homophobic hate speach, but you adamantly disagreed, yet you have continued to "out" me, which is unnecessary for I am not hiding myself, but it has me wondering if this is not a form of harassment since everyone is anonymous here, yet you keep bringing it up?
Below is a link for you:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/28/l…
Posted by
gurudori
on 03/30/2013 at 8:55 AM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
And allow us the same religious freedom over our money that you want over your body.
Posted by
TejonTech
on 03/30/2013 at 8:25 AM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
Besides Guru...given the court ruling allowing women to kill their children, what religious people want is only to have to pay for it, as if to co-opt us into your crime.
Pay for it yourself, but don't send us the bill for your misbehavior.
Posted by
TejonTech
on 03/30/2013 at 8:25 AM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
Men, Guru, have always been the protectors of women and children...and men certainly should, as the spiritual leaders God instilled in them to be, put a stop to everything from irresponsible boys impregnating women, and from women killing their babies.
And given you are a lesbian and will never get pregnant...why are you even worried about abortion?
Posted by
TejonTech
on 03/30/2013 at 8:22 AM
Re: “Religious groups put adoption services in limbo”
Alan Simpson: 'Men Legislators Shouldn't Even Vote On' Abortion
The Huffington Post | By Nick Wing Posted: 03/29/2013
Former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.) has never shied away from turning his trademark brand of colorful rhetoric on his own party, and on Thursday he did so again, in a scathing examination of the Republican approach on social issues.
In an interview published in the Los Angeles Times, Simpson, who has weighed in prominently on fiscal issues in recent years, blasted the trend of old, white Republican males feeling compelled to legislate on abortion.
"[It's] a hideous thing. It's terrible," Simpson said of the medical procedure. "But it's a deeply intimate and personal thing. ... Men legislators shouldn't even vote on it."
Simpson also called out what he saw as a "homophobic strain in our party," and accused members of the GOP of following a social agenda that was inconsistent with their broader political ideology.
"You're a Republican, you believe in get-out-of-your-life and the precious right to privacy, the right to be left alone," Simpson said. "Well then, pal, I don't care what you do. You can go worship the Great Eel at night, I don't give a rat's ... . But don't mess with me and don't then go take a position I have and wrap religion around it."
(Read the rest of Simpson's interview with the Times here.)
Simpson has expressed similar disagreements with Republicans on social issues in the past. In 2011, he targeted intolerance in the party, suggesting that it often ended up being a hypocritical display of hate.
"But I'm not sticking with people who are homophobic, anti-women, you know, moral values while you're diddling your secretary while you're giving a speech on moral values," he said. "Come on. Get off of it."
Posted by
gurudori
on 03/30/2013 at 8:10 AM
Re: “Families of children with disabilities face a new challenge — Medicaid cutbacks”
We all pay for this to happen for people...yet most of the money seems to be spent to pay some people to reject other people from getting the help we pay for them to have.
Solution...fire the government bureaucrats.
Posted by
TejonTech
on 03/29/2013 at 8:13 PM
Re: “Lilly Ledbetter says her bill is just the beginning”
Ledbetter has long become an ideologue who will never tell you this:
Here is just one of many reasons women average lower pay than men:
“In 2011, 22% of male physicians and 44% of female physicians worked less than full time, up from 7% of men and 29% of women from Cejka’s 2005 survey.” http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2012/03/2…
Mind you, these are some of the most sophisticated, educated women in the country CHOOSING to earn less than their male counterparts in the exact same profession.
A thousand laws won't close that gap.
In fact, no law yet has closed the gender wage gap — not the 1963 Equal Pay for Equal Work Act, not Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, not the 1978 Pregnancy Discrimination Act, not affirmative action (which has benefited mostly white women, the group most vocal about the wage gap - http://tinyurl.com/74cooen), not the 1991 amendments to Title VII, not the 1991 Glass Ceiling Commission created by the Civil Rights Act, not the 1993 Family and Medical Leave Act, not diversity, not the countless state and local laws and regulations, not the thousands of company mentors for women, not the horde of overseers at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and not the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.... Nor will a "paycheck fairness" law work.
That's because women's pay-equity advocates, who always insist one more law is needed, continue to overlook the effects of female AND male behavior:
Despite the 40-year-old demand for women's equal pay, millions of wives still choose to have no pay at all. In fact, according to Dr. Scott Haltzman, author of "The Secrets of Happily Married Women," stay-at-home wives, including the childless who represent an estimated 10 percent, constitute a growing niche. "In the past few years,” he says in a CNN report at http://tinyurl.com/6reowj, “many women who are well educated and trained for career tracks have decided instead to stay at home.” (“Census Bureau data show that 5.6 million mothers stayed home with their children in 2005, about 1.2 million more than did so a decade earlier....” at http://tinyurl.com/qqkaka. If indeed a higher percentage of women is staying at home, perhaps it's because feminists and the media have told women for years that female workers are paid less than men in the same jobs — so why bother working if they're going to be penalized and humiliated for being a woman.)
As full-time mothers or homemakers, stay-at-home wives earn zero. How can they afford to do this while in many cases living in luxury? Answer: Because they're supported by their husband, an “employer” who pays them to stay at home. (Far more wives are supported by a spouse than are husbands.)
The implication of this is probably obvious to most 12-year-olds but seems incomprehensible to or is ignored by feminists and the liberal media: If millions of wives are able to accept NO wages, millions of other wives, whose husbands' incomes vary, are more often able than husbands to:
-accept low wages
-refuse overtime and promotions
-choose jobs based on interest first, wages second — the reverse of what men tend to do
-take more unpaid days off
-avoid uncomfortable wage-bargaining (http://tinyurl.com/3a5nlay)
-work fewer hours than their male counterparts, or work less than full-time instead of full-time (as in the above example regarding physicians)
Any one of these job choices lowers women's median pay relative to men's. And when a wife makes one of the choices, her husband often must take up the slack, thereby increasing HIS pay.
Women are able to make these choices because they are supported — or, if unmarried, anticipate being supported — by a husband who must earn more than if he'd chosen never to marry. (Still, even many men who shun marriage, unlike their female counterparts, feel their self worth is tied to their net worth.) This is how MEN help create the wage gap: as a group they tend more than women to pass up jobs that interest them for ones that pay well.
Note: To my knowledge, unemployed stay-at-home wives are not factored into women's average wage. Shouldn't they be? Since they voluntarily work for zero wages, factoring them in -- assigning each of them zero earnings -- would perhaps give a more realistic measure of women's average wage.
Much more in "Will the Ledbetter Act Help Women?" at http://malemattersusa.wordpress.com/2011/1…