CW7:2501
From Environmental Technology
Jalcst-2501 (Talk | contribs) |
(graded) |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| - | A) | + | {{Graded}} |
| + | A){{OK}} | ||
The programs listed by the Sierra Club include: The National Family Planning Program: Title X, | The programs listed by the Sierra Club include: The National Family Planning Program: Title X, | ||
the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC), and abstinence only programs. | the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC), and abstinence only programs. | ||
| Line 5: | Line 6: | ||
EPICC is an initative working to insure....that women's health insurance providers include contraceptives in their coverage. It's covered in Federal Health plans and by 23 states with 11 more states working on it, but it's sillyto think that contraceptives are not a necessary part of health care and just another example of our man run society. The costs to insurance companies and those insured would be minimal, but I guess some arm bending is needed. | EPICC is an initative working to insure....that women's health insurance providers include contraceptives in their coverage. It's covered in Federal Health plans and by 23 states with 11 more states working on it, but it's sillyto think that contraceptives are not a necessary part of health care and just another example of our man run society. The costs to insurance companies and those insured would be minimal, but I guess some arm bending is needed. | ||
Abstinence only programs are crazy. No talk of contraceptives are allowed and people aren't suppossed to have sex until they are married. Uh huh. These programs are eating up federal funding so W. and his cronies can keep Christian conservatives on their side. | Abstinence only programs are crazy. No talk of contraceptives are allowed and people aren't suppossed to have sex until they are married. Uh huh. These programs are eating up federal funding so W. and his cronies can keep Christian conservatives on their side. | ||
| - | The first | + | The first two programs have worked and are working as long as they get proper funding. When women are giving the opportunity to do what they need to do to protect themselves, for the most part, they do it. The abstinence programs will be looked on in the future as ridiculous and just a way of eating away at the progress that had been made. |
| + | |||
| + | In Family Planning Around the World Sierra Club lists United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund. I guess the first one is okay because they are providing women with options. As long as they are options and not mandates, it seems pretty good. Voluntary is once again the keyword with the second program, which was doing fine until certain politicians deemed them unworthy. ahem. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Abstinence only programs seem to be the most boneheaded option. If that is what parents want to tell their children, that's cool, but they shouldn't force their views on everyone else. Little Bobbie and Susie, whose parents don't talk to them at home, need to know what their options are and the school may be the only place they get it. People, in my opinion, should be given the rights to make INFORMED descisions. Put the information and resources out there and let them have at it. Ignorance isn't bliss, especially when it comes to getting pregnant. | ||
| + | {{OK}} | ||
| + | B)Migration and consumption. The Sierra Clubs views on migration and population can VERY basically be summed up as, if people didn't live in such crappy areas they wouldn't want to come to ours. If everyone in the world was provided with a decent living standard they would probably stay put. I wonder about that one. From what I know, from my husband anyway, the United States is considered the gold standard. He said he would have never imagined in a million years that people in the United States live in trailers or that there is a homeless problem. He was only 15 when he moved here from Honduras, so his knowledge was limited, but I can assume it's somewhat typical. The grass is always greener on the other side, and we you have folks willing to live 10 to an apartment to feed off that grass, so the standard of living is going to have to be pretty good. But that's the way it's always been. People are always looking for something better. I don't even want to live here, so why should I expect anyone else to stay where they are. Of course I shouldn't be doing anything to make someone elses world a worse place to live in. Which brings up the consumption part. We use too much stuff. We buy too much stuff and then throw the packaging away. We are consumers. I guess that's actually the foundation of a capitalistic society. There has to be someone to buy the junk they're selling. If we were to use less, there would be more to go around, and it would kind of force "them" to sell if for less money. I guess as long as we are buying things made in sweatshops in other countries where they don't have or are not forced to follow environmentally conscious practices, then we are just as bad as the people who run the companies. | ||
Current revision as of 16:01, 29 March 2006
|
G |
A)
| OK |
The programs listed by the Sierra Club include: The National Family Planning Program: Title X, the Equity in Prescription Insurance and Contraceptive Coverage Act (EPICC), and abstinence only programs. The Title X program was established in 1970 to provide funds for clinics to provide preventative health services and referals for women. It helps 1 million women a year avoid unwanted pregnancies and has prevented numerious abortions and teen pregnancies. No new funding has been granted to the program since 2001, and funds are being denied if the states do not match funding to abstinance only programs. Yea W. EPICC is an initative working to insure....that women's health insurance providers include contraceptives in their coverage. It's covered in Federal Health plans and by 23 states with 11 more states working on it, but it's sillyto think that contraceptives are not a necessary part of health care and just another example of our man run society. The costs to insurance companies and those insured would be minimal, but I guess some arm bending is needed. Abstinence only programs are crazy. No talk of contraceptives are allowed and people aren't suppossed to have sex until they are married. Uh huh. These programs are eating up federal funding so W. and his cronies can keep Christian conservatives on their side. The first two programs have worked and are working as long as they get proper funding. When women are giving the opportunity to do what they need to do to protect themselves, for the most part, they do it. The abstinence programs will be looked on in the future as ridiculous and just a way of eating away at the progress that had been made.
In Family Planning Around the World Sierra Club lists United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the United Nations Population Fund. I guess the first one is okay because they are providing women with options. As long as they are options and not mandates, it seems pretty good. Voluntary is once again the keyword with the second program, which was doing fine until certain politicians deemed them unworthy. ahem.
Abstinence only programs seem to be the most boneheaded option. If that is what parents want to tell their children, that's cool, but they shouldn't force their views on everyone else. Little Bobbie and Susie, whose parents don't talk to them at home, need to know what their options are and the school may be the only place they get it. People, in my opinion, should be given the rights to make INFORMED descisions. Put the information and resources out there and let them have at it. Ignorance isn't bliss, especially when it comes to getting pregnant.
| OK |
B)Migration and consumption. The Sierra Clubs views on migration and population can VERY basically be summed up as, if people didn't live in such crappy areas they wouldn't want to come to ours. If everyone in the world was provided with a decent living standard they would probably stay put. I wonder about that one. From what I know, from my husband anyway, the United States is considered the gold standard. He said he would have never imagined in a million years that people in the United States live in trailers or that there is a homeless problem. He was only 15 when he moved here from Honduras, so his knowledge was limited, but I can assume it's somewhat typical. The grass is always greener on the other side, and we you have folks willing to live 10 to an apartment to feed off that grass, so the standard of living is going to have to be pretty good. But that's the way it's always been. People are always looking for something better. I don't even want to live here, so why should I expect anyone else to stay where they are. Of course I shouldn't be doing anything to make someone elses world a worse place to live in. Which brings up the consumption part. We use too much stuff. We buy too much stuff and then throw the packaging away. We are consumers. I guess that's actually the foundation of a capitalistic society. There has to be someone to buy the junk they're selling. If we were to use less, there would be more to go around, and it would kind of force "them" to sell if for less money. I guess as long as we are buying things made in sweatshops in other countries where they don't have or are not forced to follow environmentally conscious practices, then we are just as bad as the people who run the companies.
