drsmooth wrote:

Werthless wrote:I don't know what history you're reading if you think in the last 50 years the surge in out of wedlock children is caused by the increase in punishment of these situations. In reality, policy shifts have made it more feasible for a single woman to raise a child -- or not, as her preference may be. Between the tendency of family court to side with the mother in custody battles, the birth control options available both pre and post conception, the monetary support of our federal government for low income parents, the equal pay act of 1963 and subsequent enforcement... I'd love to understand how the system has gotten worse for women in the last 50 years. These are all examples of government increasing the autonomy of women, and for better or worse, it has resulted in an increase in poor and uneducated women choosing to raise kids alone.

I'm not sure a message board post can remedy the misapprehension you're laboring under.

I'm thinking brain surgery

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i said they are being worked on, such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives. paid sick leave, equal pay discrimination laws, and so on. things that will actually help people's daily lives and put them in a place to be able to get more money and be able to educate their children. but, birth control appears to be some big issue now after it used to be a settled matter. people don't appear to get that it isn't aborting anything. paid sick leave has somehow been spun into a burden on business owners when they would have less turnover if they had it. equal pay only makes sense.

1. such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives
2. paid sick leave
3. equal pay discrimination laws

Putting aside that 1 and 3 are already the law of the land, what solution do you think these policies would bring? I'm guessing an increase in out-of-wedlock children among low-income people.

SK790 wrote:

Werthless wrote:

pacino wrote:i said they are being worked on, such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives. paid sick leave, equal pay discrimination laws, and so on. things that will actually help people's daily lives and put them in a place to be able to get more money and be able to educate their children. but, birth control appears to be some big issue now after it used to be a settled matter. people don't appear to get that it isn't aborting anything. paid sick leave has somehow been spun into a burden on business owners when they would have less turnover if they had it. equal pay only makes sense.

1. such as offering birth control with insurance so women have control of their cycles, their bodies and lives
2. paid sick leave
3. equal pay discrimination laws

Putting aside that 1 and 3 are already the law of the land, what solution do you think these policies would bring? I'm guessing an increase in out-of-wedlock children among low-income people.

how the heck do you come to the conclusion that more out-of-wedlock children are going to be born because of these 3 things.

The Nightman Cometh wrote:this has been an incredibly obtuse argument. my guess is policy makers haven't been the driving force in a societal change like booming out of wedlock births in a way that can be summed in a few bullet points.

plus theres the whole changing societal values and norms thing you have to account for, unless you believe policy makers were also the catalyst for that.

jerseyhoya wrote:A tremendous amount of fail is being demonstrated in this thread from our friends on the left

dajafi wrote:Another obvious point: neither the traditional liberal conceptual frame of blaming socioeconomic forces, nor the traditional conservative frame of blaming the low character of goldbricking sluts, really helps us solve the problem. At some point individuals have to make the positive choices, but we're collectively responsible for setting the conditions that ensure those choices will be rewarded.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:A tremendous amount of fail is being demonstrated in this thread from our friends on the left

thank you for your unsubstantiated judgement. What else you have to offer?

jerseyhoya wrote:On the previous thread you suggested Werthless needed brain surgery. That's maybe not the best.

The Obama administration has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline.

Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

The rules, which will apply to the federal exchanges operating in three dozen states, will essentially create a large loophole even as White House officials have repeatedly said that the March 31 deadline was firm. The extra time will not technically alter the deadline but will create a broad new category of people eligible for what’s known as a special enrollment period.

jerseyhoya wrote:Just the repeated aspersions of women becoming pregnant deserve it cause they're sluts stuff. It's annoying. TV does it too.

jerseyhoya wrote:

The Obama administration has decided to give extra time to Americans who say that they are unable to enroll in health plans through the federal insurance marketplace by the March 31 deadline.

Federal officials confirmed Tuesday evening that all consumers who have begun to apply for coverage on HealthCare.gov, but who do not finish by Monday, will have until about mid-April to ask for an extension.

Under the new rules, people will be able to qualify for an extension by checking a blue box on HealthCare.gov to indicate that they tried to enroll before the deadline. This method will rely on an honor system; the government will not try to determine whether the person is telling the truth.

The rules, which will apply to the federal exchanges operating in three dozen states, will essentially create a large loophole even as White House officials have repeatedly said that the March 31 deadline was firm. The extra time will not technically alter the deadline but will create a broad new category of people eligible for what’s known as a special enrollment period.

Obama administration will allow more time to enroll in health care on federal marketplace - This comes as a great surprise to everyone.

A Brief History of Obamacare Delays - IT'S. THE. LAW.

The new type of surveillance court orders envisioned by the administration would require phone companies to swiftly provide records in a technologically compatible data format, including making available, on a continuing basis, data about any new calls placed or received after the order is received, the officials said.
They would also allow the government to swiftly seek related records for callers up to two phone calls, or “hops,” removed from the number that has come under suspicion, even if those callers are customers of other companies.
The N.S.A. now retains the phone data for five years. But the administration considered and rejected imposing a mandate on phone companies that they hold on to their customers’ calling records for a period longer than the 18 months that federal regulations already generally require — a burden that the companies had resisted shouldering and that was seen as a major obstacle to keeping the data in their hands. A senior administration official said that intelligence agencies had concluded that the operational impact of that change would be small because older data is less important.
The N.S.A. uses the once-secret call records program — sometimes known as the 215 program, after Section 215 of the Patriot Act — to analyze links between callers in an effort to identify hidden terrorist associates, if they exist. It was part of the secret surveillance program that President George W. Bush unilaterally put in place after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, outside of any legal framework or court oversight.
In 2006, as part of a broader Bush administration effort to put its programs on a firmer legal footing, the Justice Department persuaded the surveillance court to begin authorizing the program. It claimed that Section 215, which allows the F.B.I. to obtain court orders for business records deemed “relevant” to an investigation, could be interpreted as allowing the N.S.A. to systematically collect domestic calling records in bulk.

Marc Rotenberg, the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Information Center, called the administration’s proposal a “sensible outcome, given that the 215 program likely exceeded current legal authority and has not proved to be effective.” While he said that he would like to see more overhauls to other surveillance authorities, he said the proposal was “significant” and addressed the major concerns with the N.S.A.’s bulk records program.

The government has been unable to point to any thwarted terrorist attacks that would have been carried out if the program had not existed, but has argued that it is a useful tool.
A review group appointed by Mr. Obama and an independent federal privacy watchdog both called for major changes to the program; the latter also concluded that the bulk collection is illegal, rejecting the government’s Patriot Act interpretation.
In January, Mr. Obama narrowed how far out from suspects N.S.A. analysts could go in analyzing calling records, reducing the limit to two steps from three. He also began requiring N.S.A. analysts to obtain court approval before using a phone number to make queries of the database.