But that’s far enough:
Planned Parenthood founder, Margaret Sanger, addresses an adoring throng.
The Government was on Thursday night urged to open an inquiry after officials found signs that birth rates for girls and boys vary noticeably according to where their mothers were born.
A health minister said that these differences in rates of male and female births among mothers of certain nationalities may “fall outside the range considered possible without intervention”.
The British have such a way with words, don’t they? That’s practically Shakespeare.
Planned Parenthood in Texas heads to federal court Friday, looking for a temporary injunction that would allow it to take part in the state’s revamped Women’s Health Program.
Late last month, a Texas judge denied the group’s request for a temporary restraining order that would have extended the organization’s ability to participate.
A state law that went into effect with the new year requires the state to fully fund women’s health clinics with the exception of those that are affiliated with abortion providers. With that new law, Texas is no longer eligible for federal funding for women’s health and, therefore, Planned Parenthood and other such establishments in the state will no longer be able to receive federal funding.
Actually, I’m pretty sure PP will win in the end. They usually do.
Anyhow, in the last couple of days we’ve been reminded how abortion is unhealthy for black people and women (to say nothing of the “feeble minded” Margaret Sanger warred against).
A paper published through the Social Science Research Network by economists at Melbourne, Australia’s Monash University, titled “Child vs. Pet: The Effect of Abortion Legalization on the Demand for Pets,” found that the demand for pets slightly increased with the legalization of abortion.
The resolution of this most pressing question came as America nears the 40th anniversary of Roe vs. Wade.
“We find that the demand for pets is affected by liberalization of birth control methods, suggesting a substitutable property of pets for children,” the researchers wrote. “The probability of women affected by abortion legalization owning any pet is 9.6 percentage points higher than for non-affected women.”
You might say the results “fall outside the range considered possible without intervention”.
“Given human’s desire to seek companionship, we were curious whether the decrease in fertility has any impact on the demand for pets of the affected women and surprisingly no one has looked at this question.”
According to Hahn, one big takeaway from the research is that people may be substituting pet companionship for their lack of children.
I’ve had children and I’ve had pets, so I have some insight here. One thinks about food constantly, needs exercise regularly, poops frequently, whines when ignored, creates the most hideous messes, and will be pretty much deaf to you after 15 years.
The other is named Spike.