Healthcare Debate

[BigBallinStalin]

Well moral issue aside, wouldn't providing free, or extremely cheap, abortion to the masses lead to a higher rate of abortions among the poor, thereby reducing the number of poor in America and the burden they financially place on the system that supports them?

[jbrettlip]

Well moral issue aside, wouldn't providing free, or extremely cheap, abortion to the masses lead to a higher rate of abortions among the poor, thereby reducing the number of poor in America and the burden they financially place on the system that supports them?

You know in Malcolm Gladwell's book, the Tipping Point, he correlates Roe v Wade with the falling inner city crime rates. Interesting point, but I don't buy it.

[Snorri1234]

No. You don't get to do this. You don't get to pretend that Teh Liberul Media are repressing this story. It is bullshit.

The media doesn’t cover stuff all the time. (The liberal media doesn’t cover some stuff; the conservative media doesn’t cover other stuff.) You seem to forget that the number one goal of any media organization is to make money. The number one goal of any reporter is to make his editor happy. Every single media has a bias; what they will cover and what they will cover. We had an excellent example of this just the last week where the media devoted three times as much coverage to a senator who was blocking a bill than it did to a congressman who had to resign due to a sex scandal involving minors.

Yes the media doesn't cover stuff all the time. If their number one goal is to make money, they sure as shit would cover these stories to sell papers to the anti-abortion brigade. Which is big in the US.

[Snorri1234]

Well moral issue aside, wouldn't providing free, or extremely cheap, abortion to the masses lead to a higher rate of abortions among the poor, thereby reducing the number of poor in America and the burden they financially place on the system that supports them?

You know in Malcolm Gladwell's book, the Tipping Point, he correlates Roe v Wade with the falling inner city crime rates. Interesting point, but I don't buy it.

Also in Freakonomics.

I don't neccesarily buy it, but I admit it could have an effect. It's not a reason to do more abortions though, which is fine because I have other reasons as to why I love murdering bab..abortions.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well moral issue aside, wouldn't providing free, or extremely cheap, abortion to the masses lead to a higher rate of abortions among the poor, thereby reducing the number of poor in America and the burden they financially place on the system that supports them?

You know in Malcolm Gladwell's book, the Tipping Point, he correlates Roe v Wade with the falling inner city crime rates. Interesting point, but I don't buy it.

Also in Freakonomics.

I don't neccesarily buy it, but I admit it could have an effect. It's not a reason to do more abortions though, which is fine because I have other reasons as to why I love murdering bab..abortions.

Good to know and thanks for the replies.

[jbrettlip]

Well moral issue aside, wouldn't providing free, or extremely cheap, abortion to the masses lead to a higher rate of abortions among the poor, thereby reducing the number of poor in America and the burden they financially place on the system that supports them?

You know in Malcolm Gladwell's book, the Tipping Point, he correlates Roe v Wade with the falling inner city crime rates. Interesting point, but I don't buy it.

Also in Freakonomics.

I don't neccesarily buy it, but I admit it could have an effect. It's not a reason to do more abortions though, which is fine because I have other reasons as to why I love murdering bab..abortions.

Good to know and thanks for the replies.

I think I mixed up my Gladwell books...Freakonomics it is.

[PLAYER57832]

What's bullshit is the claim that there are 3,700 healthy children aborted everyday simply because their mothers have nothing else better to do and no morals at all... and that you or anyone else knows enough about this.

Where did I ever mention that?

Directly above the part you quoted.

here, to refresh your memory:

Tzor said:

"Oh cry me a f*cking river. I’m sick and tired of this tear jerking use of the extreme case to justify everything. The notion that, without abortion, in the United States, we would have some 3,700 severely defected children born each day is absolute bullshit."

It's 3,441 children by the way (ignoring rape and incest because those pre-born are generally "healthy" but I'm digressing) who are getting abortions because of social reasons.

Only if you define "social reasons" as anything except a life-threatening emergency..and THEN, only IF IT IS DOCUMENTED AS A LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCY. In late term abortions, this information is sometimes kept. In early abortion, it is assumed based on interviews, interviews which are generally pretty biased. (from a statistical and scientific standpoint).

[Many of these women are being told flat out lies about both the precedure and the state of the preborn child in their wombs.

Claims who? You act as if all women are idiots. The REAL truth is that a few right wingers want to put forward completely erroenous information about the hazards. Just as an example of the problems with their "data", they usually highly minimize the risks of child birth and pregnancy.

This is a decision that needs to be made by a DOCTOR, the woman (and the father, in many cases) involved and any clergy SHE chooses to consult, not your clergy or you.. unless you happen to be the father.

It is interesting to point out that when women actually do get ultrasounds of their preborm babies many choose not to have the abortion (which is why Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail to keep women from having a right to have them).

No, planned parenthood is NOT against women having sonograms. Claiming that is just idiocy.
What they are sometimes against is the law put forward in some places requiring women already scheduled to have an abortion must delay the procedure and have a sonogram.

In fact, in the case of miscarriages, it is the most common and easiest method to be sure the baby is actually dead.

These women are just as much victims as their preborn babies. They are lied to (and deliberately so) and then forgotten afterwards. They are used, abused, and forgotten.

I see, and you know this because your sisters, mother, aunts, female cousins, female friends .. the female neighbors down your street have all explained this to you? OR you know it because it is what you read on a right-to-life website and without any verification at all, have simply decided that they and you "must" know so much better than all those women out there. Because, of course they probably cannot even read... certainly not the things you are reading. (or maybe they just happen to have more DIRECT information??)

I find it supremely ironic that if I were to start talking in detail about issues of pregnancies.. and I don't mean graphic pictures, I mean just "run of the mill" stuff that EVERY mother pretty much has to go through, things like what it really is to go through a miscarriage (roughly 1 in 3 women do have at least 1).. etc. You folks run for the hills.

I'm not running for the hills. By the way, did you hear the Morning Edition article from yesterday, Panel: Vaginal Birth After Cesarean Not Common? "Ms. SHANNON MITCHELL (VBAC activist, Florida): This is a human rights issue. I am being cut open because obstetricians have decided that I need to be. I have the right to say no just as much as they do."

No, but its not exactly news to most women.

AND... without even reading the article (I will, but not at the moment), I can say it is far more complicated an issue than any one article can put forward.

AND, it has absolutely nothing to do with abortion!

The REAL truth is that if you miscarry and have a D & C, THE most common procedure or any other procedure, then it is termed "an abortion". The REAL truth is that "social reasons" includes a heck of a lot more than healthy children who are simply "inconvenient". You have to look seriously at WHY a woman would decide that a CHILD is "inconvenient." Ironically enough, one major reason is lack of health care and education. Strangely, though, it seems you hollar and scream about increasing health care.

(SIGH) Isn't that "health of the mother" issues, not "social issues?" So for everyone who wants to know what we are talking about here is a good link from americanpregnancy org which I think is an unbiased source.

No, it is not classified as such by the Right to LIfers. It is most definitely classified as a "voluntary abortion", barring any evidence to the contrary. Even miscarriages that are surgically removed are often classified as "abortions". Since such evidence is almost never retained, for legal and other reasons, no. As I noted above, most people are not even aware this is true. I only know because I had to go to the local Roman Catholic hospital, instead of the further away publically funded hospital and because I began looking into the issue after the way I was treated.

Unfortunately, miscarriage is the most common type of pregnancy loss, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage, and most miscarriages occur during the first 13 weeks of pregnancy.

...

The main goal of treatment during or after a miscarriage is to prevent hemorrhaging and/or infection. The earlier you are in the pregnancy, the more likely that your body will expel all the fetal tissue by itself and will not require further medical procedures. If the body does not expel all the tissue, the most common procedure performed to stop bleeding and prevent infection is a D&C

...

Is a D&C necessary after a miscarriage?
About 50% of women who miscarry do not undergo a D&C procedure. Women can safely miscarry on their own, with few problems in pregnancies that end before 10 weeks. After 10 weeks, the miscarriage is more likely to be incomplete, requiring a D&C procedure to be performed. Choosing whether to miscarry naturally (called expectant management) or to have a D&C procedure is often a personal choice, best decided after talking with your health care provider.

Warning graphic content follows
You DON'T really want to get into this.

#1 a "natural miscarriage" is hardly a nice, sanitary procedure.
#2 "often unnecessary" hardly means "not recomended".
Many women, quite frankly would just plain rather have it over with. If you are working 40 hours a week and caring for children, "waiting around" for 3-4 days for what will be a VERY bloody mess, potentially with several complications (even in the BEST of circumstances!) is just not something many women wish to go through. At about 8 weeks, the fetus is recognizable. Very small, but recognizable. In a "natural" miscarriage, that likely winds up getting flushed down the toilet. Yes, I realize that medical disposal is not necessarily much nicer, but at least the woman doesn't have to do it themselves. Also, often the doctor wants to retain the fetus because tests can reveal information that may prevent future pregnancies. So, yes, once told their child, their often much wanted child, is gone, they elect to have it done with. Many doctors prefer that as well.

#3 this type of ignorance is PRECISELY why this debate does NOT belong in a healthcare insurance debate. You have no medical training, have never been through a pregnancy have only the most biased, second-hand information on what pregnant women are told (and it is a good deal more than you claim above!) and yet YOU feel YOU have the right to mandate what women can and cannot do, that YOU know better than thousands of women having these procedures every day.

Given this information it is hard to put this down into pure numbers. If you can give me a break as to how much of that 6% mentioned in my original link (potential health problems regarding either the mother or child) - or the 222 per day are due to post miscarriage D&E then we might be able to discuss this in a manner that is not apple/organge number comparisons.

YOur information is just plain wrong. The real number of truly elective abortions is really more like 10-12%. This is too high, but again, a healthcare bill is simply not the place to put forth your or anyone else's personal agenda.

Determining the prevalence of miscarriage is difficult. Many miscarriages happen very early in the pregnancy, before a woman may know she is pregnant. Treatment of women with miscarriage at home means medical statistics on miscarriage miss many cases.

Missed by statisticians. It is possible, but pretty uncommon for adult women to not know they are having a miscarriage. However, since it is still not something most people talk about, except to other women they hear are going through the same thing, the real estimates are probably much higher. The 25% figure is a modest estimate. One in three is the figure more often quoted by US physicians.

Prospective studies using very sensitive early pregnancy tests have found that 25% of pregnancies are miscarried by the sixth week LMP (since the woman's Last Menstrual Period). Clinical miscarriages (those occurring after the sixth week LMP) occur in 8% of pregnancies.

The risk of miscarriage decreases sharply after the 10th week LMP, i.e. when the fetal stage begins. The loss rate between 8.5 weeks LMP and birth is about two percent; loss is “virtually complete by the end of the embryonic period."

I did find abortion / miscarrage numbers for Saskatchewan (Canada)

[/quote]

Canada has an entirely different method of classification. They also have significantly different abortion rates for a number of reasons. They HAVE universal health care already, for one. You cannot even GET any such statistics for the US with any accuracy, for the reasons I cited above. A D & C is classified as an abortion in most cases in the US. THAT is my point. It puts a pretty big chunk in any abortion figures. Most of those are not really abortions.


As for the rest....
Tell me something I DON'T already know!

See, that is the problem I don't have to go searching the web. I already know this stuff. I now it because I am a woman. Beyond that, I know a bit more than your average woman because I have already researched it, and a good deal more. AND, I am telling you that you don't even begin to have the knowledge, never mind the moral right to claim that the small fraction of a cent from your taxes that might possibly go to assist in subsidizing the insurance policies some low income women choose to buy is enough of a justification to hold up this bill.

[tzor]

What's bullshit is the claim that there are 3,700 healthy children aborted everyday simply because their mothers have nothing else better to do and no morals at all... and that you or anyone else knows enough about this.

Where did I ever mention that?

Directly above the part you quoted.

here, to refresh your memory:

Tzor said:

"Oh cry me a f*cking river. I’m sick and tired of this tear jerking use of the extreme case to justify everything. The notion that, without abortion, in the United States, we would have some 3,700 severely defected children born each day is absolute bullshit."

It's 3,441 children by the way (ignoring rape and incest because those pre-born are generally "healthy" but I'm digressing) who are getting abortions because of social reasons.

Only if you define "social reasons" as anything except a life-threatening emergency..and THEN, only IF IT IS DOCUMENTED AS A LIFE THREATENING EMERGENCY. In late term abortions, this information is sometimes kept. In early abortion, it is assumed based on interviews, interviews which are generally pretty biased. (from a statistical and scientific standpoint).

Let’s look at this … for a moment …

• I said that all of them were not “severely defected”
• You insisted that I said that all of them were healthy

The designation in that list was the health of either the mother or the child. Thus severely defected children would come under that category, not social reasons. Yes, it could be possible that over paranoid doctors could encourage women who children have been detected with the potential for various levels of defects to have them aborted and such listings may be placed under the “social reasons” section. (I am thinking of Down’s syndrome as a good example.) Personally, I consider that “eugenics” but that is another matter altogether.

Never the less, the fact is that most abortions are due for perfectly “social” reasons; reasons that are in fact more impacted by society and government policy than health reasons. Note also the opposite is true, a good percent of those health of the mother and child are due to the condition of the mother; the child could be perfectly normal and still threaten the health and life of the mother.

Many of these women are being told flat out lies about both the procedure and the state of the preborn child in their wombs.

Claims who? You act as if all women are idiots. The REAL truth is that a few right wingers want to put forward completely erroneous information about the hazards. Just as an example of the problems with their "data", they usually highly minimize the risks of child birth and pregnancy.

Argument to the extreme will only make you look like an idiot. Can I throw the “Claims who?” argument back at you for your claim about a “few right wingers?” Planned Parenthood (as well as most so called “pro-choice” groups) routinely call the pre-born child “a mass of cells” forgetting that by the time of most abortions it is a mass of cells that is developing organs, is moving and responding to stimulation, and if left to continue would produce a human being who might eventually say “mommy.”

“Highly minimize the risks of child birth and pregnancy.” You sound like those doctors in that NPR article who keep forcing women to have C-sections after their first C-section.

This is a decision that needs to be made by a DOCTOR, the woman (and the father, in many cases) involved and any clergy SHE chooses to consult, not your clergy or you.. unless you happen to be the father.

I find it interesting you put DOCTOR first. Ah the mind of the progressive mind at work.

It is interesting to point out that when women actually do get ultrasounds of their preborm babies many choose not to have the abortion (which is why Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail to keep women from having a right to have them).

No, planned parenthood is NOT against women having sonograms. Claiming that is just idiocy.

Planned Parenthood (along with all the other so called “pro-choice” lobbying groups) are constantly lobbying against the requirement to have sonograms before abortions. That is not idiocy; that is fact.

What they are sometimes against is the law put forward in some places requiring women already scheduled to have an abortion must delay the procedure and have a sonogram.

Because when a woman is faced with a difficult period in her life, the last thing she needs is a calm moment to reflect on it. It is important to remember that every abortion that is declined after seeing a sonogram is one less procedure the clinic performs which is one less procedure the clinic can bill for and thus less revenue for the clinic. In the end it’s all about MONEY!

These women are just as much victims as their preborn babies. They are lied to (and deliberately so) and then forgotten afterwards. They are used, abused, and forgotten.

I see, and you know this because your sisters, mother, aunts, female cousins, female friends .. the female neighbors down your street have all explained this to you? OR you know it because it is what you read on a right-to-life website and without any verification at all, have simply decided that they and you "must" know so much better than all those women out there. Because, of course they probably cannot even read... certainly not the things you are reading. (or maybe they just happen to have more DIRECT information??)

Let’s try option 3: I know this because part of my activity in the pro-life movement involves people whose job is precisely that; post-abortion counseling. I also know the significantly large numbers of people in the pro-life movement who give their first hand testimonies about their post abortion experiences to the movement including all the subtle lies they were told, before, during and after.

[pimpdave]

I think I mixed up my Gladwell books...Freakonomics it is.

Gladwell didn't write Freakonomics.

[PLAYER57832]

Let’s look at this … for a moment …

• I said that all of them were not “severely defected”
• You insisted that I said that all of them were healthy

Oh please, in the right to life vernacular any baby not severly defected is, by definition "healthy". In fact, in the more extreme cases, they won't even consider threats to the mother's health as a legitimate exception. After all, any "real" mother is supposed to put her children's health above her own (never mind any future children...).

The designation in that list was the health of either the mother or the child. Thus severely defected children would come under that category, not social reasons. Yes, it could be possible that over paranoid doctors could encourage women who children have been detected with the potential for various levels of defects to have them aborted and such listings may be placed under the “social reasons” section. (I am thinking of Down’s syndrome as a good example.) Personally, I consider that “eugenics” but that is another matter altogether.

I have NO idea how you can think you are replying to anything I said here. I said that your estimates of 3700 is just way off base, far too high. I said secondly, that the Right to Life definitions do not corrospond with what most other people think.
I ALSO said that they lump a whole bunch of things into those figures and DO NOT take D & C due to miscarriages, etc as anything other than a straight abortion, but most people don't even consider those abortions, never mind abortion for purely "social reasons".

Just look at the figures YOU posted above (the rates of miscarriages, etc.) ... as biased as they are, they go much, much further in supporting what I say and NOT what you claim.

Never the less, the fact is that most abortions are due for perfectly “social” reasons; reasons that are in fact more impacted by society and government policy than health reasons.

BALONEY! This is simply not true, though many right to life groups like to throw this out as if it were fact. This latest attempt to combine all sorts of issues into "social reasons" is part of their attempt to blurr the issues. In the past, it was "voluntary" or "on demand" ... etc.

Note also the opposite is true, a good percent of those health of the mother and child are due to the condition of the mother; the child could be perfectly normal and still threaten the health and life of the mother.

go back and study biology, REAL biology, not what passes for biology in the far right before you try to make such an assertion.

Teh times when a healthy child will truly threaten a mother are few... mostly to do with a woman who plain cannot and should not carry a child, a woman who is already very ill. In that case, far from aborting, many women have gotten pregnant against the advice of their doctor because they so want a child.

Many of these women are being told flat out lies about both the procedure and the state of the preborn child in their wombs.

Claims who? You act as if all women are idiots. The REAL truth is that a few right wingers want to put forward completely erroneous information about the hazards. Just as an example of the problems with their "data", they usually highly minimize the risks of child birth and pregnancy.

Argument to the extreme will only make you look like an idiot. Can I throw the “Claims who?” argument back at you for your claim about a “few right wingers?” Planned Parenthood (as well as most so called “pro-choice” groups) routinely call the pre-born child “a mass of cells” forgetting that by the time of most abortions it is a mass of cells that is developing organs, is moving and responding to stimulation, and if left to continue would produce a human being who might eventually say “mommy.”[/quote]

NO DICE! As a biologist, as a mother who has carried a few children, gone through all of the above, as a woman who has talked about this with other women affected in ways that you will almost certainly never be able to do... I am NOT talking about "extremes" as you claim. YOUR Position is not the "will of the people" as you like to think. Sorry, but that thought comes from relying only on sources that agree with you and rejecting sites that provide contrary information, not matter the credibility.

“Highly minimize the risks of child birth and pregnancy.” You sound like those doctors in that NPR article who keep forcing women to have C-sections after their first C-section.

Your lumping of c-sections with abortions is pretty telling. The furthest right, most extreme right to lifers actually consider even those to be "abortions".

But anyway, the truth is that surgical procedures have advanced a great deal. in the past, when muscle tissues were often cut in different ways than they are now, the risk of a rupture or other complication was pretty high. It was considered very, very risky to have a vaginal delivery after a c-section. Now, that is not always the case. Studies have shown the risk might (and not that "might" is not a "for sure") be less risky than previously thought. New surgical procedures do sometimes allow for a vaginal delivery post-C-section.

Many doctors have not had the time or funding to go back and get the latest training. Many still believe once a C section, always a C -section. In additon, the HIGH risk of insurance and just plain guilt over injuring a child make many doctors refuse to do a vaginal delivery after a C-section.

At any rate, this is far more about a system that pushes doctors to "cover their rears" whenever possible, rather than an "anti-woman" conspiracy.

And again, I say ... LOOK INTO THINGS BEFORE YOU START PROCLAIMING YOU "KNOW" ALL ABOUT THESE ISSUES.

Once again, what you show is how little you really know about all this.... yet more reason why you should have NO SAY in what insurance anyone else gets!

This is a decision that needs to be made by a DOCTOR, the woman (and the father, in many cases) involved and any clergy SHE chooses to consult, not your clergy or you.. unless you happen to be the father.

I find it interesting you put DOCTOR first. Ah the mind of the progressive mind at work.

funny me.. I think doctors know more, in general about medicine than the average person.

however, you are putting way too much significance on who I put first. I want ALL of them in on the decision. I only put the father as a "maybe", because I recognize that in the real world, many impregnators don't really deserve the title "father" and won't be a party to any decision.

It is interesting to point out that when women actually do get ultrasounds of their preborm babies many choose not to have the abortion (which is why Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail to keep women from having a right to have them).

No, planned parenthood is NOT against women having sonograms. Claiming that is just idiocy.

Planned Parenthood (along with all the other so called “pro-choice” lobbying groups) are constantly lobbying against the requirement to have sonograms before abortions. That is not idiocy; that is fact.

HRRMM... if you reread my statements, you will find THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID.. and your statement, by contrast was not so specific. Your ORIGINAL STATEMENT was " Planned Parenthood fights tooth and nail to keep women from having a right to have them... no clarification. FURTHER, they are not in ANY WAY trying to KEEP women from having a sonogram, they are saying women should not be FORCED to have one..

Sorry, but if you are going to discuss, you need to at least pay attention to what is said.

What they are sometimes against is the law put forward in some places requiring women already scheduled to have an abortion must delay the procedure and have a sonogram.

Because when a woman is faced with a difficult period in her life, the last thing she needs is a calm moment to reflect on it. It is important to remember that every abortion that is declined after seeing a sonogram is one less procedure the clinic performs which is one less procedure the clinic can bill for and thus less revenue for the clinic. In the end it’s all about MONEY!

Here we go again... those GREEDY abortion clinics, out to take advantage of those poor women who obviously have no idea of the procedure and are just plain not as capable of you in making this decision.

NEWSFLASH -- its pretty easy to sit back and esoterically make these decisions with no real direct impact to you (oh please .. those few portions of a cent.. not even a full cent that you might lose are NOT a "real impact".. no matter how you try to spin it out). When you have to face the real situation and all its ramifications, things change pretty quickly.

IN FACT, the "agenda" is not one of abortion clinics, it is Right to lifers who want to use any tactic they can to make abortions more expensive, less accessible and far more difficult to obtain. This is not about "women's rights" or "education", it is about a few people ...and yes, it IS a FEW people deciding that they and they alone have the right to decide this for everyone else in the country -- they have more right than doctors, women or anyone else.

Let’s try option 3: I know this because part of my activity in the pro-life movement involves people whose job is precisely that; post-abortion counseling. I also know the significantly large numbers of people in the pro-life movement who give their first hand testimonies about their post abortion experiences to the movement including all the subtle lies they were told, before, during and after.

and SUCH an UNBIASED forum that is, too!

GET REAL! I, too have been involved in counseling people. Sorry, this is not about what YOU think is right. This is about whether YOU have the right to make a MEDICAL decision for other people based on YOUR values.

Oh, and just to be clear, NO ONE sane, not the Planned Parenthood, not ANYONE sane really LIKESabortion. It is about the lessor of terrible outcomes.

In ALL of your discussion you completley and blithely ignore that and instead decide that based on your very limited knowledge (and you have made the limits VERY clear in your posts!), YOU have the right to decide what INSURANCE people can select.

It's not even about the legality of abortion! This is about a small percentage of INSURANCE help.

See, I am ALL FOR BETTER EDUCATION. Frankly, I wish it would begin with you, but that's another story. I want all children --boys and girls to know not just the "facts of life", but the facts of disease, the facts-- the necessary nutritional issues, the social issues, etc surrounding pregnancy. I want ALL children to get education in basic facts of child rearing (either skipping the controversial stuff, dealing with it as controversial or allowing for varied curricula based on a child's religion, etc.). I want them to know what it really means to be pregnant, to have a child. I ALSO want them to know how to prevent getting pregnant in the first place. And, yes, I want them to know what an abortion really means.

Ironically enough, you can thank many in your so-called "right to life movement".. the christian right, specifically, but also other folks, for the reason so many are NOT GETTING that necessary information. You can thank them directly for the INCREASE in teen pregnancies in areas with "abstinence only" mandated education AND, strangely enough, an increase in abortions and other teen pregnancy problems.

SO.. back we go.

You want to REALLY solve this problem of too many abortions! THEN BACK THIS BILL AND START PUSHING FOR REAL EDUCATION OF CHILDREN IN OUR SCHOOLS!