Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions; Romney wants to cut access.

[candycorn]

This from The Associated Press.

-----------

WASHINGTON (AP) — Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concludes. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.

The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.

One has to wonder why the Governor wants to cut off the primary source for low cost contraception to financially challenged women. From his website:

Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

http://hosted2.ap.org/OREUG/f7ded15...h Control/id-b426496b78574f468236f8786520b7fe

For $300M (or less than 1/3 the cost of a new destroyer the Navy is building), we could prevent a great many abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and help ensure women's health choices. The $300M spent now will be a lot less than building more schools, expanding entitlements, and building more prisons later on when the unwanted pregnancies are carried to term.

Also it should be noted that Title X money is not only provided to Planned Parenthood (no Title money is used for abortions by the way) but to public health departments across the nation; in red states as well as blue states. It is used to pay for everything from iron tablets to condoms to contraceptive foams and creams.

Forum copyright policy, to be found HERE, prohibits posting of pieces in their entirety and requires that you provide a link.

~Oddball

 

[rdean]

Old, white Republican men have a better understanding of women and woman's bodies. That's why they need to be in charge.

 

[Listening]

That money comes from somewhere.

Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.

Tired of paying for Sandra....

Fluke off.

 

[Listening]

Old, white Republican men have a better understanding of women and woman's bodies. That's why they need to be in charge.

Keep your body....just don't make us pay for your "mistakes".

Asswipe.

 

[whitehall]

Does the radical left concede that decades of condom on a cucumber sex ed is a failure and the only option left to teenage girls is surgical contraceptive implants at taxpayer expense? What a Country.

 

[rdean]

Does the radical left concede that decades of condom on a cucumber sex ed is a failure and the only option left to teenage girls is surgical contraceptive implants at taxpayer expense? What a Country.

Actually, sex education has proven to be way more effective than "abstinence only".

In fact, education has proven to be effective in many ways. Something else that Republicans and Democrats disagree on.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgVHLbDu7PY]Rick Santorum: "What a snob!" - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Clementine]

That money comes from somewhere.

Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.

Tired of paying for Sandra....

Fluke off.

Agreed. Instead of tax payers paying for the "free" birth control, maybe parents could pay for it. It's dirt cheap at Walmart. Instead, we are expected to treat everyone like little children and either stop them from making big mistakes or being forced to take responsibility for their mistakes. That is liberal thinking, for you.

Even if the birth control is paid for them, how will they be smart enough to get it and actually use it? Hmmm, we better hire some people to go around and babysit them and give them their birth control pills every day. Should we inform them that pills won't prevent getting AIDS or other diseases? Do they know that? That would be worse than pregnancy. What to do, what to do. Sure is hard trying to think up ways to save people from their own behavior.

We've had sex ed for years, but I guess too many are skipping class or quitting school so they aren't being properly educated. So, they going out in the world without an education and no idea about the risks of their behavior. I guess we better find a way for them to live since they aren't qualified to do anything. Then we'll continue to babysit them the rest of their lives. And when they have children, we'll keep repeating the whole process.

 

[OKTexas]

You know what I get from the study, 35-40% of women are so completely irresponsible even when offered free birth control they won't use it and wind up getting an abortion. After all planned parenthood has offered free birth control to the poor for decades and single parent births are still on the rise.

Your assertion that anyone in the political arena favors restricting acces is a total lie. But why let that stand in the way of a good story.

 

[Listening]

But's it's racist to point out that 70% of babies born in the county to the north of us are to unwed mothers and 90% of those unwed moms are black.

Know what: tough s**t.

 

[Oddball]

"Cutting access" = Someone else won't pay for services rendered and products consumed.

 

[Listening]

Maybe Sandra should charge for her services.

She'd get about $2.00 a trick.

 

[SniperFire]

OP is a Progressive in the ilk of Josef Mengele and Margaret Sanger.

Forced sterilization would be even a more effective means of birth control.

 

[J3ffr3y]

This from The Associated Press.

-----------

WASHINGTON (AP) — Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concludes. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.

The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.

In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert's team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.

The findings of the study, which ran from 2008 to 2010, come as millions of U.S. women are beginning to get access to contraception without copays under President Barack Obama's health care law. Women's health specialists said the research foreshadows that policy's potential impact.
"As a society, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion rates. This study has demonstrated that having access to no-cost contraception helps us get to that goal," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.

"It's just an amazing improvement," Dr. James T. Breeden, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said of the results. "I would think if you were against abortions, you would be 100 percent for contraception access."
The law requires that Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives be available for free for women enrolled in most workplace insurance plans, a change that many will see as new plan years begin on Jan. 1.

The policy is among the law's most contentious provisions because it exempts churches that oppose contraception but requires religious-affiliated organizations, such as colleges or hospitals, to provide the coverage for their workers. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many conservative groups say that violates religious freedom, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has voiced similar criticism.

This week, a federal judge in St. Louis dismissed a lawsuit challenging the contraception mandate; nearly three dozen similar suits have been filed around the country.
Thursday's data didn't sway the critics.

Jeanne Monahan of the conservative Family Research Council suggested contraceptive use can encourage riskier sexual behavior.

"Additionally, one might conclude that the Obama administration's contraception mandate may ultimately cause more unplanned pregnancies since it mandates that all health plans cover contraceptives, including those that the study's authors claim are less effective," Monahan said.

Here's why this is a public health issue: Nearly half of the nation's 6 million-plus pregnancies each year are unintended. An estimated 43 percent of them end in abortion. Low-income women are far more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy than their wealthier counterparts.

"We shouldn't have, in my view, a tiered system where the women with money can get family planning and the women without cannot," said Peipert, noting that 39 percent of the women in his study had trouble paying basic expenses.
About half of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who use no contraception. As for the other half, condoms can fail and so can birth control pills or other shorter-acting methods if the woman forgets to use them or can't afford a refill.
In contrast, you can forget about pregnancy for three years with Implanon, the implant inserted under the skin of the arm. An IUD, a tiny T-shaped device inserted into the uterus, can last for five to 10 years, depending on the brand. Change your mind, and the doctor removes either device before it wears out.

Only about 5 percent of U.S. women use long-acting contraceptives, far fewer than in other developed countries. Peipert said insurance hasn't always covered the higher upfront cost to insert them, even though years of birth control pills can add up to the same price.

Yet three-quarters of his study participants chose an IUD or Implanon, and a year later 85 percent were sticking that choice — compared to about half who had initially chosen the pill, patch or other shorter-acting method.
Cost isn't the only barrier. Doctors don't always mention long-acting methods, maybe because of a long-outdated belief that IUDs aren't for young women or just because they assume women want the most commonly prescribed pill.
That was the case for Ashley England, 26, of Nashville, Tenn., who enrolled in the study while in graduate school in St. Louis. She had taken birth control pills for years but struggled with a $50 monthly copay. She switched to a five-year IUD, and loves that she and her husband don't have to think about contraception.
"No one had ever presented all the options equally," England said. "It's not telling you what to do. It's giving you a choice unhindered by money."
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Lauran Neergaard covers health and medical issues for The Associated Press in Washington.

One has to wonder why the Governor wants to cut off the primary source for low cost contraception to financially challenged women. From his website:

Eliminate Title X Family Planning Funding — Savings: $300 Million. Title X subsidizes family planning programs that benefit abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.

For $300M (or less than 1/3 the cost of a new destroyer the Navy is building), we could prevent a great many abortions, unwanted pregnancies, and help ensure women's health choices. The $300M spent now will be a lot less than building more schools, expanding entitlements, and building more prisons later on when the unwanted pregnancies are carried to term.

Also it should be noted that Title X money is not only provided to Planned Parenthood (no Title money is used for abortions by the way) but to public health departments across the nation; in red states as well as blue states. It is used to pay for everything from iron tablets to condoms to contraceptive foams and creams.

Basically, the reasons for opposing something that seems to be an effective program is principles. As a conservative I believe the federal govt should be limited in size and scope, its influence in the lives of American citizens should be minuscule, of little consequence. As the most effective and responsive government is the government that is closest to the people it governs, the totality of govt in a representative republic should appear as a pyramid, with the broadest segment being the local (municipal) govt, followed by county or regional govt, then state govt, and finally the federal govt, small and distant but placed rightfully atop the pyramid. In such a system, programs such as free contraception would be administered and funded locally. That way, the degree to which people might be forced to pay for something, through taxation, which they find objectionable would be lessened.


Jeffrey

 

[whitehall]

You almost gotta laugh if it wasn't such a serious issue. Radical lefties manage to blame republicans because a "study" indicates that girls who endure surgical contraceptive implants (at taxpayer expense) have less pregnancies. Well no shit but I don't want to have my taxes raised because the left wants to offer surgical contraceptives to underage girls who can't even get an aspirin in school without parents permission. Get the rich socialist left to finance free contraceptive implants. I'm sure the tax exempt Media Matters conglomerate could afford a grant it if a couple of the cheerleaders were thrown their way.

 

[candycorn]

That money comes from somewhere.

Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.

Tired of paying for Sandra....

Fluke off.

Yes it does. In the case of Ms. Fluke, it would come from her premiums. In the case of the study, the money spent today is nominal compared to the money spent on new classrooms, prisons, and entitlements in 10-20 years.

 

[Greenbeard]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concludes.

As common sense would suggest. But theocons aren't particularly interested in effective, practical ways to lower the abortion rate. They're more interested in holier-than-thou lectures than results.

Honestly, if Obama turns out to be the most pro-life president in history, lowering abortion rates via policy interventions, do you think that would make them happy or unhappy?

 

[candycorn]

Does the radical left concede that decades of condom on a cucumber sex ed is a failure and the only option left to teenage girls is surgical contraceptive implants at taxpayer expense? What a Country.

Does the radical right concede that the trillions spent on defense have been a waste since we haven't fought the Soviets or China?

What I think the report is saying is that contraception is a good thing. Access to contraception is a better thing. And fault-free contraception is a great thing. Nothing is better than abstinence in my view but thats hardly a widely held viewpoint in practice.

 

[candycorn]

That money comes from somewhere.

Don't wanna get pregnant.....keep your pants on.

Tired of paying for Sandra....

Fluke off.

Agreed. Instead of tax payers paying for the "free" birth control, maybe parents could pay for it. It's dirt cheap at Walmart. Instead, we are expected to treat everyone like little children and either stop them from making big mistakes or being forced to take responsibility for their mistakes. That is liberal thinking, for you.

Even if the birth control is paid for them, how will they be smart enough to get it and actually use it? Hmmm, we better hire some people to go around and babysit them and give them their birth control pills every day. Should we inform them that pills won't prevent getting AIDS or other diseases? Do they know that? That would be worse than pregnancy. What to do, what to do. Sure is hard trying to think up ways to save people from their own behavior.

We've had sex ed for years, but I guess too many are skipping class or quitting school so they aren't being properly educated. So, they going out in the world without an education and no idea about the risks of their behavior. I guess we better find a way for them to live since they aren't qualified to do anything. Then we'll continue to babysit them the rest of their lives. And when they have children, we'll keep repeating the whole process.

The item discussed in the report was either a Paragard IUD or a Norplant hormonal implant. These last for about 3 years. I guess it would be the baby sitter you're bitching about.

 

[candycorn]

You know what I get from the study, 35-40% of women are so completely irresponsible even when offered free birth control they won't use it and wind up getting an abortion. After all planned parenthood has offered free birth control to the poor for decades and single parent births are still on the rise.

Your assertion that anyone in the political arena favors restricting acces is a total lie. But why let that stand in the way of a good story.

Wow, you're stupid.

Where do you think PP's funding for the "free" birth control comes from? The Title X grant. The same one Romney wants to do-away with because PP also does abortions apparently.

It's on his website if you don't believe me.

 

[SniperFire]

You almost gotta laugh if it wasn't such a serious issue. Radical lefties manage to blame republicans because a "study" indicates that girls who endure surgical contraceptive implants (at taxpayer expense) have less pregnancies. Well no shit but I don't want to have my taxes raised because the left wants to offer surgical contraceptives to underage girls who can't even get an aspirin in school without parents permission. Get the rich socialist left to finance free contraceptive implants. I'm sure the tax exempt Media Matters conglomerate could afford a grant it if a couple of the cheerleaders were thrown their way.

The Progressives mindset held by people of the likes of Candy Corn murdered 100 million people in the last century for 'the greater good.'