Back to the topic at hand; less contraception=more pregnancies. More pregnancies=more abortions. Why would Mitt want to cut the funding for contraception if the goal is to decrease abortions?
What the study actually said is that contraception is more effective if used properly, and they found that implants are easier to use. Does that justify forcing me to pay for a more expensive contraceptive when a simpler solution would be to drop the requirement that they be dispensed by prescription?
Less contraception actually doesn't equal more pregnancies. As a glance at the incidence of unplanned pregnancies down through the years shows in spades.