Free Contraceptive Program = 40% Drop In Teen Birth Rate

[JakeStarkey]

An assertion, SassyIrishChick, is not a rebuttal of anything. I thought you learned that at RouteIrish.

She's correct. The pill causes breast cancer and anything that uses hormones or spermicide causes cervical cancer. A fact that the pharmaceutical companies put in very small print.

Misdirection, because that was not her point. Yes, your cautions are noted. But we cannot take SassyEconChick's assertions as evidence.

 

[JakeStarkey]

An assertion, SassyIrishChick, is not a rebuttal of anything. I thought you learned that at RouteIrish.

She's correct. The pill causes breast cancer and anything that uses hormones or spermicide causes cervical cancer. A fact that the pharmaceutical companies put in very small print.

The cancer risks with the pill are very small - it slightly increases the risk of some (breast and cervical) but that risk drops once you stop taking it and after 10 years is no different than someone who has not taken it. It also decreases the risk of others - ovarian, womb and bowel.

The contraceptive pill and cancer risk Cancer Research UK

The risks of feral children are far greater than any cancer or other health risks.

Both abortion and BC should be government funded, and readily available at every possible outlet.

Indeed, the white feral children in the overwhelming portions of rural East Texas and southern Arkansas/norther Louisiana are terrifying to behold.

 

[Steinlight]

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

In terms of the OP, the data you present is meaningless. Aside from you cherry picking 1994 since it represents sent the trough, the charts you posted only go through 2008 and the OP is about how the teen birth rate has dropped significantly in Colorado since that state began handing out birth control in 2009.

Your whole post is meaningless. The op is talking about teen births in colorado. We are talking about unwanted pregnancies nationally. There is no statistical correlation between declines in unwanted pregnancy and cheaper birth control. Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994 despite birth control becoming cheaper and more readily available.

You should read before you post.

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

This thread illustrates well how most liberals are pragmatists and most conservatives ideologues.

Actually...I think it just illustrates how conservatives think it's okie dokie for men to pokey but women better remain chaste.

The classic rightwing double standard.

 

[Steinlight]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the **** is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "******* point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Here are some notable trends:

Teen pregnancies resulting in live births have declined significantly since 1991.

Unintended pregnancy rates have increased sharply among the poorest women since 1994 and remained level or decreased amongst wealthier women according to HappyJoy's link.

What's been happening since 1994 to cause that trend?
* a change in policy from contraception to Abstinance Only programs (which have been shown to not be very effective)
* a shift in many state governments to Republican majorities and the passing of legislation sharply curtailing education on contraception and family planning clinics who's mandate included free or low cost contraception and education. The state's that have seen the sharpest rise in unwanted pregnancies are the ones who have also seen the most family planning clinics closed and the harshest restrictions on family planning for poor women.

Perhaps most telling is that Europe has very low unwanted pregnancy rates and readily available free or low cost contraception.

That is an interesting hypothesis. However you would have to provide data to that effect. Meaning, providing unwanted pregnancy data from republican led states vs democrat led states, unwanted pregnancy data in states with abstinence-only only education vs those that don't have abstinence-only. Then you would also have to provide data for comparative pricing for birth control of these states. Also you would need to provide the rate of increase or decrease in unwanted pregnancies in the aforementioned states. And honestly to be accurate you would have to control for race and income. Though we can forget those two factors for now.

As for Europe you would have to supply this data on a nation by nation basis. Broadly categorizing Europe as one entity would not lead to accurate results.

I would be very interested in you establishing such a relationship, and open to the data.

But as of yet, all you have provided is speculation.

 

[g5000]

STDs up sharply...

Link?

 

[g5000]

I have pointed out many times on this and other forums that the vast majority of abortions which occur are the result of no birth control being used, or the inconsistent use of birth control.

It is just plain common sense that if women were using birth control consistently, there would be less unwanted pregnancies, and thus less abortions.

A birth control implant takes the inconsistency variable right out of the equation, and should therefore have a significant impact on the number of abortions.

You have to be pretty dense not to see that.

We can haggle all the live long day over who should pay for it, but the obvious benefits are indisputable.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Do not expect moral or logical consistency from the far social Christian conservatives on issues of contraception.

 

[Coyote]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the **** is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "******* point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Here are some notable trends:

Teen pregnancies resulting in live births have declined significantly since 1991.

Unintended pregnancy rates have increased sharply among the poorest women since 1994 and remained level or decreased amongst wealthier women according to HappyJoy's link.

What's been happening since 1994 to cause that trend?
* a change in policy from contraception to Abstinance Only programs (which have been shown to not be very effective)
* a shift in many state governments to Republican majorities and the passing of legislation sharply curtailing education on contraception and family planning clinics who's mandate included free or low cost contraception and education. The state's that have seen the sharpest rise in unwanted pregnancies are the ones who have also seen the most family planning clinics closed and the harshest restrictions on family planning for poor women.

Perhaps most telling is that Europe has very low unwanted pregnancy rates and readily available free or low cost contraception.

That is an interesting hypothesis. However you would have to provide data to that effect. Meaning, providing unwanted pregnancy data from republican led states vs democrat led states, unwanted pregnancy data in states with abstinence-only only education vs those that don't have abstinence-only. Then you would also have to provide data for comparative pricing for birth control of these states. Also you would need to provide the rate of increase or decrease in unwanted pregnancies in the aforementioned states. And honestly to be accurate you would have to control for race and income. Though we can forget those two factors for now.

As for Europe you would have to supply this data on a nation by nation basis. Broadly categorizing Europe as one entity would not lead to accurate results.

I would be very interested in you establishing such a relationship, and open to the data.

But as of yet, all you have provided is speculation.

No more speculative than what you've provided particularly the claim that free contraception will lead to degenerate liberals taking advantage of young girls. What I provided is correlative trends and while correlation doesn't always equal causation - the trends are most interesting.

Europe can be categorized as one entity under the EU.

 

[Steinlight]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

 

[Coyote]

In terms of the OP, the data you present is meaningless. Aside from you cherry picking 1994 since it represents sent the trough, the charts you posted only go through 2008 and the OP is about how the teen birth rate has dropped significantly in Colorado since that state began handing out birth control in 2009.

Your whole post is meaningless. The op is talking about teen births in colorado. We are talking about unwanted pregnancies nationally. There is no statistical correlation between declines in unwanted pregnancy and cheaper birth control. Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994 despite birth control becoming cheaper and more readily available.

You should read before you post.

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

That is not true.

 

[Coyote]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

And note: no more shotgun weddings.

 

[Steinlight]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the **** is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "******* point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Here are some notable trends:

Teen pregnancies resulting in live births have declined significantly since 1991.

Unintended pregnancy rates have increased sharply among the poorest women since 1994 and remained level or decreased amongst wealthier women according to HappyJoy's link.

What's been happening since 1994 to cause that trend?
* a change in policy from contraception to Abstinance Only programs (which have been shown to not be very effective)
* a shift in many state governments to Republican majorities and the passing of legislation sharply curtailing education on contraception and family planning clinics who's mandate included free or low cost contraception and education. The state's that have seen the sharpest rise in unwanted pregnancies are the ones who have also seen the most family planning clinics closed and the harshest restrictions on family planning for poor women.

Perhaps most telling is that Europe has very low unwanted pregnancy rates and readily available free or low cost contraception.

That is an interesting hypothesis. However you would have to provide data to that effect. Meaning, providing unwanted pregnancy data from republican led states vs democrat led states, unwanted pregnancy data in states with abstinence-only only education vs those that don't have abstinence-only. Then you would also have to provide data for comparative pricing for birth control of these states. Also you would need to provide the rate of increase or decrease in unwanted pregnancies in the aforementioned states. And honestly to be accurate you would have to control for race and income. Though we can forget those two factors for now.

As for Europe you would have to supply this data on a nation by nation basis. Broadly categorizing Europe as one entity would not lead to accurate results.

I would be very interested in you establishing such a relationship, and open to the data.

But as of yet, all you have provided is speculation.

No more speculative than what you've provided particularly the claim that free contraception will lead to degenerate liberals taking advantage of young girls. What I provided is correlative trends and while correlation doesn't always equal causation - the trends are most interesting.

Europe can be categorized as one entity under the EU.

I never made that claim. Stop mischaracterizing my position. My claim, which is backed up by the data, is there is no statistical correlation between lower unintended/unwanted pregnancy rates and a rise in birth control. In fact the opposite is occurring with unintended pregnancy rates.

Different nations in the EU have differing unintended/unwanted pregnancy rates and differing policies . So you would have to differentiate. A broad categorization would be inaccurate.

 

[Coyote]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

I disagree in this case. With birth control, it's not only the cost of the pill but the associated doctors visits - poor people would struggle to afford that.

Women Struggle with the Cost of Birth Control

This is not just a health issue, it’s an economic issue. A 2010 survey found that more than a third of female voters have struggled to afford prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and as a result, used birth control inconsistently. This isn’t surprising considering co-pays for birth control pills typically range between $15 and $50 per month. That adds up to over $600 per year. Other methods, such as IUDs, can cost several hundred dollars, even with health insurance.​

 

[Steinlight]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

And note: no more shotgun weddings.

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

 

[Coyote]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the **** is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "******* point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Here are some notable trends:

Teen pregnancies resulting in live births have declined significantly since 1991.

Unintended pregnancy rates have increased sharply among the poorest women since 1994 and remained level or decreased amongst wealthier women according to HappyJoy's link.

What's been happening since 1994 to cause that trend?
* a change in policy from contraception to Abstinance Only programs (which have been shown to not be very effective)
* a shift in many state governments to Republican majorities and the passing of legislation sharply curtailing education on contraception and family planning clinics who's mandate included free or low cost contraception and education. The state's that have seen the sharpest rise in unwanted pregnancies are the ones who have also seen the most family planning clinics closed and the harshest restrictions on family planning for poor women.

Perhaps most telling is that Europe has very low unwanted pregnancy rates and readily available free or low cost contraception.

That is an interesting hypothesis. However you would have to provide data to that effect. Meaning, providing unwanted pregnancy data from republican led states vs democrat led states, unwanted pregnancy data in states with abstinence-only only education vs those that don't have abstinence-only. Then you would also have to provide data for comparative pricing for birth control of these states. Also you would need to provide the rate of increase or decrease in unwanted pregnancies in the aforementioned states. And honestly to be accurate you would have to control for race and income. Though we can forget those two factors for now.

As for Europe you would have to supply this data on a nation by nation basis. Broadly categorizing Europe as one entity would not lead to accurate results.

I would be very interested in you establishing such a relationship, and open to the data.

But as of yet, all you have provided is speculation.

No more speculative than what you've provided particularly the claim that free contraception will lead to degenerate liberals taking advantage of young girls. What I provided is correlative trends and while correlation doesn't always equal causation - the trends are most interesting.

Europe can be categorized as one entity under the EU.

I never made that claim. Stop mischaracterizing my position. My claim, which is backed up by the data, is there is no statistical correlation between lower unintended/unwanted pregnancy rates and a rise in birth control. In fact the opposite is occurring with unintended pregnancy rates.

Different nations in the EU have differing unintended/unwanted pregnancy rates and differing policies . So you would have to differentiate. A broad categorization would be inaccurate.

Apologies - that claim was indeed made by someone else.

 

[Steinlight]

Your whole post is meaningless. The op is talking about teen births in colorado. We are talking about unwanted pregnancies nationally. There is no statistical correlation between declines in unwanted pregnancy and cheaper birth control. Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994 despite birth control becoming cheaper and more readily available.

You should read before you post.

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

That is not true.

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

 

[Coyote]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

And note: no more shotgun weddings.

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

 

[Steinlight]

I am also ambivalent about increased government subsidization of birth control. As there is a statistical correlation between the rise in birth control and the rise in out of wedlock births, which have adverse social and economic costs. A technology shock if you will normalized out of wedlock birth and premarital sex.

This is according to the Brookings Institution. Certainly not a Conservative or Libertarian think tank.

An Analysis of Out-Of-Wedlock Births in the United States Brookings Institution

Really, at the end of the day, birth control is something that should be provided through the free market. Free markets provide goods at the lowest cost and greatest quantity, and allow individuals to make their own decision regarding using the technology. And there is no evidence that government intervention through increased subsidy would reduce unwanted pregnancies or the out of wedlock birth rate, so it is spending more money we don't have towards something there isn't evidence for.

And note: no more shotgun weddings.

Yes, there is less social stigma to get married and have children and sex outside marriage, due to the technology shock provided by the rise in birth control technology.

There is less stigma to marry however - marriage covered up out of wedlock pregnancies.

That isn't an however statement. The two are linked, the reduced stigma as a result of the tech shock to marry results in less marriage and more children being born to unmarried parents.

 

[Coyote]

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

That is not true.

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

I saw charts indicating the opposite.

There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

On the other hand - one important trend that foes along with unintended pregnancies is the teen pregnancy rate and that has gone down significantly: