Free Contraceptive Program = 40% Drop In Teen Birth Rate

[Steinlight]

We aren't talking before birth control. We are talking since 1994. Data shows unintended pregnancy rate is up since 1994. Thus there us no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in intended pregnancy rate.

Again, completely meaningless timeframe. Instead of starting from when contraceptives first became readily available, which would indicate their impact on unintended birth rates, you cherry pick from the middle of the data where it's at its low and then boast how it's gone up (even though it hasn't if you factor in population growth). Contraceptives did not suddenly become cheaper and more available in 1994 than in the immediate years prior, so there would be no reason for that chart to show a dramatic increase or decrease starting in 1994. You simply picked that date because you thought it would help you fend off the OP.

It didn't.

It isn't a meaningless timeframe. The HappyJoy's contention is that there is a correlation between cheaper and more available birth control and a lower rate of unintended pregnancies due to the fact unintended pregnancy rate is lower now than in 1981. No such correlation exists, as the rate of unwanted pregnancies is in fact up from 1994. Thus, you can establish no such statistical correlation to in order justify increased government subsidy by the claim it lowers unintended pregnancies.

There is no correlation between your chart, which is modeled after a different segment of society and different criteria, and the OP's stats. How can there be? They're on two different subjects.

It isn't two separate subjects. The OP suggested that due to a decline in teen birth rates in Colorado that Republicans at the national level should support government subsidized birth control. However, if you look at national data, unintended births have risen despite the rise in birth control. There is no statistical correlation between lower unintended birth rates and a rise in birth control. Since birth control has become cheaper and more available and unintended pregnancies have gone up, there is no evidence making it cheaper would have the effect of lowering unintended pregnancies, which is the goal of birth control. It would be a further waste of the taxpayers money.

You claim a rise in birth control in 1994 but I see no supporting data.

Are you claiming birth control use is down since 1994? I just want you to clarify this.

 

[Faun]

Again, completely meaningless timeframe. Instead of starting from when contraceptives first became readily available, which would indicate their impact on unintended birth rates, you cherry pick from the middle of the data where it's at its low and then boast how it's gone up (even though it hasn't if you factor in population growth). Contraceptives did not suddenly become cheaper and more available in 1994 than in the immediate years prior, so there would be no reason for that chart to show a dramatic increase or decrease starting in 1994. You simply picked that date because you thought it would help you fend off the OP.

It didn't.

It isn't a meaningless timeframe. The HappyJoy's contention is that there is a correlation between cheaper and more available birth control and a lower rate of unintended pregnancies due to the fact unintended pregnancy rate is lower now than in 1981. No such correlation exists, as the rate of unwanted pregnancies is in fact up from 1994. Thus, you can establish no such statistical correlation to in order justify increased government subsidy by the claim it lowers unintended pregnancies.

There is no correlation between your chart, which is modeled after a different segment of society and different criteria, and the OP's stats. How can there be? They're on two different subjects.

It isn't two separate subjects. The OP suggested that due to a decline in teen birth rates in Colorado that Republicans at the national level should support government subsidized birth control. However, if you look at national data, unintended births have risen despite the rise in birth control. There is no statistical correlation between lower unintended birth rates and a rise in birth control. Since birth control has become cheaper and more available and unintended pregnancies have gone up, there is no evidence making it cheaper would have the effect of lowering unintended pregnancies, which is the goal of birth control. It would be a further waste of the taxpayers money.

You claim a rise in birth control in 1994 but I see no supporting data.

Are you claiming birth control use is down since 1994? I just want you to clarify this.

I made no such claim. You said the use of birth control has been on the rise but you offered nothing to corroborate yhat.

 

[Faun]

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

It has continued becoming cheaper and more available since the 1970s.

Then pointing to 1994 in a graph to show an increase in unintended births, even though there really wasn't an increase, is beyond meaningless. If that trend began in the 70's, there was nothing related to contraceptives to buck the trend.

There was really an increase.

Again, here is the graph for reference.

If there was a positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies, than unwanted pregnancies wouldn't have been increasing since 1994. As such, there is no correlation or causal relationship between the two things.

You're correct as far as there being an increase. I mistakenly thought it was in nominal figures and it's not.

You are also correct in that there is no correlation in your chart between unintended pregnancies and birth control. Mainly because your chart doesn't go back far enough in time to see the impact from when contraceptives first became popular.

And your chart still has no correlation to the OP.

The OP, however, shows a drastic drop in teenage pregnancies following Colorado giving out contraceptives to teens for free. There is no other explanation for the drop in pregnancies.

Teens could be having less sex, that is one explanation off the bat I could think of. There could be a correlation, but at this point, one has not been established, one has been suggested by the governor.

However, even if that is true, not only teens get pregnant. As the data shows, unintended pregnancies are up nationally, and as I talked about and cited in earlier posts, the technology shock on social attitudes provided by birth control brought to the masses resulted in the normalization of out of sex outside marriage and children out of wedlock. This wasn't just me saying it, it was the liberal Brookings Institution.

So what I am trying to do is provide a broader context to this conversation, and show that there is no statistical evidence increased subsidies will reduce the problem of unintended pregnancies or out of wedlock births.

I see no evidence that teens having sex has dropped by 40%. The only factor which I see has changed is that birth control was given to them for free.

 

[Steinlight]

It isn't a meaningless timeframe. The HappyJoy's contention is that there is a correlation between cheaper and more available birth control and a lower rate of unintended pregnancies due to the fact unintended pregnancy rate is lower now than in 1981. No such correlation exists, as the rate of unwanted pregnancies is in fact up from 1994. Thus, you can establish no such statistical correlation to in order justify increased government subsidy by the claim it lowers unintended pregnancies.

There is no correlation between your chart, which is modeled after a different segment of society and different criteria, and the OP's stats. How can there be? They're on two different subjects.

It isn't two separate subjects. The OP suggested that due to a decline in teen birth rates in Colorado that Republicans at the national level should support government subsidized birth control. However, if you look at national data, unintended births have risen despite the rise in birth control. There is no statistical correlation between lower unintended birth rates and a rise in birth control. Since birth control has become cheaper and more available and unintended pregnancies have gone up, there is no evidence making it cheaper would have the effect of lowering unintended pregnancies, which is the goal of birth control. It would be a further waste of the taxpayers money.

You claim a rise in birth control in 1994 but I see no supporting data.

Are you claiming birth control use is down since 1994? I just want you to clarify this.

I made no such claim. You said the use of birth control has been on the rise but you offered nothing to corroborate yhat.

Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it.

 

[Steinlight]

It has continued becoming cheaper and more available since the 1970s.

Then pointing to 1994 in a graph to show an increase in unintended births, even though there really wasn't an increase, is beyond meaningless. If that trend began in the 70's, there was nothing related to contraceptives to buck the trend.

There was really an increase.

Again, here is the graph for reference.

If there was a positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies, than unwanted pregnancies wouldn't have been increasing since 1994. As such, there is no correlation or causal relationship between the two things.

You're correct as far as there being an increase. I mistakenly thought it was in nominal figures and it's not.

You are also correct in that there is no correlation in your chart between unintended pregnancies and birth control. Mainly because your chart doesn't go back far enough in time to see the impact from when contraceptives first became popular.

And your chart still has no correlation to the OP.

The OP, however, shows a drastic drop in teenage pregnancies following Colorado giving out contraceptives to teens for free. There is no other explanation for the drop in pregnancies.

Teens could be having less sex, that is one explanation off the bat I could think of. There could be a correlation, but at this point, one has not been established, one has been suggested by the governor.

However, even if that is true, not only teens get pregnant. As the data shows, unintended pregnancies are up nationally, and as I talked about and cited in earlier posts, the technology shock on social attitudes provided by birth control brought to the masses resulted in the normalization of out of sex outside marriage and children out of wedlock. This wasn't just me saying it, it was the liberal Brookings Institution.

So what I am trying to do is provide a broader context to this conversation, and show that there is no statistical evidence increased subsidies will reduce the problem of unintended pregnancies or out of wedlock births.

I see no evidence that teens having sex has dropped by 40%. The only factor which I see has changed is that birth control was given to them for free.

I see no evidence that contraception use among teens has increased 40% among colorado teens either.

 

[Faun]

There is no correlation between your chart, which is modeled after a different segment of society and different criteria, and the OP's stats. How can there be? They're on two different subjects.

It isn't two separate subjects. The OP suggested that due to a decline in teen birth rates in Colorado that Republicans at the national level should support government subsidized birth control. However, if you look at national data, unintended births have risen despite the rise in birth control. There is no statistical correlation between lower unintended birth rates and a rise in birth control. Since birth control has become cheaper and more available and unintended pregnancies have gone up, there is no evidence making it cheaper would have the effect of lowering unintended pregnancies, which is the goal of birth control. It would be a further waste of the taxpayers money.

You claim a rise in birth control in 1994 but I see no supporting data.

Are you claiming birth control use is down since 1994? I just want you to clarify this.

I made no such claim. You said the use of birth control has been on the rise but you offered nothing to corroborate yhat.

Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it.

I like that style of debate. Something's a fact merely because you state it. Evidence is a waste of time.

 

[Faun]

Then pointing to 1994 in a graph to show an increase in unintended births, even though there really wasn't an increase, is beyond meaningless. If that trend began in the 70's, there was nothing related to contraceptives to buck the trend.

There was really an increase.

Again, here is the graph for reference.

If there was a positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies, than unwanted pregnancies wouldn't have been increasing since 1994. As such, there is no correlation or causal relationship between the two things.

You're correct as far as there being an increase. I mistakenly thought it was in nominal figures and it's not.

You are also correct in that there is no correlation in your chart between unintended pregnancies and birth control. Mainly because your chart doesn't go back far enough in time to see the impact from when contraceptives first became popular.

And your chart still has no correlation to the OP.

The OP, however, shows a drastic drop in teenage pregnancies following Colorado giving out contraceptives to teens for free. There is no other explanation for the drop in pregnancies.

Teens could be having less sex, that is one explanation off the bat I could think of. There could be a correlation, but at this point, one has not been established, one has been suggested by the governor.

However, even if that is true, not only teens get pregnant. As the data shows, unintended pregnancies are up nationally, and as I talked about and cited in earlier posts, the technology shock on social attitudes provided by birth control brought to the masses resulted in the normalization of out of sex outside marriage and children out of wedlock. This wasn't just me saying it, it was the liberal Brookings Institution.

So what I am trying to do is provide a broader context to this conversation, and show that there is no statistical evidence increased subsidies will reduce the problem of unintended pregnancies or out of wedlock births.

I see no evidence that teens having sex has dropped by 40%. The only factor which I see has changed is that birth control was given to them for free.

I see no evidence that contraception use among teens has increased 40% among colorado teens either.

Less than 4,000 teens had babies in Colorado in 2013. About 30,000 IUDs were given out for free in Colorado since that that program began. That can easily account for the 40% drop; and of course, you have no counter explanation.

 

[Steinlight]

It isn't two separate subjects. The OP suggested that due to a decline in teen birth rates in Colorado that Republicans at the national level should support government subsidized birth control. However, if you look at national data, unintended births have risen despite the rise in birth control. There is no statistical correlation between lower unintended birth rates and a rise in birth control. Since birth control has become cheaper and more available and unintended pregnancies have gone up, there is no evidence making it cheaper would have the effect of lowering unintended pregnancies, which is the goal of birth control. It would be a further waste of the taxpayers money.

You claim a rise in birth control in 1994 but I see no supporting data.

Are you claiming birth control use is down since 1994? I just want you to clarify this.

I made no such claim. You said the use of birth control has been on the rise but you offered nothing to corroborate yhat.

Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it.

I like that style of debate. Something's a fact merely because you state it. Evidence is a waste of time.

It isn't a matter of debate.

 

[Steinlight]

There was really an increase.

Again, here is the graph for reference.

If there was a positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies, than unwanted pregnancies wouldn't have been increasing since 1994. As such, there is no correlation or causal relationship between the two things.

You're correct as far as there being an increase. I mistakenly thought it was in nominal figures and it's not.

You are also correct in that there is no correlation in your chart between unintended pregnancies and birth control. Mainly because your chart doesn't go back far enough in time to see the impact from when contraceptives first became popular.

And your chart still has no correlation to the OP.

The OP, however, shows a drastic drop in teenage pregnancies following Colorado giving out contraceptives to teens for free. There is no other explanation for the drop in pregnancies.

Teens could be having less sex, that is one explanation off the bat I could think of. There could be a correlation, but at this point, one has not been established, one has been suggested by the governor.

However, even if that is true, not only teens get pregnant. As the data shows, unintended pregnancies are up nationally, and as I talked about and cited in earlier posts, the technology shock on social attitudes provided by birth control brought to the masses resulted in the normalization of out of sex outside marriage and children out of wedlock. This wasn't just me saying it, it was the liberal Brookings Institution.

So what I am trying to do is provide a broader context to this conversation, and show that there is no statistical evidence increased subsidies will reduce the problem of unintended pregnancies or out of wedlock births.

I see no evidence that teens having sex has dropped by 40%. The only factor which I see has changed is that birth control was given to them for free.

I see no evidence that contraception use among teens has increased 40% among colorado teens either.

Less than 4,000 teens had babies in Colorado in 2013. About 30,000 IUDs were given out for free in Colorado since that that program began. That can easily account for the 40% drop; and of course, you have no counter explanation.

Was there a 40% increase in Iuds?

 

[Faun]

You're correct as far as there being an increase. I mistakenly thought it was in nominal figures and it's not.

You are also correct in that there is no correlation in your chart between unintended pregnancies and birth control. Mainly because your chart doesn't go back far enough in time to see the impact from when contraceptives first became popular.

And your chart still has no correlation to the OP.

The OP, however, shows a drastic drop in teenage pregnancies following Colorado giving out contraceptives to teens for free. There is no other explanation for the drop in pregnancies.

Teens could be having less sex, that is one explanation off the bat I could think of. There could be a correlation, but at this point, one has not been established, one has been suggested by the governor.

However, even if that is true, not only teens get pregnant. As the data shows, unintended pregnancies are up nationally, and as I talked about and cited in earlier posts, the technology shock on social attitudes provided by birth control brought to the masses resulted in the normalization of out of sex outside marriage and children out of wedlock. This wasn't just me saying it, it was the liberal Brookings Institution.

So what I am trying to do is provide a broader context to this conversation, and show that there is no statistical evidence increased subsidies will reduce the problem of unintended pregnancies or out of wedlock births.

I see no evidence that teens having sex has dropped by 40%. The only factor which I see has changed is that birth control was given to them for free.

I see no evidence that contraception use among teens has increased 40% among colorado teens either.

Less than 4,000 teens had babies in Colorado in 2013. About 30,000 IUDs were given out for free in Colorado since that that program began. That can easily account for the 40% drop; and of course, you have no counter explanation.

Was there a 40% increase in Iuds?

Easily. IUDs are not very popular unless given for free to poor teenagers.

 

[Steinlight]

Teens could be having less sex, that is one explanation off the bat I could think of. There could be a correlation, but at this point, one has not been established, one has been suggested by the governor.

However, even if that is true, not only teens get pregnant. As the data shows, unintended pregnancies are up nationally, and as I talked about and cited in earlier posts, the technology shock on social attitudes provided by birth control brought to the masses resulted in the normalization of out of sex outside marriage and children out of wedlock. This wasn't just me saying it, it was the liberal Brookings Institution.

So what I am trying to do is provide a broader context to this conversation, and show that there is no statistical evidence increased subsidies will reduce the problem of unintended pregnancies or out of wedlock births.

I see no evidence that teens having sex has dropped by 40%. The only factor which I see has changed is that birth control was given to them for free.

I see no evidence that contraception use among teens has increased 40% among colorado teens either.

Less than 4,000 teens had babies in Colorado in 2013. About 30,000 IUDs were given out for free in Colorado since that that program began. That can easily account for the 40% drop; and of course, you have no counter explanation.

Was there a 40% increase in Iuds?

Easily. IUDs are not very popular unless given for free to poor teenagers.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

 

[thereisnospoon]

Are they explaining the cancer risks to these teens? I doubt it

All medical devices and drugs come with warnings about possible side effects.

And are read/understood by teenagers?

 

[rdean]

I'm pretty sure Republicans want teens to have babies.

 

[Faun]

I see no evidence that teens having sex has dropped by 40%. The only factor which I see has changed is that birth control was given to them for free.

I see no evidence that contraception use among teens has increased 40% among colorado teens either.

Less than 4,000 teens had babies in Colorado in 2013. About 30,000 IUDs were given out for free in Colorado since that that program began. That can easily account for the 40% drop; and of course, you have no counter explanation.

Was there a 40% increase in Iuds?

Easily. IUDs are not very popular unless given for free to poor teenagers.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

"Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it."

 

[Steinlight]

I'm pretty sure Republicans want teens to have babies.

Only white ones.

 

[Steinlight]

I see no evidence that contraception use among teens has increased 40% among colorado teens either.

Less than 4,000 teens had babies in Colorado in 2013. About 30,000 IUDs were given out for free in Colorado since that that program began. That can easily account for the 40% drop; and of course, you have no counter explanation.

Was there a 40% increase in Iuds?

Easily. IUDs are not very popular unless given for free to poor teenagers.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

"Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it."

What is a matter of fact?

 

[Faun]

Less than 4,000 teens had babies in Colorado in 2013. About 30,000 IUDs were given out for free in Colorado since that that program began. That can easily account for the 40% drop; and of course, you have no counter explanation.

Was there a 40% increase in Iuds?

Easily. IUDs are not very popular unless given for free to poor teenagers.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

"Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it."

What is a matter of fact?

That the rate of teens using IUDs is up since getting them for free.

 

[Steinlight]

Was there a 40% increase in Iuds?

Easily. IUDs are not very popular unless given for free to poor teenagers.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

"Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it."

What is a matter of fact?

That the rate of teens using IUDs is up since getting them for free.

It is up. I was asking these questions though.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

 

[Faun]

Easily. IUDs are not very popular unless given for free to poor teenagers.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

"Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it."

What is a matter of fact?

That the rate of teens using IUDs is up since getting them for free.

It is up. I was asking these questions though.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

Not necessary to cite such numbers. It's your standard of evidence.

 

[Steinlight]

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

"Dont think I need to cite such a thing. I think it is just a matter of fact. But if you have evidence to the contrary go ahead and supply it."

What is a matter of fact?

That the rate of teens using IUDs is up since getting them for free.

It is up. I was asking these questions though.

Do you have the number of IUDs available in the state before the program?

What was the rate of teens on IUDs before and after the program?

Not necessary to cite such numbers. It's your standard of evidence.

Not necessary to cite numbers for what?