I offer a small study to show that the type of contraception that is not reliant on human consistency does reduce unintended pregnancies and therefore abortions. In a study published Oct. 4 in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, researchers provided free methods of reversible, reliable contraception to more than 9,000 teens and women in the St. Louis area. They found that the program reduced the abortion rate among these women by 62 percent to 78 percent. "The impact of providing no-cost birth control was far greater than we expected in terms of unintended pregnancies," lead author Jeff Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine, said in a statement. "We think improving access to birth control, particularly IUDs [intrauterine devices] and [hormone] implants, coupled with education on the most effective methods, has the potential to significantly decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country." The findings have implications for public policy, especially given that President Obama's health-care plan requires employers to offer plans that include birth control coverage. This requirement has been a point of controversy in the lead-up to the 2012 election. Between 2006 and 2008, 49 percent of all pregnancies in America were unplanned, according to the CDC's National Survey of Family Growth. About 43 percent of these unintended pregnancies ended in abortion. Meanwhile, a 2011 study in the journal Contraception estimated that unintended births cost U.S. taxpayers about $11 billion a year. To see if access to free contraception could budge those numbers, Peipert and his colleagues recruited 9,256 women ages 14 to 45 living in the St. Louis area through flyers, doctors and word-of-mouth. They also recruited patients from the city's two abortion clinics. Participants were given the option of using any reversible birth control method, from the birth control pill to a hormonal birth control patch to a long-lasting IUD or hormonal implant. More than half of the women chose IUDs, 17 percent picked hormonal implants (tiny rods placed under the skin that release hormones), and the rest chose pills, patches and other hormonal methods. As a result, the researchers found, both teen births and overall abortion rates plummeted. Among women in the free contraceptive program, the teen birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 women, a huge difference from the national teen birth rate of 34.3 per 1,000 women. Likewise, the abortion rate among women in the program was 4.4 to 7.5 per 1,000 between 2008 and 2010. Nationally, there are 19.6 abortions per every thousand women, a 62 percent to 78 percent difference. In the St. Louis area, the overall abortion rate in that time frame was between 13.4 and 17 abortions per 1,000 women. The study highlights the importance of long-acting contraception methods such as the IUD, researchers said. Birth control pills have a higher failure rate than these methods, because women have to remember to take a pill at the same time every day. But IUDs, which last about 10 years, can cost more than $800, the researchers said, putting them out of reach for many lower-income women who may not be able to come up with that kind of money in one lump sum. "Unintended pregnancy remains a major health problem in the United States, with higher proportions among teenagers and women with less education and lower economic status," Peipert said. "The results of this study demonstrate that we can reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy and this is key to reducing abortions in this country." - http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/24334.aspx it is no coincidence that the poorest are those who have the highest rates in unintended pregnancies. Thus it is logical to say that contraception such as IUD's should be free as they would reduce the unintended pregnancies and thus abortions. My question to pro-lifers who stand against comprehensive sex education and free contraception is simply, why do you stand against the very things that are proven to reduce abortions?
It seems a bit like "stating the bleedin' obvious", which I've put in quotes to ensure you do understand it's just a saying and not intended to cause offence. The answer to reducing unwanted pregnancies, is, first of all, good sex education in schools, starting at a young age. Really good frank and fun sex education - beginning with the plain biological facts and moving slowly onto discussing personal feelings, bodily issues, respect for sexual partners and so on - and it should be compulsory. No parent should have the right to prevent their child learning about such an important subject. Of course, making all types of contraception plentiful and freely available is also a good idea, but kids should certainly be taught how to use them properly. Put condom machines in school toilets. Have the morning after pill available from the school nurse.
Easier access to contraception would reduce abortions. Yet many of the "pro-lifers" object to easier access to contraception....thus showing it's NOT about "reducing abortions" for them....it's about controlling women.
The issue many pro lifers have with contraceptives is that the most reliable one's are viewed as being abortive, i.e. the morning after pill and IUDs, which affect an already fertilized egg. It runs counter to their belief that life begins at conception. Not to say they all draw the line there.
Most "pro-lifers" are anything but pro-life. A better descriptor would be "pro-self righteous" or "anti-choice." Just ask any of them if they would support free pre and post natal care for both the mothers and infants, a vital component to lowering the infant mortality rate as well as ensuring the health of the mother. Prepare to see their eyes glaze over as they check through their script for an answer.
"pro-lifers" take great delight in the fact that clinics that provide pre and post natal care were shut down....they hate pregnant women, mothers, and women who have abortions ....and that's "pro-life! How do they explain that??
After forty years of research on hormonal birth control and IUDs, scientiists have found no evidence that they prevent implantation. Right-wingers continue that mantra though, and continue resisting easier access to birth control. Why? Because they don't want women to be able to choose to have sex without "consequences."
We have "pro-lifers" on this board who object to ALL contraception....and in fact, make the ludicrious and utterly contradictory argument that "contraception leads to more unwanted pregnancies and abortions".... http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=333480&page=7
If you listen to guys like Rick Santorum....he draws no "line" between opposition to IUD and "morning after pills"....and any other contraception (Pill, condoms, etc)..... he has called contraception "dangerous" to America. Now this is a major figure in the GOP (came in 2nd in the 2012 Primaries), using his fundamentalist Catholic belief to influence his stances on public policies (he admits he does that on abortion...why not on contraception?). Again, many "pro-lifers" are NOT about reducing abortion....they are about controlling women and their sex lives. How many times have we seen them (usually male) talking about "women being irresponsible" or "women not accepting the outcome of having sex"......or "evil women needing to be controlled"?
I've said it before, if everyone's goal is "fewer abortions", then doing everything we can do to prevent unwanted pregnancies seems to be a no-brainer. Fear of prosecution is a far less effective contraceptive than... say... an actual contraceptive would be. I won't delve into the whole "prohibition always fails and causes more problems than it fixes" tirade again, but suffice to say, simply making abortion illegal will not prevent abortions. But making abortions UNNECESSARY will.
The dirty little secret that a large percentage of lifers ( being the religious right) are reluctant to admit publically is that they are against sex unless it is within marriage and wish to force this into public policy.
Actually, I think their hypocrisy runs deeper. They're against OTHER people having sex outside of marriage. You think they actually believe Ann Coulter, never married....is a virgin???
I must have not posted clearly as that what I meant to say. They are against others having sex outside of marriage. They say things like "it perverts society|. In some cases for things they are against they try and create laws that force others to comply to their religious beliefs. Temperance movement, Abortion, Gay rights and so on. Sodomy is still on the books in Texas -although not enforced? They try and pervert the constitution claiming that the founders were not for separation of Church and State. Ann Coulter needs a good shag. What the raging masses also believe is that the talking heads actually believe what comes out of their mouths. These pundits say what they think the raging masses will ingest. Half the time they know what they are saying is embellished, a fallacious argument, or outright false.
I just gave Coulter as an example....the same guys who'll rail against "feminists who sleep around and only focus on their career and don't care about marriage and family".....love Ann Coulter. Just like the same guys who say "Children need a father in the household" (discussing single mothers or even lesbian couples)......love Laura Ingraham.
Should contraception be provided free to all women who ask for it? Should contraception be provided free to girls as young as thirteen?
