Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds *Edit title: Where are Moms against Free BC?*

Posted by   + Show Post

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds

A dramatic new study with implications for next month’s presidential election finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies -- and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project  -- dubbed CHOICE -- ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

The study’s lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University, expected both measures to fall, but even he said he was “very surprised” by the magnitude.

In all, Peipert said, one abortion was prevented for approximately every 100 women who took part (the actual estimate is 1 per every 79 to 135 women). 

The results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert pushed the journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6 presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.

“It just has so many implications for our society,” he told NBC News.

Several factors contributed to the declines, he argued. First, a large majority of the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control pills.

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99 percent effective.

Second, program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.

That’s important because an IUD, including the device and the physician’s service to place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many women.

James Trussell, a Princeton University professor of economics and public affairs and an expert in family planning called the results “terrific, great work, and a very important demonstration project.” 

But it’s also politically fraught. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance plans to cover contraceptive costs. That’s led to conflicts among the Obama administration, the Catholic church, and the church’s political allies who argue that requiring a Catholic employer to provide such insurance contradicts the church’s teaching and represents a breach of religious freedom.

Conservatives have also objected to contraceptive coverage on cost grounds. Some have focused their anger at Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who agitated for the Catholic school to offer an insurance plan that covers contraception. Radio host Rush Limbaugh famously called her a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

But experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money.

According to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year. 

“The way I look at it as a gynecologist with an interest in women’s health and public health and family planning, is that this saves money,” Peipert said. “When you provide no-cost contraception, and you remove that barrier, you finally reduce unintended pregnancy rates. It doesn’t matter what side one is on politically, that’s a good thing.”

The Catholic Church is unlikely to be moved. “If, as supporters of the contraceptive mandate argue, it will pay for itself in reduced medical expenses, so will free embryo engineering and other eugenic services, including infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and genetic manipulation,” wrote Thomas Joseph White, director of the Thomistic Institute at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and R.R. Reno, in the conservative journal First Things.

But to academic experts, the results of CHOICE are clear. “What the study suggests to me,” said John Santelli, professor at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, “is that it’s totally supportive of the president’s provisions on reproductive care and preventive services for women in the Affordable Care Act.”

In a 2009 study, Trussell and colleagues reported that long-acting contraceptives like IUDs were far cheaper than an unintended birth, an abortion, and especially an ectopic pregnancy.

Trussell argued that cost savings go “well beyond” those immediate medical savings. They don’t, for example, take into account costs associated with longer term issues such as economic stress on the mother and family, a teenager who doesn’t finish high school or skips college because she’s had a baby.

Research has also shown that neglect, stress, anxiety, or simply a low level of nurturing in early life has effects on a child that can last far into adulthood. It may influence, for example, the cycle of teen pregnancy and crime. 

“It’s hard to imagine how politicians wouldn’t like to spend a dollar to save four,” Trussell said. As to the objections like those of White, he concluded that “it makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of your views on abortion, virtually everybody says preventing unintended pregnancies is smart.”

Brian Alexander (www.BrianRAlexander.com) is co-author, with Larry Young Ph.D., of "The Chemistry Between Us: Love, Sex and the Science of Attraction," (www.TheChemistryBetweenUs.com), now on sale.

New World Peace

by on Oct. 5, 2012 at 8:05 AM
Replies (101-110):
NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 6, 2012 at 12:06 AM

First, a large majority of the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control pills.

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99 percent effective.

Quoting motherslove82:

So using birth control reduces the need for abortion? You wouldn't know it to hear some women talk. :-)


New World Peace

motherslove82
by Silver Member on Oct. 6, 2012 at 12:18 AM

IUDs also have a lot of side-effects. 

I was saying it's common sense that easy access to birth control would lower abortion rates.

But when you say something like "instead of getting an abortion, you should use birth control so you don't get pregnant in the first place" it's "birth control fails!!!!","Nothing is 100%", "I got pregnant 10 times while using birth control properly". 

Quoting NWP:

First, a large majority of the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control pills.

Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99 percent effective.

Quoting motherslove82:

So using birth control reduces the need for abortion? You wouldn't know it to hear some women talk. :-)



motherslove82
by Silver Member on Oct. 6, 2012 at 12:21 AM
1 mom liked this

It's common sense that proper use of (and easy access to) birth control prevents abortions.

I was refering to the fact that so many people claim to have gotten pregnant while on birth control. It's well above the actual failure rate.

Quoting NWP:

Talk is talk...this is actual evidence that free birth control works to reduce the rate of abortion, by up to 75%...Now that is very significant. Don't you think?

Quoting motherslove82:

So using birth control reduces the need for abortion? You wouldn't know it to hear some women talk. :-)



NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 6, 2012 at 7:18 AM

I know it happens some...but like the article said, it is human error a lot of times.

I agree about the use of birth control. What surprises me about this study is how affective free birth control was at cutting the number of abortions. It was a WOW moment.

It is a win win.

Quoting motherslove82:

It's common sense that proper use of (and easy access to) birth control prevents abortions.

I was refering to the fact that so many people claim to have gotten pregnant while on birth control. It's well above the actual failure rate.

Quoting NWP:

Talk is talk...this is actual evidence that free birth control works to reduce the rate of abortion, by up to 75%...Now that is very significant. Don't you think?

Quoting motherslove82:

So using birth control reduces the need for abortion? You wouldn't know it to hear some women talk. :-)




New World Peace

Bookwormy
by Platinum Member on Oct. 6, 2012 at 7:25 AM
Yes, she has the right. I agree with that.


Quoting Lizardannie1966:

I still defer to the right of the woman to choose and if her option is an abortion, she legally has that right.

Quoting Bookwormy:

I'm vehemently pro-choice & feminist, but I'm not pro-abortion! Less abortions are always good.





Quoting Lizardannie1966:

There it is.....the neon sign.....like a moth to a flame, I come forth as one of the ones against free bc..... ;)~~

I would think that this thread would apply more to those that are pro life to begin with, yes?

If so, I am not one of those. I am pro choice. I also believe it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that those who are not for free bc for all (low-income, yes; those who can afford it, no) are wanting "control over women." Some, sure but not all.

I am for choice in most things. Choice to use effective bc. Choice to abort legally.

I also have to wonder what type of free bc women will get? At some point and I mentioned this in another thread the other day, I would guess that the pharmaceutical companies that offer the more expensive forms of bc might say, "uhhh....wait. doesn't this defeat OUR purpose somehow?"

Ultimately and despite my stand on abortion, a reduction of abortions would be nice I suppose. But I'm personally not even linking the two--abortion rates falling because of free bc--and again, because I am pro choice and the falling rates do not impact how I see free bc to begin with.






Posted on CafeMom Mobile
momtoscott
by Platinum Member on Oct. 6, 2012 at 7:38 AM

 Thanks for posting, it's nice to see actual data that supports what common sense would suggest.  Compared to the cost to the government of providing support (even if PA is cut off, just basic infrastructure support) for the children of unplanned pregnancies, funding free or low cost BC is a fiscal winner. 

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 6, 2012 at 8:12 AM

It does make common sense. I was surprised at how effective it was.

Quoting momtoscott:

 Thanks for posting, it's nice to see actual data that supports what common sense would suggest.  Compared to the cost to the government of providing support (even if PA is cut off, just basic infrastructure support) for the children of unplanned pregnancies, funding free or low cost BC is a fiscal winner. 


New World Peace

meriana
by Platinum Member on Oct. 6, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Free bc for adults, fine, I do have a problem with handing out free bc pills, implants and iud's to underage girls without parental knowledge and consent. If anyone provided my 14 yr old dd any of those, I'd be beyond angry. Why? Because I had bad reactions to the pills, my older two dd's had bad reactions to the pills and both the other forms of bc. I have every reason to think this is an area where my dd needs to be very careful and be monitored for reactions. However, if I don't know it's been provided to her and she has a reaction, I'm probably going to be thinking "flu" or something which would delay proper treatment and/or removal. I'm sure we're not the only gals who react badly to bc (at least I hope not as that would make us really weird or something), and teens often  aren't all that knowledable when it comes to things like this. If someone tells them, say a friend,  what they are experiencing is normal they have a tendency to just say oh ok instead of being checked out by a dr. which, as with many other things, can have bad results.

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 6, 2012 at 8:18 AM

This is where I think it is our job to educate them and to let them know our family histories. I would not like it if my DD were to get BC without my knowledge.  However, if for some reason she could not talk to me (I really think she would, but she is only 8 right now and I do know you can't control another person no matter how hard you try) I would rather her be responsible by taking BC than unexpectedly pregnant.

Quoting meriana:

Free bc for adults, fine, I do have a problem with handing out free bc pills, implants and iud's to underage girls without parental knowledge and consent. If anyone provided my 14 yr old dd any of those, I'd be beyond angry. Why? Because I had bad reactions to the pills, my older two dd's had bad reactions to the pills and both the other forms of bc. I have every reason to think this is an area where my dd needs to be very careful and be monitored for reactions. However, if I don't know it's been provided to her and she has a reaction, I'm probably going to be thinking "flu" or something which would delay proper treatment and/or removal. I'm sure we're not the only gals who react badly to bc (at least I hope not as that would make us really weird or something), and teens often  aren't all that knowledable when it comes to things like this. If someone tells them, say a friend,  what they are experiencing is normal they have a tendency to just say oh ok instead of being checked out by a dr. which, as with many other things, can have bad results.


New World Peace

NWP
by guerrilla girl on Oct. 6, 2012 at 8:20 AM

Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls the same age.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN