Skip to comments.Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions
Posted on 10/06/2012 12:22:16 PM PDT by EveningStar
click here to read article
What's the difference, kill before they be, or after.
I don’t believe that for one second - sounds like BS designed to make us “OK” with free contraception - spit
If there is no fertilization, there’s no baby. Sperm and egg never make contact.
Story of my life.
Miles and miles of toothpaste ... just layin' around with no tube to call home.
This is total nonsense. The legalization of contraceptives preceded the legalization of abortion by a few years, and the rate of abortion skyrocketed.
The availability of contraceptives was cancelled out, many times over, by the spread of stupid and immoral behavior and widespread lack of self control.
I’ll bet if they cut off the welfare and suggested adoption there would be fewer teen Births and shorter adoption waiting lists.
So, even though your doctor may call an IUD a contraceptive, remember, it does not prevent fertilization. It does cause the death of the tiny new human at one week of life in a micro-abortion, and for this reason, few Christian women will allow one to be inserted into them.
Don’t be under the illusion that “birth control” does not kill AfTER fertilization. Many types prevent implantation.
In any case, to the headline, mu question is: fewer abortions than what? Than before Roe V Wade? I doubt it.
When this country allows for ONE legal killing of an innocent, we’re in very bad shape.
Oh, and look! A man-child in the White House. Messing up everything. A 50-60% divorce rate (and not every other marriage is happy). Out of wedlock pre and post abortive pregnancy rate way higher than pre Roe v Wade. Complete garbage for cultural media. Immodesty and predatory behavior acceptable among girls and women. Homosexual militancy in areas as indefendable as middle schools.
A complete lack of critical thinking among a mojority of the population- Ugh! Including the voting population.
Oh and the masses accepting the term “free” for “taxpayer- funded”, which this is.
So is there something “special” in the free variety that makes it more effective than the you-have-to-buy-it variety? (/sarc off)
Without reading the study I assume their can be no direct cause and effect. Abortion rates have been going down for various reasons. Also, BC methods are not exactly costly. I recall in the 60 to 70’s girls and boys could get free bc from planned parent hood.
Here in Washington state, free birth control is already widely available.
Planned Parenthood administers the “Take Charge” program which gives free birth control to any woman earning less than $28,000 a year.
Medicaid, which deals directly with America’s poorest families and individuals, provides free birth control.
Washington state Social Services has at least one program that provides free birth control.
Time to accept reality on this issue...
A free abortion is the birth control of choice for a significant number of America’s poorest women.
So... ban condoms it is.
Fight them over there by paying for their contraception or fight them here when they're breaking into your house at 3 am.
I'm mostly for freedom of conscience, but asking people to pay for free contraception is like drafting citizens to fight during war.
And make no mistake: it is war, and right now the best are losing while the worst multiply like locusts.
How about free surgeries to tie their tubes off?
Just make it a condition for receiving public assistance.
Trusting doctors for the sake of not taking personal responsibility can be fatal. Let’s think.
And just by the way, the AMA is a pro abortion organization. Here’s where I am spitting on the ground.
“Micro-abortion”. Let’s take out Micro, unless we have a verifiable notation of when life begins. We’re erring on the side of caution when it comes to the life of an innocent.
And Christian or not, Natural law tells us that it is unlawful to kill innocents, most especially when it comes to mothers killing their offspring.
Geeze, this generation is going to go down badly in the annals of history.
The liberal War on Women continues.
You’re welcome. And I agree with the “micro” stupidity. Call it what it is.
What I believe happened is that they were led around and told what to do and did it. That did result in fewer pregnancies but in the real world and real life you don’t have someone leading you by the nose. There have been free birth control methods since they were invented, there are free condoms everywhere and it didn’t change anything but when the Nanny state leads you around by the nose to effect a change.
So for this study to be replicated in the real world each person who is of reproductive age would need their own medical person who made sure they did all the things they were supposed to to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
I don’t know how many people I’ve known who already had the birth control and forgot to use it or used it incorrectly and got pregnant and even those who used it correctly and the birth control failed.
A while back they had that Yaz birth control and they advertised it 24/7, now the law firms are telling people who used it that they can sue 24/7. Sure sounds like it wasn’t too safe and effective to me.
If everyone was a homosexual, birth control wouldn’t even be an issue. Think of the money ‘we’ could save.
Tubes tied, then they won’t have dependencies.
Democrats NEED an underclass who are kept “helpless”.
Baraq even acknowledged this in a speech that was recently leaked on tape.
Welfare isn’t being implemented as a “safety net”. Democrats want to keep generations of a family “in need” and grateful to Big Brother for their weekly/biweekly/monthly hand out.
Get them back on their feet and productive and they may not vote Democrat or even vote.
OK, it has been said by a great mind that “abortion is a fruit of birth control”.
Part of the reasoning there is that when treated like a human instead of the divine invention that it is, marital relation takes on a recreational purpose, with benefits and much detriment leading to well . . .
Not having sex in the first place means “0” abortions.
but when the Nanny state leads you around by the nose to effect a change...
they make sure they get the results they were aiming for. I wonder how many dropped out and weren’t followed or counted?
CDC, SIECUS, Planned Parenthood, NOW, etc. oppose abstinence (they all push the sex positive agenda which seeks to see everyone sexually active at every age).
There are plenty of ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies and unwanted disease.
They oppose morals and seek to end ALL moral judgments over ALL sexual pairings regardless of sex, age, relation, marital status, number, or species of partner(s).
Homosexual men claim not enough is being done to push AIDS awareness. Homosexuals continue to see STD rates rise. Random hookups with a perverted class will do that.
OOH! You chastity radical!
Any stats majors out there?
Actually, studies show that passing out condoms INCREASES the number of abortions and illegitimate births. And studies in Africa shows that those countries where the schools and churches persuade people to discipline themselves and limit their sex to marriage have far lower incidences of AIDS than those countries where Planned Condomhood passes out condoms to all and sundry, courtesy of our taxpayers.
There’s the moral argument—keep your fly zipped until you get married and have a family. But there’s also the factual, statistical argument.
There’s no question that sex ed as sponsored in our schools by Planned Parenthood increases the spread of abortions and STDs. In fact, that’s why they do it—although they claim the opposite—because that’s how they make their money.
Abstinence results in no births at all, without the expense of birth control.
Aside of the pro-life v. pro-choice issue ... There’s no such thing as “free.” Somebody’s paying for this.
What is “free birth control”?
Did the pharmaceutical companies come up with a give away program, or are Boston Globe readers just this foolish? (are they allowed to vote?) Ugh!
But does PP offer the IUD or implants for free? Those are far more effective than the pill, no user error.
This is not what I want for my daughters - this is not a good situation for any young woman.
I don’t know the population this study was performed on, race, social-economic status. But if you have young women who are already sexually active, likely to be promiscuous, likely to go on welfare if they have children, likely to have abortions, then even though I am a Christian, even though I oppose abortifacient contraception as well as abortion, even though I oppose sex outside of marriage...this program is tempting to implement.
Are the embryo-failure-to-implant rates higher on the IUD and implant than they are on the pill alone? I’m not sure that anyone knows, that there are any good studies. Causing an embryo not to implant is wrong, but it does not harden the heart the way aborting a recognized pregnancy does.
Free? Meaning that no money changes hands (or just that the government makes private individuals pay directly for this "benefit" for other people instead of through taxes), that the sexually irresponsible women and their partners don't pay, that the employers don't pay the insurance companies, that the insurance companies don't pay the pharmacies, that the pharmacies don't pay the drug companies, that the drug companies don't pay their manufacturers/suppliers/workers? Or are they saying "free" in the sense that Obama orders other people to pay for his version of playing Santa Clause?
I imagine the employers who are ordered to pay for abortion and birth control, against their will, don't consider it free. Those who think they are being compelled to commit a grave mortal sin, to pay fines that will lead to bankruptcy, or to shut down their business do not see any of Obama's options as "free".
I'm slowly changed my position over time as our once basically moral and decent country has been transformed into a cesspool of secularism and immorality...
Since a moral solution to abortion as in abstinence is no longer a realistic goal...Honestly, can anyone say it is?
I really have no problem with giving women on welfare the pill or some other pre-conception drug or device to prevent them getting pregnant and the abortion that follows...
Make it a condition of receiving tax payer money...
I'd rather spend the money than see an innocent human being murdered because their egg donor slut of a mother can't keep her legs closed...
Thanks for posting this. Because of their physiology, women are much more vulnerable to STDs. Many men are carriers but are also asymptomatic, so they aren’t aware of the health problems they’re giving their female partners.
If being on Welfare means no accountability, then why not take them off Welfare? When they must take care of their own, thereby choosing proper husbands, many problems solved.
You knoe, the way things were before the 20th Century.
My liberal relatives used to have this weird idea that others were not as smart as they were and needed to be taken care of by other people’s money.
I know that is where this conversation is headed.
“. . . they arent aware of the health problems theyre giving their female partners. . . “
WHEN people come out of this technological stupor, and get back to marital relations being within marriage as it had been for the millenia prior to 1967, (the exception being abberant, socially deviant and obviously destructive) the dopey men and boys of this recreational partner BS will come out a lot worse in the annals of history than even the offspring- killing women taken advantage of by these hiding-behind-ignorance overgrown adolescent males.
I have no problem doing that...it's a tough lesson to learn...
When they must take care of their own,
Well, that's the rub....they won't...Abject poverty, I mean real poverty not the liberal poverty of a cell phone, big screen and $300.00 sneakers is coming to America...
At some point in the not too distance future that will happen...
This generation of children are going to pay a terrible price for our failure to reign in the welfare state...
Yes, and providing them with taxpayer funded baby killing ability is enabling them and their useless male partners.
Free to whom?? It isn’t FREE... the TAXPAYERS are paying for it!!!
If you are for the pill then you really are for abortions when the baby is about a week old.
Really? I thought the pill only prevented getting pregnant...
...not killing an embryo
Well gee, if that's your goal...just think how well an outright ban on abortions would work.
AND IT WOULDN'T COST ANYTHING!
Maybe you misunderstood my initial post...
Only give birth control that prevents conception ...
Most freepers know this but you must be young.
It’s NOT free. We the Taxpayers would pay for it. Oh, so now we are single-handedly responsible for stopping abortions? Or we could be if we weren’t so penny-pinching. There’s sieve-logic for you.
Taxpayer promotion and endorsement of recreational sex (when maybe they should be working, by the way).
Read up. birth control does not reduce abortion.
Did not misunderstand. Birth control chemically induces abortion, plus birth control statisically increases abortion even where not doing so chemically - promotes a non- accountability, non- marital mindset.