Posted on 03/11/2014 6:30:47 PM PDT by Phillyred
In the largest study of its kind, researchers at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis have found that providing women with access to free contraception does not increase the likelihood that they will have sex with multiple partners.
Lead researcher Gina Secura, PhD and her team analyzed data from the Contraceptive CHOICE Project, a study of 9,256 women and teenage girls in and around St. Louis. Participants represented a diverse group of women in terms of age, education and race. During the study, women who were at high risk for unintended pregnancy were provided free birth control methods for a year.
Participants were then surveyed about their sexual behaviors six months and 12 months after receiving the free birth control. They were asked how frequently they engaged in sexual intercourse and the number of partners in the previous 30 days.
Diane Duke Williams, Associate Director for Media Relations at Washington University in St. Louis shares the findings...
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Oh brother.
That’s not what Sandra Fluke told me.
Your and hundreds of others. Just say’n
Besides Fluke having to buy cases of condoms, BC doesn’t cost that much
Cheap ammo leads to armed robbery.
Cheap spoons leads to weight gain.
Etc...
All drug addicts started out using milk. If we restricted the use of milk in the early years...
I say both. “Free” birth control enables promiscuity, and promiscuity leads to demanding “free” birth control.
Does free contraception lead to promiscuity? If not, then all the reasons that people give to push sex ed on young children are also without foundation.
If the answer is "yes", then I'm all for it.
Yeah — and the study also shows that drinking lots of water doesn’t make you need to...
For me birth control is a convenience. It isn't life sustaining. I don't take it to control any medical condition. It's easy and effective. And now free. My sister, on the other hand, pays a pretty hefty co-pay for medication necessary to keep my nephew healty. My dad pays a co-pay on blood pressure medication and my mom pays a co-pay on hormone replacement medications. All of those are necessary to sustain life and health, and my family has to pay extra for it. My birth control is an expedience and I get it for free. There just is something in that which makes no sense at all to me and makes me question Democrat's priorities.
Who said this in 1968?
Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection.
Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone. It could well happen, therefore, that when people, either individually or in family or social life, experience the inherent difficulties of the divine law and are determined to avoid them, they may give into the hands of public authorities the power to intervene in the most personal and intimate responsibility of husband and wife.
“...have sex with multiple partners.”
Is that the official definition of promiscuity?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.