WASHINGTON (AP) — Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday, offering strong evidence for how a bitterly contested Obama administration policy could benefit women’s health (Imagine what free food would do to reduce hunger. And free houses to reduce homelessness. And free vacations to reduce stress).
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn’t an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. (when price wasn't an issue, people flocked to Mercedes and BMWs) These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010 (You mean birth control actually reduces pregnancy? That's amazin'.).
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. (So you are saying that using contraceptives not only reduces pregnancy, but reduces abortion? Who'da thunk?) That’s lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert’s team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The findings of the study, which ran from 2008 to 2010, come as millions of U.S. women are beginning to get access to contraception without copays under President Barack Obama’s health care law. (in other words, the results of the two year old study was released now, at a critical juncture, and the AP "news" article provides timely cover for Obama) Women’s health specialists said the research foreshadows that policy’s potential impact.
“As a society, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion rates. (There is no such thing as what society does and doesn't want. It is not an entity.) This study has demonstrated that having access to no-cost contraception helps us get to that goal,” said Alina Salganicoff, director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (well of course it does. That was the purpose of the study)
The law requires that Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives be available for free for women enrolled in most workplace insurance plans, a change that many will see as new plan years begin on Jan. 1.
The policy is among the law’s most contentious provisions because it exempts churches that oppose contraception (actually it doesn't. The original controversy was that it DID require religious organization to provide contraception, but the beneficent Obama relented) but requires religious-affiliated organizations, such as colleges or hospitals, to provide the coverage for their workers. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many conservative groups say that violates religious freedom, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has voiced similar criticism. (This is a textbook example of how the Left manipulates people, and then charges them for their trouble. After all, who could oppose reducing abortions? Make it all free. Sandra Fluke isn't a slut, she's a saint!. Extending the "logic," we must conclude that everything important ought to be free. Which of course, makes it a right. Therefore, anything that is not provided for free to me violates my rights. This basically means that anyone could show up on your metaphorical doorstep, demand your money, and if you refuse, you could go to jail. That's the America we live in, courtesy of the Gimmedat Party...)
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost — from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn’t an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. (when price wasn't an issue, people flocked to Mercedes and BMWs) These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010 (You mean birth control actually reduces pregnancy? That's amazin'.).
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. (So you are saying that using contraceptives not only reduces pregnancy, but reduces abortion? Who'da thunk?) That’s lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert’s team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The findings of the study, which ran from 2008 to 2010, come as millions of U.S. women are beginning to get access to contraception without copays under President Barack Obama’s health care law. (in other words, the results of the two year old study was released now, at a critical juncture, and the AP "news" article provides timely cover for Obama) Women’s health specialists said the research foreshadows that policy’s potential impact.
“As a society, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion rates. (There is no such thing as what society does and doesn't want. It is not an entity.) This study has demonstrated that having access to no-cost contraception helps us get to that goal,” said Alina Salganicoff, director of women’s health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation. (well of course it does. That was the purpose of the study)
The law requires that Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives be available for free for women enrolled in most workplace insurance plans, a change that many will see as new plan years begin on Jan. 1.
The policy is among the law’s most contentious provisions because it exempts churches that oppose contraception (actually it doesn't. The original controversy was that it DID require religious organization to provide contraception, but the beneficent Obama relented) but requires religious-affiliated organizations, such as colleges or hospitals, to provide the coverage for their workers. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many conservative groups say that violates religious freedom, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has voiced similar criticism. (This is a textbook example of how the Left manipulates people, and then charges them for their trouble. After all, who could oppose reducing abortions? Make it all free. Sandra Fluke isn't a slut, she's a saint!. Extending the "logic," we must conclude that everything important ought to be free. Which of course, makes it a right. Therefore, anything that is not provided for free to me violates my rights. This basically means that anyone could show up on your metaphorical doorstep, demand your money, and if you refuse, you could go to jail. That's the America we live in, courtesy of the Gimmedat Party...)
No comments:
Post a Comment