Free Birth Control Leads to Fewer Abortions, Study Finds

[Frodo]

For the already converted, it is nothing we didn't already know:

Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions

By LAURAN NEERGAARD
The Associated Press
Originally published Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

WASHINGTON — Free birth control led to substantially lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday, offering strong evidence for how a contested Obama administration policy could benefit women's health.

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 goofproof options such as the IUD or a matchstick-size implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars to insert. 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.

[Vosem]

No sh**t -- the article basically says "more people use something when it's free".

[Frodo]

So would you support free birth control if it means significantly fewer abortions and teen pregnancies? 

[Link]

Free Birth Control Leads to Fewer Abortions, Study Finds

Irrelevant.  As I learned the hard way earlier today in another thread no matter what FACTS you present to some people they will stick to some uninformed position they believe because of the voices in their head.

[Vosem]

So would you support free birth control if it means significantly fewer abortions and teen pregnancies? 

No (I believe in people paying for things, a, and b why is 'significantly fewer abortions' a goal at all?), but I'm not one to turn my back on the facts, like, for instance, bigskybob.

[Link]

So would you support free birth control if it means significantly fewer abortions and teen pregnancies?  

No (I believe in people paying for things, a, and b why is 'significantly fewer abortions' a goal at all?), but I'm not one to turn my back on the facts, like, for instance, bigskybob.

Mmmm... a reduction in surgical procedures has been a major goal of modern healthcare for a host of reasons.  Maybe less time on politics and more time on science for adolescents?

[useful idiot]

I'd support taxpayer funding for free birth control (though obviously not morning-after), but I disagree with forcing employers to buy health insurance plans that include contraception when that employer disapproves of birth control on principle. Forcing an individual or groups of individuals to purchase a product they disapprove of on religious grounds is radically different from the government using taxpayer money for something some taxpayers have a problem with. In my mind at least...

[7,052,770]

Anyone against the contraception mandate should NOT refer to themselves as "anti-abortion"

[GMantis]

In another study, it was discovered that the Sun rises in the east. Also, the mystery of the pope's religion has been finally cleared up.

[GMantis]

I'd support taxpayer funding for free birth control (though obviously not morning-after), but I disagree with forcing employers to buy health insurance plans that include contraception when that employer disapproves of birth control on principle. Forcing an individual or groups of individuals to purchase a product they disapprove of on religious grounds is radically different from the government using taxpayer money for something some taxpayers have a problem with. In my mind at least...

Why is it so obvious?

[useful idiot]

I'd support taxpayer funding for free birth control (though obviously not morning-after), but I disagree with forcing employers to buy health insurance plans that include contraception when that employer disapproves of birth control on principle. Forcing an individual or groups of individuals to purchase a product they disapprove of on religious grounds is radically different from the government using taxpayer money for something some taxpayers have a problem with. In my mind at least...

Why is it so obvious?

Because I'm pro-life?

[Ebowed]

I'd support taxpayer funding for free birth control (though obviously not morning-after), but I disagree with forcing employers to buy health insurance plans that include contraception when that employer disapproves of birth control on principle. Forcing an individual or groups of individuals to purchase a product they disapprove of on religious grounds is radically different from the government using taxpayer money for something some taxpayers have a problem with. In my mind at least...

Why is it so obvious?

He must define pregnancy as beginning at fertilization of the egg, rather than implantation of the blastocyst.

[Simfan34]

For the already converted, it is nothing we didn't already know:

Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions

By LAURAN NEERGAARD
The Associated Press
Originally published Thursday, October 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

WASHINGTON — Free birth control led to substantially lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concluded Thursday, offering strong evidence for how a contested Obama administration policy could benefit women's health.

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 goofproof options such as the IUD or a matchstick-size implant.

When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives — the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars to insert. 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.

"Hitting Your Toe With a Hammer Causes It to Hurt, Study Finds"

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

No sh**t -- the article basically says "more people use something when it's free".

You seem to be a nice kid, but your assertions of your opinion as fact is interesting and predictable as you probably think you're the smartest person you know... and you probably are...

But this is saying that if birth control is available free, there's a direct correlation between that and the abortion rate... underlying point being if you want less abortions, you should be supportive of comprehensive sex education and making birth control easily available...

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'd support taxpayer funding for free birth control (though obviously not morning-after), but I disagree with forcing employers to buy health insurance plans that include contraception when that employer disapproves of birth control on principle. Forcing an individual or groups of individuals to purchase a product they disapprove of on religious grounds is radically different from the government using taxpayer money for something some taxpayers have a problem with. In my mind at least...

Why is it so obvious?

Because I'm pro-life?

There's no evidence that the morning-after pill actually stops embryonic development rather than prevent or interrupt ovulation. It's theoretically possible, but then again, the same could be said of regular birth control pills and IUDs.  Since the morning-after pill first came out studies have shown it's not really the case.
http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/humannature/2009/01/05/coitus_interceptus.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/15/155110476/how-the-morning-after-pill-works

[useful idiot]

I'd support taxpayer funding for free birth control (though obviously not morning-after), but I disagree with forcing employers to buy health insurance plans that include contraception when that employer disapproves of birth control on principle. Forcing an individual or groups of individuals to purchase a product they disapprove of on religious grounds is radically different from the government using taxpayer money for something some taxpayers have a problem with. In my mind at least...

Why is it so obvious?

Because I'm pro-life?

There's no evidence that the morning-after pill actually stops embryonic development rather than prevent or interrupt ovulation. It's theoretically possible, but then again, the same could be said of regular birth control pills and IUDs.  Since the morning-after pill first came out studies have shown it's not really the case.
http://www.slate.com/content/slate/blogs/humannature/2009/01/05/coitus_interceptus.html
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/15/155110476/how-the-morning-after-pill-works

I misspoke, I should have said RU486. I'll admit, I often confuse the two.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This is why we need contraception as an alternative to abortion.

[DC Al Fine]

Contraception is a great idea to reduce abortions/out of wedlock pregnancies, but if one find it immoral, it's a non starter. Heck, executing anyone who commits an assault, robbery, rape etc would probably cut down on the number of murders, but it doesn't mean people will support it.