Free Contraceptive Program = 40% Drop In Teen Birth Rate

[Steinlight]

I f

Some were. But there is no evidence most marriages were forced.

The stigma was huge and men were pressured to marry a girl they got pregnant.

But yes, people used to get married when unintended pregnancies arose whereas now plow don't as much due to reduced stigma. I don't see what your point is here. We are in agreement here yes?

maybe....but it means data on unintended pregnancies is not very accurate.

What proof do you have data from 1981 onward is not accurate?

What is your issue with the methodology used to aggregate said data?

Because marriage would obscure it.

Marriage skews what?

Birth control has risen since 1994, yet unintended pregnancies have gone up. There is simply no evidence for your claim of a positive correlation between a declining unintended pregnancy rate and cheaper birth control. Thus no evidence a greater subsidy would have such an effect.

 

[Faun]

In terms of the OP, the data you present is meaningless. Aside from you cherry picking 1994 since it represents sent the trough, the charts you posted only go through 2008 and the OP is about how the teen birth rate has dropped significantly in Colorado since that state began handing out birth control in 2009.

Your whole post is meaningless. The op is talking about teen births in colorado. We are talking about unwanted pregnancies nationally. There is no statistical correlation between declines in unwanted pregnancy and cheaper birth control. Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994 despite birth control becoming cheaper and more readily available.

You should read before you post.

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

 

[Faun]

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

That is not true.

Yes it is, unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994, I provided the charts on previous pages.

When did the government start giving out free contraceptives on a national level?

 

[Steinlight]

Your whole post is meaningless. The op is talking about teen births in colorado. We are talking about unwanted pregnancies nationally. There is no statistical correlation between declines in unwanted pregnancy and cheaper birth control. Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994 despite birth control becoming cheaper and more readily available.

You should read before you post.

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

 

[Faun]

Again: There is no real data indicating that unintended pregnancies increased - the data only reveals that the rate of unwed mothers increased. We don't know what the real rate was prior to the change in marriage trend.

Yes there is. Look at the link.

The link makes this point:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]​

That is a prediction. However their own existing data indicates no statistical correlation between less unintended births and the rise in birth control, as unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994

It's impossible to accurately count the number of unintended pregnancies before birth control and the decline of forced marriage - the data just isn't there.

We aren't talking before birth control. We are talking since 1994. Data shows unintended pregnancy rate is up since 1994. Thus there us no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in intended pregnancy rate.

Again, completely meaningless timeframe. Instead of starting from when contraceptives first became readily available, which would indicate their impact on unintended birth rates, you cherry pick from the middle of the data where it's at its low and then boast how it's gone up (even though it hasn't if you factor in population growth). Contraceptives did not suddenly become cheaper and more available in 1994 than in the immediate years prior, so there would be no reason for that chart to show a dramatic increase or decrease starting in 1994. You simply picked that date because you thought it would help you fend off the OP.

It didn't.

 

[Faun]

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

 

[bendog]

Your non-sequitur is noted, but again, the thread is about free birth control to teens reducing the teen birth rate in Colorado. But it seems we're in agreement that the data you present fails to diminish that report since it's not confined to Colorado and does not span the years of that program.

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

you haven't even read the fcking link.

 

[Kosh]

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

The 60's...

 

[bendog]

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

Now stop trying to post about the OP. We're not gonna have any of THAT nonsense. (-:

 

[Kosh]

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

Now stop trying to post about the OP. We're not gonna have any of THAT nonsense. (-:

Proof that the far left would much rather run a narrative even when there are zero facts to support their religious narrative..

 

[bendog]

For what it's worth, if anyone's remotely interested in the OP and Colo program: There was a grant to provide low cost or free long term reversible BC to low income, young women. The effects were that in counties covered BC use increased AND births decreased. The correlation "may" show cause and effect. However, the real story was the state GOP wants to kill (hah) the program because crazy mtherfking christofacists consider IUD's abortion, and thus killing of human life.

 

[Steinlight]

Yes there is. Look at the link.

The link makes this point:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]​

That is a prediction. However their own existing data indicates no statistical correlation between less unintended births and the rise in birth control, as unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994

It's impossible to accurately count the number of unintended pregnancies before birth control and the decline of forced marriage - the data just isn't there.

We aren't talking before birth control. We are talking since 1994. Data shows unintended pregnancy rate is up since 1994. Thus there us no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in intended pregnancy rate.

Again, completely meaningless timeframe. Instead of starting from when contraceptives first became readily available, which would indicate their impact on unintended birth rates, you cherry pick from the middle of the data where it's at its low and then boast how it's gone up (even though it hasn't if you factor in population growth). Contraceptives did not suddenly become cheaper and more available in 1994 than in the immediate years prior, so there would be no reason for that chart to show a dramatic increase or decrease starting in 1994. You simply picked that date because you thought it would help you fend off the OP.

It didn't.

It isn't a meaningless timeframe. The HappyJoy's contention is that there is a correlation between cheaper and more available birth control and a lower rate of unintended pregnancies due to the fact unintended pregnancy rate is lower now than in 1981. No such correlation exists, as the rate of unwanted pregnancies is in fact up from 1994. Thus, you can establish no such statistical correlation to in order justify increased government subsidy by the claim it lowers unintended pregnancies.

 

[Steinlight]

Correction. The thread is about the governor claiming that free birth control is responsible for lower teen birth rates. He provided no study establishing such a statistical relationship. And as the national data shows, the proliferation of cheap birth control hasn't coincided with a decline but instead a rose in unwanted pregnancies, which is the ultimate goal of birth control. Is not the ultimate goal to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

So what I am doing is giving a broader picture of the overall discussion in whether the government should increase subsidies for birth control.

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

It has continued becoming cheaper and more available since the 1970s.

 

[Faun]

Your data remains inconsequential to the thread. Different region. Different time period. Different age range of the pregant women. Basically, it has absolutely nothing to do with this thread. Who knows why you continue to push it?

Not to mention, you're misrepresenting the national data. You're claiming despite cheap methods of birth control being available, unintended births increased since 1994. WTF is so magical about 1994 that you cherry picked that year as a starting point? Cheap birth control was available prior to then. The chart you're referencing indicates unintended births have decreased since 1981; and that's not even factoring in population growth.

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

It has continued becoming cheaper and more available since the 1970s.

Then pointing to 1994 in a graph to show an increase in unintended births, even though there really wasn't an increase, is beyond meaningless. If that trend began in the 70's, there was nothing related to contraceptives to buck the trend.

 

[Steinlight]

The data is relevant. The OP cited these Colorado numbers as evidence that Republican should support government subsidized birth control. While National data does not show a positive correlation or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies. In fact as it has becoming cheaper and more available, unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

1994 is a relevant year because HappyJoy suggested a positive correlation between a rise and birth control and less unwanted pregnancies due to the fact numbers are lower now than in 1981. However since 1994 there has been an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The dispels the notion of a positive correlation.

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

It has continued becoming cheaper and more available since the 1970s.

Then pointing to 1994 in a graph to show an increase in unintended births, even though there really wasn't an increase, is beyond meaningless. If that trend began in the 70's, there was nothing related to contraceptives to buck the trend.

There was really an increase.

Again, here is the graph for reference.

If there was a positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies, than unwanted pregnancies wouldn't have been increasing since 1994. As such, there is no correlation or causal relationship between the two things.

 

[Faun]

The link makes this point:

Publicly funded family planning services help women avoid pregnancies they do not want and plan pregnancies they do want. In 2010, these services helped women avoid 2.2 million unintended pregnancies, which would likely have resulted in about 1.1 million unintended births and 760,000 abortions.[15]

• Without publicly funded family planning services, the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions occurring in the United States would be 66% higher among women overall, 70% higher among poor women and 73% higher among teens.[15]​

That is a prediction. However their own existing data indicates no statistical correlation between less unintended births and the rise in birth control, as unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994

It's impossible to accurately count the number of unintended pregnancies before birth control and the decline of forced marriage - the data just isn't there.

We aren't talking before birth control. We are talking since 1994. Data shows unintended pregnancy rate is up since 1994. Thus there us no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in intended pregnancy rate.

Again, completely meaningless timeframe. Instead of starting from when contraceptives first became readily available, which would indicate their impact on unintended birth rates, you cherry pick from the middle of the data where it's at its low and then boast how it's gone up (even though it hasn't if you factor in population growth). Contraceptives did not suddenly become cheaper and more available in 1994 than in the immediate years prior, so there would be no reason for that chart to show a dramatic increase or decrease starting in 1994. You simply picked that date because you thought it would help you fend off the OP.

It didn't.

It isn't a meaningless timeframe. The HappyJoy's contention is that there is a correlation between cheaper and more available birth control and a lower rate of unintended pregnancies due to the fact unintended pregnancy rate is lower now than in 1981. No such correlation exists, as the rate of unwanted pregnancies is in fact up from 1994. Thus, you can establish no such statistical correlation to in order justify increased government subsidy by the claim it lowers unintended pregnancies.

There is no correlation between your chart, which is modeled after a different segment of society and different criteria, and the OP's stats. How can there be? They're on two different subjects.

 

[Steinlight]

That is a prediction. However their own existing data indicates no statistical correlation between less unintended births and the rise in birth control, as unintended pregnancies have increased since 1994

It's impossible to accurately count the number of unintended pregnancies before birth control and the decline of forced marriage - the data just isn't there.

We aren't talking before birth control. We are talking since 1994. Data shows unintended pregnancy rate is up since 1994. Thus there us no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in intended pregnancy rate.

Again, completely meaningless timeframe. Instead of starting from when contraceptives first became readily available, which would indicate their impact on unintended birth rates, you cherry pick from the middle of the data where it's at its low and then boast how it's gone up (even though it hasn't if you factor in population growth). Contraceptives did not suddenly become cheaper and more available in 1994 than in the immediate years prior, so there would be no reason for that chart to show a dramatic increase or decrease starting in 1994. You simply picked that date because you thought it would help you fend off the OP.

It didn't.

It isn't a meaningless timeframe. The HappyJoy's contention is that there is a correlation between cheaper and more available birth control and a lower rate of unintended pregnancies due to the fact unintended pregnancy rate is lower now than in 1981. No such correlation exists, as the rate of unwanted pregnancies is in fact up from 1994. Thus, you can establish no such statistical correlation to in order justify increased government subsidy by the claim it lowers unintended pregnancies.

There is no correlation between your chart, which is modeled after a different segment of society and different criteria, and the OP's stats. How can there be? They're on two different subjects.

It isn't two separate subjects. The OP suggested that due to a decline in teen birth rates in Colorado that Republicans at the national level should support government subsidized birth control. However, if you look at national data, unintended births have risen despite the rise in birth control. There is no statistical correlation between lower unintended birth rates and a rise in birth control. Since birth control has become cheaper and more available and unintended pregnancies have gone up, there is no evidence making it cheaper would have the effect of lowering unintended pregnancies, which is the goal of birth control. It would be a further waste of the taxpayers money.

 

[Faun]

You're a fucking nutjob to think data which does not correlate to the time period, region, or age range; has anything to do with the OP. You're under the delusion that if you just post any chart about births, it must somehow be relevant. You might as well have posted Sarah Palin's favorability rating as evidence since that is about as relevant.

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

It has continued becoming cheaper and more available since the 1970s.

Then pointing to 1994 in a graph to show an increase in unintended births, even though there really wasn't an increase, is beyond meaningless. If that trend began in the 70's, there was nothing related to contraceptives to buck the trend.

There was really an increase.

Again, here is the graph for reference.

If there was a positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies, than unwanted pregnancies wouldn't have been increasing since 1994. As such, there is no correlation or causal relationship between the two things.

You're correct as far as there being an increase. I mistakenly thought it was in nominal figures and it's not.

You are also correct in that there is no correlation in your chart between unintended pregnancies and birth control. Mainly because your chart doesn't go back far enough in time to see the impact from when contraceptives first became popular.

And your chart still has no correlation to the OP.

The OP, however, shows a drastic drop in teenage pregnancies following Colorado giving out contraceptives to teens for free. There is no other explanation for the drop in pregnancies.

 

[Faun]

It's impossible to accurately count the number of unintended pregnancies before birth control and the decline of forced marriage - the data just isn't there.

We aren't talking before birth control. We are talking since 1994. Data shows unintended pregnancy rate is up since 1994. Thus there us no positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in intended pregnancy rate.

Again, completely meaningless timeframe. Instead of starting from when contraceptives first became readily available, which would indicate their impact on unintended birth rates, you cherry pick from the middle of the data where it's at its low and then boast how it's gone up (even though it hasn't if you factor in population growth). Contraceptives did not suddenly become cheaper and more available in 1994 than in the immediate years prior, so there would be no reason for that chart to show a dramatic increase or decrease starting in 1994. You simply picked that date because you thought it would help you fend off the OP.

It didn't.

It isn't a meaningless timeframe. The HappyJoy's contention is that there is a correlation between cheaper and more available birth control and a lower rate of unintended pregnancies due to the fact unintended pregnancy rate is lower now than in 1981. No such correlation exists, as the rate of unwanted pregnancies is in fact up from 1994. Thus, you can establish no such statistical correlation to in order justify increased government subsidy by the claim it lowers unintended pregnancies.

There is no correlation between your chart, which is modeled after a different segment of society and different criteria, and the OP's stats. How can there be? They're on two different subjects.

It isn't two separate subjects. The OP suggested that due to a decline in teen birth rates in Colorado that Republicans at the national level should support government subsidized birth control. However, if you look at national data, unintended births have risen despite the rise in birth control. There is no statistical correlation between lower unintended birth rates and a rise in birth control. Since birth control has become cheaper and more available and unintended pregnancies have gone up, there is no evidence making it cheaper would have the effect of lowering unintended pregnancies, which is the goal of birth control. It would be a further waste of the taxpayers money.

You claim a rise in birth control in 1994 but I see no supporting data.

 

[Steinlight]

It is relevant. Birth control is on the rise, yet unintended births have gone up. Thus there is no evidence to suggest an increased subsidy from the government would reduce unintended births, as they have gone up despite birth control becoming cheaper and more available over the years.

When did birth control become cheap and more available?

It has continued becoming cheaper and more available since the 1970s.

Then pointing to 1994 in a graph to show an increase in unintended births, even though there really wasn't an increase, is beyond meaningless. If that trend began in the 70's, there was nothing related to contraceptives to buck the trend.

There was really an increase.

Again, here is the graph for reference.

If there was a positive correlation between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies, than unwanted pregnancies wouldn't have been increasing since 1994. As such, there is no correlation or causal relationship between the two things.

You're correct as far as there being an increase. I mistakenly thought it was in nominal figures and it's not.

You are also correct in that there is no correlation in your chart between unintended pregnancies and birth control. Mainly because your chart doesn't go back far enough in time to see the impact from when contraceptives first became popular.

And your chart still has no correlation to the OP.

The OP, however, shows a drastic drop in teenage pregnancies following Colorado giving out contraceptives to teens for free. There is no other explanation for the drop in pregnancies.

Teens could be having less sex, that is one explanation off the bat I could think of. There could be a correlation, but at this point, one has not been established, one has been suggested by the governor.

However, even if that is true, not only teens get pregnant. As the data shows, unintended pregnancies are up nationally, and as I talked about and cited in earlier posts, the technology shock on social attitudes provided by birth control brought to the masses resulted in the normalization of out of sex outside marriage and children out of wedlock. This wasn't just me saying it, it was the liberal Brookings Institution.

So what I am trying to do is provide a broader context to this conversation, and show that there is no statistical evidence increased subsidies will reduce the problem of unintended pregnancies or out of wedlock births.