Free Contraceptive Program = 40% Drop In Teen Birth Rate

[HappyJoy]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the fuck is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "fucking point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

1-2%? I bet more kids have sex now too. Much better then 1981 when birth control wasn't as readily available, am I right?

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Why listen to me? Here is your very own source on the subject:

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]

• The costs associated with unintended pregnancy would be even higher if not for continued federal and state investments in family planning services. In 2010, the nationwide public investment in family planning services resulted in $13.6 billion in net savings from helping women avoid unintended pregnancies and a range of other negative reproductive health outcomes, such as HIV and other STIs, cervical cancer and infertility.[16]

• In the absence of the current U.S. publicly funded family planning effort, the public costs of unintended pregnancies in 2010 might have been 75% higher.[13]

Fuck you to tell me I throw out details that don't conform to my opinions. Let's see how you bullshit your way through it.

The percent increase doesn't matter, there is no causal or correlative relationship between declining unwanted and the rise in birth control, as unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994.

Actually, millennials have less sex partners than people did a generation ago.

Are you kidding me? You're completely running away from your own source, ignoring facts, something you accused me of. Now we're on this bullshit thing about how many boyfriends Missy had?

Actually according to your own source teenagers today are more accepting of premarital sex than any previous generation.

"Millennials are more accepting of premarital sex than any previous generation, yet have had fewer sexual partners than GenX'ers. This is consistent with their image as a tolerant, individualistic generation accepting others' choices and making their own," Twenge says.

How many boyfriends/girlfriends they've had or even if their sexual activity is delayed by a year, so what? The OP has a 40% decline, you going to find any number in your new source that matches that (answer: not even close, no) Also from your source:

Twenge says the findings show a tolerant attitude amongst millennials and a cultural shift away from traditional social rules and convention. "The viewpoint is that as long as you're not hurting me, you can do whatever you want."

"When the culture places more emphasis on the needs of the self and less on social rules, more relaxed attitudes toward sexuality are the almost inevitable result."

]New research has found that Milennials today have fewer sex partners than those who were part of both the Baby Boomers and Generation X during the 1950's and 1960's. The study, conducted by researchers at San Diego University, found that people from the Baby Boomer and Generation X generations had an average of 11 sexual partners while Millennials born in the 1980's and 1990's have 8 sexual partners.

Millennials Have Fewer Sex Partners Than Parents or Grandparents MEDICINE HEALTH Science Times[/quote]

Teens are more monogamous today, tend to have sex a little later and when they do they use birth control. Unfortunately, not enough. What is your point other than changing the subject and folding on your other source which demonstrated that birth control has cut down on teen pregnancy.

I'm afraid there is a difference between future projections and current data. The data as it stands establishes no statistical relationship for your claim that making birth control cheaper through increased subsidy results in less unwanted or out of wedlock pregnancies.

says you and only you, your original trusted source said otherwise.

If only instead of anger, you had actual data to back up your opinions, you might be getting somewhere.

Yeah, when someone accuses me of something and then they go do it themselves, it pisses me off. Get somewhere? You're all over the map between population increases (apparently you want teenage girls to bare that burden), you post a source, it states the exact opposite of your point and when it's pointed out to you, you then go in this new direction. You're dishonest.

 

[Steinlight]

No one is running away from the source here. The source very clearly shows a rise in unwanted pregnancies since 1994. Your claim of a causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies has no statistical basis according to the data.

No on is all over the map, there are consequences to lower birthrates, it isn't as simple as you would like to make it.

You were the one that claimed that millennials have more sex, you brought that up as an explanation for the rise in unwanted pregnancies. The opposite of the case. Millennials have less partners, and unwanted pregnancies are up.

Millennials may be more accepting of premarital sex than previous generations, but they have less sexual partners than Boommers or Gen X'ers. Surely, you can delineate between the two, one can hope...

There was no demonstration, there was a projection. What we are talking about is current data, current data establishes no causal relationship between a decline unwanted pregnancies and the rise in birth control. The OP certainly did no such thing, what the OP showed was a drop in teen birth rates, it talked nothing of unwanted pregnancy. Now you are mixing and matching different topics.

 

[HappyJoy]

No one is running away from the source here. The source very clearly shows a rise in unwanted pregnancies since 1994. Your claim of a causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies has no statistical basis according to the data.

It went up a couple of points and as I pointed it, from people who weren't using birth control or didn't have access:

your source directly said so, I quote it for you. Here it is again, if you have a problem with the methodology then prove it wrong:

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]

No on is all over the map, there are consequences to lower birthrates, it isn't as simple as you would like to make it.

Then start a thread on the consequences of lower birth rates. This thread is about lowering the abortion rate among teens who have access to birth control. If you think teenage girls is the subset of the population that should be getting more pregnant, you have issues.

You were the one that claimed that millennials have more sex, you brought that up as an explanation for the rise in unwanted pregnancies. The opposite of the case. Millennials have less partners, and unwanted pregnancies are up.

I said from 1981, maybe that's not correct, I'm not really sure but it would appear to be not too far off from today.

Millennials may be more accepting of premarital sex than previous generations, but they have less sexual partners than Boommers or Gen X'ers. Surely, you can delineate between the two, one can hope...

They didn't specify less sex. And I don't think you're going to find any numbers on sexual activity that match up to drops in unwanted pregnancy rates. But, please try.

There was no demonstration, there was a projection. What we are talking about is current data, current data establishes no causal relationship between a decline unwanted pregnancies and the rise in birth control. The OP certainly did no such thing, what the OP showed was a drop in teen birth rates, it talked nothing of unwanted pregnancy. Now you are mixing and matching different topics.

Yeah, there is a direct correlation, I posted a chart from your source.

Women who have access to birth control and use it are not the cause of unwanted pregnancies.

I really recommend not using sources that contradict you.

 

[Steinlight]

No one is running away from the source here. The source very clearly shows a rise in unwanted pregnancies since 1994. Your claim of a causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies has no statistical basis according to the data.

It went up a couple of points and as I pointed it, from people who weren't using birth control or didn't have access:

your source directly said so, I quote it for you. Here it is again, if you have a problem with the methodology then prove it wrong:

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]

No on is all over the map, there are consequences to lower birthrates, it isn't as simple as you would like to make it.

Then start a thread on the consequences of lower birth rates. This thread is about lowering the abortion rate among teens who have access to birth control. If you think teenage girls is the subset of the population that should be getting more pregnant, you have issues.

You were the one that claimed that millennials have more sex, you brought that up as an explanation for the rise in unwanted pregnancies. The opposite of the case. Millennials have less partners, and unwanted pregnancies are up.

I said from 1981, maybe that's not correct, I'm not really sure but it would appear to be not too far off from today.

Millennials may be more accepting of premarital sex than previous generations, but they have less sexual partners than Boommers or Gen X'ers. Surely, you can delineate between the two, one can hope...

They didn't specify less sex. And I don't think you're going to find any numbers on sexual activity that match up to drops in unwanted pregnancy rates. But, please try.

There was no demonstration, there was a projection. What we are talking about is current data, current data establishes no causal relationship between a decline unwanted pregnancies and the rise in birth control. The OP certainly did no such thing, what the OP showed was a drop in teen birth rates, it talked nothing of unwanted pregnancy. Now you are mixing and matching different topics.

Yeah, there is a direct correlation, I posted a chart from your source.

Women who have access to birth control and use it are not the cause of unwanted pregnancies.

I really recommend not using sources that contradict you.

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

 

[OKTexas]

.

Providing contraceptives to teens at low or no cost is a win-win-win for Republicans i.e. less abortions for their evangie base, lowers taxes for their tax cutting base and-----and less funding for medicare and family planning clinics that most conservatives/Republicans seem to hate.

Q) Why are conservatives/Republicans in CO trying to kill this successful program?


Colorado claims contraceptive program caused big drop in teen birth rates
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post

A state health initiative to reduce teen birth rates by providing more than 30,000 contraceptive devices at low or no cost has led to a 40 percent drop in five years, Gov. John Hickenlooper said Thursday.

The Colorado Family Planning Initiative, funded by a private anonymous donor for five years, has provided intrauterine devices and other implants to low-income women at 68 family-planning clinics across Colorado since 2009.

The clinics are in local health departments, hospitals and private nonprofit facilities. The program also provided training and technical assistance to family planning clinics statewide.

"When families are planned and women have children when they're ready and want them ... it's really a better situation for everyone," Hickenlooper said during his state Capitol news conference.

<snip>

The family-planning program has saved $5.68 in Medicaid costs for every dollar spent on the contraceptives, the state said. The state has saved millions in health care expenditures — $42.5 million in public funds in 2010 alone based on the latest available data.

The decline improved Colorado's standing among states from having the 29th-lowest teen birth rate in 2008 to being ranked 19th among states and the District of Columbia in 2012.



.

So you think this is new? My wife got zero cost contraceptives from CO family planning back in the 70's before we were married. Makes you wonder what the stats were back then.

 

[auditor0007]

.

Providing contraceptives to teens at low or no cost is a win-win-win for Republicans i.e. less abortions for their evangie base, lowers taxes for their tax cutting base and-----and less funding for medicare and family planning clinics that most conservatives/Republicans seem to hate.

Q) Why are conservatives/Republicans in CO trying to kill this successful program?


Colorado claims contraceptive program caused big drop in teen birth rates
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post

A state health initiative to reduce teen birth rates by providing more than 30,000 contraceptive devices at low or no cost has led to a 40 percent drop in five years, Gov. John Hickenlooper said Thursday.

The Colorado Family Planning Initiative, funded by a private anonymous donor for five years, has provided intrauterine devices and other implants to low-income women at 68 family-planning clinics across Colorado since 2009.

The clinics are in local health departments, hospitals and private nonprofit facilities. The program also provided training and technical assistance to family planning clinics statewide.

"When families are planned and women have children when they're ready and want them ... it's really a better situation for everyone," Hickenlooper said during his state Capitol news conference.

<snip>

The family-planning program has saved $5.68 in Medicaid costs for every dollar spent on the contraceptives, the state said. The state has saved millions in health care expenditures — $42.5 million in public funds in 2010 alone based on the latest available data.

The decline improved Colorado's standing among states from having the 29th-lowest teen birth rate in 2008 to being ranked 19th among states and the District of Columbia in 2012.



.

Why are conservatives against this? Because they are stupid.

 

[Faun]

No one is running away from the source here. The source very clearly shows a rise in unwanted pregnancies since 1994. Your claim of a causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies has no statistical basis according to the data.

It went up a couple of points and as I pointed it, from people who weren't using birth control or didn't have access:

your source directly said so, I quote it for you. Here it is again, if you have a problem with the methodology then prove it wrong:

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]

No on is all over the map, there are consequences to lower birthrates, it isn't as simple as you would like to make it.

Then start a thread on the consequences of lower birth rates. This thread is about lowering the abortion rate among teens who have access to birth control. If you think teenage girls is the subset of the population that should be getting more pregnant, you have issues.

You were the one that claimed that millennials have more sex, you brought that up as an explanation for the rise in unwanted pregnancies. The opposite of the case. Millennials have less partners, and unwanted pregnancies are up.

I said from 1981, maybe that's not correct, I'm not really sure but it would appear to be not too far off from today.

Millennials may be more accepting of premarital sex than previous generations, but they have less sexual partners than Boommers or Gen X'ers. Surely, you can delineate between the two, one can hope...

They didn't specify less sex. And I don't think you're going to find any numbers on sexual activity that match up to drops in unwanted pregnancy rates. But, please try.

There was no demonstration, there was a projection. What we are talking about is current data, current data establishes no causal relationship between a decline unwanted pregnancies and the rise in birth control. The OP certainly did no such thing, what the OP showed was a drop in teen birth rates, it talked nothing of unwanted pregnancy. Now you are mixing and matching different topics.

Yeah, there is a direct correlation, I posted a chart from your source.

Women who have access to birth control and use it are not the cause of unwanted pregnancies.

I really recommend not using sources that contradict you.

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

In terms of the OP, the data you present is meaningless. Aside from you cherry picking 1994 since it represents 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.

 

[Steinlight]

No one is running away from the source here. The source very clearly shows a rise in unwanted pregnancies since 1994. Your claim of a causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies has no statistical basis according to the data.

It went up a couple of points and as I pointed it, from people who weren't using birth control or didn't have access:

your source directly said so, I quote it for you. Here it is again, if you have a problem with the methodology then prove it wrong:

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]

No on is all over the map, there are consequences to lower birthrates, it isn't as simple as you would like to make it.

Then start a thread on the consequences of lower birth rates. This thread is about lowering the abortion rate among teens who have access to birth control. If you think teenage girls is the subset of the population that should be getting more pregnant, you have issues.

You were the one that claimed that millennials have more sex, you brought that up as an explanation for the rise in unwanted pregnancies. The opposite of the case. Millennials have less partners, and unwanted pregnancies are up.

I said from 1981, maybe that's not correct, I'm not really sure but it would appear to be not too far off from today.

Millennials may be more accepting of premarital sex than previous generations, but they have less sexual partners than Boommers or Gen X'ers. Surely, you can delineate between the two, one can hope...

They didn't specify less sex. And I don't think you're going to find any numbers on sexual activity that match up to drops in unwanted pregnancy rates. But, please try.

There was no demonstration, there was a projection. What we are talking about is current data, current data establishes no causal relationship between a decline unwanted pregnancies and the rise in birth control. The OP certainly did no such thing, what the OP showed was a drop in teen birth rates, it talked nothing of unwanted pregnancy. Now you are mixing and matching different topics.

Yeah, there is a direct correlation, I posted a chart from your source.

Women who have access to birth control and use it are not the cause of unwanted pregnancies.

I really recommend not using sources that contradict you.

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

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.

 

[Faun]

No one is running away from the source here. The source very clearly shows a rise in unwanted pregnancies since 1994. Your claim of a causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies has no statistical basis according to the data.

It went up a couple of points and as I pointed it, from people who weren't using birth control or didn't have access:

your source directly said so, I quote it for you. Here it is again, if you have a problem with the methodology then prove it wrong:

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]

No on is all over the map, there are consequences to lower birthrates, it isn't as simple as you would like to make it.

Then start a thread on the consequences of lower birth rates. This thread is about lowering the abortion rate among teens who have access to birth control. If you think teenage girls is the subset of the population that should be getting more pregnant, you have issues.

You were the one that claimed that millennials have more sex, you brought that up as an explanation for the rise in unwanted pregnancies. The opposite of the case. Millennials have less partners, and unwanted pregnancies are up.

I said from 1981, maybe that's not correct, I'm not really sure but it would appear to be not too far off from today.

Millennials may be more accepting of premarital sex than previous generations, but they have less sexual partners than Boommers or Gen X'ers. Surely, you can delineate between the two, one can hope...

They didn't specify less sex. And I don't think you're going to find any numbers on sexual activity that match up to drops in unwanted pregnancy rates. But, please try.

There was no demonstration, there was a projection. What we are talking about is current data, current data establishes no causal relationship between a decline unwanted pregnancies and the rise in birth control. The OP certainly did no such thing, what the OP showed was a drop in teen birth rates, it talked nothing of unwanted pregnancy. Now you are mixing and matching different topics.

Yeah, there is a direct correlation, I posted a chart from your source.

Women who have access to birth control and use it are not the cause of unwanted pregnancies.

I really recommend not using sources that contradict you.

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

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.

 

[Steinlight]

No one is running away from the source here. The source very clearly shows a rise in unwanted pregnancies since 1994. Your claim of a causal relationship between the rise in birth control and a decline in unwanted pregnancies has no statistical basis according to the data.

It went up a couple of points and as I pointed it, from people who weren't using birth control or didn't have access:

your source directly said so, I quote it for you. Here it is again, if you have a problem with the methodology then prove it wrong:

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]

No on is all over the map, there are consequences to lower birthrates, it isn't as simple as you would like to make it.

Then start a thread on the consequences of lower birth rates. This thread is about lowering the abortion rate among teens who have access to birth control. If you think teenage girls is the subset of the population that should be getting more pregnant, you have issues.

You were the one that claimed that millennials have more sex, you brought that up as an explanation for the rise in unwanted pregnancies. The opposite of the case. Millennials have less partners, and unwanted pregnancies are up.

I said from 1981, maybe that's not correct, I'm not really sure but it would appear to be not too far off from today.

Millennials may be more accepting of premarital sex than previous generations, but they have less sexual partners than Boommers or Gen X'ers. Surely, you can delineate between the two, one can hope...

They didn't specify less sex. And I don't think you're going to find any numbers on sexual activity that match up to drops in unwanted pregnancy rates. But, please try.

There was no demonstration, there was a projection. What we are talking about is current data, current data establishes no causal relationship between a decline unwanted pregnancies and the rise in birth control. The OP certainly did no such thing, what the OP showed was a drop in teen birth rates, it talked nothing of unwanted pregnancy. Now you are mixing and matching different topics.

Yeah, there is a direct correlation, I posted a chart from your source.

Women who have access to birth control and use it are not the cause of unwanted pregnancies.

I really recommend not using sources that contradict you.

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

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.

 

[Faun]

It went up a couple of points and as I pointed it, from people who weren't using birth control or didn't have access:

your source directly said so, I quote it for you. Here it is again, if you have a problem with the methodology then prove it wrong:



Then start a thread on the consequences of lower birth rates. This thread is about lowering the abortion rate among teens who have access to birth control. If you think teenage girls is the subset of the population that should be getting more pregnant, you have issues.

I said from 1981, maybe that's not correct, I'm not really sure but it would appear to be not too far off from today.

They didn't specify less sex. And I don't think you're going to find any numbers on sexual activity that match up to drops in unwanted pregnancy rates. But, please try.

Yeah, there is a direct correlation, I posted a chart from your source.

Women who have access to birth control and use it are not the cause of unwanted pregnancies.

I really recommend not using sources that contradict you.

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

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.

 

[HappyJoy]

That graph really doesn't speak well to your point at all. No one ever said birth control doesn't prevent pregnancy, what I have said is there is no correlation between the proliferation of birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(as they in fact have increased). Despite the declining costs and rising availability of birth control to the masses, the unwanted amount of pregnancies have increased and a large chunk of women don't use it routinely. There is no evidence making it even cheaper through government subsidy would decrease unwanted pregnancies, as it has only become cheaper and more available over the years.

I don't have a problem with the methodology, but what they have is a projection, and it doesn't mesh at all with the data that has been aggregated to date, by them no less. So I guess I will throw back your statement to you, since you have been so keen to avoid the damning data that debunks your claim of a causal relationship between the increase in birth control and decline in unwanted pregnancies(Which doesn't exist). If you have a problem with their methodology, prove them wrong that unwanted have in fact increased.

I think I will keep the discussion on teen birth rates in the thread. Because I don't agree that it is an unmitigated good like you claim. Yes, of course I oppose unwed teen births as I oppose are births out of wedlock ideally. However, I have a problem with teenagers getting married and having children, in general people defer marriage and wait too long for kids, and this has societal consequences. So to throw it back at you, I think you have issues since you callously disregard declining birth rates.

If you weren't really sure that millennials have more sex, than maybe you shouldn't be making unsubstantiated claims that young people today have more sex and this explains the rise in unwanted pregnancies, when the data shows millennials have less sexual partners than Boomers or Gen X'ers. If you have a more definite measure of sexual activity than the number of sexual partners, and can show an elevated level of sexual activity for millennials versus boomers and gen x'ers, than please, provide it.

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.

Yep, he's not understanding.

 

[rdean]

No, I meant specifically you addressing a decline in teenage pregnancies.

I did.

Free Contraceptive Program 40 Drop In Teen Birth Rate Page 13 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Like I said, read before you post.

Well, not really.

Unmarried teen birth rates. Down. It's a good thing. We can talk about carrying over until they get married or delaying until later in life. Point being, unmarried teen birth rates..down.

Actually, your stat was live teen birth rates, it didn't specify by marriage you have yet to post unmarried teen birth rates chart. I think a good deal of that can be explained away by the lower teen marriage rate.

However, your data, as I showed, is just a slice of the overall data, which shows 40% of children are born out of wedlock, 50% of all pregnancies are unplanned or unwanted, and 50% of those women use birth control, so the evidence just isn't there that this unprecedented rise in out of wedlock births is planned or wanted. All this in spite of the rise in the use of birth control.

Well, I mislabeled my chart. Yep, it's only teenage pregnancies. Married or not they are going down and considering the trend of people getting married later in life, I think it's safe to say that teen age pregnancies declining is a good thing.

As far as the out of wedlock pregnancies for all occurrences, that's outside of the subject of this thread. With many people choosing to marry later in life, it's not surprising, out of scope just the same.

Not necessarily. Low birth rates result in strains in the entitlement system down the road. At this time, the US has a below replacement birth rate which eventually results in population decline and economic decline. I think people used to grow up a lot faster, people are in prolonged adolescence now and put off marriage and children to the detriment of society.

It is relevant because half the pregnancies in thus country are unwanted and mostly comprise the women who have children out of wedlock, which has risen despite the proliferation of birth control to the masses.

I don't know if I care very much for you just disregarding relevant data so callously. It is rather ignorant of you. You can't just pick and chose data and ignore the whole picture.

If Republicans couldn't do that, they wouldn't have a position.

 

[Coyote]

You do realize you're saying this in a thread that is pro birth control, no?

Also, the pressure from the father is not really a liberal agenda, it's the would be fathers and the would be fathers alone, whatever that happens to be.

It's also legally not murder, that's just you calling it that.

So, how about less abortions through free birth control? Sounds like a win, win to me.

The thread is about abortion. Free birth control for girls below the age of consent is the ultimate power grab for hip-hop and pop-culture degenerates. It's still about control over women and the democrat party's war on girls and women.

The thread is about birth control, what the fuck?

Admittedly one of your wing nut friends thinks it's also about trampling on the right of gays.

The irony impaired far left drones and their comments!

Yes! "equality" is just a word used by wing nuts like this one, but they can not see how this is not equal for the gay community to pay for heterosexual behavior.

The far left has often been irony impaired.

I don't know how you are unable to comprehend that unwanted children have an effect on all of society, gay or straight. Whether it's the taxes you pay, the quality of education our youth receives and crime rates. You're obviously not very bright.

Actually, I'm not the bright one because I keep responding to you.

Sex without consequence ain't about a woman's freedom. Historically it's about (mostly liberal) men's evasion of responsibility and control over women, the Playboy philosophy if you will. Unrestricted birth control for girls isn't much different from forcing Boy Scouts to hire overt homosexuals. It's a dream come true for degenerates.

Well, no. It's the woman who is usually stuck with the consequences of an unwanted pregnancy. I'd prefer to put more choice into their hands.

The proliferation of birth control in the modern era hasn't resulted in less unwanted pregnancies. 40% of children are born out of wedlock today as opposed to 10% around the time of Roe V Wade.

So forgive me if I am ambivalent about putting more taxpayer money towards contraception.

Are you crazy?

Prior to birth control women would have 4-8 kids

How many families that large do you see?

Umm aren't we talking about teen age girls? The dirty little secret is that teen age girls (and boys) are the prime target of gang bangers and idiot hip hop and pop generation adults. Free (outside parental guidance) contraceptives opens up a whole new world for degenerate liberal men and that's what it is all about.

Many countries in Europe have free or low cost contraception and lower teen pregnancy rates and abortion rates. The dirty little secret is prior to contraception, pregnant girls became married girls and went on to produce more kids. The highest teen pregnancy rates are in heavily conservative states - I don't think it's degenerate liberal men that are the problem.

 

[Misty]

An assertion, SassyIrishChick, is not a rebuttal of anything. I thought you learned that at RouteIrish.

She's correct. The pill causes breast cancer and anything that uses hormones or spermicide causes cervical cancer. A fact that the pharmaceutical companies put in very small print.

 

[Coyote]

If you want to talk about replacing populations then starting that conversation in a thread about teenage birth rates is probably the wrong place...I don't know, just sounds like a bad idea.

Here is a chart from your source (a source that is pro birth control btw) and women who have access to it and use it correctly aren't the ones popping out surprises.

Mot of the unwanted pregnancies (54%) are women who don't use birth control, 41% who use it inconstantly and only 5% from those who use it. I think it's safe to say that birth control wins in the unwanted pregnancy battle.

Hell, even your chart of all women since 1981 unplanned pregnancies has decreased (your source will tell you that birth control is a contributing factor). What the fuck is your point?

Unwanted pregnancies have increased since 1994, so the "fucking point" is that there is no correlative or causal relationship between the rise in birth control and the decline in unwanted pregnancies(which is in fact the opposite at the moment). Despite birth control being cheaper and more readily available than ever before, the amount of unwanted pregnancies and out of wedlock births(which are intertwined as the make up the bulk of unwanted pregnancies) have increased since 1994.

So the idea that if we make it cheaper through government subsidy that unwanted births or out of wedlock births will decline has no basis in the data.

Here are some notable trends:

Teen pregnancies resulting in live births have declined significantly since 1991.

Unintended pregnancy rates have increased sharply among the poorest women since 1994 and remained level or decreased amongst wealthier women according to HappyJoy's link.

What's been happening since 1994 to cause that trend?
* a change in policy from contraception to Abstinance Only programs (which have been shown to not be very effective)
* a shift in many state governments to Republican majorities and the passing of legislation sharply curtailing education on contraception and family planning clinics who's mandate included free or low cost contraception and education. The state's that have seen the sharpest rise in unwanted pregnancies are the ones who have also seen the most family planning clinics closed and the harshest restrictions on family planning for poor women.

Perhaps most telling is that Europe has very low unwanted pregnancy rates and readily available free or low cost contraception.

 

[Roadrunner]

.

Providing contraceptives to teens at low or no cost is a win-win-win for Republicans i.e. less abortions for their evangie base, lowers taxes for their tax cutting base and-----and less funding for medicare and family planning clinics that most conservatives/Republicans seem to hate.

Q) Why are conservatives/Republicans in CO trying to kill this successful program?


Colorado claims contraceptive program caused big drop in teen birth rates
By Electa Draper
The Denver Post

A state health initiative to reduce teen birth rates by providing more than 30,000 contraceptive devices at low or no cost has led to a 40 percent drop in five years, Gov. John Hickenlooper said Thursday.

The Colorado Family Planning Initiative, funded by a private anonymous donor for five years, has provided intrauterine devices and other implants to low-income women at 68 family-planning clinics across Colorado since 2009.

The clinics are in local health departments, hospitals and private nonprofit facilities. The program also provided training and technical assistance to family planning clinics statewide.

"When families are planned and women have children when they're ready and want them ... it's really a better situation for everyone," Hickenlooper said during his state Capitol news conference.

<snip>

The family-planning program has saved $5.68 in Medicaid costs for every dollar spent on the contraceptives, the state said. The state has saved millions in health care expenditures — $42.5 million in public funds in 2010 alone based on the latest available data.

The decline improved Colorado's standing among states from having the 29th-lowest teen birth rate in 2008 to being ranked 19th among states and the District of Columbia in 2012.



.

Free is a step in the right direction.

Mandatory would be better.

 

[rightwinger]

An assertion, SassyIrishChick, is not a rebuttal of anything. I thought you learned that at RouteIrish.

She's correct. The pill causes breast cancer and anything that uses hormones or spermicide causes cervical cancer. A fact that the pharmaceutical companies put in very small print.

The pill has been in use for 50 years

It has revolutionized the social structure in this country and side efects have proven to be minimal when compared to the side effects of annual pregnancies

 

[Coyote]

An assertion, SassyIrishChick, is not a rebuttal of anything. I thought you learned that at RouteIrish.

She's correct. The pill causes breast cancer and anything that uses hormones or spermicide causes cervical cancer. A fact that the pharmaceutical companies put in very small print.

The cancer risks with the pill are very small - it slightly increases the risk of some (breast and cervical) but that risk drops once you stop taking it and after 10 years is no different than someone who has not taken it. It also decreases the risk of others - ovarian, womb and bowel.

The contraceptive pill and cancer risk Cancer Research UK

 

[Roadrunner]

An assertion, SassyIrishChick, is not a rebuttal of anything. I thought you learned that at RouteIrish.

She's correct. The pill causes breast cancer and anything that uses hormones or spermicide causes cervical cancer. A fact that the pharmaceutical companies put in very small print.

The cancer risks with the pill are very small - it slightly increases the risk of some (breast and cervical) but that risk drops once you stop taking it and after 10 years is no different than someone who has not taken it. It also decreases the risk of others - ovarian, womb and bowel.

The contraceptive pill and cancer risk Cancer Research UK

The risks of feral children are far greater than any cancer or other health risks.

Both abortion and BC should be government funded, and readily available at every possible outlet.