Skip to main content

Connection between free birth control and abortion rates

A new study published in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology concluded that when women are given free access to birth control, they a) are more likely to choose highly effective and long-lasting forms of birth control (in particular, IUDs and implants), and b) the rate of unplanned pregnancies and abortions drop.

The study ties together and appears to validate two major assertions of family planning advocates. First, providing women with more effective birth control (i.e., birth control where the error rate is lower) affects pregnancy and abortion rates. Second, women will choose more effective methods of birth control when cost is not an issue.

The study is a major positive talking point for the 'contraceptive mandate' of the Affordable Care Act. It also undermines the somewhat counter-intuitive argument of pro-life groups that providing additional birth control actually leads to more unplanned pregnancies and abortions, which is desired by the supposedly profit-driven 'abortion industry.' The logic there is that pro-choice and pro-birth control groups give women a false sense of comfort by promoting seemingly consequence-free sex through the easy provision of birth control. The birth control that many couples use, however, have significant failure rates (either inherently or in failing to be used properly), therefore actually increasing the number of unplanned pregnancies. Pregnant women, then, are driven to have more abortions than they would if they were more cautious about having sex.

There are lots of problems with this line of argument, one being the utterly unrealistic notion that women and men, unmarried or married, are simply going to stop having sex unless they are in the right situation to bear the burdens of a child or additional children (note that many married women with children have abortions, too!).

Suffice it to say here that pro-life groups are correct that many forms of birth control have signifiant failure rates (condoms, for example). What the new study indicates, however, is that there can be an effective connection between birth control and lower abortion rates if more effective but more expensive birth control is provided to women for free.

I'm sure that there will be vehement challenges to the methodology and analysis of the study (legitimate or not). Pro-life activists will also find the policy implications of the study unacceptable because one of the effective methods of birth control used, IUDs, are considered by pro-life groups not 'birth control' but rather an 'abortifacient.'

Finally, an international implication of the study is that it validates the promotion (and subsidization) of IUDs and implants in third-world countries as a form of family planning. In cultures where, for example, condom use is frowned upon by men, women can 'get around' cultural traditions and preferences and possess and use effective contraception.

Links:

Link to study in Obstetrics & Gynecology, which is currently available free as a pdf document (have I mentioned how frustrating it is that news reports don't link to articles that they cite?): Preventing Unintended Pregnancies by Providing No-Cost Contraception

For an example of the argument that greater access to birth control increases unplanned pregnancies and abortions, see "Myth no. 8" in this Family Research Council publication: The Top Ten Myths About Abortion

USA Today article: Free birth control project cuts teen births, abortions

WebMD summary of the research findings: Abortion Rates Fall When Birth Control is Free


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, Pres