Trump Contraceptive Move Could Lead to More Abortions
From NBCNEWS :
The Trump administration's moves this week to cut back on free birth control and tighten abortion restrictions could add up to an unintended consequence, according to experts: Women may end up having more abortions.On Friday, the administration rolled back a key Obamacare requirement for most employers to provide free birth control as part of health insurance coverage. The new rules it issued would allow just about any employer to opt out of the birth control requirement, provided they show a “sincerely held” religious or moral objection.
The new rules will also more strictly enforce a requirement that health insurance companies tell patients if their policies provide abortion services and, if they do, to pay for them out of a separate fund. Officials said the goal is to protect religious freedom. But research done at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis suggests the two moves conflict with the goal of reducing the number of abortions. A 2012 study of more than 9,000 women found that when women got no-cost birth control, the number of unplanned pregnancies and abortions fell by between 62 and 78 percent.
"This study shows that by removing barriers to highly effective contraceptive methods such as IUDs and implants, we can reduce unintended pregnancies and the need for abortions," Washington University professor Dr. Jeff Peipert said in a statement. "The results of this study demonstrate that we can reduce the rate of unintended pregnancy, and this is key to reducing abortions in this country." Other studies have shown similar results. Close to half of all U.S. pregnancies are unplanned, and nearly all elective abortions involve unplanned pregnancies.
The most effective forms of birth control — intrauterine devices (IUDs) and injected or implanted contraceptives — are the hardest for women to get on their own, said Dr. David Eisenberg, associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Washington University. "The cost upfront can be prohibitive," he said. Over time, they're cheaper than daily methods such as pills or condoms, he said, but the cost of the most effective methods is front-loaded." Without the contraceptive mandate, some highly effective methods of birth control, such as intra-uterine devices and sterilization, could cost women more than $1,000, putting these options out of reach for many women," Human Rights Watch said in a statement. "Affordable family-planning options and contraceptive choice help to prevent unintended pregnancies.
The Guttmacher Institute, which studies reproductive health, says Planned Parenthood alone averted 140,000 abortions in areas it serves by providing birth control and family planning services. The Trump administration and the Republican leadership in Congress aim to take federal funds away from Planned Parenthood because it also provides abortions. It’s counterproductive policy, Eisenberg said. "As a public health expert, I can say without question the most cost-effective interventions you can make are safe water, a vaccination program, and contraceptive and family planning care — in that order," he said.
"If the outcome of interest is having the healthiest possible woman, the healthiest possible pregnancy, the healthiest possible family, the healthiest possible community, it would be to be sure that all women and men have access to the reproductive and sexual healthcare they need when they need it at no cost out of pocket." The new regulations take effect immediately, and the Health and Human Services Department made no mention of health in announcing the new rules.'
"No American should be forced to violate his or her own conscience in order to abide by the laws and regulations governing our health care system," HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said Friday. "All across the executive branch, they are using their power to remove the protection for women to access the care they need when they need it," Eisenberg said. "What about the religious freedom of women who want not to have a child until they are ready or the religious freedom of men who want to practice responsible behavior?" he asked. "I am 100 percent certain that there is no medical, public health, scientific or other reason to prohibit women having access to the contraceptive care they need. It is a politically motivated kind of move."
Tags
Who is online
61 visitors
The logical end result of making contraceptives more difficult or expensive to obtain is unwanted pregnancies and increased abortions. Clearly this order is not well thought out and seems only for political gain or show.
Contraceptives are not all that expensive, and the taxpayers should not pay for a woman being lazy and making bad choices.
Some contraceptives might not be expensive but the research shows that free contraception reduces abortion rates and reduces healthcare costs. But it's not surprising that conservatives oppose it despite the adverse consequences because they tend to be hypocrites on anything related to sex.
It takes 2 to conceive a child so why do you get the man a pass?
I am paying for medical insurance so why shouldn't my insurance cover that medication?
Did it ever occur to you that covering free birth control is cheaper than abortions and social service costs for children born to parents who can't afford them?
Depends on one's income bracket I guess. But if one pays into insurance, there's no reason not to have contraceptives covered by insurance.
Where is that happening exactly? Seems to me that taking contraceptives is neither lazy nor a bad choice. That would be a good choice. But then, making it difficult to obtain contraceptives effectively eliminates at least one good choice available.
So pregnancy is only the woman's fault?
Must be so nice to have all the answers! /s
"But then, making it difficult to obtain contraceptives effectively eliminates at least one good choice available."
I'm pretty sure drug stores still exist.
I'm pretty sure that one would still need a freaking prescription.
The coverage being eliminated includes doctors visits for contraceptives.
Secondly, follow ups on any after effects many be needed, not all women can take the cheaper generic versions.
And lastly, some women take birth control pills as a medication for non-reproductive medical problems like endometriosis, which effects up to 20% of women of child bearing age.
Yeah, as a taxpayer i would rather eat the cost of contraceptives than the cost of an unintended pregnancy. One is a lot cheaper than the other.
What's make a baby? Two people of the opposite sex having intercourse.
Simple.....if you can't afford birth control pills, then, don't have sex!
It is not too complicated. We didn't have birth control pills. We had "urges". We didn't fulfill our urges! The playing field is not equal....duh, who didn't know that?
Women get pregnant and men don't. It would behoove a women to protect herself and, sure, it takes two to tango, but who is left on the short end of the stick when there is a pregnancy?
I don't care what the damn man does.....I will take care of myself!
Yes, so?
Oh, so people should only have sex when they're ready to procreate? Is that what you're saying?
Talk about a life less lived.
Which is precisely why women should have the choice and right abortion, as well as cheap and easy access to contraceptives.
This isn't about what the man does. It's about how women will be affected. Especially from the decision of one man in particular as it pertains to this article.
Reagan's idiotic policy of Just Say No to sex led to more children being born. Id prefers that our policy is based on facts and not simplistic beliefs.
Ok, then, just say "yes" knowing full well you have no protection from pregnancy.
And, when you get pregnant, don't ask how or why!
If a woman is using birth control then she does have a high percentage of protection from pregnancy.
If the birth control fails, then it is the woman's choice on whether to bring the pregnancy to term or to terminate the pregnancy.
Exactly.
That just ain't going to work, never has and never will
Too cheap to buy rubbers but will pay far more for an abortion. Anything we can do to prevent these fiscal idiots from reproducing will benefit society in the long run.
Contraceptives are not 100% effective. But abortion is far cheaper than raising an unwanted child for 18 years.
Birth Control Typical use: 9/100 pregnancies
Male condom Typical use: 18/100 pregnancies
Withdrawal Typical use: 22/100 pregnancies
You just don't get it!
Since the woman has the responsibility of a possible pregnancy, then, she should look at her options and not depend on some man's actions/inactions.
We are talking about casual sex. At least I am. There is a vast difference between casual sex and sex with the one you love. When you love one another you are in it together, but with casual sex, ole Rambo boy could just run out of town. Then, go on Maury Povich show to prove fatherhood.
Ain't no fly by night boy getting in my britches!
'
Of course (although it's good if the man utilized options as well). The problem is, some of those options are being denied or made harder to obtain. Fewer preventative options available only means few options, like abortion, remain.
What difference does it make? Sex is sex. A woman can still use contraceptives or utilize abortion whether she is in a relationship or not.
A guy can run regardless of whether he's in a relationship or not. It's not right either way, but it can and does happen. All the more reason for women to have as many options as possible.
Then you are not talking about the majority of abortions.
The women is the one who can get pregnant.
Both people having sex are responsible for the pregnancy.
Again, you miss it.
Of course, a woman can use contraceptives whether it is casual or love. The difference is....in a love relationship the male partner, usually, takes on the responsibility as well. It is the two of them working together. She can depend on him. He can depend on her. They are in it together.....she does not walk alone.
No, there are two different kinds of sex. Sex of the moment and sex because you truly care for this person.
The bottom line.....don't let a man use you for sex. Tell him to use the nearest door knob. And, don't depend on a man to do his share.....do it for you.
It doesn't matter if the woman has a village.
The woman's body has to endure and survive the pregnancy alone. This is why it is up to the woman on whether to bring an unplanned pregnancy to term. It is the woman's health and life that is at risk.
Not at all.
In an ideal world, yes. But it is not an ideal world. And it doesn't change the fact that options so they can be "responsible" should be easily and readily available.
Sex is sex. The only difference is the level of emotional attachment.
Works both ways. A woman has the choice to engage in sexual relations or not, regardless of whom it is.
Uh, that sounds like an unusual fetish.
Of course. But again, the woman should have options available.
I believe that she meant to make the man leave.
Some people do not understand the world where married couples do not want children for any number of personal reasons. Or do not want to add to the number of children that they already have.
Sterilization for men and women should be readily available and free. It would be cheaper than a lifetime of birth control. It would end the side effect risks of many birth control options. It would also cut down on the number of abortions performed in the US.
A vasectomy is easily available for a man. For a woman, it isn't that simple. Except, for a woman there is the IUD or tubes tied.
Children are not for all, as you said. We adopted one baby and, then, had one naturally. My husband had a vasectomy after that. By that time, at our age, two was enough.
I know. I was having a little fun.
Indeed.
Agreed.
Which is unfortunate.
Many, if not most doctors, will refuse to electively tie a woman's tubes if she doesn't want children (i.e. "She'll change her mind later").
Sex should not be just sex.
Two young people engage in the backseat of an automobile. What is his objective? To reach a climax and get out of there. Does he have any thought about pleasing her? Does he think that she is going to reach ecstasy because he came inside her? She is too foolish to know that only through a caring and loving man will she ever know the true meaning of intimacy.
Not as comfortable as it seems. A pickup truck with a mattress or a minivan with the back seats removed would be better.
How do you know that's not her objective either? She is (hopefully) a willing participant.
That depends on how good his technique is.
That's quite the presumption. You don't know what they feel for each other. Or how they feel in general. Perhaps they are intimate. Perhaps they only want a quick fling. What difference does it make?
Yep.
Not to be crude, but it is called sport f'k'n .. and many women enjoy it just as much as men.
Why in 2017 are we debating birth control? Should it be free .. yeah sure whatever - yet someone still has to be responsible enough to take it! With the possible diseases that can be transmitted, sex without a condom (even in a relationship) is Russian roulette until medical tests are done.
Rather pathetic to read that without free birth control the number of abortions could go up .. that is speculation and conjecture sold as fact!
*my opinion
Agree. Sex among teens is an extra curriculum activity.
Sure, a condom should be worn, but first, get the young woman to remember to take her birth control pill. Oh, Mom, I am pregnant! But, you take birth control pills. Oh, I forgot to take it.
No abortion...baby is born.....baby and mother live with her mother. The father lives with his mother. Who takes care of the baby? Correcto! The girl's mother.
They are so grown up and responsible, aren't they? They know everything about sex and it is even taught in the schools!
It makes me madder than hell that females put themselves in a no win position. Don't depend on the male population you come in contact with to protect you. Protect yourself!
I agree, one must always protect themselves male or female..
I have 2 sons 10 years apart .. conceived on birth control, my oldest on 'the pill' (yes I missed doses here and there) .. my (not so) lil man while using 'the depo shot' .. not sure what happened there, I guess he was meant to be.
(I feel blessed to have him - right after he was born .. my cancer was back, a hysterectomy was my only option. (Halloween is 17 years disease free)
Oooop'ses can happen .. nothing is full proof, just because birth control is not free - should not equate to an increase in abortions .. there are always options available for safe sex preventing pregnancy and disease. When I was a bartender I had a bowl of condoms available on the bar, as did other bars downtown...
All that said, I cannot bash men for being dead beats, it is their loss. My sons fathers could have seen them anytime they wanted to, when they found out I was NO longer part of the package POOF! I honestly prefer life without a man in it on a daily basis, I like my own space far too much ............... admittedly it does help to have a male sport f'k buddy : ) I am a child of the 70's - college in the 80's .. Montana was HIV/AIDS free for a long time. Safe sex (condoms) were/are a life saver, not just pregnancy prevention
P.s I never received child support .. and honestly I am thankful - I know that what I have done in life has been all me, I am beholden to NO one but my family and my friends that were always there for me - I did have to scream a time or 2!
Thanks for the conversation Magnoliaave
You are awesome! I loved reading every word you wrote because.......you were honest, down to earth, and knew where in the hell you were coming from.
You could be my daughter. And, I would be very proud. I had two sons.
Thank you, thank you.
This deserves its own thread but I'll post it here since it reveals the same kind of profound misogyny:
.
That's utterly reprehensible and I hope the court ruling gets promptly reversed. The details of what the court did are pretty bad too, like giving the rapist the victim's current home address.
That is horrendous!
That is an understatement.
Free birth control is cost effective
It's one of those things which pro-choice folks and anti-abortion folks should be able to agree on, but the reality is that there's a very large percentage of anti-choice folks who are anti-sex and are concerned that free contraception means people will have more sex.
yeah, that is a paradox
Too true Charger.
Thanks in large part to the ACA, easier universal access to birth control since 2010.
In America since 2010 ;
Teen pregnancies are down.
Unplanned pregnancies in total are down.
Abortions are down.
Unfortunately, since 2016, stupidity is up.
E.A Remember Thalidomide? The same thoughts were bout IT also, let see what the outcome will be in 40-50 Years, how many Permanently " Disabled Humans " society will have to deal with!
And that Genetic Mutation would take many MANY generation to correct!
I think it's been on the rise long before that. If only the stock market would go up as high or consistently as stupidity does, the economy would be so good, we could buy the planet.
Several generations of children who mothers took birth control pills have already been born. And they're fine.
1) much easier, and better for everyone if everyone shares the cost. Sharing the cost of contraception is vastly cheaper than the cost of a kid.
2) And if everyone made the correct choice all the time then we would live in a perfect world. But they don't and we don't, so it is wise for us as a society to do what we can to mitigate the damage of poor choices. Again it is cheaper for everyone if contraception is universally available at no out of pocket cost.
3) What non financial cost is there to contraception at no out of pocket cost? I really am curious.
People pay into their insurance premiums. So they are paying for the coverage and associated products.
Except now existing choices are being diminished.
What non-financial costs would those be? And what other areas of law?
Overpopulation is the problem politicians and preachers don't want to face. It is real and multiplies all other problems
We better get to work getting off this planet pronto.
"The Trump administration's moves this week to cut back on free birth control and tighten abortion restrictions could add up to an unintended consequence, according to experts:"
So, if I read this correctly, people are MORE "Stupid" when they don't get something for nothing.
I guess the "Experts" know "Stupid is coming".
Go figure.