Free Contraception dramatically lowers abortion rate?

  • Thread starter Thread starter LaSainte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dr David Delvin says they do not know what the long term of the contraceptive implant. He says ‘Obviously, it is to be hoped that use of them does not lead to any form of cancer.’ Reassuring sarcasm. Article says frequent or prolonged vaginal bleeding may affect 1/5 of users, not a small number

Mirena IUD has been the subject of many lawsuits. Women who have IUD have early abortions which means they are probably at higher risk of breast cancer as many studies have found a correlation between abortion and breast cancer. Researchers Rossling and Daling studied women who had an IUD and long time users had a higher risk of ecotopic prgenancy, which is the leading cause of maternal mortality in the US, for years after IUD was removed

Women need to be told about the health effects
 
Peipert’s study proclaims in its abstract that it’s intended to be promotional:
Click to expand...
OBJECTIVE: To promote the use of long-acting reversible contraceptive (LARC) methods (intrauterine devices [IUDs] and implants) and provide contraception at no cost to a large cohort of participants in an effort to reduce unintended pregnancies in our region.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
A Nexis search finds the May 2009 edition of the journal Contemporary Sexuality reported “Jeffrey F. Peipert, MD, PhD, a professor at Washington University in St. Louis School of Medicine, is attempting to do just that [promote LARC]. The medical school has received $12 million from an anonymous donor for a multi-year, cohort study involving 10,000 women.” So who’s the donor? Perhaps…a manufacturer of LARC devices? AP doesn’t seem to find this question worth asking.
Click to expand...
 
LaSainte said:
current.com/community/93919939_study-free-contraception-dramatically-lowers-the-rate-of-abortions.htm

Study: Free contraception dramatically lowers the rate of abortions
NBC News - Breaking News & Top Stories - Latest World, US & Local News | NBC News
Rate of abortions cut about two-thirds, according to the study.

From the article:

When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate, according to a new report by Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis researchers.

From 2008 to 2010, annual abortion rates among participants in the Contraceptive Choice Project – dubbed CHOICE – ranged from 4.4 abortions per 1,000 women to 7.5 abortions per 1,000. That’s far less than the 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide reported in 2008, the latest year for which figures are available.
Click to expand...
Would anybody be surprised by these results? Of course contraception reduces abortions.
 
Quick question. Since it is established by the study that sine women did in fact Getty pregnant during the course of the study my question is thus: over the course of the study how many of these 10,000 women became pregnant? Follow up, of these women that got pregnant how many received an abortion.
The numbers don’t really mean anything unless we know if 100 women got pregnant and 75 of those hundred got an abortion.
 
The problem isn’t that contraception in itself causes abortions. Obviously it prevents pregnancy, it’s designed to.

The problem is the contraceptive mentality that as long as you’re protected it’s okay to have sex outside of marriage, leading to more sex, more unwanted pregnancies, and more abortions. Of course in a group having sex outside of marriage where more contraception is available there will be less abortions. You want to know where there will be even LESS abortions? When people abstain from sex.

It’s the mentality that it’s okay to have sex outside of marriage that leads to more abortions, and contraception that promises to “protect” you feeds into this big time because people think it will eliminate their chances of getting pregnant. Well sure, contraception will get you pregnant less often, but people who think it eliminates all consequences have more sex and consequently will end up having more children outside of marriage, leading to more abortions.
 
Acerunner said:
Does anyone else think this was a silly study? Saying that women taking contraceptives have fewer abortions is the same as saying people that wear sunscreen are less likely to have skin cancer. It’s doing what it was designed to do. Anybody that hasn’t been lobotomized would be able to see that correlation.
Click to expand...
I totally agree with you. Obviously, if you put a bunch of women on birth control, almost none of them will get pregnant. If almost nobody gets pregnant, then there obviously won’t be very many abortions. It is not rocket science to figure out something that is so self evident. I wonder whose money they wasted on this study.

I think the biggest concern is that if nobody has any children, who will be in the work force when today’s young people are ready for a rest home?
 
OrdinaryMelkite said:
This is so totally wrong on so many levels. Methinks I sense bias and manipulation of data. :mad:

I know MSNBC is totally biased to the left, but I can’t believe they would blatantly peddle something like this even with their obvious bias. (And yes, I believe other networks have their biases. Even FOX. But we are talking about bias in MSNBC right now. This goes beyond the pale---------to me. Sorry). 👍

Through the prayers of the Mother of God-----have mercy on us and save us. Amen.
Click to expand...
So what is the bias? You say it is biased, but in what way?
 
SaintPatrick333 said:
The liberals just can’t understand the pro life argument. This is not about the word abortion. Fudging statistics like this is just a new low for them. Let’s pretend for the sake of the argument that these statistics are accurate as reported. Nothing changes! The liberals think it’s a big “progressive” step forward since once abortions are lowered pro lifers (predominantly we Catholics) will have to shut up about contraception because look at the “good” it’s doing. They can’t comprehend that we are not fighting over words. We are fighting over the essence of life itself. Through abortion life is terminated. Through contraception it is prevented. At the end of the day they are one and the same thing. It’s mankind stepping in the way of life. THAT is what we are fighting against. Not the number of abortions vs the percentage of women between age x and y who have admitted to using birth control once in the last fifteen years.
Click to expand...
Birth control prevents life as much as abstinence. So is abstinence evil?
 
interestedman said:
Birth control prevents life as much as abstinence. So is abstinence evil?
Click to expand...
Do you really think through questions and statements this little before posting? You’ve got to be using hyperbole, because I know your smarter than this.:rolleyes:
 
Listened to a Catholic Answers show, where a former Abortion Clinic owner admitted that they gave out low dose birth control pills (this means they are seriously watered down!) and low quality condoms out for free.

That guarantees more abortions later.

I’m doubting that what they did in St. Louis was different.
 
The Shocking Ethics Behind the Contraceptive Choice Project
Click to expand...
The results are based on the Contraceptive Choice Project, in which researchers from the Washington School of Medicine offered over 9,000 women in St. Louis (some as young as 14) free contraception of their choosing.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
The overall take seems to be: If everyone would just support the Obama administration’s plan for health care, what happened to the women of St. Louis could happen to women everywhere!
Click to expand...
I think they might be right. And we should all be terrified by that thought.
Click to expand...
In this study, the vast majority of the women chose implantable methods of contraception like intrauterine devices and under-the-skin implants, which were explained to them as being most reliable for preventing pregnancy. Normally these procedures are significantly more expensive than other forms of contraception, but when they were offered for free, women agreed to have them done. This seems to be exactly what the researchers and their supporters hoped would happen: Because these forms of contraception involve invasive procedures that lead to semi-permanent sterilization, they led to a reduction in unintended pregnancies (or at least fewer implantations of new life that has been conceived). Therefore, the thinking goes, the study was a raging success. Fewer pregnancies equals a successful outcome – in all the coverage of this story, that assumption is never questioned. But when you take a closer look at this project, and the environment in which it took place, you see that it may not be “successful” at all for the women who were recruited to participate in it. In fact, the ethics behind the entire study shock the conscience.
Click to expand...
According to the local Planned Parenthood website, “currently, St. Louis has top rankings in chlamydia and gonorrhea, and is number five in the nation for syphilis and HIV.” It’s also number six in the Center for Disease Control’s list of the top 15 cities with the worst herpes rates. The St. Louis Children’s hospital reports that their city “has some the highest rates for sexually transmitted infections when compared to other U.S. cities.” The Gonorrhea rates in St. Louis are seven times the national average; chlamydia rates are four times the national average; and syphilis rates are three times the national average.
Click to expand...
The researchers behind the Contraceptive Choice Project specifically recruited women who were low-income, from minority ethnic groups (the word minority appears in the study abstract 13 times), and had a history of STDs. And, though they knew that these at-risk women were living in an area where STDs are almost epidemic, the researchers’ primary concern was rendering them infertile.
Click to expand...
By the study’s own admission, barrier methods of contraception are ineffective; that’s why, to prevent pregnancy, they were pushing the more invasive techniques that shut down a woman’s reproductive system for the long term. And so, despite one passing mention of the women in the study receiving information about STDs, even the study authors could not honestly say that they weren’t aware that they were drastically increasing these women’s risks of contracting diseases. If people aren’t using condoms faithfully and effectively under normal circumstances, certainly the results would be even more abysmal if they’d been rendered infertile. Not that handing out condoms is ever really an effective solution, but even within their own paradigm these researchers would have to admit that most of the participants in their study were now at higher risk for contracting sexually transmitted diseases.
Click to expand...
In 2010, during the time of the study, the city of St. Louis saw “a 46 percent jump in syphilis, a 31 percent rise in gonorrhea and a 3 percent increase in chlamydia.” Nobody knows whether the Contraceptive Choice Project had anything to do with these startling numbers; the director of the local Health Department wrote it off as an increase in reporting. But, in any case, what is certain is that there has been little concern over these figures in the media coverage of the “success” of this study.
Click to expand...
The study authors, as well as the media outlets who have championed this project, show a laser-like focus on reducing the fertility rates of women, particularly those who are poor and minorities – even at the expense of their overall health. Given the powerful control that these invasive contraceptive measures exert over a woman’s body, I wouldn’t be surprised if this program of free IUDs and under-the-skin implants did lead to fewer pregnancies as compared to other methods of contraception. But, if that’s the only goal, wouldn’t permanent surgical sterilization be even more effective? Perhaps full hysterectomies, just to be safe? The slope that we have begun sliding down is a dangerous one, and leads to a terrible, ugly place.
Click to expand...
 
New Study Exaggerates Benefits of No-Cost Contraception
  1. No control group: The main problem with this study is that it fails to include an adequate control group. Each of the 9,256 participants in the study was a volunteer. As such, women in the study very likely had a stronger desire to avoid a future pregnancy than women who declined to participate. Most research indicates that a desire to avoid pregnancy has a significant impact on the likelihood of becoming pregnant. As such, comparing the abortion rate and the birth rate of study participants to national and state averages is a flawed comparison. A better idea would have been to randomly select some percentage of the volunteers, inform them that they were not going to receive free contraception, but continue to track their births and abortions in exchange for some compensation. That would have allowed for a meaningful comparison between a treatment group and a control group.
Click to expand...
2). Limited impact on repeat abortion rate: The study makes much of the fact that between 2006 and 2010 there was a statistically significant decline in the repeat abortion rate in St. Louis City and County. This may well be true. However, the results indicate that the repeat abortion rate fell from about 48 percent in 2006 to about 45 percent in 2010 — hardly a dramatic decline.
Click to expand...
  1. Exaggerated impact on overall abortion rate: The authors also make much of the fact that the number of abortions performed at Reproductive Health Services on women who resided in St. Louis City and County declined by 20.6 percent between 2008 and 2010. However, Reproductive Health Services is not the only abortion provider in the St. Louis area. Furthermore, only a small percentage of St. Louis area women took part in the program. Now, the authors use a weighting method and, as such, do not provide the actual number of abortions performed on program participants. However, my back-of-the-envelope calculations indicate that much of this abortion decline was among women not taking part in this no-cost contraceptive program.
Click to expand...
  1. The weighting mechanism overstates effectiveness of contraception program: Program participants were not a random sample of women residing in the St. Louis area. They were more likely to be African-American, young, and low-income. As such, the authors weigh the data to compare birth rates and abortion rates of program participants to birth rates and abortion rates of a similar demographic cohort. Consequently, these contraceptive methods likely appeared more effective than they actually were — because they were being used by a demographic with both relatively high birth rates and abortion rates.
Click to expand...
 
_Abyssinia said:
The study authors, as well as the media outlets who have championed this project, show a laser-like focus on reducing the fertility rates of women, particularly those who are poor and minorities – even at the expense of their overall health.
Click to expand...
Remember, we are dealing with 1960’s “sexual revolution” types who worship sex as a god. As a result they dehumanize both men and women, seeing them as nothing but sex objects.
 
BobCatholic said:
Remember, we are dealing with 1960’s “sexual revolution” types who worship sex as a god. As a result they dehumanize both men and women, seeing them as nothing but sex objects.
Click to expand...
And remember who worshipped genitals first in the modern era - Freud.

Thanks to him, and Jean Paul Sartre who synthesised Freud’s sexual fetishism with Nietzsche’s will-to-power, we have the battle between the sexes and radical feminism, which basically seeks to make sex not a bonding thing which brings life into the world but a competitive thing which men and women now can do “without consequence”.

Traditional sexual understanding is centripetal - it brings people together in cooperation. Freud and Sartre’s model of human sexuality is centrifugal - it separates people through competition to be “equal”, which really means “the same”, which is really a wild goose chase. The female and male sexes never can be the same.
 
Regardless of whether or not it reduces the abortion rate, even if it is a dramatic drop, it is still wrong to use contraception. The ends do not justify the means. Also, using contraception just encourages the anti-life mentality that life is disposable. Also, contraception causes very early abortions. It prevents the fertilized egg, which is a human being, from being implanted in the womb…
 
TarkanAttila said:
And remember who worshipped genitals first in the modern era - Freud.

Thanks to him, and Jean Paul Sartre who synthesised Freud’s sexual fetishism with Nietzsche’s will-to-power, we have the battle between the sexes and radical feminism, which basically seeks to make sex not a bonding thing which brings life into the world but a competitive thing which men and women now can do “without consequence”.

Traditional sexual understanding is centripetal - it brings people together in cooperation. Freud and Sartre’s model of human sexuality is centrifugal - it separates people through competition to be “equal”, which really means “the same”, which is really a wild goose chase. The female and male sexes never can be the same.
Click to expand...
And don’t forget that Marx was also in this recipe. Marxism and cultural Marxism is a huge influence.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top