Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions
WASHINGTON (AP) - Free birth control led to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a large study concludes. The findings were eagerly anticipated and come as a bitterly contested Obama administration policy is poised to offer similar coverage.
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost - from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives - the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert's team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The findings of the study, which ran from 2008 to 2010, come as millions of U.S. women are beginning to get access to contraception without copays under President Barack Obama's health care law. Women's health specialists said the research foreshadows that policy's potential impact.
"As a society, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion rates. This study has demonstrated that having access to no-cost contraception helps us get to that goal," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
"It's just an amazing improvement," Dr. James T. Breeden, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said of the results. "I would think if you were against abortions, you would be 100 percent for contraception access."
The law requires that Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives be available for free for women enrolled in most workplace insurance plans, a change that many will see as new plan years begin on Jan. 1.
The policy is among the law's most contentious provisions because it exempts churches that oppose contraception but requires religious-affiliated organizations, such as colleges or hospitals, to provide the coverage for their workers. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many conservative groups say that violates religious freedom, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has voiced similar criticism.
This week, a federal judge in St. Louis dismissed a lawsuit challenging the contraception mandate; nearly three dozen similar suits have been filed around the country.
Thursday's data didn't sway the critics.
Jeanne Monahan of the conservative Family Research Council suggested contraceptive use can encourage riskier sexual behavior.
"Additionally, one might conclude that the Obama administration's contraception mandate may ultimately cause more unplanned pregnancies since it mandates that all health plans cover contraceptives, including those that the study's authors claim are less effective," Monahan said.
Here's why this is a public health issue: Nearly half of the nation's 6 million-plus pregnancies each year are unintended. An estimated 43 percent of them end in abortion. Low-income women are far more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy than their wealthier counterparts.
"We shouldn't have, in my view, a tiered system where the women with money can get family planning and the women without cannot," said Peipert, noting that 39 percent of the women in his study had trouble paying basic expenses.
About half of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who use no contraception. As for the other half, condoms can fail and so can birth control pills or other shorter-acting methods if the woman forgets to use them or can't afford a refill.
In contrast, you can forget about pregnancy for three years with Implanon, the implant inserted under the skin of the arm. An IUD, a tiny T-shaped device inserted into the uterus, can last for five to 10 years, depending on the brand. Change your mind, and the doctor removes either device before it wears out.
Only about 5 percent of U.S. women use long-acting contraceptives, far fewer than in other developed countries. Peipert said insurance hasn't always covered the higher upfront cost to insert them, even though years of birth control pills can add up to the same price.
Yet three-quarters of his study participants chose an IUD or Implanon, and a year later 85 percent were sticking that choice - compared to about half who had initially chosen the pill, patch or other shorter-acting method.
Cost isn't the only barrier. Doctors don't always mention long-acting methods, maybe because of a long-outdated belief that IUDs aren't for young women or just because they assume women want the most commonly prescribed pill.
That was the case for Ashley England, 26, of Nashville, Tenn., who enrolled in the study while in graduate school in St. Louis. She had taken birth control pills for years but struggled with a $50 monthly copay. She switched to a five-year IUD, and loves that she and her husband don't have to think about contraception.
"No one had ever presented all the options equally," England said. "It's not telling you what to do. It's giving you a choice unhindered by money."
The project tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them poor or uninsured. They were given their choice of a range of contraceptive methods at no cost - from birth control pills to goof-proof options like the IUD or a matchstick-sized implant.
When price wasn't an issue, women flocked to the most effective contraceptives - the implanted options, which typically cost hundreds of dollars up-front to insert. These women experienced far fewer unintended pregnancies as a result, reported Dr. Jeffrey Peipert of Washington University in St. Louis in a study published Thursday.
The effect on teen pregnancy was striking: There were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers in the study. Compare that to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
There also were substantially lower rates of abortion, when compared with women in the metro area and nationally: 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, compared with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women overall in the St. Louis region, Peipert calculated. That's lower than the national rate, too, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women.
In fact, if the program were expanded, one abortion could be prevented for every 79 to 137 women given a free contraceptive choice, Peipert's team reported in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology.
The findings of the study, which ran from 2008 to 2010, come as millions of U.S. women are beginning to get access to contraception without copays under President Barack Obama's health care law. Women's health specialists said the research foreshadows that policy's potential impact.
"As a society, we want to reduce unintended pregnancies and abortion rates. This study has demonstrated that having access to no-cost contraception helps us get to that goal," said Alina Salganicoff, director of women's health policy at the Kaiser Family Foundation.
"It's just an amazing improvement," Dr. James T. Breeden, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said of the results. "I would think if you were against abortions, you would be 100 percent for contraception access."
The law requires that Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives be available for free for women enrolled in most workplace insurance plans, a change that many will see as new plan years begin on Jan. 1.
The policy is among the law's most contentious provisions because it exempts churches that oppose contraception but requires religious-affiliated organizations, such as colleges or hospitals, to provide the coverage for their workers. The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and many conservative groups say that violates religious freedom, and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has voiced similar criticism.
This week, a federal judge in St. Louis dismissed a lawsuit challenging the contraception mandate; nearly three dozen similar suits have been filed around the country.
Thursday's data didn't sway the critics.
Jeanne Monahan of the conservative Family Research Council suggested contraceptive use can encourage riskier sexual behavior.
"Additionally, one might conclude that the Obama administration's contraception mandate may ultimately cause more unplanned pregnancies since it mandates that all health plans cover contraceptives, including those that the study's authors claim are less effective," Monahan said.
Here's why this is a public health issue: Nearly half of the nation's 6 million-plus pregnancies each year are unintended. An estimated 43 percent of them end in abortion. Low-income women are far more likely to have an unplanned pregnancy than their wealthier counterparts.
"We shouldn't have, in my view, a tiered system where the women with money can get family planning and the women without cannot," said Peipert, noting that 39 percent of the women in his study had trouble paying basic expenses.
About half of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who use no contraception. As for the other half, condoms can fail and so can birth control pills or other shorter-acting methods if the woman forgets to use them or can't afford a refill.
In contrast, you can forget about pregnancy for three years with Implanon, the implant inserted under the skin of the arm. An IUD, a tiny T-shaped device inserted into the uterus, can last for five to 10 years, depending on the brand. Change your mind, and the doctor removes either device before it wears out.
Only about 5 percent of U.S. women use long-acting contraceptives, far fewer than in other developed countries. Peipert said insurance hasn't always covered the higher upfront cost to insert them, even though years of birth control pills can add up to the same price.
Yet three-quarters of his study participants chose an IUD or Implanon, and a year later 85 percent were sticking that choice - compared to about half who had initially chosen the pill, patch or other shorter-acting method.
Cost isn't the only barrier. Doctors don't always mention long-acting methods, maybe because of a long-outdated belief that IUDs aren't for young women or just because they assume women want the most commonly prescribed pill.
That was the case for Ashley England, 26, of Nashville, Tenn., who enrolled in the study while in graduate school in St. Louis. She had taken birth control pills for years but struggled with a $50 monthly copay. She switched to a five-year IUD, and loves that she and her husband don't have to think about contraception.
"No one had ever presented all the options equally," England said. "It's not telling you what to do. It's giving you a choice unhindered by money."
It took a study?
And exactly how much taxpayer money went into revealing this common sense result? I suppose if you use an umbrella you will not get wet in a rainstorm either. Lets have a major study to discover that also.
There isn't a huge national debate about umbrellas or funding raingear. Young women's lives aren't forever changed because they don't have access to safe and effective umbrellas. Some people still think that what should be quite obvious, is still debateable and controversial. That's why they need this study, and more like it.
@badcat I see your point, but I guess what I was responding to was that it seems to me that of course you would have fewer abortions if you increased the distribution of birth control materials.
Just put birth control in the water.That would lower the abortion rate!
I believe that prevention is the best way to prevent abortion. Â If women could have free access to birth control for every women in the US there would be very little need to abortion, but the government and insurance companies don't want to pay for birth control but they will pay for abortions call D & C's. Â We need to change this and it really doesn't matter what religious groups think about it in my opinion. Â If we don't want abortion we need to give women alternatives. Â Abstinence is great but not all women believe in it. Â If there are free abortion clinics there needs to be free birth control.Â
Republicans obviously prefer to pay for welfare babies than provide free birth control. What difference does the STD factor make?? Obviously the lack of free BC didn't stop people from having unprotected sex, since the pregnancy rates went way up when it wasn't available. If there's a study out there that shows infection rates go up when pregnancy rates go down, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, you're just looking for ANY reason to deny poor women access to family planning.
I'm all for stopping the poor and stupid from breeding.
Never will I ready a study that only involves 9,000 people in a single city and say this is good enough to apply anywhere else.  The study further devolves by only studying a small subset within the 9,000, and within society (poor).  9,000 isn't even a percent of any population, it's sub-percentages.   Do they have any classical research training?  I imagine you could get this data to pretty much say whatever you want being that it's so small not even to pass sampling size.  This study would be good for a population of 90,000 certainly not the size of any major city, or the country.  Not something to make policy decisions with.
so the poor girls without insurance and can't afford birth control...... yet  some how found find the funds for an abortion.
So that means more STDs. Â They didnt factor that in because they support the liberal agenda of obama.
 @sortbait Exactly what I was thinking. Where is the study on STDs in relation to the birth control?
 @washcomom Who cares? This study was about abortion rates. It should be good news for anyone, and especially those opposed to abortion. Just because they didn't cover every possible aspect of sex with this study, doesn't mean that the results are insignificant. People have sex in cars -- so this must mean more parking tickets, right? You & sortbait must look for any reason to attack the "liberal agenda" even when the results are a good thing. I had no idea that conservatives were so much in favor of people having welfare babies.
I truly can see the inherent value of making contraceptive options availible to women by mandate. The two questions (problems) that I have are the obvious ones...
Â
First and foremost, while there is a marked decrease in pregnancy rates, the study makes no mention about rates of STD infections. Given that most of the women who receive free contraceptives are also likely to receive free medications to deal with STD's. There's also a thought about the frequency of sexual assault and it's frequency among recipiants, and all the associated legal and social service system expenses of such cases. The costs become exponential. I'd suspect that the overall expenses are still less than children being raised either in state custody, or on the welfare system.
Â
Secondly, like it or not, believe it or not, agree with it or not, this is also an individually moral issue. That label comes with all of the typical 'hot button' incarnations. Religeous beliefs, family values, etc... and that's fine. I always encourage a healthy debate. The problem is that when the government begins substituting its 'beliefs' for mine, that's encroaching upon a totalitarian government. We are supposed to live in a representative democracy, not a theocracy. Just because the current occupant of the oval office believes one thing does not authorize him (or her) to mandate that by law. While I can support a public entity paying for, and implimenting such a program, I steadfastly believe that such programs have no place in public schools. Especially when the purchase of those contraceptives comes from an already finite and stressed pool of cash. Schools are supposed to be educational facilities, not social programming institutions.Â
 @MarkKpic I'm confused by your last paragraph. Wouldn't a totalitarian government either force you to use birth control or ban it entirely? The government making it it freely available seems like it would enhance individual choice.
Â
As for public schools, they can be used as a vehicle for making birth control available, but the costs of the birth control doesn't necessarily have to come out of education budgets.
 @Max Quinn Perhaps a theocracy would be a more accurate term.Â
Â
The problem is that it's not 'freely availible'. It does cost money. That money is from a pool of taxpayer funds (or borrowed from another country).
Â
Again, I do see the inherent value in it. Especially when compared against the cost of a child.Â
Â
I wouldn't take issue with it being availible in public schools so long as two qualifiers are met:
1) It is not paid for from education budgets. (although, it does still come from tax revenues)
Â
2) Any oral medications, injected medications, or surgical procedures (by medical definition, IUD's and syringe implanted devices are surgical procedures) cannot be undertaken without the express concent of the childs parent or legal guardian.Â
Free birth control leads to fewer abortions? Well, duh, I sure hope so. If people can afford their own bc methods, they should pay for it. But those who cannot, absolutely, I have no problem with paying for it. It's a whole lot cheaper than having mom and child(ren) on welfare.
"Study: Free birth control leads to fewer abortions"
Well, duh. The study should have included SEX EDUCATION too. I'll bet a little knowledge can go a long way.
I look at this from a dollars and cents perspective. I'm in favor of free birth control for those who prove they can't pay for it. I'd rather we pay for the birth control than the life long dependency the children create. As far as STD's, these people will reap what they have sown.
 @Torino ~ I agree, Torino...  If we can find a way to prevent a lot of unwanted pregnancies (as opposed to aborting them once they've already happened), we've done something good.  I, too, would MUCH rather fund the prevention than either abortion, or of the on-going care of the results of unwanted babies.
Â
Insofar as STDs are concerned, there is only so much we can do here... it's like people driving drunk, or using cell phones while they drive; you can't legislate or mandate safe, common sense behavior in people, even when it's their own safety and well-being that's at risk. Â You just can't fix stupid...all you can do is make information and options available to them... ultimately, they have to make their own choices.
 @margay1  @Torino >'(as opposed to aborting them once they've already happened)'
Â
One of the newest available contraceptives (Postcoital contraception or, 'morning after pill') is, in effect, 'an abortion' if conception occurred during intercourse.Â
"Jeanne Monahan of the conservative Famillyy Research Council suggested contraceptive use can encourage riskier sexual behavior." So what??? So more people will go to hell??? As long as fewer unwanted pregnancies result, this is a good thing.
Yes but did these women have sex more often because everything was "free" and "safe?"
Â
Â
 @TimBurr More than you.
 @TimBurrÂ
Â
Implanted birth control does not protect one from STDs. Poor judgment will still punish those who practice unsafe behavior.
Â
Don't worry, the "wicked" will still pay for their sins.
Â
Â
 @TimBurr Why should you care if they DID "have sex more often"??? Seriously, is that the best you can do in the way of criticism???
This comment has been deleted
 @TimBurr How about the demoralization of women for the way idiots like you talk about their sexuality? "Humping"? Is that what your mother was doing when the best parts of you ran down her leg?
 @TimBurrSo you think more damage is done to society by an increase in STD's than by a huge decrease in unwanted pregnancies??? If you don't want an STD, you can be responsible about whom you are intimate with.
Â
As far as the "demoralization of woman(sic) humping out of wedlock" -- what about the demoralization of men humping out of wedlock??? But seriously, what are you, the morals police??? And how is this "demoralization" any worse than bringing an unwanted child into the world??? It pales in comparison.
 @TimBurr  @felines99 Who is the woman "humping" with? Is that person demoralized, too?
As a taxpayer Id rather pay for the prevention of pregnancy then pay for the welfare of the child and their parent. Good program
@LostSoul Good intelligent and well-thought-out response. Too bad we don't have more of these type of responses on this board.Â