|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
A
dramatic new study with implications for next month’s presidential election
finds that offering women free birth control can reduce unplanned pregnancies
-- and send the abortion rate spiraling downward.
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.
Among
teen girls ages 15 to 19 who participated in the study, the annual birth rate
was 6.3 per 1,000 girls, far below the U.S. rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for girls
the same age.
The
study’s lead author, Dr. Jeffrey Peipert, a professor of obstetrics and
gynecology at Washington University, expected both measures to fall, but even
he said he was “very surprised” by the magnitude.
In
all, Peipert said, one abortion was prevented for approximately every 100 women
who took part (the actual estimate is 1 per every 79 to 135 women).
The
results were so dramatic, in fact, that Peipert pushed the journal of
Obstetrics & Gynecology to publish the study before the Nov. 6
presidential election, knowing that the Affordable Care Act, and its
reproductive health provisions, are major issues in the campaign.
“It
just has so many implications for our society,” he told NBC News.
Several
factors contributed to the declines, he argued. First, a large majority of
the women in the study were encouraged -- and chose -- to use intrauterine
devices, or IUDs, and hormonal implants over more commonly used birth control
pills.
Because
birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them,
that method fails about 8 percent of the time. IUDs and implants are over 99
percent effective.
Second,
program enrollees included high-risk populations like women and girls who’ve
already used abortion services once -- and are more likely to have a second
abortion -- and women and girls who are economically distressed and may not
have means to obtain contraceptive products and services.
That’s
important because an IUD, including the device and the physician’s service to
place it in the uterus, can cost between $800 and $1,000. Since an IUD lasts
at least five years, it saves money in the long run over a monthly cost of
roughly $15-$25 for pills, but the up-front charge is prohibitive for many
women.
James
Trussell, a Princeton University professor of economics and public affairs and
an expert in family planning called the results “terrific, great work, and a
very important demonstration project.”
But
it’s also politically fraught. The Affordable Care Act requires insurance
plans to cover contraceptive costs. That’s led to conflicts among the Obama
administration, the Catholic church, and the church’s political allies who
argue that requiring a Catholic employer to provide such insurance
contradicts the church’s teaching and represents a breach of religious
freedom.
Conservatives
have also objected to contraceptive coverage on cost grounds. Some have
focused their anger at Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student who
agitated for the Catholic school to offer an insurance plan that covers
contraception. Radio host Rush Limbaugh famously called her a “slut” and a
“prostitute.”
But
experts, including Peipert, point out that no-cost contraception saves money.
According
to a 2011 study from the Guttmacher Institute, unplanned pregnancies costs
the United States a conservatively estimated $11 billion per year.
“The
way I look at it as a gynecologist with an interest in women’s health and
public health and family planning, is that this saves money,” Peipert said.
“When you provide no-cost contraception, and you remove that barrier, you
finally reduce unintended pregnancy rates. It doesn’t matter what side one is
on politically, that’s a good thing.”
The
Catholic Church is unlikely to be moved. “If, as supporters of the
contraceptive mandate argue, it will pay for itself in reduced medical
expenses, so will free embryo engineering and other eugenic services,
including infanticide, doctor-assisted suicide, organ harvesting, and genetic
manipulation,” wrote Thomas Joseph White, director of the Thomistic Institute
at the Dominican House of Studies in Washington, D.C., and R.R. Reno, in the
conservative journal First Things.
But
to academic experts, the results of CHOICE are clear. “What the study
suggests to me,” said John Santelli, professor at Columbia University’s
Mailman School of Public Health, “is that it’s totally supportive of the
president’s provisions on reproductive care and preventive services for women
in the Affordable Care Act.”
In
a 2009 study, Trussell and colleagues reported that long-acting
contraceptives like IUDs were far cheaper than an unintended birth, an
abortion, and especially an ectopic pregnancy.
Trussell
argued that cost savings go “well beyond” those immediate medical savings.
They don’t, for example, take into account costs associated with longer term
issues such as economic stress on the mother and family, a teenager who
doesn’t finish high school or skips college because she’s had a baby.
Research
has also shown that neglect, stress, anxiety, or simply a low level of
nurturing in early life has effects on a child that can last far into
adulthood. It may influence, for example, the cycle of teen pregnancy and
crime.
“It’s
hard to imagine how politicians wouldn’t like to spend a dollar to save
four,” Trussell said. As to the objections like those of White, he concluded
that “it makes no sense whatsoever. Regardless of your views on abortion,
virtually everybody says preventing unintended pregnancies is smart.”
Brian
Alexander (www.BrianRAlexander.com) is co-author, with Larry Young Ph.D., of
"The Chemistry Between Us: Love, Sex and the Science of
Attraction," (www.TheChemistryBetweenUs.com), now on sale.
|
Friday, October 5, 2012
Birth Control Prevents Abortion
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment