Most women who had an abortion in 2002 were using contraception
| By Emily - Nov 27th, 2006 at 9:09 pm EST |
| Also listed in: Campus Progress Blog |
Kaiser reports that the Guttmacher institute released a report on Tuesday that said that :
Moreover:
The Guttmacher Institute recommended that family planning centers ensure that women who receive abortions are counseled about effective use of contraception.
Unintended pregnancies are widespread in America today - and I find it troubling to see that most women who have abortions were using contraception. Perhaps increasing the education on how to properly use contraception is necessary, or maybe the availability of EC OTC will help the situation (though statistics show that EC OTC did not reduce abortions in the UK).
Approximately half of all U.S. women who had an abortion in 2002 had at least one previous abortion [and] … 60% had at least one child.
Moreover:
most women who had more than one abortion were over age 30 and that most women who had an abortion in 2002 were using contraception at the time of conception
The Guttmacher Institute recommended that family planning centers ensure that women who receive abortions are counseled about effective use of contraception.
"The 'wall of separation' that the federal government has erected between family planning and abortion services is, paradoxically, leading to more abortions," Sharon Camp, Guttmacher Institute president and CEO, said, adding, "These policies interfere with the ability of abortion providers to ensure continuity of care for their patients by guaranteeing that, following an abortion, every woman has an appropriate contraceptive method and is able to use it consistently."
Unintended pregnancies are widespread in America today - and I find it troubling to see that most women who have abortions were using contraception. Perhaps increasing the education on how to properly use contraception is necessary, or maybe the availability of EC OTC will help the situation (though statistics show that EC OTC did not reduce abortions in the UK).
!
Comments are closed for this post.
Available studies do link hormonal contraception to metabolic disorders, with various types linked to weight gain, osteoporosis, and increased susceptibility to STDs.
For your references, start at the manufacturer information supplied to the health care providers. It is available online.
In recent years we find that among the youngest segment of U.S. women there is longer delay until the first sexual experience, lowered use of contraception, lowered incidence of unplanned pregnancy and abortion. This phenomenon has been recognized even in the mainstream media, as early as 2002, for example in Newsweek magazine. Even for a layperson, the data is accessible and readable.
So, why are some commentators still recommending the modalities shown not to work, and banning information about the abstinence which is working???
Hauser D. Five Years of Abstinence-Only-Until-Marriage Education: Assessing the Impact [Title V State Evaluations] Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2004.
Feijoo AN, Grayton C. Trends in Sexual Risk Behaviors among High School Students—United States, 1991 to 1997 and 1999 to 2003. [The Facts] Washington, DC: Advocates for Youth, 2004.
Bearman PS, Brückner H. Promising the future: virginity pledges and first intercourse. American Journal of Sociology 2001; 106(4):859-912.
Visit this website to see a comprehensive list of papers showing how Comp. Sex ed is effective at changing health outcomes and behaviours.
Link
The papers do not show 'why' abstinence- only education doesn't work. (Please look up what the word "why" means.)
They do show some strange math, however. For example, in the middle one, 1999 to 2003 is called a five year cycle. It causes me to doubt the statistics, when the subtraction is bad. A decline over six years shows statistical significance in many cases, but the further decline in the four year (labeled as 5 year) period is not statistically significant. For example, a decline of 2.7 percent over 6 years is called statistically significant, but the following decline of 1.8 percent over four years does not pass that test of statistical significance in this study, (multiple partners chart, total figure). Anyone who can do ratios can understand: yes, it's possible to lie with statistics.
It appears to me, from the numbers, that the decrease in youth sexual activity continued pretty steadily throughout the period between 1991 and 2003. The abstinence only education appears to have done no harm, and might possibly be associated with a further decline in sexual activity, though I'd never give anything done by the government too much credit, particularly "Education".
I recommend to keep the "Youth Advocates" out of health care, for public safety reasons. Bad subtraction is dangerous, and I know they couldn't address the health problems associated with pumping H.S. girls full of hormones.
Are any of the commentators going to really tell us "why" abstinence doesn't work, and why information promoting abstinence should be banned??