Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success

[Cutlass]

It shouldn't be offered because a lot of girls that use them think of them as an alternative to condoms, which they aren't as they wont prevent STDs.

The point is that they'll actually use this. Something which might be better in theory is useless if it's not used in practice.

 

[dusters]

I think this is a big step forward. Offering more ways to control your bodies is a good idea.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I hadn't been aware of the program, but it seems shortsighted that the legislature isn't willing to fund it after the results - if it saves $5+ for every dollar spent, why wouldn't they be jumping on the chance to fund it?

Does it really surprise you that a Republican-controlled legislature wouldn't fund programs such as this?

I'm surprised the state legislature and Congress didn't pass a law prohibiting this study from even occurring.

Colorado Debates Whether IUDs Are Contraception Or Abortion

A popular contraception program in Colorado is receiving criticism from conservative lawmakers who say that the program's use of intrauterine devices, or IUDs, qualify as abortions.

More than 30,000 women in Colorado have gotten a device because of the state program, the Colorado Family Planning Initiative. An IUD normally costs between $500 and several thousand dollars. Through the program women could receive one for free.

This is because the program received a $23 million private grant in 2009 that has covered all its costs until now. To keep going, a group of bipartisan lawmakers are trying to push a bill through the Colorado Senate. But they're running into problems because of restrictions on what the state can and cannot fund.

Colorado Republicans Refuse To Fund Award-Winning IUD Program That Reduced Teen Births

Following a months-long political battle that centered on whether IUDs should be defined as abortion, Colorado Republicans have officially voted to eliminate funding for an award-winning family planning program that has contributed to a staggering 40 percent drop in the state’s teen birth rate over the past five years.

Ironically, the vote to deny funding from the program came just one day after it received a prestigious award from the National Family Planning & Reproductive Health Association (NFPRHA), which periodically honors particularly effective reproductive health initiatives at its annual conference.

The Colorado Family Planning Initiative has been widely praised for expanding access to birth control among young women who are at risk for unintended pregnancies. Since its inception in 2009, the state program has provided thousands of IUDs and implants to low-income teens. Those long-acting forms of contraception are recommended for adolescents specifically because they’re so effective.

Nonetheless, right-wing Republicans balked at the idea of using public dollars to fund IUDs, suggesting that it amounts to subsidizing teenagers’ sex lives. Some opponents also claimed that IUDs are “abortifacients” that shouldn’t be paid for with government money. On Wednesday, a GOP-controlled Senate committee voted down a bill that would have appropriated $5 million toward the program.

This isn't the first time that such measures have been shown to be extremely effective.

As the medical community began to embrace implants and IUDs, the question became how to make them accessible and affordable for the young women who have more unplanned pregnancies and thus could benefit the most. They often hadn't heard of long-acting birth control, or couldn't afford it if they had. Many clinics found the price too high as well. (Imagine stocking your shelves with ten $900 devices and only using, and being reimbursed for, half.) These were big obstacles—but a landmark study in St. Louis vindicated many researchers' hopes when it showed that, if those roadblocks were removed, long-acting birth control could quickly lower the teen birth rate. From 2007 to 2011, the Contraceptive Choice Project, funded by an anonymous foundation and run by Washington University in St. Louis, offered groups of women and teens any contraceptive, free of charge. Whereas women have typically been offered the cheaper, less-effective methods first, the St. Louis project counseled patients on their options by starting with the most effective and listing others in order of reliability. Three-quarters of participants chose IUDs and implants. A year later, those who had opted instead for the pill, patch, or NuvaRing had gotten pregnant at a rate 20 times higher than those using long-acting birth control.

Hopefully more places jump on board with the program. I agree with downtown that it seems like a major success for public health, and could have a much wider benefit if more widely accepted.

It might have a chance in a few of the states that aren't controlled by the Republicans, but I wouldn't hold my breath. After all, the success of these studies in St Louis, Colorado, and Iowa have been public knowledge for 8 years. And the success of IUDs to control pregancy in teens is well known in Europe and developing countries where they are far more popular than they are in the US.



Yet apparently not a single other state has tried to pass a bill to provide funding for such a program.

 

[Takhisis]

Subsidising teenagers' sex lives? If you want to stop ‘subsidising teenagers' sex lives’, then just do away with the public road system, that way they won't meet at all.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Or perhaps we should bring back segregated classrooms and ban revealing swimwear?

 

[LucyDuke]

As though there's any way to stop people from having sex you don't like.

Nonetheless, right-wing Republicans balked at the idea of using public dollars to fund IUDs, suggesting that it amounts to subsidizing teenagers’ sex lives.

Sex is free. (Make your jokes.)

The state health department estimated that every dollar spent on the long-acting birth control initiative saved $5.85 for the state’s Medicaid program, which covers more than three-quarters of teenage pregnancies and births. Enrollment in the federal nutrition program for women with young children declined by nearly a quarter between 2010 and 2013.

The status quo is subsidizing the consequences of unsafe sex. It's more expensive, in ways going way beyond what's mentioned there. But hey, sex is so evil that it should ruin peoples' lives, right? Including babies. Let's invest in scare stories. More poverty. More misery. That'll show 'em.

Seriously, the position is so terrible it's not even fun to make fun of it.

 

[Tahuti]

Sex is free.

Contraceptives aren't.

 

[LucyDuke]

If you examine the context of statements before challenging them, the things you say may further the discussion.

 

[Takhisis]

Sex is free.

Contraceptives aren't.

Then in the name of USA #1 Freedom, let's liberate the condoms of the world.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

The status quo is subsidizing the consequences of unsafe sex. It's more expensive, in ways going way beyond what's mentioned there. But hey, sex is so evil that it should ruin peoples' lives, right? Including babies. Let's invest in scare stories. More poverty. More misery. That'll show 'em.

Seriously, the position is so terrible it's not even fun to make fun of it.

From what I've observed of Republicans, they only care about babies when they're not actually babies - fetuses are sacred, but once they're actually born, these politicians don't give a damn about either the babies or their mothers, and are willfully blind to the fact that if they don't approve of teenage or unwed, low-income mothers having children, they should help them not have children they don't want/can't afford.

But then if the whole country achieved this significant drop in unwanted babies, that would lead to a corresponding drop in available jobs for the social workers who are paid to deal with these families. Can't have that, right?

 

[sophie]

Contraceptives aren't.

Contraceptives are also notably not a prerequisite to having sex. Which is kind of the whole point of the program.

 

[Nares]

It might have a chance in a few of the states that aren't controlled by the Republicans, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Let me know when liberal bastions such as New York or California start adopting this. I'm sure it won't be long before a credible case can be made that the government is trying to prevent minority babies from being conceived. I'm sure that will be blamed on Republicans, as well.

But then if the whole country achieved this significant drop in unwanted babies, that would lead to a corresponding drop in available jobs for the social workers who are paid to deal with these families. Can't have that, right?

So what you mean to say is, Democrats don't want it either, because it would reduce the number of public employees and overall welfare dependency, but you're only willing to call Republicans out.

 

[Tahuti]

If you examine the context of statements before challenging them, the things you say may further the discussion.

Just for the record, I did not attempt to challenge your statement.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Let me know when liberal bastions such as New York or California start adopting this. I'm sure it won't be long before a credible case can be made that the government is trying to prevent minority babies from being conceived. I'm sure that will be blamed on Republicans, as well.

Again, there really isn't such as thing as a "liberal bastion" in the US anymore. Liberals in the US only make up about 20% of the population. They have virtually no political power anymore, as both the Democratic and Republican parties go farther to the right.

And that view won't ever likely be "credible" except to authoritarian conservatives, who would ironically be the only beneficiaries politically if minorities had less babies. But the opposite is actually occurring:



If the Republican Party doesn't start changing its tune, it is going to find itself eventually going the way of the dinosaurs as it alienates more and more minority voters.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

So what you mean to say is, Democrats don't want it either, because it would reduce the number of public employees and overall welfare dependency, but you're only willing to call Republicans out.

I referenced Republicans for the reasons I stated. They're more likely, from what I've read, to prevent teenage girls and young, low-income women from accessing reliable birth control because "OMG, they'll think we approve of them having sex if we allow them to without risking pregnancy!!!" and then they turn around and complain about the consequences once the resulting fetuses are born and become living babies who need food, clothing, shelter, health care, and education.

If there are Democrats with this mindset as well, by all means consider them "called out."

Since I'm Canadian, I don't need to worry about voting for either of those parties. My concern is whether I'm voting NDP or Liberal in October for our own federal election.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The legislature in Colorado has to deal with the reality that Colorado is home to some of the biggest syndicated arch conservative talk radio goof balls in America. Something like this goes out over those airwaves the fundies might literally declare war on them. Legal pot is an issue, but getting portrayed as soft on sex goes waaaaaay beyond.

 

[Takhisis]

But why don't they rap on people who cheat on their spouses?

 

[LucyDuke]

Just for the record, I did not attempt to challenge your statement.

Yeah. You weren't wrong, either. But the point you made has already been addressed. Hell, everything in this thread is a rehash.

 

[Mouthwash]

Agreed. While this program has dramatically reduced teen pregnancies, it doesn't do a thing for preventing AIDS or other STDs.

It will actually make them worse, as the big reason for wearing protection is gone.

 

[warpus]

Do we have data to back up that assertion?

Usually such initiatives are coupled with some sex ed initiatives, and those can certainly help.