The results of a new study have just been released, and the researchers conclude that when women are allowed to chose any version of contraception they want for free, the abortion rate decreases. Spirals even.
Specifically, more than 9,000 women in St. Louis area, ages 14 to 45, were given free contraception for three years, and the abortion rate dropped lower than the national rate to 4.4 – 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women compared to 19.6 abortions per 1,000 women nationwide.
The implications? According to The New York Times, the study is evidence that the HHS Mandate should be enforced, although CNN understands that is controversial for religious groups. NBC says these findings will have many implications for society although “the Catholic Church is unlikely to be moved.”
Damn right.
The comment of a 26 year old graduate student named Ashley at Washington University is revealing. She participated in the project and opted to forego her $90 a month birth control pills for the free intrauterine implant. She said the implant gives her better peace of mind.
“No one had ever presented all the options equally,” she said. “It’s not telling you what to do. It’s giving you a choice unhindered by money.”
Liberal progressives argue for this kind of care because they want women to believe the government cares for them. Government caring for you is a tenet of liberalism. The problem is, governments cannot care for people. People care for people. Governments are big, nameless, faceless institutions that, if allowed, seek to sustain themselves by growing in power. But how do you communicate this to someone? You bring it down to the personal level they think it is.
Suppose you are the government and Ashley is your daughter. Is her statement really the kind of statement that makes you proud of your parenting skills? Do you want her to go to college making choices about anything — especially her choices about who she lets have sex with her — unhindered by money? That just teaches her poor discipline and puts her in danger.
The study also found a drastic reduction in teen births. Among teen girls ages 15 to 19 the annual birth rate was 6.3 per 1,000 girls compared to the national rate of 34.3 per 1,000 for teen girls. Is this the solution for teens? Have sex unhindered by money? Say that out loud a few times.
Or, let’s just assume that Planned Parenthood, who helped design this study, really does want to reduce abortions. Let’s assume that the government is really just looking for good ways to solve social problems and save taxpayers money. Well, if that’s really the goal, and it’s not really about taking care of your daughter for you, then what is to stop them from requiring your daughter at some point to be sterilized like an animal?
Stuffing foreign objects and carcinogenic chemicals into her body because she can’t be expected to control herself is only one step away from what we do to animals – sterilize and get them fixed. Wouldn’t that really save the most money? Wouldn’t that really bring that abortion rate down? Why yes, it would. Spiral? Abortion would go away entirely. Why aren’t they doing that? Would’ve saved a whole lot of time and money doing the study too.
They aren’t doing that because it’s not the goal, yet. For now, it’s supposed to look like it’s about choice. They want our nation’s women to think they are dependent on Daddy Government.
Caring for women is not the real agenda. Saving the taxpayers money or reducing abortion is not the real agenda. The real agenda is about power. How do you gain power? You convince people they need you to take care of them. You convince them you can save them. You convince them you are god. Works every time, right?
“Wherever politics tries to be redemptive, it is promising too much. Where it wishes to do the work of God, it becomes, not divine, but demonic.” –Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, on Communism
—–
*Jennifer Fulwiler at National Catholic Register has more information about this study and the shocking ethics behind it.
Well said, Stacy!
“…if… it’s not really about taking care of your daughter for you, then what is to stop them from requiring your daughter at some point to be sterilized like an animal? Stuffing foreign objects and carcinogenic chemicals into her body because she can’t be expected to control herself is only one step away from what we do to animals – sterilize and get them fixed.”
This is the culmination of the atheistic evolutionary ideology: have people behave like mindless baboons rutting in heat with complete abandon, and the government will regulated the consequences. Sex becomes an addiction just like alcoholism or heroin addiction, and people become the very animals that atheistic evolution says they are.
Sex addiction was also a disease among the ancient Canaanites which the children of Israel and Judah adopted much to their everlasting shame. God had a remedy for that, but the remedy involved King Sennecharib of Assyria and King Nebuchadnezzer of Babylon. We need to remember that God never changes, nor do His remedies. He always does the right thing in the right way every time.
Two big problems:
there was a local drop in total abortions that could not have been accounted for by the test, which points to the big problem: they didn’t have a control group.
It’s well known that the biggest cause of failure in birth control is doing something wrong; I’m not familiar enough with the arm-implanted ones to know what interferes with them.
It’s also well known that STDs can cause infertility…which makes me wonder if that is why there was a city-wide drop in abortions, since they mention record rates of STDs.
Incidentally… already hear folks calling for sterilizations. Always of women, for some reason; if they were being rational, sterilizing the male is cheaper and easier to reverse.
Love how they keep comparing it to national (estimated) rates, too. -.-
Good points, Foxfier. Michael New points out the problems with this study, including the lack of a control group.
Good points. Thanks for that National Review article. He shows that this is yet again the kind of study people with a *predetermined conclusion for an agenda* produce. They aren’t interested in the truth, they are only interested in getting their way.
The MSM is using this study to say, “See, we’re right!” so they can force Catholics to pay for contraception. Isn’t the timing of the publication convenient?
Even if the study was right, immoral means are not justified. When confronted with these “but it works” arguments, I point out that slaughtering the poor also eliminates poverty.
Amen to that, c matt
See Michael New’s critique of this “study” in National Review Online
[…] New Study Says Free Contraception Causes Abortion to Spiral – Stacy Trasancos PhD, The American Catholic […]
You may object that their ends aren’t rational but their means certainly are. It’s babies being popped out that they’re trying to prevent, not sperm.
Try this experiment on your local feral feline population. Sterilize all the males you can catch, but none of the females. See if the population declines next season.
I’ve got it!
Let’s give free whiskey to alcoholics. [sarcasm off]
Exactly the correct analogy, T. Shaw!
T. Shaw and Paul, you mean like this? 😀 http://www.acceptingabundance.com/who-is-trying-to-force-whom/
Try this experiment on your local feral feline population. Sterilize all the males you can catch, but none of the females. See if the population declines next season.
False assumption; tom cat’s won’t volunteer for an assurance they can have all the sex they want without needing to pay for babies. Not all, but a significant number. Shocker: humans aren’t cats. Who knew? (Going more in depth, a cat will have kittens by multiple toms in a single litter. Extremely rare in humans.)
You also aren’t accounting for the way that right now a smallish number of men are responsible for a large number of pregnancies. (makes sense, since a human pregnancy takes almost a year before even the most fertile can be pregnant again, and usually more around a year and a half) What makes more sense, when thinking of people as objects, someone that might make up to five children– or one that might make dozens?
The possibly exaggerated cure for STDs in China would be most effective, of course.
They had people come in, and tested them. If they had STDs, they were killed. Wow, major STD rate drop! (I say exaggerated rather than legendary because I’ve had multiple non-rumor sources mention it as why the Chinese aren’t too hot on “real” doctors.)
Wow, Stacy, quite right! Thankfully, neither my shrink nor my priest two an a half decades ago went for such nonsense. But sadly shrinks these days are different. Paid for alcohol and drugs. Paid for sex. What’s the difference? Just another way to get high, which is exactly what my priest told me when my mind had finally cleared of the intoxicants. He gave me a resentment, and then he said, “Blessed are those who give…” It was the only thing free that I got. But I stayed sober and chaste because I couldn’t live with the consequences any longer.
This is my third draft and this time I am sending it. If someone gets mad at me, oh well!
The point of how selfish the abortive and contraceptive life style is cannot be over-emphasized. Many years ago I was told to read from the bottom of page 68 through and including page 70 here:
http://www.aa.org/bigbookonline/en_bigbook_chapt5.pdf
I was told to note the words and phrases selfish, dishonest, inconsiderate, jealousy, suspicion and bitterness. Then I was told to note the words and phrases God, helping others and personal inventory. I really think our sex addicted society could use a 12 step program. Oh, I forgot. There is one:
http://sa.org/
Another factor may be defining terms. Some people place the beginning of life at implantation (therefore an abortion is post-implantation to them). Whereas embryology defines life’s beginning at conception which happens prior to implantation.
If “She participated in the project and opted to forego her $90 a month birth control pills for the free intrauterine implant.” means she took a hormonal or copper IUD, then it acts as both a contraceptive AND abortifacient by thinning the uterus so that implantation of the human person cannot occur.
They’re using abortion in the “paying to specifically end a pregnancy” form; since they’ve shifted “pregnancy” to start at implantation… ugh. You’re right about the special definition, but it is a fairly common one.
Life always starts at conception. That’s just biology. Good luck getting a lot of pro-aborts to agree to even that, no matter the proof, but that’s basic biology.
I don’t think financial skills are Ashley’s strong suit. $90/month for birth control pills??? If she paid for the IUD on a credit card, she’d still come out ahead.
The study is about women choosing more effective methods of contraception over less effective methods of contraception. The Catholic Church does not take sides in that battle.
Oh, and by the way, guess what method of family planning has been shown to lead to an abortion rate only 1/7 the rate of the “highly effective” IUD–in China, no less? The Billings Ovulation Method of Natural Family Planning.
http://www.woombinternational.org/philosophy/the-cultural-value-of-natural-family-planning.html
So, what would the abortion rate be if we taught these young women how their bodies worked instead of bombarding them with chemicals and devices?