Contraception Policies
Letter on Contraceptive Programs - with Citations
03/11/2008 07:50 AM
The following letter appeared in the Fargo Forum on
March 7, 2008. We have posted it here with citations
to the referenced studies.
Dear Editor:
Planned Parenthood’s Amy Jacobson argues that North Dakota needs more subsidized family planning to reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Her letter, however, overlooks some important facts.
For one thing, North Dakota and the federal government already spend over two million dollars a year for family planning services in the state. 1
Predictably, Planned Parenthood, a major recipient of government funding nationally, thinks two million dollars is not enough and wants North Dakota’s taxpayers to spend more money. We should not be fooled. Ample evidence now exists showing that the contraception and “comprehensive sex education” campaigns cannot achieve their alleged goals of reducing abortions and unplanned pregnancies.
A report from Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, shows that states that most aggressively promote contraceptives have some of the highest abortion rates in the country. States that do not, like Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota, have the lowest abortion and teen pregnancy rates. 2 Studies from other countries also show the ineffectiveness of contraceptive programs.3 Concludes one recent overview: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.”4 New studies also show that large part of the reduced abortion rate in recent years is due to an increase in the number of teens nationwide who delay initiating sexual activity,5 in effect, responding to the very “abstinence only” initiatives Planned Parenthood wants to eliminate.
Finally, we cannot ignore that in Planned Parenthood’s view, “comprehensive reproductive health care” includes unfettered access to, and taxpayer funding for, abortion. Policies that limit abortion, however, such as restricting public funding, ensuring informed consent for women seeking abortions, and protecting parental rights in the case of minors seeking abortions, have a well-documented and significant effect of reducing abortions.6
In short, Planned Parenthood says it wants to reduce abortion, but proposes only failed, and ultimately flawed, government programs.
Christopher Dodson
Executive Director
North Dakota Catholic Conference
1. (Public Funding for Family Planning, Sterilization and Abortion Services, FY 1980–2006; Adam Sonfield, Casey Alrich and Rachel Benson Gold; Guttmacher Institute, January 2008)
2. http://www.guttmacher.org
3. David Paton, “The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions,” Journal of Health Economics, 21.2 (March 2002): 207-225; abstract available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8K-4537PJR-3/2/7b0ac0ed4b84065fae3119e1663e50bc; Edgardh, K. et al. Adolescent Sexual Health in Sweden, Sex Trans Inf 78 (2002): 352-6, available at http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/78/5/352
4. Douglas Kirby, “Reflections on Two Decades of Research on Teen Sexual Behavior and Pregnancy,” Journal of School Health 69.3 (March 1999.)
5. JK Mohn et al. “An analysis of the causes of the decline in non-marital birth and pregnancy rates for teens from 1991-1995,” Adolescent and Family Health 2003; 339-47; available at www.afhjournal.org; National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, “Science Says: Pregnancy Among Sexually Experienced Teens, 2002,” No. 23, April 2006, available at www.teenpregnancy.org/press/pdf/sciencesays23.pdf.
6. Theodore Joyce et al., “Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law,” New England Journal of Medicine, 354: 1031-1038 (March 9, 2006); available at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/10/1031; [The authors. found a reduction in abortion rates among minor teens in Texas following enactment of that state’s parental notification law. “[A]bortion rates fell by 11 percent among 15-year-olds, … 20 percent among 16-year-olds, and 16 percent among 17-year-olds, … relative to the rates among 18-year-olds.” Joyce et al. also report: “Results from [five] previous studies have indicated that the abortion rate of minors decreases 13 to 42 percent after enforcement of a parental notification or consent law, if abortions are measured according to state of occurrence.”]; J. “Impact of Minnesota Parental Notification Law on abortion and birth,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, Issue 3, 294-298. See also Michael New, “Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1900s,” Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Report #04-01 (2004), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA04-01.cfm. [“The pre-enactment to post-enactment change in the Minnesota abortion rate reflected a greater decline for minors (less than or equal to 17 years old) than for 18-19 year-olds (who were not under the law). An increase in abortion rate occurred for women ages 20-44. The law appeared to have had no impact on birth rate in minors. … These data suggest that parental notification facilitated pregnancy avoidance in 15-17 year-old Minnesota women. Abortion rates declined unexpectedly while birth rates continued to decline in accordance with a long-term trend.”]; M. New, "Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors," Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Report #07-01 (2007), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA07-01.cfm; M. New, “Using Natural Experiments to Analyze the Impact of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion,” Heritage Center for Data Analysis Report #06-01 (January 23, 2006); available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-01.cfm.
Dear Editor:
Planned Parenthood’s Amy Jacobson argues that North Dakota needs more subsidized family planning to reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions. Her letter, however, overlooks some important facts.
For one thing, North Dakota and the federal government already spend over two million dollars a year for family planning services in the state. 1
Predictably, Planned Parenthood, a major recipient of government funding nationally, thinks two million dollars is not enough and wants North Dakota’s taxpayers to spend more money. We should not be fooled. Ample evidence now exists showing that the contraception and “comprehensive sex education” campaigns cannot achieve their alleged goals of reducing abortions and unplanned pregnancies.
A report from Planned Parenthood’s own research arm, the Guttmacher Institute, shows that states that most aggressively promote contraceptives have some of the highest abortion rates in the country. States that do not, like Kansas, North Dakota, and South Dakota, have the lowest abortion and teen pregnancy rates. 2 Studies from other countries also show the ineffectiveness of contraceptive programs.3 Concludes one recent overview: “Most studies that have been conducted during the past 20 years have indicated that improving access to contraception did not significantly increase contraceptive use or decrease teen pregnancy.”4 New studies also show that large part of the reduced abortion rate in recent years is due to an increase in the number of teens nationwide who delay initiating sexual activity,5 in effect, responding to the very “abstinence only” initiatives Planned Parenthood wants to eliminate.
Finally, we cannot ignore that in Planned Parenthood’s view, “comprehensive reproductive health care” includes unfettered access to, and taxpayer funding for, abortion. Policies that limit abortion, however, such as restricting public funding, ensuring informed consent for women seeking abortions, and protecting parental rights in the case of minors seeking abortions, have a well-documented and significant effect of reducing abortions.6
In short, Planned Parenthood says it wants to reduce abortion, but proposes only failed, and ultimately flawed, government programs.
Christopher Dodson
Executive Director
North Dakota Catholic Conference
1. (Public Funding for Family Planning, Sterilization and Abortion Services, FY 1980–2006; Adam Sonfield, Casey Alrich and Rachel Benson Gold; Guttmacher Institute, January 2008)
2. http://www.guttmacher.org
3. David Paton, “The Economics of Family Planning and Underage Conceptions,” Journal of Health Economics, 21.2 (March 2002): 207-225; abstract available at http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8K-4537PJR-3/2/7b0ac0ed4b84065fae3119e1663e50bc; Edgardh, K. et al. Adolescent Sexual Health in Sweden, Sex Trans Inf 78 (2002): 352-6, available at http://sti.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/78/5/352
4. Douglas Kirby, “Reflections on Two Decades of Research on Teen Sexual Behavior and Pregnancy,” Journal of School Health 69.3 (March 1999.)
5. JK Mohn et al. “An analysis of the causes of the decline in non-marital birth and pregnancy rates for teens from 1991-1995,” Adolescent and Family Health 2003; 339-47; available at www.afhjournal.org; National Campaign to Reduce Teen Pregnancy, “Science Says: Pregnancy Among Sexually Experienced Teens, 2002,” No. 23, April 2006, available at www.teenpregnancy.org/press/pdf/sciencesays23.pdf.
6. Theodore Joyce et al., “Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law,” New England Journal of Medicine, 354: 1031-1038 (March 9, 2006); available at http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/354/10/1031; [The authors. found a reduction in abortion rates among minor teens in Texas following enactment of that state’s parental notification law. “[A]bortion rates fell by 11 percent among 15-year-olds, … 20 percent among 16-year-olds, and 16 percent among 17-year-olds, … relative to the rates among 18-year-olds.” Joyce et al. also report: “Results from [five] previous studies have indicated that the abortion rate of minors decreases 13 to 42 percent after enforcement of a parental notification or consent law, if abortions are measured according to state of occurrence.”]; J. “Impact of Minnesota Parental Notification Law on abortion and birth,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 81, Issue 3, 294-298. See also Michael New, “Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1900s,” Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Report #04-01 (2004), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA04-01.cfm. [“The pre-enactment to post-enactment change in the Minnesota abortion rate reflected a greater decline for minors (less than or equal to 17 years old) than for 18-19 year-olds (who were not under the law). An increase in abortion rate occurred for women ages 20-44. The law appeared to have had no impact on birth rate in minors. … These data suggest that parental notification facilitated pregnancy avoidance in 15-17 year-old Minnesota women. Abortion rates declined unexpectedly while birth rates continued to decline in accordance with a long-term trend.”]; M. New, "Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors," Heritage Foundation Data Analysis Report #07-01 (2007), available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/CDA07-01.cfm; M. New, “Using Natural Experiments to Analyze the Impact of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion,” Heritage Center for Data Analysis Report #06-01 (January 23, 2006); available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-01.cfm.
