This study came out suggesting that free birth control decreases the abortion rate.
In a big picture way, this is untrue. We saw abortion rates soar with widespread pill use. (I’m talking the long view of history here.)
In a small picture way, I’ll take their study at face value. However, they aren’t talking about giving away the Pill. They are talking about IUDs.
Because birth control pills require strict adherence, and people forget to take them, that method fails about 8 percent of the time.
That’s an interesting point of the article. Women are given the impression that the birth control pill is 100 percent effective. Only in advocating for IUD implants do we hear otherwise.
What I always wonder when I read these articles is this: Why do we care about decreasing the abortion rate?
Apparently, some decent pro-choicers do. Because inherently they know abortion as birth control–which is how we use it–is wrong.
That’s the only silver lining I can come up with from a report that free IUDs decrease abortions.
by 
Apparently, not all is roses here, though.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jennifer-fulwiler/the-shocking-ethics-behind-the-contraceptive-choice-project/
STD rates have skyrocketed in St. Louis. Who’d a thunk that, if you put a good chunk of the women on permanent contraception, the population would be a little less diligent abou using condoms?
I find myself in a moral quandary here. I’m honestly not sure which is a better scenario: a society with a high abortion rate, or a society with a somewhat lower abortion rate where disease runs rampant.
I appreciate your comment, Melissa.
It’s not just the disease thing, either. It’s a question of what brings people greater happiness and fulfillment.
Call me crazy, but I’m not really convinced that we are achieving that with our current approach to sexuality.
A true pro-choicer will say: if you want to have an abortion, fine.
But the reality is women would rather deal with taking a pill or having an IUD inserted than going to a clinic and all that entails.
Policy makers and legislators would rather spend the money on prevention than on the labour and effort necessary to procure an abortion.
There are many people in this world who are for abortion but are not ideologically pure poor-choicers.
But here’s the thing, Suzanne. This is going to come across as really crass, but I’m going to say it anyway. I’m not at all sure that providing long-term, publicly-funded birth control is cost-effective or easier from a public health perspective. (It certainly is easier on the women who don’t end up getting abortions).
The price of putting a woman on long-acting contraception runs about the same as the price of one abortion. From a strict cost-benefit analysis, I’m not at all sure that we are saving money here. (Of course, you can’t put a price on the babies’ lives, but let’s pretend for a minute that dimension of the equation doesn’t exist.) And then, if you take into account the extra costs associated with treating STDs, and the costs of treating infertility caused by said STDs down the road… I know I’m preaching to the choir here, but giving poor and marginalized long-acting birth control does not seem like a good solution to the problem of a high unwanted pregnancy rate. I don’t think that a poor woman’s fertility is her biggest obstacle in preventing unwanted pregnancies.