Today Politico reported that Kellyanne Conway wants Republican candidates to promote contraception as part of their messaging on abortion in 2024. Conway along with lobbyist Susan Hirschmann and Heather Higgins, CEO of Independent Women’s Voice, are meeting today with Republican staff members on Capitol Hill and on campaigns. They have polling data that purportedly shows strong public support for government programs that would make contraception less expensive and more available. This might make for good politics. However, the aggressive promotion of contraception remains a very unwise policy choice for pro-lifers seeking to build a culture of life.
Indeed, contraception is already widely available in this country. Multiple CDC surveys have shown that very high percentages of sexually active women have used contraception at some point. More importantly, separate Guttmacherand CDC studies have found that a small percentage of females who forgo contraception cite either cost or availability as the reason. Indeed, most women who are not using contraception typically say either that they are either willing to run the risk of a pregnancy or that they wish to show trust in a partner. Given that programs to subsidize contraception for low-income women already exists, it is not clear that a greater investment in contraception would increase rates of its use.
Additionally, an impressive range of studies show that programs to promote contraception use are ineffective at best or counterproductive at worst. Separate studies analyzing high-school condom-distribution programs, the cost of oral contraceptives on college campuses, and spending on sex-education programs in Great Britain all show that easier access to contraception failed to reduce rates of unintended pregnancy. Twenty-three studies published in the period 1998–2006 all show that easier access to emergency contraception failed to achieve any statistically significant reduction in rates either of unintended pregnancy or abortion.
The Obama administration launched the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program, which gave federal grants to programs that emphasized contraception use. A 2018 analysis conducted by Mathematica found that only five of 40 programs showed evidence of lowering teen sexual activity; only four of 40 programs demonstrated success in reducing teen-pregnancy rates. In rates of sexual activity, use of contraceptives, or pregnancy, a very high percentage of the evaluations found no long-term difference between students enrolling in these programs and students in control groups.
Many who support contraception programs cite a Colorado program that provided teenagers with long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs). This program purportedly resulted in large reductions in teen births. However, teen birth rates in Colorado were falling well before this program started. Furthermore, a rigorous academic analysis found that this Colorado program had a far more modest effect on teen birth rates than many activists claim. LARCs are relatively unpopular and have high discontinuance rates. It is unlikely a greater investment in them would significantly reduce rates of unintended pregnancy.
Since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973, supporters of legal abortion and their allies in the mainstream media have frequently scolded the pro-life movement for not being more supportive of contraception programs. Pro-lifers have wisely realized that greater access to contraception often results in more sexual activity, more unintended pregnancies, and more abortions. The Dobbs decision poses some unique challenges to pro-life elected officials in moderate and liberal parts of the country. However, pro-life candidates would be better off emphasizing the great services offered by the thousands of pro-life pregnancy help centers in this country, instead of supporting failed contraception programs.
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Rami G Khouri
Mort Laitner
Donald Low
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
Nikkei Editorial
visit website
