Not the same thing at all.

[Lord Jim]

Okay, let's try this one:

In 2013, there were 26.6 births for every 1,000 adolescent females ages 15-19, or 305,420 babies born to females in this age group.[1] Nearly eighty-nine percent of these births occurred outside of marriage[1]. The 2013 teen birth rate indicates a decline of ten percent from 2012 when the birth rate was 29.4 per 1,000.[1] The teen birth rate has declined almost continuously over the past 20 years. In 1991, the U.S. teen birth rate was 61.8 births for every 1,000 adolescent females, compared with 26.6 births for every 1,000 adolescent females in 2013

http://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-h ... rends.html

Yes, it's time for another pop quiz:

Q: What is the more likely explanation for this decline:

A. The increase in the level of availability and information about birth control over the past 20 years...

B. A huge increase in teenage sexual abstinence over the past 20 years...

(Yeah, I know I promised I'd try to make the next quiz tougher, but I guess I'm just going to be stuck with the reputation of being an "easy A"... )

[Gob]

Yes, it's time for another pop quiz:

Q: What is the more likely explanation for this decline:

A. The increase in the level of availability and information about birth control over the past 20 years...

B. A huge increase in teenage sexual abstinence over the past 20 years...

My guess is the answer is "'a marmot".

[Scooter]

I posted this a couple of times already, but apparently it bears repeating:

Rhode Island was the first state to obtain approval to expand the availability of family planning services provided under Medicaid. In the first three years it cost them an additional $5.7 million to pay for family planning, and saved $14.3 million in costs for delivery and post-natal care. That's a return on investment of 150%. What insurance company isn't going to love that? Research has also been done on the costs/savings associated with employer-paid oral contraceptive coverage. Taking into account only direct medical expenses of pregnancy/childbirth/abortion, the savings generated by the use of oral contraceptives were $2,500 per patient per year. Mercer did a study incorporating all of the indirect expenses of pregnancy (absences, maternity leave, reduced productivity, turnover when pregnant employees decide to leave), and found that it would cost employers 15-17% more if they chose not to provide contraceptive coverage.

Just from the perspective of health care costs, the savings are enormous. But as Jim said, there are also other substantial costs when those who are unprepared for parenthood have children. And sure, pretty much any study of oral and implantable contraceptives is going to be biased towards those who are motivated to avoid pregnancy; otherwise, they wouldn't be looking at the pill for their birth control method. As for having a previous unplanned pregnancy, it may provide motivation to be extra careful for someone with a mature brain, but so many people facing unplanned pregnancies are young and pretty stupid. Probably one of the most important findings of the study was the 75% who chose the most effective methods when cost was not an issue. I don't think it's much of a leap to say that greater use of more effective methods would reduce pregnancies.

One would think that insurance companies would have long since incorporated this type of information into their costing. And it would be very intereting to see how those religious objections hold up if their premiums decreased for providing contraceptives.

[rubato]

Er yes.... that is so, sugarlump.

Does the fact that contraception is available in a health care plan mean that the plan participants take advantage of it? (One assumes that they know what their plan includes - such as coverage for broken legs, IUDs, smallpox, herpes, flatulence and so on).

You claim that people who were told they were taking part in a test, volunteered to do so to avoid pregnancy for at least a year and physically handed the products (or had it installed) before they could run away yielded data about availability in Health Care plans. It didn't and it doesn't. It gives data on how effective contraceptives are in reducing unwanted pregnancy and abortion.

It says nothing about health care plans that offer contraception and how women in those plans choose to use that coverage. Does the availability of the coverage produce the same results as having the product presented on a plate (so to speak)?

No.

What it shows is that when women are given the choice of more effective birth control (IUDs and Implants) at no additional cost they much more often choose more effective methods with the inevitable consequence of fewer unplanned pregnancies and better health and social outcomes. What this means for the rest of us is that it if we want less poverty and fewer unwed mothers we will provide these methods at no cost. And, once we are armed with this knowledge and refuse to do so we are deliberately creating more poverty and more unwed mothers.


yrs,
rubato

[Gob]

Professor David Paton of Nottingham University said the rise in numbers of girls going into higher education and increasing influence of aspirational immigrant families who discourage single motherhood has also had an impact, as has the morning after pill and new and effective long-term contraception through injections or implants.

However, he added: ‘Facebook use amongst teenagers was just getting off the ground in a significant way in 2007. It is hard to deny that social networking applications have changed the way teenagers interact in fundamental ways. ‘Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that, for at least some teenagers, the amount of time spent interacting virtually with friends on a smartphone has led to fewer physical opportunities to engage in drinking, drugs and underage sex?’

The rise among older mothers has also that meant for the first time, more babies were born in 2013 to women over 40 than teenage girls.

[MajGenl.Meade]

What it shows is that when women are given the choice of more effective birth control (IUDs and Implants) at no additional cost they much more often choose more effective methods with the inevitable consequence of fewer unplanned pregnancies and better health and social outcomes.

Yes, that sounds about right - it showed that women who chose the more effective and less labour intensive (for want of a better phrase) methods found that the more effective birth control methods were more effective.

Probably it's rocket science.

[Lord Jim]

My guess is the answer is "'a marmot".

No, but I'm not surprised you didn't get that. It was in fact a trick question. Coventry City have never won the FA Cup...

[MajGenl.Meade]

My guess is the answer is "'a marmot".

No, but I'm not surprised you didn't get that. It was in fact a trick question. Coventry City have never won the FA Cup...

Huh! Still out of date LJ.... nice antiquated reference there but sadly Coventry City won the FA Cup in 1987 when they beat the best team in the world 3-2 in a pure fluke.



Note:
BTITW = Tottenham Hotspur (Team motto: "We put the FA in Cup")

[Sue U]

Apropos of both the OP and this late digression:



Discuss?

ETA:

Oops, wrong thread! Should have been in "Redskins," but I'm not going to change it now, since the topics both here and there have drifted so far as to meet up somewhere -- might as well be here.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Other teams hooli-fans at some point apparently began identifying Tottenham's more brutal and less bright supporters (obviously a teeny minority) as "yids".

Back in the day (not any day but THE day, which means my day pre 1973) this did not happen. As supporters in the Park Lane we were not aware of this "yid" insult, if that it be. Mind, Tottenham's supporter catchment area is heavily populated by persons of Jewish descent.

The Yid Army came about much later, after the skinhead gangs morphed into "Firms" - Inter City at West Ham; the Herd at Arsehole; Headhunters at Chelsea; the Lunatic Fringe at Derby County to name a few. Tottenham's firm adopted the pejorative term for themselves.

I'm sure FIFA (Say No To Racism) doesn't approve. But then again, who does?

Interesting note (or not):
In 1965,Warren Mitchell was cast in the role for which he may be best known, as the bigoted cockney West Ham United supporter, Alf Garnett in a play for the BBC Comedy Playhouse series, broadcast on 22 July 1965. This was the pilot edition of the long-running series Till Death Us Do Part. Mitchell's real life persona is quite different from Alf Garnett, being a left-winger, Jewish, and a staunch supporter of Tottenham Hotspur.

[Econoline]

IIRC, Carroll O'Connor's political views were also quite different from those of the character he played (Archie Bunker) in the American version (All In the Family) of that British series.

[Gob]

Interesting note (or not):
In 1965,Warren Mitchell was cast in the role for which he may be best known, as the bigoted cockney West Ham United supporter, Alf Garnett in a play for the BBC Comedy Playhouse series, broadcast on 22 July 1965. This was the pilot edition of the long-running series Till Death Us Do Part. Mitchell's real life persona is quite different from Alf Garnett, being a left-winger, Jewish, and a staunch supporter of Tottenham Hotspur.

One of the best live acts I've ever seen, I saw him on his "Thoughts of Chariman Alf" tour.