Free birth control program in Colorado reduced teen births by 40%

If only conservatives would wise up and realize that making birth control more readily accessible would likely lead to far fewer unwanted pregnancies – and by virtue far fewer abortions.

A program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado’s teen birth rate between 2009 and 2013, according to state officials.

The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.

The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state’s estimates.

Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado’s teen birth rate. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.


Related Articles

11 thoughts on “Free birth control program in Colorado reduced teen births by 40%

  1. How many fewer children were born to teens or single women or working mothers who could only afford to take care of their current families and now don’t need to get any further social welfare to cover another child? How many fewer children do you have to complain about taking care of for years and years and years? How much money has the state saved by offering education and women’s health services, you tired lazy prick? Your search engine out of order or don’t you know how to use it or is there just no one there you can attempt to piss and moan to?

    1. On edit: One would think that in your partisan bubble myopia you might be intelligent enough to figure out that there will be fewer, “poors,” getting handouts and growing up to be voting Democratic.

    2. You forgot “selfish.”

      “The modern conservative is engaged in one of man’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.” – John Kenneth Galbraith

    3. non, tell that to neurosurgeon Ben Carson. In addition to a political angle, Steve does have a point in asking for the sample size. This whole anti-vaccine thing started with a study that linked some vaccines to certain brain abnormalities. It turned out to have a sample size of 12, making the study meaningless. Yet people continue to cite it much to their (and our) peril.

      1. And if he was actually so damn curious to need to have the information for the reasons you imply, i.e. for rigorous academic evaluation, seems he would have gotten the information himself and then brought it here to argue a point.

        Based on prior comments from that alias, the question posed was likely not even derived from a valid political angle, but most likely based on frequently pronounced here, misogynistic, sociopathic stereotyping and blaming of low-income women for their circumstances. IOW, reactionary disdain.

        And here you are criticizing my comment instead of actually getting the information for your buddy you claim he has a right to know about. You appear even less concerned about the sample size, the number of women served than comment #1 showed.

        1. non, I’d just would like to know all the facts before I make up my mind on the topic. Thought, since you seem support the effort, that you have gathered all of them and would pass them along. In other words, I thought that your opinion was fact based. I’ll try not to make that mistake again, sorry.

    4. (and also to 12:15 pm today)

      Three answers, no? Keep it up and Zach may require intelligence testing to be allowed to post to the comment section. The highlighted phrases in the OP are hyperlinks. Align your mouse cursor over either of them and press the left-side mouse button. HTH.

      I can understand your aversion to anything on the “left,” but the both of you have now proved beyond a shadow of a doubt, absolutely zero credibility.

  2. Look it up yourself, Steve. That would seem to me the correct approach if you wish to form a rebuttal.

  3. On second thought: I clicked on the link provided in the blog text and … surprise … found the answer to Steve’s question.

    I should say, lazy question, because it’s obvious he did not even read the text otherwise he would have noted the link. I’m betting Steve did not do well in school, like our governor.

    1. Thanks Zach and Other Side,

      OFF TOPIC: Anyone reading see a striking similarity between this “commentator,” just blocked at Uppity, and Mr I-just-want-to-get-the-facts, above?

      The similarity is claiming a major in computer science, minor in electrical engineering (CS/ee), and a penchant to “love,” to engage others out of boredom, (aside from not knowing how to stay warm near Lake Lucerne) in a recent comment at BB:

      Someone who is humble and not too full of himself. /s

      I’d also guess we might not get the same answer from the lovely RR Siren, or at least the real reason for “having blown her mind,” as he claims.

      As an experiment I typed just my last name in a search engine, numerous relatives and unknown potential family with the same name all over the world. Then I tried Loupnik.

Comments are closed.