Unintended Pregnancy Linked to State Funding Cuts

Adoptee Rights Day 2013

Unintended Pregnancy Linked to State Funding Cuts
First-of-Its-Kind Study Cites Impact On Teenage Girls and Poor Women

By Ceci Connolly
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 1, 2006; Page A06

At a time when policymakers have made reducing unintended pregnancies a national priority, 33 states have made it more difficult or more expensive for poor women and teenagers to obtain contraceptives and related medical services, according to an analysis released yesterday by the nonpartisan Guttmacher Institute.

From 1994 to 2001, many states cut funds for family planning, enacted laws restricting access to birth control and placed tight controls on sex education, said the institute, a privately funded research group that focuses on sexual health and family issues.

Ranking Pregnancy Services
Here’s how the Guttmacher Institute ranks Maryland, Virginia and the District nationally according to progress each made between 1994 and 2001 in availability and funding of contraceptives and reproductive health services.

The statewide trends help explain why more than half of the 6 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended and offer clues for tackling problems associated with teenage pregnancy and abortion, said researchers who specialize in the field.

“The most powerful and least divisive way to decrease abortion is to reduce unintended pregnancy,” said Sarah Brown, director of the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy. “If we can make progress reducing unintended pregnancy, we can make enormous progress reducing abortion.”

The report, the first to measure the impact of state actions on reproductive health care, is based on a comprehensive census by the institute using the most recent available data. Advocates involved in the intense political debate over abortion were reluctant to comment on the findings, but experts on women’s health and family planning praised Guttmacher for offering an agenda both sides could support.

“Whether you’re pro-choice or pro-life, everyone ought to agree that preventing unintended pregnancies is a good thing to do,” said Isabel Sawhill, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Sawhill, whose research is cited by both conservative and liberal groups, said other factors contribute to unintended pregnancies, including miscommunication between partners, insufficient knowledge about contraceptives and an “it will never happen to me” attitude.

Despite some gains, the United States still lags far behind most industrialized nations in reducing abortion and teenage pregnancy. In 2002, 21 in 1,000 American women age 15 to 44 had an abortion. Although that is the lowest abortion rate since 1974, the decline has stalled, prompting fears that individuals and policymakers have lost focus on the underlying problem of unintended pregnancies, said Guttmacher President Sharon L. Camp.

“Unintended pregnancy in the United States is twice as high as in most of Western Europe,” she said in an interview. “As a direct result, abortion rates are twice or three times as high as European countries. There is no reason why abortion rates need to be as high as they are.”

The problem is particularly acute for the nation’s estimated 17 million adolescent girls and low-income women, because a lack of education and money are often barriers to practicing abstinence or effective birth control.

In 2000, federal health officials set a goal of reducing unintended pregnancies by 40 percent within 10 years. States, through legislative and budgetary decisions, can be major players in that effort, Camp said. California and a few other states have leveraged federal Medicaid money to extend family-planning services to more poor women. For every dime the state puts in, the federal government pays 90 cents.

“This is really a smart move for states to make,” Camp said. Yet for every state that has invested in reproductive health care or passed laws permitting pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription, Guttmacher found at least another state that moved in the opposite direction.

“It’s not only that at least half of the states are not doing many things they could do to reduce unintended pregnancy — some are making contraception less easy for women and men,” Camp said.

The Guttmacher rankings belie conventional political wisdom. California, New York, South Carolina and Alabama have made the greatest strides in helping low-income women receive health care and contraception, despite the fact that the two coastal states are considered “blue” states that lean to the left politically, while the two southern states are deemed “red” for their conservative tilt.

At the same time, states as different as Nebraska, Ohio and Utah were among the worst when it came to providing access to contraceptives for needy women and teenagers, as well as gynecological exams and information on preventing pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

States have an incentive for investing in reproductive services, Camp said. Every $1 spent on family planning saves $3 in health care costs related to a pregnancy.

The Guttmacher Institute was founded in 1968 as a “semiautonomous division of Planned Parenthood Federation of America” but now operates independently, according to its Web site. The report and state data can be read at http://www.agi-usa.org/ .

About the Author

admin
Musings of the Lame was started in 2005 primarily as a simple blog recording the feelings of a birthmother as she struggled to understand how the act of relinquishing her first newborn so to adoption in 1987 continued to be a major force in her life. Built from the knowledge gained in the adoption community, it records the search for her son and the adoption reunion as it happened. Since then, it has grown as an adoption forum encompassing the complexity of the adoption industry, the fight to free her sons adoption records and the need for Adoptee Rights, and a growing community of other birthmothers, adoptive parents and adopted persons who are able to see that so much what we want to believe about adoption is wrong.

10 Comments on "Unintended Pregnancy Linked to State Funding Cuts"

  1. Anonymous | March 1, 2006 at 6:24 pm |

    Great article Claud! I love the Gauttmacher Institute.

    I do think one of the quotes about prolife and prochoice believers being able to all get behind preventing pregnancies is a fantasy. There are so many in the prolife movement that are also trying to prevent us from getting birth control.

    I live in a rural area, but there is a decent sized city about 40 minutes away from me. One day I met a girl who was 14 years old and pregnant. She had been raped and she got a prescription for emergency contraception but she couldn’t find one pharmacy to fill it in this city. She ultimately ended up having the baby because she didn’t believe in abortion. This spurred me to call every pharmacy in the area (and there are a lot!). CVS is the only pharmacy in my area or that city that carries PlanB.

    I also asked them if they would allow their pharmacists to refuse to fill a woman’s prescription based on their moral beliefs, as that had been on my mind with all of the legislation and news about it. CVS was the only one that said they would not. I believe that Walgreens has since joined them. I would encourage every woman to call their pharmacy and ask these same questions, and like I did call and switch all of their prescriptions to the pharmacy that does not descriminate against women. I also made sure to tell them exactly why!

    Connie

  2. This is an awesome article.

    One correction, as they left out an important economic factor:

    “Every $1 spent on family planning saves $3 in health care costs related to a pregnancy”

    This is implying that many of those costs aren’t covered by adoptive parents paying for the medical care as well as other expenses, and therefore, actually saves the states money to allow these women to have unwanted pregnancies (as anything not covered under the state will be paid privately, which also gives states more reason Not to cover more and more services / products).

    I wonder of the statistics of adoption in the states that have the unwanted pregnancies due to the retraction of federal funds. Hm?

  3. I know my Walgreens is good! Picked up a few persricptions for the “morning after’ there myself. It is freakig rediculous that they let personal doctrine of a public right to medical care be a deciding factor.
    I men, what if I have a moral afront to all things red. What if I were to believe that all things red were Satan?? Do you think I could get away with running every red light in town??

    Ah, Heather…you are applying logic and cost effectivenss here. And it is obvious that they are not really into being logical or dealing with a what might have a lesser financial impact on society.

    The same arguement goes to women who might need public assistance in the early years of parenting. Give her the day care, finacial assistance for educatio, medical insurance ..so she can get out of the need for assistance and be a batter parent…THEN..she can halp her children be assets to society, become a earning tax payer herself…you can’t tll me that three years of help will be less cost effective than watching her fail, taking her children, paying for her caseworkers, court costs, and adoption subsidies and tax breaks, medicade for the children and services and education if they are adopted out of the system.

    Three years..or even 5 of asistance so she can have a chance with her children vs a life time of support for the same children??

    No..there is much more at play here then they want us to beleive…or the counrty is just run by idiots..or both.

  4. Heatherrainbow, it’s really rare for adoptive parents to pay a birthmother’s medical expenses. It might happen once in awhile in an independent adoption if the mom doesn’t have insurance and is not eligible for medicaid, but it is certainly not the norm. Especially because they are not really adoptive parents until the mom formally relinquishes the child, and medical expenses need to be paid before that happens.

  5. REALLY RARE?????
    “Each adoption situation is truly unique and each state has specific laws regarding financial assistance. In most cases, your medical bills will be covered by the adoptive family. If you have insurance or Medicaid, the family will pay for anything that is not covered. In some states, funds can be provided for your living expenses, while in other states this is illegal. To find out what assistance can be provided in your state contact us today”
    “There is no charge to you for any of our pregnancy or counseling services, and we can help you obtain medical care. “
    “$4,000 to $30,000, which includes the costs for birth parent counseling, adoptive parent home study and preparation, child’s birth expenses, post-placement supervision until the adoption is finalized, and a portion of agency costs for overhead and operating expenses.”

    Hmmm..and that was a quick 3 second Google check.
    No…reality is that is is COMMON and EXPECTED htat medical expenses incured to the birth of a child placed for adoption are covered by the agency involved and absrbed by the adoptive parents though either general fees..or more common direct expenses.
    THAT is one of the great allures of a woman who cannot fanthom the ability to pay the 6 thousand dollars for a typical hospital birth without medical coverage…yeah, aoption..they make that worry go away.

    Now granted ANY agency will first try to reduce their own costs by getting the mother in question on PUBLIC medical coverage. Guess who paid for the cost of my son’s birth?? Yeah, I was quickly put on MA public health care even though I was from NY and birth and placement. And while I never saw any money change hands..I was a kept woman for three months..never wanting for anything.

    How many times do the adoptive parents freak out because they lost money in a failed adoption??? Umm..medical and living expenses that are often NOT reimbursed ..its called a hopeful risk.

    I don’t know what happy rock you have been hiding under, but you are most certainly wrong!

  6. That issue of medical expenses is a big fat unknown, because no one keeps good statistics on such things. Both of our kids’ birthmothers had medicaid to cover the births, and our insurance took over with the children as soon as they were placed with us. Is that typical? I don’t have a clue. I firmly believe that NO ONE should be paying anyone else’s birth expenses in hopes of adopting their child. Not because I think we should all be cheapskates, but because it’s a form of coercion (we paid NO expenses of any kind). This is the United States and no one is going to be turned away from a hospital if they are in labor.

  7. I meant to add that it is estimated that 50% of the “healthy white newborn” crowd are now placed in independent adoptions without any use of agencies. Those situations may more commonly involve lots of money changing hands, but again…no records kept.

  8. Anonymous, this is from FindLaw re. infant adoption:

    http://www.findlaw.com/adoption/adoption-guide/adoption-cost-faq.html

    << Most states allow the adoptive parents to pay the birthmother's medical expenses, counseling costs and attorney's fees. Some states allow payments to cover the birth mother's living expenses such as food, housing and transportation during pregnancy. Most states require all payments to be itemized and approved by a court before the adoption is finalized. Be sure to know and understand your state's laws, because providing or accepting prohibited financial support may subject you to criminal charges. And the adoption itself may be jeopardized if you make improper payments. >>

  9. KrisAnne..I am in total agreement with you as that any expenses changing hands is a form of cohesion.
    They only thing I have to say is that while no one will be turned away from a hospital in labor..they WILL be hit with a huge ass bill when they have recovered! And having a huge debt to pay off when you are barely sqeaking by….many people do not know how to even think of getting out from under that..so they try to do anything to avoid it.

    Heck. I know that with Max..knowing I was being taken care of..that was a huge weight taken off my back. Being brought to the doctors, good doctors, cared for and neurtures…God, I wanted that..I needed that. Alot of the appeal in adoption for me was not having to think.
    And not having to think allowed me to go though with it.

  10. Wow..how cool is this..
    I just noticed that WashingtonPost.com has linked little old bloggy here since I linked this article! Well that explains how come I am getting hits from the Washington Post…
    feeling famous..ohlala

Comments are closed.