So you're seeing that giving kids birth control reduces teen pregnancy? Shocking.
Everyone knew this would happen, but some believe that giving teens birth control is encouraging them to have sex, so initiatives like this are almost always blocked. It's very much a political problem.
I don't know the data, but it doesn't strike me as insane to think that decreasing the marginal cost of a subset of sex would increase overall amounts of sex.
It's just that optimizing over "minimizing sex" is idiotic compared to optimizing over "minimizing unsafe sex."
> but some believe that giving teens birth control is encouraging them to have sex
Do teenagers really need to be encouraged to have sex? An absence of discouragement should be sufficient, for mutually attracted pairs.
High-availability abortions and contraceptives given out in schools are just examples of governments giving people what they want. However many in the anti-abortion and abstinence movements are engaged in an ambitious social engineering effort, telling teens to resist their strong biological urges to have sex, in favor of marriage and monogamy, because they believe this leads to a more spiritually healthy outcome, long-term.
There is surprisingly little innovation in this space. It's taken for granted that teenage-pregnancy is a bad word, that 30-40 year olds make better parents because they have more money. Society could choose to support early marriage and childbirth. Parenting requires a lot of energy, something that youth have in abundance. Also, young people remember what it's like to be a child, and make more empathetic parents.
Everything needs to be tested. How many treatments, therapies, and drugs seem like pure common sense and then turn out to be useless when rigorously examined or outright harmful?
I agree, but the people who write head lines understand that including the word 'Startling' increases their clicks dramatically, despite the fact it would of been more accurate without that word added.
Interesting, thanks for the reference. Though paragraphs like
"But these “linear trend lines” based on the three previous years of data aren’t really useful. The authors’ projection shows that births would actually increase a bit during the period CFPI was put in place, despite the fact that, like the abortion rate, the teen birth rate is declining nationally, noticeably and steadily."
are somewhat bizarre. The entire point of using the trend lines is to take into account, well, the trend. Still, good to know the counterarguments, otherwise you're just listening to the echo chamber of "Well, of COURSE the program would work!"
I was thinking the same thing. They have less of an incentive to use protection with this device implanted. Let's wait and see until the STD numbers surface.
Ultimately, what's cheaper? Having a baby or taking care of an STD? Perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs.
Why would you expect an increase in STDs? Are you assuming that free IUDs and implants are encouraging more teenagers to have more sex? Is it leading to sexual behavior that displaces other safer forms of sex (that were leading to teenage pregnancies)?
The preoccupation with STDs in this thread seems a bit weird and irrational.
If you think long and hard about the kind of specific cases IUDs address over other forms of birth control, I think a grim and sad outline of reality may emerge for you.
This is interesting because I always claim that the reverse is true where I live. Like, getting pregnant is glorified to young girls. The conspiracy theorist in me says that the gov does that to occupy peoples lives. It's like, they have nothing better to do so lets make having a baby seem like the greatest thing in the world. So in my view, this goes both ways.
Nobody ever mentions the problems with environmental pollution and human cancer with chemical contraception. It's very conspicuous. If it were any other product the downsides would be heavily discussed. http://i.imgur.com/S8RCxEe.jpg
I don't think 2-3 partners is really low. I find it hard to imagine most people being successful at seducing a very large number of people. Probably in most cases it is <= the number of boyfriends the girl has had.
I could also point out that my church would consider 2-3 partners something akin to "running wild". One partner, one time could be a lapse in judgement. Multiple partners or one partner multiple times indicates a pattern.
>Colorado’s Effort Against Teenage Pregnancies Is a Startling Success
Any time I see a headline like this, I have to look for the discussion about what unintended consequences were observed. There usually are some, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some commenters have already mentioned negative health effects, spread of STDs, environmental impact, social consequences. I found no such discussion in this article.
In my opinion this is obviously a pretty good thing to do, and it is fantastic to see it is happening. Dear world: let's see more of this kind of thing, please.
> But the experiment in Colorado is entering an uncertain new phase that will test a central promise of the Affordable Care Act: free contraception.
Perhaps they should discourage teenagers from sleeping with each other. As far as I know, teenage pregnancy is not an issue in conservative Middle Eastern cultures for instance.
Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health? I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections. It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one. Not that pills are any better.
It doesn't matter what direction the arrow on the graph is pointing if the way you got there is by potentially hurting people.
- mild to moderate pain when the IUD is put in
- cramping or backache for a few days
- spotting between periods in the first 3–6 months
- irregular periods in the first 3–6 months — with Mirena or Skyla
- heavier periods and worse menstrual cramps — with ParaGard
> Pain relievers can usually reduce bleeding, cramping, and other discomforts. If they are severe and do not seem to lessen, tell your health care provider.
> Serious problems with the IUD are rare. ... In rare situations, a woman could develop an infection when using the IUD. This happens if bacteria get into the uterus when the IUD is inserted.
I am not a doctor. That said, my understanding is that IUDs are one of the best contraceptive methods out there. They have a bad reputation because they had issues when they were initially introduced, and they haven't quite overcome that reputation yet even though modern ones are excellent. There are non-hormonal ones too (pure copper), so it can avoid a whole host of side effects that some women experience with hormonal birth control. However they can also cause heavier periods with some people. Otherwise they seem to be the model of what you'd want a contraceptive to be (excellent effectiveness, safe, easily reversible, and forgettable–they last years and years).
> Don't IUDs have a lot of negative impacts on a woman/teenage girl's health?
IUDs are classified as "pretty safe" for most users. They are also easily removed if undesired side effects are noted. They almost certainly are safer than pregnancy for most users. Individual users have contraindications that prevent IUD use or make IUD use riskier, that is why they are a prescription medical device and users are advised of the risks and their other options.
IUDs also have some benefits.
>I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections.
There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable. If side effects are not bearable you can simply get the IUD removed, it is easily reversible. Irregular bleeding is not harmful in any way but can be a huge nuance. Copper IUDs can cause increased bleeding but aren't hormonal. If UTIs or other complications are a problem then the IUD can be removed.
>It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one.
It seems irresponsible to not offer teenagers a very effective contraceptive. All medical interventions have a risk of side effects. We would like the user to be aware of such risks and make an informed choice.
UIDs (in general) got a bad rap because of the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s. It had a design flaw that harmed a large number of users. Modern IUDs are much safer.
Since all my comments so far have sounded like I oppose giving out contraceptives (since I am very much a proponent of moral living), let me clarify. I think it is great to help lift people out of poverty. Since there is a trend among poor teenagers to have more unplanned pregnancies it makes sense to address that problem, and this is one possible step.
I do not think it should replace teaching abstinence. But I also don't think that teaching abstinence using scare tactics in school is all that effective. Religious and moral teachings are much more so. So it still comes down to the responsibility of parents to teach their children correct life principles.
Let the government give free contraceptives to at-risk populations. But also encourage parents to teach good morals.
I've heard that unwanted pregnancies are more frequent in the "wait till married" crowd. That is because they are unlikely to have condoms with them when their emotions overwhelm them. They don't account for their changed decision making process when aroused. (Source: Dan Ariely's Irrationality MOOC).
Just so I can have another data point in my anecdote web. May I ask you if you mean 'abstinence till marriage', if you abstained till marriage and at what age you got married.
[+] [-] austenallred|10 years ago|reply
Everyone knew this would happen, but some believe that giving teens birth control is encouraging them to have sex, so initiatives like this are almost always blocked. It's very much a political problem.
[+] [-] pavel_lishin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] scarmig|10 years ago|reply
It's just that optimizing over "minimizing sex" is idiotic compared to optimizing over "minimizing unsafe sex."
[+] [-] euroclydon|10 years ago|reply
Do teenagers really need to be encouraged to have sex? An absence of discouragement should be sufficient, for mutually attracted pairs.
High-availability abortions and contraceptives given out in schools are just examples of governments giving people what they want. However many in the anti-abortion and abstinence movements are engaged in an ambitious social engineering effort, telling teens to resist their strong biological urges to have sex, in favor of marriage and monogamy, because they believe this leads to a more spiritually healthy outcome, long-term.
There is surprisingly little innovation in this space. It's taken for granted that teenage-pregnancy is a bad word, that 30-40 year olds make better parents because they have more money. Society could choose to support early marriage and childbirth. Parenting requires a lot of energy, something that youth have in abundance. Also, young people remember what it's like to be a child, and make more empathetic parents.
[+] [-] gwern|10 years ago|reply
Everything needs to be tested. How many treatments, therapies, and drugs seem like pure common sense and then turn out to be useless when rigorously examined or outright harmful?
[+] [-] rdudek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] genericuser|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eli_gottlieb|10 years ago|reply
I don't see the problem.
[+] [-] dylanjermiah|10 years ago|reply
I don't understand, encouraging them to use contraception while having sex (and perhaps lead to more intercourse)? or encourage more unprotected sex?
[+] [-] jdross|10 years ago|reply
Questionable source, but data and linked study appear correct: http://www.nationalreview.com/agenda/385884/no-one-program-d...
[+] [-] archgoon|10 years ago|reply
"But these “linear trend lines” based on the three previous years of data aren’t really useful. The authors’ projection shows that births would actually increase a bit during the period CFPI was put in place, despite the fact that, like the abortion rate, the teen birth rate is declining nationally, noticeably and steadily."
are somewhat bizarre. The entire point of using the trend lines is to take into account, well, the trend. Still, good to know the counterarguments, otherwise you're just listening to the echo chamber of "Well, of COURSE the program would work!"
[+] [-] hiou|10 years ago|reply
http://www.cdc.gov/teenpregnancy/about/birth-rates-chart-200...
[+] [-] KirinDave|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] explorigin|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] breitling|10 years ago|reply
Ultimately, what's cheaper? Having a baby or taking care of an STD? Perhaps the benefits outweigh the costs.
[+] [-] klenwell|10 years ago|reply
The preoccupation with STDs in this thread seems a bit weird and irrational.
[+] [-] KirinDave|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] s_q_b|10 years ago|reply
Really we need non-invasive male birth control, as soon as possible.
[+] [-] XorNot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] rickdale|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] csours|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] a8da6b0c91d|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caseyf7|10 years ago|reply
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1400506
[+] [-] webjprgm|10 years ago|reply
I could also point out that my church would consider 2-3 partners something akin to "running wild". One partner, one time could be a lapse in judgement. Multiple partners or one partner multiple times indicates a pattern.
[+] [-] hammock|10 years ago|reply
Any time I see a headline like this, I have to look for the discussion about what unintended consequences were observed. There usually are some, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Some commenters have already mentioned negative health effects, spread of STDs, environmental impact, social consequences. I found no such discussion in this article.
[+] [-] KirinDave|10 years ago|reply
It's not like IUDs suddenly stop other safe sex practices. It's not Sex MMO where your "Contraceptive Equipment Slot" only can fit one item per party.
[+] [-] shoo|10 years ago|reply
> But the experiment in Colorado is entering an uncertain new phase that will test a central promise of the Affordable Care Act: free contraception.
[+] [-] keedot|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] schimmy_changa|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pervycreeper|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] apta|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rubiquity|10 years ago|reply
It doesn't matter what direction the arrow on the graph is pointing if the way you got there is by potentially hurting people.
[+] [-] dalke|10 years ago|reply
Quoting from http://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/iud in the section about disadvantages:
> You may have:
> Pain relievers can usually reduce bleeding, cramping, and other discomforts. If they are severe and do not seem to lessen, tell your health care provider.> Serious problems with the IUD are rare. ... In rare situations, a woman could develop an infection when using the IUD. This happens if bacteria get into the uterus when the IUD is inserted.
[+] [-] DanBC|10 years ago|reply
Here's a Vox article about it: http://www.vox.com/2015/2/23/8092483/birth-control-iud
[+] [-] Osmium|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] __z|10 years ago|reply
IUDs are classified as "pretty safe" for most users. They are also easily removed if undesired side effects are noted. They almost certainly are safer than pregnancy for most users. Individual users have contraindications that prevent IUD use or make IUD use riskier, that is why they are a prescription medical device and users are advised of the risks and their other options.
IUDs also have some benefits.
>I seem to remember there was a study about bleeding, irregular menstral periods, and an increase in urine tract infections.
There are two types of IUDs, hormonal and copper. ANY hormonal contraception "messes" with periods in ways that aren't predictable. If side effects are not bearable you can simply get the IUD removed, it is easily reversible. Irregular bleeding is not harmful in any way but can be a huge nuance. Copper IUDs can cause increased bleeding but aren't hormonal. If UTIs or other complications are a problem then the IUD can be removed.
>It seems irresponsible to give a device like that out to any teenager that wants one.
It seems irresponsible to not offer teenagers a very effective contraceptive. All medical interventions have a risk of side effects. We would like the user to be aware of such risks and make an informed choice.
UIDs (in general) got a bad rap because of the Dalkon Shield in the 1970s. It had a design flaw that harmed a large number of users. Modern IUDs are much safer.
[+] [-] Geeek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] noelwelsh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emidln|10 years ago|reply
Edit: s/15/10/ as per [1]
[1] http://www.mirena-us.com/safety-considerations/
[+] [-] JupiterMoon|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] webjprgm|10 years ago|reply
I do not think it should replace teaching abstinence. But I also don't think that teaching abstinence using scare tactics in school is all that effective. Religious and moral teachings are much more so. So it still comes down to the responsibility of parents to teach their children correct life principles.
Let the government give free contraceptives to at-risk populations. But also encourage parents to teach good morals.
[+] [-] facepalm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] true_religion|10 years ago|reply