And, although the Alan Guttmacher Institute was founded as the research arm of Planned Parenthood, they are still regarded as the most complete and accurate source of contraceptive and abortion-related data: more reliable than the NIH, the CDC, or the World Health Organization. In fact, much of the damnable stuff we know about PP, we know from analyzing AGI data.
Various forms of contraception have widely varying levels of effectiveness. All of the barrier and spermicide methods have high rates of user-failure, which is why the spaying industry is trying to herd as many females as possible onto the long-acting hormonal implants and injections, the endocrine disruptors.
Much of the information people "think" they know is inaccurate: for instance, the idea that the majority of abortion clients are young teens. Not so. Only eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.
Women in their 20s account for more than half of all abortions. This age group centers on college students, and women in entry-level employment.
Anecdotal information is worth -- well, whatever it's worth. Every woman I know who has had an unexpected pregnancy --- that is of those whom I know well enough to know such an intimate thing about them --- was a contraceptive user. Whether she was a careful, methodical, defense-in-depth, doubled-down jellies-jams-plugs-rubbers user or not, I must leave unanswered.
I will say that without serious endocrine disruption, it's pretty hard for a sexually active woman in her 20's not to get pregnant. Think of it: every single one of our ancestors, without exception, over 10,000 generations, 100,000 generations, was fertile and gave birth. It's a force of nature so strong in young women, you have to sabotage her normal physiological function pretty comprehensively if you want her barren as a brick.
What a disaster for women, this repugnant so-called Sexual Revolution.
Considered by whom?
In medical research publishing, all authors must declare whether they have a conflict of interest in the study they want to publish. That's because the introduction of a money motive does influence the conduct and interpretation of research. In the case of Guttmacher Institute, the money motive is so strong that barely any reliable research comes out of that place. Their studies are designed to give pro-abortion results.
Whenever I look at studies involving any aspect of abortion, the first thing I look at is the source of the study. Most of these studies originate from some abortion associated group; those studies can be discounted without bothering to read past the abstract.
Much of the information people "think" they know is inaccurate: for instance, the idea that the majority of abortion clients are young teens. Not so. Only eighteen percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are teenagers; those aged 15–17 obtain 6% of all abortions, teens aged 18–19 obtain 11%, and teens younger than age 15 obtain 0.4%.
I was not sure whether to include young 20 somethings among the frequent abortion customers. The salient point is that the rates of abortion are highest among those who are *not* in steady relationships. Women in long-term relationships are more likely to use contraceptives; it is not unusual for a woman to go decades without getting pregnant after she has had as many children as she wants (which is less than 2, these days). If we were to take various estimates of contraceptive effectiveness at face value, we'd expect a much higher pregnancy rate than is actually seen.
Anecdotal information is worth -- well, whatever it's worth. Every woman I know who has had an unexpected pregnancy --- that is of those whom I know well enough to know such an intimate thing about them --- was a contraceptive user. Whether she was a careful, methodical, defense-in-depth, doubled-down jellies-jams-plugs-rubbers user or not, I must leave unanswered.
I do not know why, but it seems like every woman I've known who has had abortions feels a need to tell me about it. I don't even have to know them all that well--they just tell me. Also, I read a lot--it is not difficult to find some hyper-defensive woman writing a blog or article about why her abortions were perfectly justified. Among probably dozens of these accounts, I have *never* seen anyone volunteer that they were using contraceptives at the time they got pregnant, even if they give a fairly detailed account of how they got pregnant. That is a pretty clear indication that they were not. You don't need a study to figure this out: you just need to understand human nature. There is a stigma associated with abortion, which is even greater if the woman didn't bother to try to avoid pregnancy. Therefore, women who are asked point-blank if they were using contraceptives will very often lie and say they were, especially if they sense that the person asking will judge them negatively if they tell the truth.
You don't need to have intrusive medical tests to verify whether a woman is using contraceptives or not, in order to design a study that can accurately determine contraceptive effectiveness. The study does need to be prospective. If I were designing such a study is to include a survey on attitudes towards abortion. I think a prospective study on contraceptive effectiveness, coupled with attitudes towards abortion, would be extremely powerful. There is every reason to think that contraceptive efficacy would be highest among those who have a strong desire to not get pregnant and who will NOT use abortion as a backup under ANY circumstance.