Posted on 05/04/2006 6:53:04 PM PDT by Graybeard58
The rate is four times that of higher-income women, a new survey reports.
WASHINGTON - Overall, the rate of unintended pregnancy - 49 percent of all pregnancies - has remained stable in the United States, according to newly released government data.
But when broken down by income, disparities emerge: In 2001, US women living below the federal poverty line were four times as likely to have an unplanned pregnancy, five times as likely to have an unplanned birth, and more than three times as likely to have an abortion as women with income at least double the poverty line ($9,800). And these disparities are growing, reports the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research organization formerly affiliated with the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. In 1994, poor women were three times as likely as higher-income women to have an unplanned pregnancy.
The primary source of these data is the just-issued National Survey of Family Growth, a survey of more than 7,600 women, conducted in 2002. It is run by the National Center for Health Statistics, part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta. The most recent previous such survey was conducted in 1995.
At a time when abortion remains a focus of social activists across the political spectrum, some have sought to find common ground in the effort to reduce the number of abortions. Preventing unwanted pregnancy means fewer abortions, they say. But the issue of contraception - especially among teens - can be just as controversial, and so little cooperation exists between the opposing camps.
On Wednesday, Democratic Sens. Harry Reid of Nevada and Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York marked the fifth annual National Day to Prevent Teen Pregnancy by highlighting legislation - the Prevention First Act - that would increase federal funding for reproductive health services. But while Senator Clinton often likes to put a bipartisan face on much of her legislation, no Republicans stood with her and the minority leader.
The authors of a new Guttmacher article focusing on disparities of unintended pregnancy rates, who also identify gaps according to race and education levels, see a social justice dimension to the trends. The much higher rates of unintended pregnancy among poor women "indicate that some groups of women have more difficulty than others in achieving their reproductive goals," write Lawrence Finer and Stanley Henshaw in the June issue of the magazine Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health. "Assessing these disparities may help policymakers and public health professionals identify these groups of women."
In an interview, Mr. Finer notes that the federal Title X program, which subsidizes women's health clinics across the country, has experienced an annual decline in funding during the Bush years, when the figures are adjusted for inflation.
Though no Title X funds are used to pay for abortions, "there's concern that when federal money is funneled into clinics, it frees up other money to promote abortion services," says Randall O'Bannon of the National Right to Life Committee's educational branch.
For those focusing on preventing teen pregnancy, the news remains positive. Teen pregnancy and birth rates continue to decline, and are at their lowest levels, at least according to the available statistics, which go back several decades. But in a report released this week, also analyzing the data from the new National Survey of Family Growth, the National Campaign to Prevent Teen Pregnancy, highlighted some areas of concern:
• Almost one-third of all sexually experienced girls ages 15 to 19 have been pregnant and 13 percent of sexually experienced teenage boys have caused a pregnancy. The definition of "sexually experienced" is those who have had sexual intercourse at least once.
• More than half (52 percent) of sexually experienced Hispanic teen girls have been pregnant and 21 percent of sexually experienced Hispanic teen boys have caused a pregnancy.
But teen pregnancy has declined overall because teens have delayed the start of sexual activity and have used birth control more effectively, among other factors.
I just said it. I'll probably get whacked.
It rankles me to see some abuse such a privilege.
Anchor babies?
WHACK!!!!!! Just kidding..:)
It is a sad truth.
I don't know why. Facts is facts.
SARCASM ALERT : What exactly are "reproductive health services" that are contained in Hillary's bill?
If this has something to do with sex education or sex services, then Hillary must be homophobic if she doesn't want to provide services to lesbian young minority poor women.
END OF SARCASM ALERT.
I wonder wat the rate would be if the Feds stopped paying cash for each of these situations. I refuse to say that these underage 'poor' women are ignorant. They do it because they understand that the federal safety net will catch them all. The more we feed em the more they breed them.
I should clarify the sarcasm : by focusing on "reproductive health" that implies sexual activity, meaning "straight" sex, which then excludes "gay" sex. So Hillary may be discriminating against "gay" lifestyles with this bill.
In the hispanic community, babies are considered to be a rite of passage. A guy isn't a "man" until he fathers a child (of course we know that isn't what makes a Man, but that is what they think). Girls who have babies are now "women."
It is sad they condemn their children to a life of poverty and probably gangs, but at least they don't tend to kill them.
What a fascinating media interpretation of facts demonstrating that abstinence education is working. Teen pregnancy rates are going down. Teens are delaying the age at which they become sexually active.
Then why is there such worry in this article if many of these pregnancies are planned?
feed and breed? Interesting.
My disgust stems from not having been able to have the opportunity they so wantonly waste and abuse.
>>I should clarify the sarcasm : by focusing on "reproductive health" that implies sexual activity, meaning "straight" sex, which then excludes "gay" sex. So Hillary may be discriminating against "gay" lifestyles with this bill.<<
Gay sex may not lead to pregnancy but it certainly can spread disease.
ROFLMAO! Classic!
All Bushes fault. I thought he looked awfully tired these days.
Speaking the truth is one of the best ways to get whacked.
Try it in a corporate environment.
In political and racial matters, it's radioactive.
As long as I've already voluntarily submitted to the eventual whacking on this thread, I'll toss out this thought:
Democrats would be in firm control of all branches of government except for the fact that they're killing off so many of their future voters.
What is it, 40 million since Roe?
Republicans aren't having many abortions.
Tell me that I'm wrong about the voting edge.
It is a class thing, and to that extent only a Partisan thing. It may be that a lot or working class whites are getting abortions. I don't know. The Pubbies run pretty good with that cohort now, while losing ground with higher SES voters.
Certainly economic status is the driving factor for the woman. She's surely not thinking, "I've got to abort this future Democrat voter."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.