Over Two Decades, Abortion Rate Dropped For Women In Their 20s Because Of Contraception Access

by Samantha Posted 2012/06/26 15:39:01

Related Topics: Abortion, Birth Control, Pregnancy, Time, 2008, Abortions, Birth, Contraception

Read all 20 opinions

Between 1990 and 2008, pregnancy and abortion rates for women in their twenties dropped dramatically, a new study revealed today. Pregnancy rates fell by 18 percent, while abortion rates dropped by a third.

One of the biggest influencing factors in this decrease is the growing accessibility, use, and options for birth control. Contraceptive use is the best way to prevent abortions in the U.S. Over time, young women have gotten greater access to a larger number of pregnancy prevention methods. The study explains two main causes in the drop:

The introduction of new contraceptive methods and discontinuation of existing ones [and]changes in the use of existing methods: the proportion of women using any method, the methods used, and how consistently and effectively they are used.

Marianne 2012/06/26 18:06:23

A positive step, considering our overpopulated world.

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/26 18:07:31

+1
The abortion rate has dropped either because women have access to contraceptives or they'll giving birth.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/26 18:17:03

And above all, they get a better information and can take up responsibility. Nowadays, many women can choose a professional career to be independent.

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/26 21:35:03 (edited)

+1
Right! Feminism isn't about putting a career above family; it's concerned with giving women choices. If a woman chooses, for economic or other reasons, to have a career and a family, we should encourage her and enact laws that help middle-class working families. On the other hand, if a woman chooses to be a stay-at-home Mom, she should be honored. It's about choices and the freedom to make those choices.

Ann Romney, even as a stay-at-home Mom, should never be compared favorably to working class women who make that decision. Why? Romney is part of the richest one percent; no doubt she had nannies. How she can honestly compare herself to working class mothers is a mystery.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/26 21:37:40

+1
Well said.

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/26 21:41:37

+1
I applaud Ann Romney for being a good mother; however, there's just no comparison between her and working class women. Romney had virtually unlimited monetary resources to hire nannies, etc. Working class women don't have that option. If either Romney truly cared about working class mothers, they'd support day care legislation, laws that give incentives for companies to provide flex time for mothers, especially young mothers, and paid maternity leave giving mothers and fathers the opportunity to bond with young children.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/26 22:00:16

On our side, there has been some progress with day nurseries for working parents, which exist since long, but there there is a certain shortage in some regions. Furthermore, their price depends on the income, favouring in particular single parents (women and increasingly men) with a lower income. Yet, for couples of the middle-class with two salaries, such day nurseries are expensive and in most cases, the women will abandon their careers. Sweden, for instance, has a far better organisation for single parents or couples in this respect, and they have a very high proportion of professionally high-ranking women, compared with other European countries. As for us, many employees can benefit of flexible work-time, which makes things easier.

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/26 23:23:25 (edited)

Compared to several other countries, our maternity leave policy is atrocious.

http://www.sodahead.com/unite...

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/27 01:52:16

That is sad, I heard about it. Also in Europe, it is not perfect, but more or less long maternity leaves are set according to law, between 14 to 20 weeks, depending on the countries, exceptionnally more. As to the coverage of the salaries, it is mostly set between 70 and 80 %, sometimes 100 %.

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/27 14:31:36 (edited)

+1
It's so much better than the U.S. yet, here, conservatives claim to be so family friendly but, in reality, their policies have extremely negative impacts on working class families.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/27 15:55:52

+1
I am quite conscious of that, and also here in Europe, we have right-wing, conservative parties trying to screw back employee's and familie's rights, especially regarding tax reductions and financial support for families with lower income.

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/27 15:59:09

+1
I was happy Sarkozy lost in France; let's hope other European countries reject all the conservative "austerity" measures that result in pain and suffering for working class families and more riches for the wealthy.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/27 16:20:42

Yes, I also preferred to see Hollande win. Now, the tandem Germany - France doesn't agree any more about the many unpopular saving measures as before. Maybe that F. Hollande will find an agreement with A. Merkel to aim at more sustainability.

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/27 16:23:52

+1
Let's hope they find agreement on sustainability. Thank you for your insight.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/27 16:52:38

You're welcome.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/27 18:04:08

I just heard in the news that A. Merkel is in Paris to discuss with F. Hollande about further steps regarding the austerity package. This discussion will not be easy ...

reply
Samantha to Marianne 2012/06/27 19:14:38

+1
No, it won't be easy; at least, there's a discussion.

reply
Marianne to Samantha 2012/06/27 19:27:46

And what discussion ...

reply
Morningstar 2012/06/26 16:56:51

+1
So true - can't imagine going backwards!

reply
Samantha to Morning... 2012/06/26 17:10:39

+1
Neither can I.

reply