Free IUD Programs Work. Why Are Conservatives Opposed To Them?

[Novara]

Free IUD Programs Work. Why Are Conservatives Opposed To Them?

On Monday, the New York Times published a lengthy report on the smashing success of a six-year plan to offer long-acting contraception, such as implants or the IUD, free of charge to any low-income woman or teen who wanted them. Funded by outside donors, the program has been a tremendous success, lowering the teen birth rate by 40 percent between 2009 to 2013. The abortion rate for teenagers fell by 42 percent.

“There was a similar decline in births for another group particularly vulnerable to unplanned pregnancies: unmarried women under 25 who have not finished high school,” Sabrina Tavernise writes. The program is credited with helping a huge number of young women wait until they're a little older to have children, giving them time to finish their education and get a foothold in the working world first.
I've been touting this program for awhile now, but unfortunately, the money has run out. The hope was that the state legislature would help the young women of Colorado to live better, more economically successful lives by voting to fund the program itself. However, the Republican-run legislature decided against it. The official reason: The program is redundant now that Obamacare offers “free” birth control.

That excuse has some holes in it, starting with the fact that Obamacare does not offer free birth control. Obamacare requires that insurance plans cover birth control without a copay, but you either have to buy the insurance or earn it as an employment benefit in order to get that coverage. A lot of the women and girls who are eligible for the Colorado program don't have insurance. There's additional obstacles for teens who want the IUD. “Advocates also worry that teenagers — who can get the devices at clinics confidentially — may be less likely to get the devices through their parents’ insurance,” Tavernise writes.

The real issue here is that opponents of accessible birth control want to keep sex dangerous, in the hope that danger will discourage girls and women from having sex. This was clear in the debate over the program's funding. “I hear the stories of young girls who are engaged, very prematurely, in sexual activity, and I see firsthand the devastation that happens to them,” Republican state Rep. Kathleen Conti argued. “I'm not accrediting this directly to this program, but I'm saying, while we may be preventing an unwanted pregnancy, at the same time, what are the emotional consequences that could be coming up on the other side?”

Colorado isn't the only state where people are anxious that IUDs might be just too good at preventing teen pregnancy. As Media Matters reported today, controversy is flaring over a Seattle program that allows teen girls to get IUDs and implants from a school-based health center. Fox News' coverage of called long-acting contraception “invasive birth control” while host Jedediah Bila called it “an overreach in schools.” Breitbart scared readers about “serious side effects” and warned that the IUDs are “free of charge and free of parental consent.”

Interestingly, a talking point in both the Townhall and Fox News coverage was that it's outrageous that kids can't buy sodas at school but they can get IUDs. What is this world coming to when we try to help our kids avoid sugary crap and unwanted pregnancies? Next you're going to tell me that we also want them to wash their hands and wear seatbelts.

Read more: http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/07/07/free_iud_programs_for_teens_work_why_are_so_many_conservatives_against_them.html

[Kelvin Mace]

1. Because it allows women to have "consequence free" sex

and they can't stand that.

[shenmue]

2. They think women are property, traded from father to husband

[SheilaT]

3. It completely creeps me out that

even today young women are "given away" when they get married. I actually resisted that nonsense when I got married, and that was back in 1980.

[GoneFishin]

4. Sincere question. Do they object to wealthy women having access to contraception?

Or just the poor and young?

[brer cat]

5. Other than the quiverfulls,

it appears to be just the poor and young.

[Novara]

6. When you think about it, it is really illogical....

They really don't want more poor babies who need social services. Supposedly they hate that shit. But it's a vehicle to shame the poor for "breeding irresponsibly" and staying poor. It allows them to sit in judgment of the "poor choices" the underclass makes. See, consequence-free sex is only for the chosen classes. And a steady stream of poor people means a permanent underclass serving them. Set them up for failure and then criticize them for failing to live up to unreasonable expectations.

[GoneFishin]

7. "... stream of poor people means a permanent underclass serving them ...". My thought also. It fits

into the bigger picture of why everything they support serves to maximize the number of people competing against each other for jobs (in their factories, etc..) under more and more desperate conditions.

- Raising retirement age for social security to keep older people in the work force longer.
- Fighting against a minimum wage so people need more than one job to survive.
- Resisting assistance to war veterans when the come back broken.
- Fighting womens' right to planned pregnancy. Fighting all assistance to the mother after baby is born. (love the fetus, hate child).
- Prosecuting undocumented workers, but not employers. Keeps workers competing, in fear, cowed, and compliant.
- ...

[Novara]

8. You've got it

A permanent underclass of people who are also afraid what little they do have will be taken away, is a compliant underclass. It's societal control.

[niyad]

9. because they work, and women have control over their own bodies. we cannot have the chattel

doing that, you know. I mean, it isn't like women are human or anything important.

[chloes1]

10. The closest

I ever got to a rational answer, was that IUDs prevent the fertilized egg from implanting; thus IUDs are abortifacients. Well, yes, thats the idea, kinda hard to argue with the truth. The better question to me is actually one of two questions. Why on earth do you think that an 8 to 16 cell blastocyst is ensouled? Or, why don't you think that there are worse things than dying? An unwanted child is often an unhappy child, a poor child, and carries all the problems therein. Of course these are the groups that feel that child are a punishment for sex. ("Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time)

Needless to say, I vehemently disagree with the mindset of most Repubs.