Prior to the 2010 Congressional elections, I shared here my sense that were the House and state houses to be overtaken by the far Right, the Right would not only go after Roe v. Wade (as it has in dozens of state legislatures), but I suggested that they'd go after the right to contraception. I wasn't mistaken. While I'm certain I wasn't the only person to predict this accurately, I'll add one more prediction.
This will go down as a classic over-reach, just as is the attempt by the same people to drag us back to a pre-New Deal America scattering Medicare and Social Security to the wind.
The Guttmacher Institute is perhaps the most respected independent organization regularly studying women's health issues.
In this report from 2010--its latest comprehensive one-- Guttmacher explains who uses contraception and for what purposes.
There are reasons those who attack contraception, those who would overturn Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark 1965 Supreme Court decision that declared states may not criminalize contraception...there are reasons they will lose. Many of those reasons are embedded here, in this report.
Lots of stats--read at your leisure. I'm interested in your sense of it all.
-
Facts on Contraceptive Use in the United States
WHO NEEDS CONTRACEPTIVES?
• There are 62 million U.S. women in their childbearing years (15–44).
• Seven in 10 women of reproductive age (43 million women) are sexually active and do not want to become pregnant, but could become pregnant if they and their partners fail to use a contraceptive method.
• The typical U.S. woman wants only two children. To achieve this goal, she must use contraceptives for roughly three decades.
WHO USES CONTRACEPTIVES?
• Virtually all women (more than 99%) aged 15–44 who have ever had sexual intercourse have used at least one contraceptive method.
• Overall, 62% of the 62 million women aged 15–44 are currently using a method.
• Almost one-third (31%) of these 62 million women do not need a method because they are infertile; are pregnant, postpartum or trying to become pregnant; have never had intercourse; or are not sexually active.
• Thus, only 7% of women aged 15–44 are at risk for unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives.
• Among the 43 million fertile, sexually active women who do not want to become pregnant, 89% are practicing contraception.
WHICH METHODS DO WOMEN
USE?
• Sixty-three percent of reproductive-age women who practice contraception use nonpermanent methods, including hormonal methods (such as the pill, patch, implant, injectable and vaginal ring), the IUD and condoms. The remaining women rely on female or male sterilization.[2]
• Contraceptive choices vary markedly with age. For women younger than 30, the pill is the leading method. Among women aged 30 and older, more rely on sterilization.[2]
• The pill and female sterilization have been the two leading contraceptive methods in the United States since 1982. However, sterilization is the most common method among black and Hispanic women, while white women mostly commonly choose the pill.
• Female sterilization is most commonly relied on by women who are aged 35 or older, women who are currently or have previously been married, women with two or more children, women below 150% of the federal poverty level and women with less than a college education.
• Half of all women aged 40–44 who practice contraception have been sterilized, and another 20% have a partner who has had a vasectomy.
• The pill is the method most widely used by women who are in their teens and 20s, women who are cohabiting, women with no children and women with at least a college degree.
• Some 6.2 million women rely on the male condom.[4] Condom use is especially common among teens and women in their 20s, women with one or no children and women with at least a college education.
• Dual methods (most often the condom combined with another method) are used by 13.5% of contraceptive users. The proportions using more than one method are greatest among teenagers and never-married women.[2]
TEEN CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• Teenagers (aged 15–19) who do not use a contraceptive at first sex are twice as likely to become teen mothers as are teenagers who use a method.
• Twenty-three percent of teenage women using contraceptives choose condoms as their primary method. Condom use is higher among women aged 20–24 and is lower among older and married women.
• Of the 2.9 million teenage women who use contraceptives, 54%—more than 1.5 million women—rely on the pill.
TRENDS IN CONTRACEPTIVE USE
• The proportion of women aged 15–44 currently using a contraceptive method increased from 56% in 1982 to 64% in 1995, and then declined slightly to 62% in 2002 and 2006–2008.
• Among all women, 7% were at risk of unwand pregnancy but not using a method in 2006–2008, an increase from 5% in 1995.
• Among just those women who are sexually active and able to become pregnant but do not want to become pregnant, 11% are not using contraceptives. That number is much higher among teens aged 15–19 (19%) and lower among older women aged 40–44 (8%).
• The proportion of women using contraceptives who rely on condoms decreased between 1995 and 2006–2008 from 20% to 16%. However, use was still higher in 2006–2008 than it was in 1988.
• Between 1995 and 2002, the share of users relying on the pill increased slightly, from 27% to 31%, but it declined slightly, to 28%, in 2006–2008.
• In 2006–2008, 27% of contraceptive users relied on female sterilization, compared with 23% in 1982.[funded family planning clinic.
• The proportion of all users relying on the IUD has increased substantially, from less than 1% in 1995, to 2% in 2002, to 5.5% in 2006–2008.
WHO PAYS FOR CONTRACEPTION?
• One-quarter of the more than 20 million American women who obtain contraceptive services from a medical provider receive care from a publicly funded family planning clinic.
• In 2008, 7.2 million women, including 1.8 million teenagers, received contraceptive services from publicly funded family planning clinics in the United States.
• Federal employees are guaranteed insurance coverage for contraceptives.
• Nine in 10 employer-based insurance plans cover a full range of prescription contraceptives, which is three times the proportion that did so just a decade ago.
• Twenty-seven states now have laws in place requiring insurers that cover prescription drugs in general to provide coverage for the full range of contraceptive drugs and devices approved by the Food and Drug Administration.
-
Data Sources
The information in this fact sheet is the most current available. All of the data are from research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute and the National Center for Health Statistics or from Contraceptive Technology.
U.S. Bureau of the Census, Table 2: annual estimates of the resident population by sex and selected age groups for the United States: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2008, no date, , accessed May 25, 2010.
Mosher WD and Jones J, Use of contraception in the United States: 1982–2008, Vital and Health Statistics, 2010, Series 23, No. 29.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), Fulfilling the Promise: Public Policy and U.S. Family Planning Clinics, New York: AGI, 2000.
Piccinino LJ and Mosher WD, Trends in contraceptive use in the United States: 1982–1995, Family Planning Perspectives, 1998, 30(1):4–10 & 46.
Frost JJ, Trends in US women’s use of sexual and reproductive health care services, 1995–2002, American Journal of Public Health, 2008, 98(10):1814–1817.
Dailard C, Contraceptive coverage: a 10-year retrospective, Guttmacher Report on Public Policy, 2004, 7(2):6–9.
Sonfield A et al., U.S. insurance coverage of contraceptives and the impact of contraceptive coverage mandates, 2002, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 2004, 36(2):72–79.
Guttmacher Institute, Insurance coverage contraceptives, State Policies In Brief (as of May 2010), 2010, , accessed May 25, 2010


Salon.com
Comments
Thanks for the work putting this together. I've been seeing the statistic "98% of Catholic women have used birth control" in news reports, but as usual, without attribution, so I haven't fully trusted it. This gives me more confidence that it's correct, and this is an issue women will take a stand on, absolutely.
I think the “contraception/sexual freedoms” issues will resonate positively with more force among the conservatives…than the will resonate negatively with the progressives.
I think the conservative candidates like Santorum will get much, much more mileage out of them to solidify support among conservative voters than someone like Obama might get out of progressive voters by opposing them.
We’ll see. I am extremely disheartened by the liberals who seem determined to help defeat Obama…no matter that the result will be someone beholden to the most extreme right wing ideology ever.
Yup…voting in the direction a Santorum indicates is to the marked disadvantage for most women…but don’t be surprised to see that it happens in force anyway.
Anyway, I can't think of a less compelling cause. Politicians who think they're gonna rally the troops around pissing on contraception? Crazy... What next? - people don't REALly need places to live and clothes to wear and food to eat... oh wait a minute...
Also, you need to massage your format so those tables in the lists are more readable -- all the data is squashed together without even a line spacing to relieve and sort the data. Believe me, I know how finicky OS posting tools are for formatting, but this is pretty important to correct. Without the data being easy to recognize, the numbers literally become a jumble of incomprehensibility.
--R--
I think this is an egregious over-reach that could actually cause the rollback of the power of the Tea Party and the Religious Right. Women of every ilk will push back against a return to the old days on this issue.
I say, yes, please, let's have Santorum for Republican candidate. That will ensure Obama's reelection.
HUGGGGGGGGGGGG
The only way this got ANY traction was to frame the issue as one of religious freedom. Anything beyond a strict theoretical objection is over reach.
Our county has rejected title 10 funds since that time, due to the power of that Catholic and conservative lobby in preventing this funding because there is no parental notification.
From a conservative blog in our area:
"Remember the William Saturday scandal of the late 1990′s?
The McHenry County Health Department was dispensing three- month contraceptives to minors without their patent’s knowledge, let alone consent.
At issue was a Federal rule written by the bureaucrats that forced those accepting Title X money to provide birth control devices, information and drugs to everyone, regardless of age.
Saturday was apparently too cheap to buy condoms, so he took his junior high school age “girl friend,” whom he met at North Junior High School in Crystal Lake, to Woodstock on Saturday, when bus transportation was unavailable for shots of Depo- Provera. There’s a story about it here. It looks like the cover story from World Magazine.
In any event, when the affair came to light, there was a big, many month fuss in which county board members decided it was best for them to prohibit minors from obtaining birth control drugs and devices without parental permission.
Deciding that resulting in McHenry County’s not being able to accept Federal Title X money.
There may have been other instances in the country where Title X money has been rejected because its use requires no discrimination based on age, but I don’t know of them.
The furor in McHenry County even worked its way into Congress with 16th District Don Manzullo carrying the torch.
Pro-life endorsements in McHenry County can be found here."
The local group, McHenry County Citizens for Choice was able to read a factual statement into the congressional record to county Don Manzullo's right wing spew that he managed to get in through his connections in Washington, though no committee he was ever on had anything to do with public health.
I could go on and on, but I will say that a friend of mine, just a bit older than I am went to Scotland and then England to do graduate and doctoral work with this incident as the center piece and came back here, as Dr. Mary Ewert to continue her work to support abortion right and contraception with this county as her base. She is a member of McHenry County Citizens for Choice.
You will recall her name in connection with her husband's death journey in the film, the Suicide Tourist.
The important facts are that vast majority of women of childbearing age use birth control and their preferred method is the pill. It's not just a woman's issue, either. If the pill and the IUD disappear in a fervor of protect-the-possible-zygote, then a lot of women will move to the condom, which has never been men's preferred method.
It's all very well and good for someone to say they are "against contraception" but they are pushing a starvation situation on the rest of us... and the people who are most likely to die in such a situation are the very young (who are incapable of acquiring food for themselves) and the very old or infirm (who are either unable to afford food or, like children, unable to acquire it for themselves).
As for me... I figure people will use, or not use, contraception as they see fit. I don't care if they have 900 kids and dang if I will not volunteer to help take care of those children. BUT I object to supporting people who believe they have the RIGHT to force their RELIGIOUS choices upon others and THAT is at the heart of the contraception issue.
My guess is the O administration was playing their politics VERY cool by mandating religious institutions not force their workers to abide with THEIR religious beliefs and restrictions, which is not to say everyone MUST use birth control, but that you have the option.
It is curious that the religious right is not content with their right to choose whatever it is they choose for themselves....they will not be happy until they choose for all of us.
I simply don’t get it. Life begins when? When one of a hundred billion
tadpole sperms makes it to the One Egg.
The fastest or craftiest swimmer.
If there is something preventing the merging
(when they say life begins)
then there is no life.
It smells of medieval leftover paradigms of the Church.
Denying women sexual pleasure. For that, the Pope should go to Hell.
I simply don’t get it. Life begins when? When one of a hundred billion
tadpole sperms makes it to the One Egg.
The fastest or craftiest swimmer.
If there is something preventing the merging
(when they say life begins)
then there is no life.
It smells of medieval leftover paradigms of the Church.
Denying women sexual pleasure. For that, the Pope should go to Hell.
Poor women can see their entire lives destroyed by a child they are not yet ready to have. A single mom, supporting two kids, barely scraping by, can find her entire life ruined, and even face homelessness, due to the added economic strain of a new child.
A teenage girl, from a poor family, studying hard to become a doctor or a lawyer, the first in her family to go to college, can see her dreams and her family's hopes, destroyed by an unwanted pregnancy.
A rich single woman, and a rich teenage girl, will never see their lives ruined by prohibitions on contraception. Their families and children will never suffer. For them, its but a temporary inconvenience.
For the poor, it is a death sentence.
Class is everything. Workers of the world must unite to protect our rights, because the Bourgeois class will do nothing to help us.
r
A poor woman would not be able to support her kids. She also can't fly to Thailand for an abortion. Her options are very much limited and she lives under a sword of Damocles.
Its the "class card" and it always, always wins.
Otherwise, the right wing will frame the debate as one of "rich white women obsessed with lifestyle issues and inconvenient births preventing their jet-setting trips to Paris."
Lezlie
This poor horse has been bludgened until there isn't even a corpse left and still the National Party of Scolds wants to rinse and repeat. I may be proven wrong, but I think the days of social wedge issues working for the represives are over for a while.
I've also been caught in the Catholic reproductive rights trap, as a non-Catholic, working for a non-Catholic company. I worked for a medical software company. One of our biggest clients was a local Catholic hospital and clinic network. The company health care plan came through this network also. Birth control was covered, voluntary sterilization was covered, but all the "in network" hospitals and clinics were Catholic. Which meant a whole lot of rigamarole and paying for an out-of-network hospital for a sterilization.
It irked me and still does that some far-away man in a pointy hat had his opinions in the middle of my very secular marriage, and had an effect on my private, personal baby-making decisions with my husband.
As long as religious institutions are what the law calls Public Accommodations, that is, they serve and hire from the broader public, then they must obey the law.
rated
It's more complicated than that, and knowledge is power in an ideological battle like this...
1) It can take up to 24 hours after sex for the egg to be fertilized
2) It can take up to 5 days for the fertilized egg to attach to the wall of the uterus
3) It takes about 8 weeks after fertilization for the embryo to become a fetus.
4) It takes about 22 weeks after fertilization before the fetus is viable, with medical support, outside the mother's womb.
Contraception primarily impacts #1, preventing ovulation or preventing fertilization. Even "morning after" contraception primarily works by preventing fertilization. In a small number of cases it impinges on #2 and prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. So yes, contraception occurs before life begins.
I think it's important to keep reminding people that:
An acorn is not a tree
An egg is not a chicken
An embryo is not a person
Contraception is the most natural thing in this world.I suppose every (young) couple has discussions regarding this matter,and when confronted with facts,is not going to ask for permission to decide on CONTRAception.
James is pointing it out clearly:
Pregnancy begins with CONception.
It is outdated and more than ridiculous to proclaim contraception to be criminal.
Medicines to treat diabetes and hypertension aren't preventive. They are given in response to a disease that already exists. As such, they are subject to a co-pay.
The one thing that number makes clear, abundantly clear, is that an attack on contraception is an attack on women. 89% of the eligible population is too big a percentage, particularly given that the reasons for the other 11% probably aren't mainly ideological.
I wouldn't be surprised if the natural family planning methods become more popular. The one I'm thinking of is as effective as the Pill, doesn't cost, doesn't affect the woman's body negatively, and has no side effects. All she has to do is understand the signs her body produces.
I admire your optimism, but this is quite a stretch.
I’d hate to be the guy picking up the tab for a party for everyone on this planet born to people who used this method.