Colorado free contraception = 40% drop in teen abortion/pregnancies (1 Viewer)

[BigSteelThrill]

Colorado offered free birth control — and teen births fell by 40 percentA program that provides contraceptives to low-income women contributed to a 40-percent drop in Colorado's teen birth rate over five years, according to state officials.

The program, known as the Colorado Family Planning Initiative, provides intrauterine devices (IUDs) or implants at little to no cost for low-income women at 68 family planning clinics in Colorado.

The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates.

Young women served by the family planning clinics also accounted for about three-fourths of the overall decline in Colorado's teen birth rate during the same time period. And the infant caseload for Colorado WIC, a nutrition program for low-income women and their babies, fell by 23 percent from 2008 to 2013.

"This initiative has saved Colorado millions of dollars," Governor John Hickenlooper said in a statement. "But more importantly, it has helped thousands of young Colorado women continue their education, pursue their professional goals and postpone pregnancy until they are ready to start a family."

The program is not without controversy. Since teens don't need to be accompanied by an adult to obtain contraceptives at the facilities, critics say the initiative undermines parental rights. Some critics reject the states' numbers altogether.

Colorado's experience is part of a nationwide decline in the teen birth rate. Part of the nationwide decline can be attributed to teenage boys having less sex, but it also correlates with an increase in long-lasting, reversible contraceptive use among teens.

Still, Colorado's teen birth rate seems to be declining much more quickly than its peers. Between 2008 and 2012, the state went from the 29th lowest teen birth rate in the nation to the 19th lowest.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/7/5877505/colorado-contraceptives-teen-pregnancy-birth-control

The decline in births among girls 15 to 19 years old served by the program accounted for three-quarters of the overall decline in the Colorado teen birth rate, the state said in a news release.

Carrie Gordon Earll, senior director of public policy for the conservative Christian ministry Focus on the Family, said she was skeptical of the state's claim that increased access to IUDs and other birth control caused the steep decline in teen birth rates.

"What we have seen over many years is that access to contraception does not equal fewer unintended pregnancies and fewer abortions," Earll said. "Availability of contraception leads to increased sexual activity, which leads to unintended pregnancies and abortions."

Earll said she found it offensive that the state was dispensing IUDs and that teens don't need to be accompanied by an adult to receive these forms of contraceptives.

"It totally undermines parental rights," Earll said.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_26085784/colorado-teen-birth-rates-drop-state-hands-out?ok

 

[Tiger Fan]

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

 

[Socrates11]

It's not the free contraception, it's the legal weed. Now they're all too stoned to have sex!

 

[timschochet]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

The drop was only in counties served by the program, according to the article.

 

[tonydead]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

Not really a lot of things really, just two: 1-Sexual activity at a later age and 2- Increased use of contraception across the board.

The free contraception was offered to low-income families because, you know, high-income families can afford it.

 

[[icon]]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

I'd love to see your work here

Great program. Great results. I'm a fan of smaller government but in this case, roll it out nationally IMO.

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

 

[timschochet]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

Again, did you read the part in the article where it stated that the drop occurred, not in every county, but in the counties in which the program was offered? You're way off base here.

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

The drop was only in counties served by the program, according to the article.

No, that is not what the article says. It says the population served accounted for 3/4th of the decline, but did not give numbers as to what percentage is served by the program, so that number is meaningless.

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

Again, did you read the part in the article where it stated that the drop occurred, not in every county, but in the counties in which the program was offered? You're way off base here.

That is not what the article says.

 

[NCCommish]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

When you look at who is more likely to have a teen pregnancy it is at risk teens. By a large margin. So yes you could give a relatively small number of teens IUDs and significantly cut the teen birth rate.

 

[timschochet]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

The drop was only in counties served by the program, according to the article.

No, that is not what the article says. It says the population served accounted for 3/4th of the decline, but did not give numbers as to what percentage is served by the program, so that number is meaningless.

You might want to read it again. Please focus on the 2nd paragraph, where it says "in counties served by the program".

 

[[icon]]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline.

1) Magic

or

2) They went to 6-7000 Lower income teens who were sexually active/promiscuous and at a much higher rate of becoming pregnant.

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

• “One in 15 young, low-income women had received a LARC method, up from one in 170 in 2008.”

• Colorado went from having the 29th lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country in 2009 to the 19th lowest in 2012.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

There is no evidence that will convince a member of The 25% of anything they don't already believe to be true.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

The link said they've given out 30,000 devices over 5 years, I don't think you should just limit your analysis to single years. An IUD can last for like 10 years or something.

Also, the number of Colorado teenagers isn't particularly important if there's a significant difference in the likelihood of particular kids getting pregnant. If all 30,000 devices were given to teenagers that had a relatively high likelihood of getting pregnant, then I would expect the numbers to be dramatic.

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline.

1) Magic

or

2) They went to 6-7000 Lower income teens who were sexually active/promiscuous and at a much higher rate of becoming pregnant.

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

• “One in 15 young, low-income women had received a LARC method, up from one in 170 in 2008.”

• Colorado went from having the 29th lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country in 2009 to the 19th lowest in 2012.

The statistics are for ALL teenagers, thus the use of all teenagers. Colorado might be doing something right, but this program only can account for a small portion of the decline and is not the root of the decline.

 

[[icon]]

The statistics are for ALL teenagers, thus the use of all teenagers. Colorado might be doing something right, but this program only can account for a small portion of the decline and is not the root of the decline.

Well if someone like you make a claim like that without any statistical backing, it MUST be true!!1!

I BELIEVE YOU JON_MX!!!

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

The link said they've given out 30,000 devices over 5 years, I don't think you should just limit your analysis to single years. An IUD can last for like 10 years or something.

Also, the number of Colorado teenagers isn't particularly important if there's a significant difference in the likelihood of particular kids getting pregnant. If all 30,000 devices were given to teenagers that had a relatively high likelihood of getting pregnant, then I would expect the numbers to be dramatic.

The information given does not support the decline. I am not saying it did not help, I am saying this program only played a small role. The data does not support the claim.

 

[jon_mx]

The statistics are for ALL teenagers, thus the use of all teenagers. Colorado might be doing something right, but this program only can account for a small portion of the decline and is not the root of the decline.

Well if someone like you make a claim like that without any statistical backing, it MUST be true!!1!

I BELIEVE YOU JON_MX!!!

I did back it up with statistics and analysis.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Tim and jon_mx, you are talking past each other. The decline in pregnancies cited was statewide. The decline in abortions cited was county-by-county.

 

[NCCommish]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline.

Why do you assume this? My impression is that most teen pregnancies come from low-income families.

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

The link said they've given out 30,000 devices over 5 years, I don't think you should just limit your analysis to single years. An IUD can last for like 10 years or something.

Also, the number of Colorado teenagers isn't particularly important if there's a significant difference in the likelihood of particular kids getting pregnant. If all 30,000 devices were given to teenagers that had a relatively high likelihood of getting pregnant, then I would expect the numbers to be dramatic.

The information given does not support the decline. I am not saying it did not help, I am saying this program only played a small role. The data does not support the claim.

Unintended pregnancy rates are highest among poor and low-income women, women aged 18–24, cohabiting women and minority women.

• The rate of unintended pregnancy among poor women (those with incomes at or below the federal poverty level) in 2008 was 137 per 1,000 women aged 15–44, more than five times the rate among women at the highest income level (26 per 1,000).

• Poor women’s high rate of unintended pregnancy results in their also having high rates of both abortions (52 per 1,000) and unplanned births (70 per 1,000). In 2008, poor women had an unintended birth rate nearly six times as high as that of higher-income women (at or above 200% of poverty.)

 

[tonydead]

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

He does this all the time, and the funny thing is he isn't doing it on purpose and he actually believes himself.

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

The drop was only in counties served by the program, according to the article.

No, that is not what the article says. It says the population served accounted for 3/4th of the decline, but did not give numbers as to what percentage is served by the program, so that number is meaningless.

You might want to read it again. Please focus on the 2nd paragraph, where it says "in counties served by the program".

I understand perfectly what it says and means. You have mistated what it says and means.

 

[jon_mx]

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

He does this all the time, and the funny thing is he isn't doing it on purpose and he actually believes himself.

My understanding of stats surpasses any of the posters on this thread. The article reaches conclusions which may or may not be true based on these facts.

 

[timschochet]

Tim and jon_mx, you are talking past each other. The decline in pregnancies cited was statewide. The decline in abortions cited was county-by-county.

You're right. But there's every reason to believe that there is a correlation between the two. And despite Jon's claims to the contrary, there is every reason to believe that this program was the main contributor, since teen abortions AND teen pregnancies occur most often among lower income teens, by a large margin. This ain't rocket science.

 

[NCCommish]

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

He does this all the time, and the funny thing is he isn't doing it on purpose and he actually believes himself.

My understanding of stats surpasses any of the posters on this thread. The article reaches conclusions which may or may not be true based on these facts.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Colorado has about 500,000 teenagers. They given out about 6,000 to 7,000 IUD's per year. I am not sure how hitting less than 2% of the population could possible account for a 40 percent decline. Just because there is a correlation, does not mean you can jump to any conclusions of causation, especially when the scope of the program does not nearly match the decline. There are declines all over the US in teen preganancies during this same time period.

The link said they've given out 30,000 devices over 5 years, I don't think you should just limit your analysis to single years. An IUD can last for like 10 years or something.

Also, the number of Colorado teenagers isn't particularly important if there's a significant difference in the likelihood of particular kids getting pregnant. If all 30,000 devices were given to teenagers that had a relatively high likelihood of getting pregnant, then I would expect the numbers to be dramatic.

The information given does not support the decline. I am not saying it did not help, I am saying this program only played a small role. The data does not support the claim.

I'm having trouble finding hard numbers rather than percentages, if you know of good data that could be helpful.According to this, the national annual teen pregnancy rate is about 26.6 per 1000 female teens. So if Colorado has 500,000 teens, it would have about 250,000 female teens, and would normally be expected to have like 6,500 pregnancies a year. I don't see why you're skeptical that giving out 30,000 IUDs to high-risk teens would have a significant impact on that number.

The OP concedes that teen births are declining nationwide and that accounts for part of the decline. But the program seems like it is responsible for the fact that Colorado's numbers are declining faster than the national average. Do you have an alternative explanation for why Colorado has been doing better than other states?

 

[jon_mx]

Tim and jon_mx, you are talking past each other. The decline in pregnancies cited was statewide. The decline in abortions cited was county-by-county.

You're right.But there's every reason to believe that there is a correlation between the two. And despite Jon's claims to the contrary, there is every reason to believe that this program was the main contributor, since teen abortions AND teen pregnancies occur most often among lower income teens, by a large margin. This ain't rocket science.

There is a correlation, that is a fact. The question is causation and how much. There likily is causation, but the magnatude of this program on the overall rate of decline has not been established, despite BST headline. Based on the size of the program, it is unlikely the main culprit.

 

[Apple Jack]

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

He does this all the time, and the funny thing is he isn't doing it on purpose and he actually believes himself.

My understanding of stats surpasses any of the posters on this thread. The article reaches conclusions which may or may not be true based on these facts.

 

[matttyl]

2) They went to 6-7000 Lower income teens who were sexually active/promiscuous and at a much higher rate of becoming pregnant.

• Colorado went from having the 29th lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country in 2009 to the 19th lowest in 2012.

For the first part....how did they do that? Seriously, how did they find 6-7,000 sexually active/promiscuous teens to offer this program to? (Taking notes.....)

For the second part....if they dropped the teen birth rate by 40%, you'd think they'd go a whole lot further than from 29th to 19th. I mean, they were in the middle third of states in 2009 and they still are in the middle third of states in 2012, but in between they had a 40% drop? That doesn't sound right.

 

[Josie Maran]

Love me some mathematical jon.

 

[jon_mx]

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

He does this all the time, and the funny thing is he isn't doing it on purpose and he actually believes himself.

My understanding of stats surpasses any of the posters on this thread. The article reaches conclusions which may or may not be true based on these facts.

When MT gets here, I will bow down to his knowlege. But the folks on this thread have much less math apititude than I do.

 

[timschochet]

Tim and jon_mx, you are talking past each other. The decline in pregnancies cited was statewide. The decline in abortions cited was county-by-county.

You're right.But there's every reason to believe that there is a correlation between the two. And despite Jon's claims to the contrary, there is every reason to believe that this program was the main contributor, since teen abortions AND teen pregnancies occur most often among lower income teens, by a large margin. This ain't rocket science.

There is a correlation, that is a fact. The question is causation and how much. There likily is causation, but the magnatude of this program on the overall rate of decline has not been established, despite BST headline. Based on the size of the program, it is unlikely the main culprit.

What do you believe is "the main culprit"?

 

[NCCommish]

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

He does this all the time, and the funny thing is he isn't doing it on purpose and he actually believes himself.

My understanding of stats surpasses any of the posters on this thread. The article reaches conclusions which may or may not be true based on these facts.

When MT gets here, I will bow down to his knowlege. But the folks on this thread have much less math apititude than I do.

 

[culdeus]

lol at jon mx

 

[jon_mx]

2) They went to 6-7000 Lower income teens who were sexually active/promiscuous and at a much higher rate of becoming pregnant.

• Colorado went from having the 29th lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country in 2009 to the 19th lowest in 2012.

For the first part....how did they do that? Seriously, how did they find 6-7,000 sexually active/promiscuous teens to offer this program to? (Taking notes.....)

For the second part....if they dropped the teen birth rate by 40%, you'd think they'd go a whole lot further than from 29th to 19th. I mean, they were in the middle third of states in 2009 and they still are in the middle third of states in 2012, but in between they had a 40% drop? That doesn't sound right.

Because nationwide there has been a huge decline in teen pregnancies during the same period.

 

[Josie Maran]

2) They went to 6-7000 Lower income teens who were sexually active/promiscuous and at a much higher rate of becoming pregnant.

Colorado went from having the 29th lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country in 2009 to the 19th lowest in 2012.

For the first part....how did they do that? Seriously, how did they find 6-7,000 sexually active/promiscuous teens to offer this program to? (Taking notes.....).

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For the first part....how did they do that? Seriously, how did they find 6-7,000 sexually active/promiscuous teens to offer this program to? (Taking notes.....)

For the second part....if they dropped the teen birth rate by 40%, you'd think they'd go a whole lot further than from 29th to 19th. I mean, they were in the middle third of states in 2009 and they still are in the middle third of states in 2012, but in between they had a 40% drop? That doesn't sound right.

1) They offered the IUDs to low-income teens. Those are the people that are most likely to get pregnant.

2) The national teen birthrate has declined over the same period. So part of the 40% was just keeping pace with the other states.

 

[jon_mx]

Tim and jon_mx, you are talking past each other. The decline in pregnancies cited was statewide. The decline in abortions cited was county-by-county.

You're right.But there's every reason to believe that there is a correlation between the two. And despite Jon's claims to the contrary, there is every reason to believe that this program was the main contributor, since teen abortions AND teen pregnancies occur most often among lower income teens, by a large margin. This ain't rocket science.

There is a correlation, that is a fact. The question is causation and how much. There likily is causation, but the magnatude of this program on the overall rate of decline has not been established, despite BST headline. Based on the size of the program, it is unlikely the main culprit.

What do you believe is "the main culprit"?

There is a nationwide trend going on. Could be internet. Could be education. Could be contraceptives being available through other means. This is a small program which was probably successful. But it was not big enough to account for a 40 percent decline.

 

[matttyl]

2) They went to 6-7000 Lower income teens who were sexually active/promiscuous and at a much higher rate of becoming pregnant.

• Colorado went from having the 29th lowest teen pregnancy rate in the country in 2009 to the 19th lowest in 2012.

For the first part....how did they do that? Seriously, how did they find 6-7,000 sexually active/promiscuous teens to offer this program to? (Taking notes.....)

For the second part....if they dropped the teen birth rate by 40%, you'd think they'd go a whole lot further than from 29th to 19th. I mean, they were in the middle third of states in 2009 and they still are in the middle third of states in 2012, but in between they had a 40% drop? That doesn't sound right.

Because nationwide there has been a huge decline in teen pregnancies during the same period.

Understand that, it's quoted in the article. So I'm sorta with you in believing that the entire 40% drop is due to this program. What was the average percentage drop in the other states?

For reference, my wife and I watch that MTV show "Teen Mom 2" and have nicknamed it "dumb b######" and feel that it's also led to a reduction in teen pregnancies because the lives those girls lead are ####.

 

[Josie Maran]

Tim and jon_mx, you are talking past each other. The decline in pregnancies cited was statewide. The decline in abortions cited was county-by-county.

You're right.But there's every reason to believe that there is a correlation between the two. And despite Jon's claims to the contrary, there is every reason to believe that this program was the main contributor, since teen abortions AND teen pregnancies occur most often among lower income teens, by a large margin. This ain't rocket science.

There is a correlation, that is a fact. The question is causation and how much. There likily is causation, but the magnatude of this program on the overall rate of decline has not been established, despite BST headline. Based on the size of the program, it is unlikely the main culprit.

What do you believe is "the main culprit"?

There is a nationwide trend going on. Could be internet. Could be education. Could be contraceptives being available through other means. This is a small program which was probably successful. But it was not big enough to account for a 40 percent decline.

Even though numbers have been posted that show the program easily could have been large enough to account for the decline.

 

[tonydead]

Also I love the statistical gymnastics of using the total number of teens in Colorado, vs the number of lower income kids eligible for the program.

He does this all the time, and the funny thing is he isn't doing it on purpose and he actually believes himself.

My understanding of stats surpasses any of the posters on this thread. The article reaches conclusions which may or may not be true based on these facts.

Shall we go back to the thread where you statistically stumbled your way through the probability of winning 3 out of 4 quarters on a football squares board? Statistics 101 at it's finest.

 

[culdeus]

I like it that IUDs are used. That is a far more effective system than anything going right now.

Hell, that alone could account for it since they are so effective.

 

[matttyl]

For the first part....how did they do that? Seriously, how did they find 6-7,000 sexually active/promiscuous teens to offer this program to? (Taking notes.....)

For the second part....if they dropped the teen birth rate by 40%, you'd think they'd go a whole lot further than from 29th to 19th. I mean, they were in the middle third of states in 2009 and they still are in the middle third of states in 2012, but in between they had a 40% drop? That doesn't sound right.

1) They offered the IUDs to low-income teens. Those are the people that are most likely to get pregnant.

2) The national teen birthrate has declined over the same period. So part of the 40% was just keeping pace with the other states.

So in order to get lucky back in the day I should have been hitting on poor girls? Damn, I went to the other end of the spectrum in the hopes of finding a girl to take care of me.

I'm just saying that economic status doesn't mean sexually active/promiscuous.

By the way, I'm all for this program. I'm also surprised that Tim hasn't yet played the race card saying that they are only giving these to teens of minority.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

What was the average percentage drop in the other states?

Just eyeballing this chart, it looks like the nationwide rate went from around 38 to 26.6, so almost 30%.

 

[jon_mx]

Considering that the program was only offered to low-income families and the rate drop was 40 percent, it is impossible for the program to have accounted for the majority of that decline. Not saying it did not help, but there seems to be a lot of other things going on.

The drop was only in counties served by the program, according to the article.

This is what the article said:

"The teen abortion rate dropped by 35 percent from 2009 to 2012 in counties served by the program, according to the state's estimates."

The article did not give any information about what when on in the other counties not served by the program. Maybe the drop in other counties was 30%. We don't know and thus your statement was not accurate.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

For the first part....how did they do that? Seriously, how did they find 6-7,000 sexually active/promiscuous teens to offer this program to? (Taking notes.....)

For the second part....if they dropped the teen birth rate by 40%, you'd think they'd go a whole lot further than from 29th to 19th. I mean, they were in the middle third of states in 2009 and they still are in the middle third of states in 2012, but in between they had a 40% drop? That doesn't sound right.

1) They offered the IUDs to low-income teens. Those are the people that are most likely to get pregnant.

2) The national teen birthrate has declined over the same period. So part of the 40% was just keeping pace with the other states.

So in order to get lucky back in the day I should have been hitting on poor girls? Damn, I went to the other end of the spectrum in the hopes of finding a girl to take care of me.I'm just saying that economic status doesn't mean sexually active/promiscuous.

By the way, I'm all for this program. I'm also surprised that Tim hasn't yet played the race card saying that they are only giving these to teens of minority.

Poor kids aren't necessarily more sexually promiscuous, they're just more likely to get pregnant because of issues such as access to birth control and concerns about their future.

 

[matttyl]

What was the average percentage drop in the other states?

Just eyeballing this chart, it looks like the nationwide rate went from around 38 to 26.6, so almost 30%.

So then by that math, this program can only really take credit for the other 10%? Is that correct?