Being unsurprising doesn't mean not worth discussing:
Free birth control leads to dramatically lower rates of abortions and teen births, a new study concludes.
The study conducted by Washington University tracked more than 9,000 women in St. Louis, many of them uninsured. For no cost, they were given the option to select from a range of contraceptive methods. Many women selected implanted options, recognized as one of the most effective contraceptive methods, which usually cost hundreds of dollars to insert. As a result, the women experienced fewer pregnancies.
For teen pregnancy, there were 6.3 births per 1,000 teenagers, comparing to a national rate of 34 births per 1,000 teens in 2010.
For abortion, there were 4.4 to 7.5 abortions per 1,000 women in the study, comparing with 13.4 to 17 abortions per 1,000 women in St. Louis. That’s lower than the national rate, which is almost 20 abortions per 1,000 women. The study was conducted between 2008-2010.
Millions of women are now beginning to get contraception without co-pays under President Barack Obama’s health care law. The law requires that Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives be made available for free for women enrolled in most workplace insurance plans.It ought to be more difficult than it is, reconciling the above information with a hard-core stand against birth control and abortion. Particularly, as is the case with our teabaggRs in Congress (in the constitutional sense of the word) who also favor budgets that remove all hope of help for kids resulting from unwanted pregnancies. But then, who ever said that theocracy equals consistency?
But that part of the plan has been widely opposed by the Roman Catholic Church and conservative Christian groups because they believe artificial birth control interferes with the sanctity of life. Those groups oppose the mandate that religious organizations provide birth control because they believe it tramples on their Constitutionally-protected right to religious freedom.
Wonder what this hypocritical asshole thinks about all this? (And I wonder why his peers and the media haven't jumped all over him, demanding resignation, the way they did Anthony Weiner, for something far less egregious. But I digress.)