Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew

Close

New on NRO . . .

The Corner

The one and only.

Print   |  Text
 

Critiquing the Latest Guttmacher Study

This Thursday, NPR’s health-policy blog, Shots, posted a sympathetic article about a recent Guttmacher Institute study that analyzed the costs of unintended pregnancies. This study, which makes use of both aggregate and survey-level data, finds that births due to unintended pregnancies cost taxpayers approximately $11 billion in 2006. These costs are split between federal and state governments, largely through the S-CHIP and Medicaid programs. According to the study, the percentage of births paid for by Medicaid and S-CHIP increased from 15 percent to 48 percent between 1985 and 2006.

Not surprisingly, the folks at NPR subject this research to precious little scrutiny. In fact, they are generous with praise stating that this study “is sure to raise some eyebrows in the anti-abortion community.” Furthermore, they make the bizarre statement that “both sides of the heated abortion issue generally trust and cite Guttmacher’s research.” One seriously wonders if NPR reporters ever speak to pro-life professionals. Guttmacher does have some scholars who conduct rigorous research on reproductive-health issues. However, many of their in-house publications are often little more than advocacy pieces calling for more public funding for contraception.

In fairness, this particular article does offer some interesting, thorough, and original research on how unintended pregnancies result in additional government spending. Of course it comes with a side dish of pro-contraception bias. It claims that the $2 billion that is spent on publicly funded contraception programs saves taxpayers $7 billion annually. However, it draws this conclusion from another Guttmacher analysis, which automatically assumes that more contraception spending will automatically lead to more clients, more contraceptive usage, and fewer unintended pregnancies. This particular analysis fails to analyze actual data on how contraceptive spending affects pregnancy rates.

This recent Guttmacher study also offers substantial praise for Obamacare. Specifically it praises “the new authority to states to expand Medicaid eligibility for family planning services” and “the possibility of required private insurance coverage of contraceptive services.” However, it is unlikely that Obamacare will do much reduce the unintended pregnancy rate. After all, Guttmacher’s own survey of sexually active women who were not using contraception found that only 12 percent said that they lacked access to contraceptives due to financial or other reasons. Of course, there exist other strategies to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate, namely greater sexual restraint. However, these ideas barely receive a mention in  Guttmacher publications.

— Michael J. New is an assistant professor at the University of Alabama and a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute.

New on The Corner. . .


COMMENTS   7

EXPAND  

   05/20/11 12:09

"Of course, there exist other strategies to reduce the unintended pregnancy rate, namely greater s*xual restraint. However, these ideas barely receive a mention in Guttmacher publications."

Perhaps that's because "greater s*xual restraint" is a joke solution that nobody with any knowledge of the subject actually takes seriously, because it's never worked and never will?

Also, it's ridiculous that the filter won't even let me quote something that actually comes from blog post I'm responding too.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   05/20/11 12:32

There is a difference between unintended (unplanned) pregnancies and unwanted pregnancies, therefore, the Guttmacher Institute study should have little impact on the "anti-abortion community." In this country, an abortion is easily available to just about anyone who wants one, so what point is being made here? That women who can't afford to pay for the birth and support of their babies should be forced to have abortions because abortions cost the taxpayers less money? If that's the point, NPR should be ashamed. Perhaps its resources - and those of the Guttmacher Institute - would be put to better use determining why the number of Americans who depend on taxpayer-funded entitlement programs continues to grow; why what was intended to be a temporary helping hand has become a way of life for generations of American families.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
cypher20
   05/20/11 12:38

So because babies cost money we should kill them? I mean, let's apply that logic to the elderly and disabled while we're at it! We could save bundles by not paying for end-of-life care or paying for wheelchairs and other equipment for paraplegics! I mean hey, if you don't let anyone get over the age of 70, we'll fix Medicare right there, awesome!

Stupid. No pro-lifer seriously argues against abortion because of cost, they do so because life is sacred and deserves to be protected. The study may be wrong, it may be right, but it's irrelevant to the pro-life position. And why do liberals trot out costs when it's convenient to them only? I mean, when a conservative position costs money they call us hypocrites, meanwhile, they're fighting tooth & nail to keep cowboy poetry subsidies. WHAT???

And finally, why don't we reform the programs, if too many people are enrolled on them?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kevin Moriarty
   05/20/11 13:19

Cipher and Jenna, the story and post appear to be about the cost of contraception, not abortion. If so this isn't about killing babies or anyone else.

For some reason Mr. New and many other writers on this blog don't bother posting links to studies they critique. It would be helpful to have a link.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   05/20/11 14:33

Kevin Moriarty: If you're correct, and the story and post are about contraception, why would NPR conclude "this study is sure to raise some eyebrows in the anti-abortion community?" There's a big difference between choosing not to conceive (pro-contraception) and choosing not to abort (anti-abortion) and I've seen nothing to suggest that the anti-abortion community, as a whole, opposes using contraceptive devices or other methods of preventing conception.

Even if this study is about the low cost of contraception versus the high cost of having babies, my question remains the same. What is the point of the study and NPR's praise of it? Given the country we currently live in and the individual freedoms we enjoy, there's absolutely no way to prevent women who qualify for public aid from getting pregnant. Contraceptives are readily available to both men and women, but all the studies in the world won't cause the irreponsible ones to use them. If it were otherwise, the study's results would have been signficantly different.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Kevin Moriarty
   05/20/11 15:13

Jenna: Here's the actual Guttmacher report: External Link .

Why the statement in the NPR blog? Don't know since the report doesn't mention abortion. If the real point of Mr. New's article is to critique the report I don't know what compelled him to mention a blog post about it other than a chance to complain about NPR. Moreover, despite his characterization, it doesn't appear to me to be a simple advocacy piece masquerading as a study.

You should read the study, as it does make the distinction between unintended and unwanted pregnancy. The point of the study is to present the cost of such pregnancies in terms of current dollars under state and federal programs. There's nothing particularly unusual about identifying the cost of social welfare programs, especially nowadays.

Re the effectiveness of contraception education programs, I don't believe the study tries to address that issue or to measure outcomes over time. Do you have data to show that such education programs don't work? I don't believe that a program is necessarily a failure or misdirected just because it can't show a 100% success rate.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   05/20/11 23:54

This is a great example of how government first does something "nice" for the citizens, using other people's money, and then uses that spending to justify controlling people's lives.

I'm not the one who voted for people who supported SCHIP and other government spending programs. So don't tell me I have to support OTHER things that cost me money simply because it will save the money I didn't ask to spend on other stuff.

This is like telling me I can't ride a motorcycle without a helmet, because if I get hurt I will cost taxpayer's money for treatment. Well, I wouldn't if government didn't give away medical treatment.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact