Colorado drastic reduction of abortions

Fewer unborn babies being killed in Colorado.

However, there’s a lot of fine print in that headline:

:christmastree1:Thank you for the information. One certainly must learn to question the presentation of so-called factual statements made or slanted to obfuscate the truth. - let us assure that the truth will prevail, will save, and will indeed set us free.

With how long fairly reliable contraception has been available, condoned, and doled out, I would think there should be next to no abortions.

The problem is that sometimes people use unreliable methods of contraception, or none at all. Not to mention Bristol Palin (twice!), but some people are still pushing such unreliable contraceptive measures.


why is Bristol Palin even mentioned?

this thread is about the number of abortions reduced in Colorado.

The article is talking about IUDs though. Once an IUD is in place there is no user error to account for, user error being one of my the main reasons other contraceptives fail. I would imagine that such a system would have a much higher impact on abortion rates compared to the distribution of a wide variety of contraceptive methods.

And that reduction was due to the provision of effective contraception – IUDs. Other methods of contraception are less effective, especially the “abstinence only” non-method.

I used Ms. Palin as an example of what happens if less reliable methods are used.


Presumably you are referencing this:

In 2009, the state began a program called the Colorado Family Planning Initiative (CPFI) that gave low-income women free or low-cost IUDs and subdermal contraceptive implants, both highly effective but relatively expensive long-acting reversible contraceptives (LARCs).

Read more at:

Here is what an analyses of a Guttmacher Institute study:

National Review domestic-policy analyst Callie Gable took a closer look at the Colorado study and found the hype wildly overblown—it was singling out part of a larger decline that preceded the program, ignored that a decline 85% as large also occurred in counties without the program, failed to control for major population differences in the counties, and compared counties as wholes rather than studying comparable women in and out of the program. In addition, while focusing on abortion rates, it didn’t “cover data on discontinuance rates, reinsertion rates, changes in STI transmission, or on many other factors that are important.”

Meanwhile, eminent abortion researcher Michael New reviewed Guttmacher’s report and found it severely lacking. It cherry-picked a two-year study of 18- and 19-year-olds, attributing the decline to contraceptives while ignoring numerous studies finding 1) that teens are indeed having less sex, 2) that a “very small percentage” of teens use long-acting reversible contraceptives, and 3) that Guttmacher’s own prior research admits the role of parental involvement laws in teen abortion declines.

are you personally familiar with the contraceptive methods used by Bristol Palin? I find it confusing why you would even bring her up.

This is a dishonest article, and the topic has been discussed in prior threads.

When you look at our nation, teen pregnancies have dropped in virtually every state at a similar rate. There is no evidence the CO program was a magic pill, other factors are at play and driving the reduction nationally.

IUDs are effective, but not magic.

:slight_smile: Yes. Abstinence is 100% effective when practiced.

Edited my post.

Here is a chart that compares CO with the national average.
Teen birth rate

She is a spokesperson for the abstinence method. If she was using other methods then I would not expect her to speak so.


No, it isn’t. When the idea of defunding this program came up last summer, there was an article. The CFPI vs non-CFPI counties had nearly identical results. I even did a bit of research my self on the number of abortions and posted here on CAF.

And finally, it isn’t like the IUD saved babies lives. IUD prevent implantation, thus destroying innocent unborn lives. Only because of the ridiculous change in the definition of pregnancy can people believe and with a straight face say that the IUD prevents pregnancies and saves lives.

Are you aware of a single pregnancy caused by a failure of the “abstinence method”? That is, do you know of anyone who got pregnant while abstaining?

The problem with Ms Palin isn’t her support for abstinence, but rather her failure to use it.



People who “use” abstinence never get pregnant. People who use contraception statistically do. “Accident” babies come to mind. Horrendous term, by the way.

Was that your point? That contraception actually has to be used and used properly to be effective? Duh! And the thing with abstinence is 1) it’s cheap 2) it’s 100% effective and 3) there are zero side effects. When used properly it exceeds all other options.

And when a person falls off the wagon he/she is statistically not equipped with a back-up method. There is usually no fall-back available, and pregnancy is not an uncommon result. IUDs do not have that problem.

I don’t know about the US, but in the UK there is a traditional saying from mothers to their daughters: “Be good, and if you can’t be good be careful.” The abstinence only route cuts out the “be careful” part of that advice, since abstinence only people do not carry a pack of condoms with them.

Abstinence is fine, but it needs a backup method, because people make mistakes, get drunk, do stupid things and all the other stuff that humans do, but probably shouldn’t.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit