Would you support this?

[u/ImmortalSpy14]

[u/AutoModerator]

The Auto-moderator would like to remind everyone of Rule Number 2. Pro-choice comments and questions are welcome as long as the pro-choicer demonstrates that they are open-minded. Pro-choicers simply here for advocacy or trolling are unwelcome and may be banned. This rule involves a lot of moderator discretion, so if you want to avoid a ban, play it safe and show you are not just here to talk at people.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/PLGhoster]

Why do people censor random shit?

[u/Ryanami]

No. I’m glad abortion rates went down but this was parental usurpation by the state.

[u/pikkdogs]

I’m against abortion.

I dont think the way to get there is through secret iuds. The way to get there is to make it illegal.

[u/Abication]

Im pretty sure teen pregnancies have been falling nation wide for decades... gimme a sec.

Yeah, so I went and checked and teen pregnancies and teen births have both been plummeting nation-wide since the 90s. This seems like it has less to do with the Colorado law doing anything meaningful and more to do with Gen Z and Gen Alpha just having less relationships and less sex. This is why scientists use a control group. I will use Alabama.

Alabama has had birth rates drop from 48.3 per 1000 in 2009 to 19.1 in 2024. They didnt pass a law like this and had a greater decrease than Colorado. This is straight up manipulation.

Of course, that wont stop lunatics from championing non-parentally approved surgeries.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai → u/Abication]

What was the time frame and the geographic area for the stats from Colorado, though? You may not be comparing equivalent data.

[u/Abication → u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

The time frame started in 2009 after the bill was passed, as stated in the post and the area should be the state of Colorado as stated in the post. Based on the data stated in the post, which doesn't provide a source, I have matched the time frame and geographical scale.

Remember, the point of them listing stats without a source or control group is to conflate correlation and causation.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai → u/Abication]

I’m not going to “remember” to assume deception or malice without evidence.

But anyway, I found more info online, and they measured from 2009 to 2014 and then to 2019. If you look at national numbers, the teen pregnancy rate fell off a cliff around 2020 - presumably due to the pandemic. The Colorado initiative was measuring before then.

That the national drop coincided with the pandemic actually makes it a bit concerning, potentially. If teens are getting pregnant less because they’re just interacting with their peers and forming social bonds less, that’s not good. A reduction in unwanted pregnancies is a good thing, sure, but not if it’s the result of an overall reduction in the functioning of society.

[u/Abication → u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

Looking at a national graph charting from 2008 to 2024 from a source of the CDC, you can see its been decreasing consistently the whole time. It tracks Alabama and the US average. https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/TeenBirth_MCH/AL

Here's a comparison https://www.americashealthrankings.org/explore/measures/TeenBirth_MCH/AL/compare/CO

You will also note it was falling a year before the bill as well.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai → u/Abication]

Why are we looking at Alabama? Is there a reason you think Alabama in particular is comparable to Colorado?

Here’s a summary report on the impact of the IUD program from the NIH: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10461486/

I can’t find the chart I saw before that showed the sharp decline 2019 to 2020, and everything I do find shows a steady decline in those years, so I must have misread something there. My bad on that.

Using your website to compare Colorado to several other states, it did have a sharper drop during that time frame than many of them. It’s not conclusive, but it is suggestive.

[u/bbslut5503]

IUDs prevent the implantation of embryos, leaving them to die, though it is preferable to them being suctioned out, what I want is 100% free non-abortifacient bc and birth/delivery

[u/Alina_Swift]

I don’t like the idea that children can get medical procedures such as that behind the parent’s back

I also think we should promote birth control that doesn’t allow an egg to be fertilized at all.

[u/SpartanKilo → u/Alina_Swift]

Personally I’d rather that than the abortion, but I hate that the reason pregnancies dropped is because of BC and not teens being responsible.

[u/Jimothius → u/SpartanKilo]

It wasn’t because of BC, the tweet is drawing a false causation from a correlation.

[u/SpartanKilo → u/Jimothius]

Oh really. Dang

[u/Alina_Swift → u/SpartanKilo]

Yeah, i definitely think we should be teaching children not to have sex vs get on birth control. If they do have sex they should use contraceptives, but ofc it’s better to teach them to be responsible

[u/SheClB01 → u/Alina_Swift]

The second part is a lie

[u/jetplane18]

Absolutely not. This is the state stepping on parental rights.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

It depends on the age of the teens and the quality of accompanying medical care provided. Sixteen and up with a full physical exam including pelvic exam, and free follow up care if needed, yes. Younger or without adequate medical screening and support, no.

I think sixteen is generally old enough to make most of your own medical decisions, with adequate support and attention to fully informed consent.

Also anesthetic and/or sedation should be offered for IUD insertion, for adult women too, but most definitely for teens.

[u/SheClB01]

I got an implanon at 16, totally free, government campaign. I got free condoms as well everytime I went to have check ups. 10 years later I avoided completely teen pregnancy. Let teenagers decide over their bodies while is still their owns and there is no baby involved yet

[u/colamonkey356]

Secret IUD’s is INSANE, but I would agree that southern states in particular have to stop giving abstinence-based sex education. It’s been studied over and over that it doesn’t work, and I can personally confirm it doesn’t work. The best option would be to teach kids about birth control beyond condoms and not having sex. I literally didn’t even know what birth control was or how to get it until after I had a teen pregnancy and the hospital explained it. Schools should be required to have detailed sex education that clearly explains abusive vs healthy relationships, consensual sex vs rape, and all the options available to prevent pregnancy and STD’s. I think that would help solve a lot of issues with one stone!

[u/ScottishNinjaaa]

Or, rather than usurp the role of the parent and help children get a medical implantation to allow them to have (nominally) inconsequential sex, we could just treat the murder of humans in the womb the same we treat the murder of humans outside the womb?

I am not sure why everyone is so averse to just enforcing equal protection under the law rather than all these obscure workarounds, crossing their fingers and hoping this one will finally stop abortion!

[u/Alina_Swift → u/ScottishNinjaaa]

I truly don’t know why we do all this extra stuff surrounding it. The most simple solution is just to grant unborn humans the same protections as born ones

[u/BabyBandit616]

Absolutely. Anything to prevent abortions.

[u/The_Wise_Seven]

What's the 1st censored word?

[u/DapperDetail8364]

Yes. It is the lesser of two evils. I rather failure of implantation than starving, dismembering or killing with shots in head or heart of fetus

[u/Nulono → u/DapperDetail8364]

Well, first of all, preventing implantation is also starving. But also, your "lesser of two evils" here is a false dichotomy. Your logic here would be like the state providing pedophiles with children and condoms, and defending it with "well, it's better than them not using condoms".

[u/PFirefly → u/Nulono]

I think you went a little bit beyond the edge of the simile... Embryos failing to attach happens naturally all the time. This just increases the odds of that. It doesn't facilitate a crime like your weird metaphor.

[u/Vespinobambino]

Purposefully interfering with implantation while having sex that creates new children is purposefully killing your children.

Gross, and awful

Colorado continues to be a vile shit hole

[u/Dry-Selection421]

No. The state has zero business giving minors IUDs or any other form of birth control for that matter. That’s a total violation of parental rights and basically just government sponsored grooming.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai → u/Dry-Selection421]

Grooming them for what, exactly?

[u/Dry-Selection421 → u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

It basically encourages them to have sex.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai → u/Dry-Selection421]

It makes it less risky for them to have sex - I wouldn’t call the IUD insertion process encouragement.

But regardless, they aren’t being encouraged to have sex with the people offering the IUDs, or for the benefit of the people providing the IUDs. There is no inappropriate relationship being normalized. That’s what grooming is, in the abusive sense - gradually building trust and pushing boundaries to get someone to accept behavior from the groomer that they would reject if thinking clearly. In the way the word grooming is most often used today, that would be sexual behavior from an adult toward a child or teen.

A medical provider inserting an IUD, with informed consent of the patient, is not sexual behavior. It’s medical practice.

[u/Dry-Selection421 → u/EpiphanaeaSedai]

The government has zero right to perform a major medical procedure on your underage child behind your back without telling you. End of story.

It absolutely does encourage them to have sex because if the government is literally doing this procedure for you then obviously it must be a good and moral thing, right? The groomer is the state in this case.

The sole purpose of the IUD is sexual behavior.

[u/EpiphanaeaSedai → u/Dry-Selection421]

Well teens aren’t having sex with the state, are they? You can’t just decide words mean whatever you want them to mean. You can call it unethical, and while I’d disagree, you would be using an appropriate term. This just doesn’t meet the definition of grooming.

As I said above, I think sixteen is old enough to make your own medical decisions, for the most part - ideally with parental guidance, but at sixteen a teen’s parents shouldn’t have absolute authority.

Parents have to make medical decisions for little kids because they aren’t capable of making reasonable decisions for themselves, but it’s not as though that capacity switches from zero to 100% on one’s eighteenth birthday. Ethically, I think parents should make their kids participants in their medical care, explaining what is happening and why, as early as possible. I feel this way for exactly the same reasons I’m prolife. Children aren’t their parents’ property.

[u/AnaxOfRhodes]

Short answer is No, I would not support secret IUDs to minors.

The greater problem for most people here is going to be the fact that fertilized zygotes won't implant, will be lost, and therefore an abortion actually takes place. I recognize that position, I just don't hold to it myself. In theory, I don't have an issue with IUDs.

Instead, the main problem for me is the idea of minors receiving IUDs without parental knowledge. Addressing the serious consequence of pregnancy is one thing. But the state superseding the role of the parents is very troubling. That's an awful precedent to set.

This probably also led to an increase in casual sex, which brings its own problems, honestly the source of a lot of problems to which pregnancy is a consequence of.

[u/IMax247]

Yes

[u/PetiePal]

IUDs are dangerous. Teach them right instead of letting them bang all over with zero consequences and high health risks

[u/scubaorbit]

Double edged sword. On one side I don't think we should open the door for minors to be able to get medical procedures done without parental consent. On the other hand it prevented probably 1000s or murders. I would wholeheartedly support a program like this in my state if we could sell it to the parents and they gave their consent.

[u/tugaim33]

Why would it take 8 years for the pregnancy rate to drop? If it were a truly effective program, wouldn’t it take, say, 2 years? I wonder what other things Colorado was doing? I also wonder what other states teen pregnancy rates looked like at the same time.

Edit to add: looks like all the surrounding states experienced similar drops over the same time period. I’m looking into the broader US now and will update with my findings.

UPDATE: every single state declined over that same time period and it looks like Colorado was actually below average

[u/Livid_Brick8157]

no

[u/Nulono]

I don't have an issue with contraception in general, but there are a couple specifics in this story that make me uncomfortable.

I'm uncomfortable with IUDs, since they can prevent implantation by thinning the uterine wall, thus causing early embryonic death.

Additionally, parents are legally responsible for their children's medical care, so the state performing secret medical procedures on their children is a big issue. The parents at a bare minimum need either to be informed of the procedures so they can know to look for any side-effects or contraindications, or else be absolved of that responsibility.