Strollerderby : contraception

Affordable Birth Control: No Longer a Thing of the Past

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 20:30:00 GMT

This week, Obama signed into law a new bill that has restored the old commonsense practice of allowing community clinics and college health centers to sell birth control at lower prices. After the passage of the 2005 Deficit Reduction Act—which made it all but impossible for pharmaceutical companies to sell birth control to clinics at a discount—the price of contraception shot up as much as 10 times a month.

A University of Nevada graduate who fought for the new legislation, known as the Affordable Birth Control Act, wrote in a blog post, "I recall having to decide between paying for groceries or for birth control - decisions no male athlete would ever have to make." As a competitive swimmer, the young woman depended on the pill not only to prevent unplanned pregnancies, but also to regulate her cycle.

Allowing college students and uninsured women access to family planning services simply makes sense. Not only does it save taxpayers money and drastically reduce the number of abortions, but it also gives all women a better chance of becoming happy and responsible members of society.

Photo: Jezebel

Birth Control Best For Families in This Economy?

JeanneSager — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 18:33:00 GMT

The economy's in the toilet, but guess what's still flying off the shelves?

Let's just say Valentine's Day conceptions are expected to be more of a sigh than a boom this year.

Sales of condoms rose five percent in the fourth quarter of 2008 over the same period the previous year. The hike was six percent in January '09 over the frosty first month of 2008.

A spokesman for the ad agency that represents Durex condoms told USA Today that condoms are "recession resistant." Still, to boost the figures, they've been stocking newspaper circulars with coupons - another nod to the downturn in the economy. Clipping coupons might have been reserved to suburban housewives in the nineties, but it's back in full force in '09.

Ironically, some of the other condom makers are talking about a focus on "nesting" in their advertising campaigns. Maybe it's just me - a mom - but I thought nesting-focused advertising always showed a mom, dad, dog and the requisite two point four kids? You know, the whole ideal that birth control is just kinda, sorta, designed to prevent?

Then again, if we're talking families who have to cut back, with all of the entertainment options outside of the home cost-prohibitive because they require paying for entrance for the whole family, maybe the answer to saving money is making fun for just Mom and Dad.

Image: More4Kids

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

JeanneSager — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:01:00 GMT

Sometimes being a Catholic is all about ducking your head in shame and saying, "this is not my life."

Because the boys in the Vatican - you know the ones, they don't have sex - have come out with another decree about the woman's body. This time, it's the way our contraceptive pill is harming everyone else, and men worst of all.

As if we didn't know already that each little round pill popped out of the foil packet was destroying the world 28 days at a time by preventing the creation of more Catholic babies, now it's apparently sending toxins out to destroy the earth via our urine. The hardest hit? The male reproductive system.

"We have sufficient evidence to state that a non-negligible cause of male infertility in the West is the environmental pollution caused by the pill," Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations," said in the report.

Bear with me here. A report just printed in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano says the pill makes women pee toxins. Which hurt the environment. Which makes men infertile.

Ah yes, making sense now. Because as any good Catholic girl knows, it all comes back to making babies. Which is why this one and done Mom is now a casual Catholic (well, one of the reasons).

I know pointing to the lack of baby-making experience anywhere inside the Vatican is an easy mark, but that doesn't make it any less true. As long as the church wants to focus its attentions on contraception and conception rather than equality between the sexes, as long as the misogynistic approach toward women's choices remains the Holy See's holy sayings, I'm wondering how they expect to retain credibility on a global scale.

Image/Source: Yahoo

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Why They Shouldn't Eat the Snow

Vatican Issues Advice: Have Babies! Unless You're Infertile!

Kate Tuttle — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:57:00 GMT

So, a group of celibate male senior citizens has come out with a list of rules that women who want to have sex and/or children should follow. Not shockingly, those rules are at odds with almost all the women's actual normal practices, as well as how they live their most intimate life choices. I'm speaking, of course, of the Vatican, which just issued a sweeping pronouncement on sex and reproduction, including reiterating the church's longstanding opposition to contraception and advanced reproductive technologies -- in other words, we want you to have lots of babies! Unless, of course, it's hard for you to have babies, in which case, don't seek medical help!

I guess the priests' line of thinking is that both contraception and IVF are in essense "playing God," because each is an instance of human beings stepping in to make choices -- for sperm and egg to meet, or not -- that until fairly recently have not been choices left up to human beings to make. And yet, what's a more egregious example of paying God than to reach into someone else's life, home, and marriage and tell them how to live?

If their real motivation is to nurture and grow a loving family of Catholics, I'm afraid they're pretty much messing that up. What better gift can you give your IVF child than to choose a religion to raise her in that doesn't denounce her very existence?

I'm not a Catholic, but I have friends who are. Some are bound to the church by generations of tradition and habit, while others have sought the more liberal aspects of a faith that has at times led the fight for social justice. But for the women I know, Catholic and not, who have struggled with infertility or any other aspect of their reproductive lives as women, the pronouncements of this group of old men sound anything but wise, moral, or holy.

More by this author:

Is This Baby Obese? Aussie Mom Says No
Baby Nearly Starves to Death, Diluted Formula to Blame
Grandmother’s Right? Or Totally Obnoxious?
Health Scam: Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Mama’s Got a Brand New Bag

Photo: Riccardo De Luca/Associated Press

New Abortion-Opposition Strategy to Cripple Planned Parenthood

Shannon LC Cate — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 20:00:00 GMT

That the far-right Family Research Council is gunning for Planned Parenthood is nothing new. Their latest tactics, however, are uniquely timely. The Wall Street Journal reports that the latest volley in the reproductive health wars is a claim from the far-right that government money should not be used to fund the health clinics in these difficult financial times.

Arguing that the clinics are well-funded without states' money, they say it's time to let them go it alone. In fact, about a third of Planned Parenthood's budget comes from state contributions. To remove them would severely damage the clinics, leaving low-income women and teen girls even fewer options for health care. Because even though Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the United States, abortion services account for only 3% of their work. The other 97% includes contraception provision, STD testing and treatment, cancer screening and prevention and other Ob/Gyn and some men's reproductive health care.

I have taken advantages of Planned Parenthood's low-cost, basic women's health services, as have many, many women I know at times when we've been uninsured, or under-insured students or working for peanuts in retail, food service, or those dues-paying jobs for middle-class young adults that pay in little but prestige. I can only imagine how vital Planned Parenthood's services are to people in a more permanent state of financial challenge. It would be criminal to cut support for them now, when more and more people are losing jobs and thus healthcare.

Last Gasp of a Dying Patriarchy?

Kate Tuttle — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 16:01:00 GMT

As the inauguration countdown enters its last 60 days, the Bush administration is doing what any of us do when we're about to leave a job -- no, not downloading company secrets and stealing all the good pens -- they're tidying up, finishing those outstanding tasks that they just won't feel right if they leave undone. You know, like limiting women's access to reproductive healthcare! This story came up while talking about a battle over contraception in the Philippines: for the past several months, the administration has pushed for new rules requiring any healthcare organization that receives federal funding to "protect" workers who had "conscience"-based objections to performing or assisting in abortion or sterilizatin-related activity. The rule's definition of abortion, as many have pointed out, would also apply to hormonal birth control devices such as the pill or Nuva ring.

Leaving aside the objections of the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association, the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, the attorneys general of 13 states, and about a third of the congress (so far), the rule is rejected by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission as totally unnecessary, despite the adminstration's stance that it's merely seeking to protect workers from being discriminated against for their convictions. It's unclear whether the administration, or anyone else, has ever met anyone whose job was put in jeopardy for such actions (and it's kind of hard for me to understand why someone who has religious objections to providing healthcare would work in the field, but maybe that's just me). So who's for the new rule? The Catholic Health Association and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, among other religious groups.

Perhaps the most hypocritical part of the proposal is that it violates the Bush adminstration's own rules about this kind of last-minute action. According to the New York Times, "the White House said in May that new regulations should be proposed by June 1 and issued by Nov. 1. The “provider conscience” rule missed both deadlines."

Speaking of deadlines: if the rule is put into place, it would be overturned by a new President Obama as soon as he takes office, but even then it will take three to six months (and a lot of wasted taxpayer money) for the reversal to be complete. I propose, then, that any unwanted children resulting from this rule -- let's say, born to a woman who was raped and denied the morning-after pill by her friendly local conscience-driven pharmacist -- be named George and immediately sent down to Crawford, Texas. I hear there's a retiree and his wife who will raise them up to be good Christians.

In the Philippines, a Battle Over Contraception

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 20:29:00 GMT

Reason #1,0001 to be grateful for the election results earlier this month: the near-theocracy we in the U.S. have, at least for the moment, escaped. Lawmakers in the Philippines are currently debating a bill that would require the government to not only provide but promote the use of contraception for people wising to avoid pregnancy, and while most Filipinos seem to support the measure, the country's powerful Catholic church is bringing out the big guns in opposition. Bishops are lobbying legislators and on the ground, local churches are posting anti-contraception petititions for parishioners to sign.

The Catholic church in the Philippines has long sought to block divorce and abortion in that country, and its anti-family planning advocacy goes way back too, despite food shortages that will only get worse as its population continues to explode. From the Reuters article:

While a relatively small middle class in the Philippines can easily afford contraceptives, millions of poor women cannot. A month's supply of the pill costs 39 pesos or around $0.86, around half the average daily salary of almost half the population.

Without an effective birth control policy, the Philippines, already the world's 12th most populous country with 90 million people, is projected to have a population of over 140 million by 2040. This will put a huge strain on its creaking health system, schools and other services, and its ability to feed itself.

Couldn't happen here? Well, it nearly has. According to a New York Times article last summer, the Bush adminstration was proposing to cut off federal funding to all agencies that provided abortion services or abortion counseling, then tried to redefine abortion:

The proposal defines abortion as follows: “any of the various procedures — including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action — that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

Mary Jane Gallagher, president of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, which represents providers, said, “The proposed definition of abortion is so broad that it would cover many types of birth control, including oral contraceptives and emergency contraception."

Such efforts won't entirely die under an Obama administration, but without the bully pulpit at least they won't have an advocate-in-chief.

Evangelical Teens' Very Active Sex Lives

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 21:00:00 GMT

In this week's issue of The New Yorker, there's a cartoon that made me laugh so hard I spit out my tea. Although it's not technically Bristol Palin's unborn child speaking, it easily could be. Two kids are sitting on a stoop and one says to the other, "I was an abstinence-only baby."

An article by Margarot Talbot in this same New Yorker tackles the issue of evangelical teen pregnancy in a more serious vein. Even for someone who is already convinced that abstinence-only sex education doesn’t work, these statistics are shocking.

Although 74 percent of white evangelical teenagers are opposed to premarital sex, more evangelical teens are sexually active than almost any other major religious group, including mainline Protestants, Jews, and Mormons. The average age for an evangelical to lose her virginity is 16. And half of these kids are not using protection. Compare that with 69 percent of non-evangelical teens who report using contraception every time they have sex.

The reason for this high percentage of unsafe sex among evangelical teens likely stems from shame at being sexually active—if you carry around condoms or suggest using one, you could give the impression that you are looking for sex. Furthermore, abstinence-only sex ed. teaches that condoms are not effective protection against STDs and pregnancy.

As we’ve seen in the widespread conservative support for Bristol Palin’s plans to get married and have a baby at age 17, for many evangelical parents, a teen daughter becoming pregnant is not a problem—so long as she keeps the baby and marries the father. This is a perfectly valid attitude based on a personal moral belief. The problem is that this retroactive problem solving often does not lead to happy families.

The states with the highest divorce rates and the highest teen pregnancy rates are all red (where people are, obviously, more likely to be evangelical conservatives than social liberals). The states with the lowest divorce and teen-pregnancy rates are all blue.

Many are arguing, even within the evangelical community, that if Christians want to preserve a commitment to abstinence until marriage, they must do more to encourage happier, younger marriages, since delaying sex until age 25 or 30 is just not realistic.

A large part of encouraging young Christians to have happier relationships is offering them more realistic attitudes toward sex. If hormonal teenagers are taught, for instance, that masturbation is sinful, they are more likely to have less engagement with and control over their bodies. Similarly, teen girls who are taught that they can always become "born-again virgins" if they "accidentally" have sex before marriage are not likely to embark on a responsible sex life. And such guilt-addled, unrealistic attitudes toward sex are likely to cause problems for couples well into marriage.

Photo: Mary Ellen Mark/The New Yorker

Could Sex on TV Lead to Teen Pregnancy?

Woman on Pill Conceives Identical Triplets

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:05:00 GMT

The chances of getting pregnant while on the birth control pill are about 1 to 2 percent—this is actually not an insignificant percentage, when you consider that about 2 women out of 100 on the pill will get pregnant. But the chances of having identical triplets are laughably minuscule: 200 million to one.

So, the odds of having both of these things happen simultaneously are, well, too tiny for me to wrap my mind around. But that is exactly what happened to 22-year-old Kirsty Hale. Though they profess to be still in shock, Hale and her fiancé, 28-year-old Toby Wilson, quickly adjusted to the idea of becoming an “instant family.” Lily, Gabriella, and Alicia were born by emergency C-section a few days ago, and are all in good health.

Photo: The Daily Mail

Abortion Blogger Gives Liberal Parents a Bad Name

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 18 Sep 2008 21:22:00 GMT

The popular new blog “What to Expect When You’re Aborting” may be the worst thing that’s happened to the choice movement since Sarah Palin. And, in a shout-out that promises to make anti-choice Republicans proud, the writer thanks her “lefty parents” for forming her beliefs.

The anonymous blogger is an anti-choice caricature of the kind of woman who would choose to have an abortion. She is a financially stable white woman in her early twenties; she has been on the pill since she was 13, though she has been "pretty f***ing lax" about it; she glorifies alcohol consumption (beginning her description of the day of her abortion with the headline, “Let’s get some cocktails and de-brief, shall we?”); and she takes glee in parading her hatred for all religion. I don’t have a problem with any of these things in and of themselves—I just don’t want this young woman to be the spokesperson for reproductive rights.

When the blogger sees her fetus, which she refers to as “Tumor,” in a sonogram, she writes, “This was not my Juno moment, where all of a sudden I bit my lower lip and recognized the ‘life’ inside of me. If I could have I would have ripped the f***ing thing our [sic] with my bear [sic] hands on the spot.” She is only concerned that the “tumor’s freakshow head” will mean she’ll be in more pain during the procedure.

The way a woman reacts to a pregnancy is entirely personal: she may feel nothing but relief to have an abortion, or she may decide, at 16, to become a mother. But I don’t want to hear a callous woman broadcasting her hatred of her fetus as an example of why reproductive rights are important, any more than I want to hear an evangelical teenage mom self-righteously defend her choice as heroic or moral.

This blogger, not surprisingly, minces no words in expressing her rather juvenile hatred for the “culture warriors.” She’s got no time for intelligently discussing policy issues (though she does occasionally include a meaningful quote from more nuanced thinkers); she just loathes the bastards and she takes joy in making that perfectly clear, entirely unaware that she is only giving anti-choice activists lots of grist for the self-righteous hatred mill.

This blog epitomizes my concern about the attitude amongst young people that it’s cool not to care too much about anything. If this is what teenage girls stumble upon on the Internet as they try to navigate the very difficult questions surrounding sex and relationships, parents need to work doubly hard to raise thoughtful, intelligent young women.

Photo: What to Expect When You're Aborting

Couple Sues After Failed Vasectomy

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 00:04:00 GMT

What would your first assumption be if your wife got pregnant after you’d had a vasectomy? Would you suspect her of being unfaithful—or your sperm of outsmarting your sterilization surgery?

Well, unless your marriage is on the rocks or you’re swingers (and, hey, I don’t judge!), the latter is the more likely. At least 1 percent of vasectomies fail to prevent pregnancy—just as condoms break and women on the pill get pregnant.

Mindy and Brady Hill of Arkansas found out what it was like to be that one percent (as, presumably, have thousands of other couples), and they didn’t like it one bit. They claim that doctors suggested that Mindy had been unfaithful, which put stress on their marriage. After Mindy miscarried, a paternity test showed that there was a 99.999 percent chance that the baby was Brady’s. No doubt this whole ordeal was highly stressful and unpleasant. Still, one would hope that Brady trusted Mindy enough that a paternity test wasn’t necessary to make him believe that the baby was his. But, of course, a paternity test will come in handy in court.

Mindy and Brady are suing for negligence and defamation. Should they win?

Photo: Shaadi Times

Should 21-Year-Olds Get Vasectomies?

Women on the Pill Attract Mr. Wrong

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:40:00 GMT

A new study shows that the birth control pill may affect the way women respond to pheromones—making them more likely to choose partners with whom they are not genetically compatible. Previous studies have shown that couples who have different aromatic genetic make-ups are more likely to be faithful and to have children with stronger immune systems. Now, in a study involving 100 women, British researchers have found that women on the pill prefer men whose genetic odors are similar to their own.

According to the study’s researchers, this change in odor attraction could lead to both fertility and relationship problems—since odor plays such a large role in attraction, women who go off the pill could stop feeling attracted to the partners whom they previously couldn’t get enough of.

The researchers suggest that the reason for this shift is that the pill essentially fools the body into believing it’s pregnant (hence the cessation of ovulation). If I’m already knocked up, the body seems to think, there’s no need for me to be on the prowl for compatible mates.

This is all fascinating to me, but I’m not ready to object to any weddings over it. What do those of you who have chosen a partner while on the pill think of this study?

Photo: CTV.ca

Caseworker Helps 13-Year-Old Obtain Contraception

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 17:30:00 GMT

An Australian mother is outraged that the Department of Community Services helped her 13-year-old daughter obtain a prescription for the birth control pill. Judith Meredith, who suffers from a mental illness, volunteered to turn her 13-year-old daughter Lauren over to state care. But she is horrified by what that care entailed.

After police discovered that Lauren had been living with an 18-year-old boy for three days, her case worker set up an appointment for her to see a doctor. Lauren left the appointment with a prescription for the pill.

While her mother agreed to the medical exam, she was incensed when she learned that her daughter had been prescribed contraception. “I said it is going to stop an unwanted pregnancy but it won’t stop STDs ... they are promoting promiscuity,” she said.

Of course, Meredith is right to be alarmed that her young daughter is having sex, and to be concerned about STDs. But unfortunately, in this particular case, it seems the state was forced to choose the lesser of two evils, since there is no way to ensure that a sexually active teenager will stop having sex—unless we return to the days of chastity belts. While it seems that the DOCS failed Lauren in some regards—for instance, she should certainly not have been living with an 18-year-old—I’m not sure her case worker should be faulted for attempting to prevent a 13-year-old from getting pregnant.

I just hope that Lauren's doctor and case worker thoroughly explained to her all the risks and responsibilities of being sexually active.

Photo: Syracuse.com

Is Mother Earth Pro-Choice?

Hannah Tennant-Moore — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:30:00 GMT

People rarely link sex to global warming. But any activity that occurs 215 million times a day is bound to affect global health. And it’s high time we started talking about it, according to environmentalist and author Robert Engleman, who has a new book called More: Population, Nature, and What Women Want.

In an interview with Reuters, Engleman discussed the delicacy of bringing this issue into mainstream dialogue: “[E]ven to bring it up, as an issue, it sounds as though you are telling other people how many children to have, and that is unforgivable as reproduction and having children is so sensitive and so personal.” He explained that racial sensitivity makes the issue even more volatile: in general, Northern Caucasians have fewer babies than other demographics.

But Engleman is not afraid to (gently) name the problem: “[W]e wouldn’t be facing a potentially catastrophically changing climate if we hadn’t had to feed and care for an unprecedentedly large human population." Although homo sapiens have now succeeded in dominating every “nook and cranny” of the globe, we must keep in mind that the planet has its own ways of dealing with overpopulation. Hopefully, we can slow population growth enough on our own to prevent tragedies like famine or disease.

Engleman believes that the way to do this is to give women reproductive freedom. He points out that women tend to have more children when their environment is healthy, and fewer children when their environment is, say, heating up at an alarming yearly rate.

For this reason, Engleman doesn’t believe that governments should tell women what to do or should take any measures to encourage or discourage procreation. Rather, he feels that if women have access to quality reproductive healthcare, they naturally make the right decisions for themselves and the planet.

Photo: Reuters

History's Most Terrifying Contraceptives

Rachael Brownell (Redsy) — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 23:01:00 GMT

Contraception is terrifying. If you look at the failure rates of most commonly used methods, it's no wonder unplanned pregnancy rates in some states (and only those reported as unplanned) are soaring. The kind of terror Cracked catalogs in their history's scariest contraceptives is a whole other bottle of mercury.

Animal intestines get you in the mood? How about deadly poison?

Others read like some sort of wild animal smorgasbord or weird 6th grader's idea of a witches brew -- weasel testicles, beaver testicles, and diaphragms made of gold and silver, comfortable and valuable.

For more fun with historical contraception, go here.

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

Kelly Mills — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 21:33:00 GMT

Federal money for Cold Showers 101 may someday be a thing of the past. More and more states are declaring they will not apply for federal funding for abstinence-only sex education programs, and a couple others have applied but stated they will not stick with the abstinence-only curriculum, therefore rendering themselves ineligible. If you don't think this is a big deal, remember, these states are turning down MONEY--your tax dollars, in fact. That says something. Now why would states say they won't try and get the funds? "The jump in states opting out follows a series of reports questioning the effectiveness of the approach, including one commissioned by Congress that was released earlier this year. In addition, federal health officials reported last week that a 14-year drop in teenage pregnancy rates appeared to have reversed." Great.

Oh, but I absolutely loooove the response of supporters of "just say no" sex ed. Stan Koutstaal of the Department of Health and Human Services says "My greatest concern about states dropping out is that these are valuable services and programs. It's the youths in these states who are missing out." Youths who really, really need to sit in a classroom and be told all about the evils of sex without any information that could actually benefit them. Yeah, totally missing out. And Valerie Huber of the National Abstinence Education Association says the abstinence programs don't just waggle fingers and tsk tsk, but "They include relationship-building skills and medically accurate discussions of sexually transmitted diseases and contraception." Kids, this is a condom. It might help protect you from STDs, but since you won't be having sex, you don't need to know how it works. This, however, is what syphillis looks like, and you don't want that, do you?

I must confess this is one of those issues that gets me more irate than almost anything else, so I'm giddy that states are taking a stand. Now perhaps the money I send to the federal government could be used for education programs that aren't utter crap? Really, abstinence-only policy makers who ignore research and reality can kiss my ass without protection.

U.S. Teen Pregnancy Rate Hits All-Time Low

JasonAvant — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 14:37:00 GMT

According to a study published in the February issue of Pediatrics (and rehashed here - boy, the KOLD News Team sure have lovely teeth!), the teen pregnancy rate in the U.S hit an all-time low in 2005, with a rate of 40.4 births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19. This was, according to statisticians working on the report, the lowest the rate's been in the 65 years "for which we have consistent data". So "all-time" could be construed as (hang on, need to do some subtraction - when I took this job, I was told there'd be no math, goddammit) "dating back to 1942, as far as we can tell". The average age of a U.S. bride from 1950 to 1972 was about 20, so by "teen", does the survey mean "unwed teen"? I'm pretty sure there were a lot of pregnant teens in, say, the early 1800's; 'course, they were all married by the time they were 16. Ah - even I'm bored with the direction I'm taking this post. Back to the point.

So, wed, unwed, who knows, but the rate of pregnancies among teens is way down. This is a good thing. Question is, what's the root cause? Have teens started taking a look at the world we live in and come to the conclusion that, gee, sex can be fraught with risk, let's all stop, the lot of us? Or has educating teens on the importance of and need for birth control made an impact?

My guess would be #2, with a little bit of #1 thrown in. I'm not knocking abstinence - can't get a girl preggers if ya don't actually have sex with her, unless you've got reeeeeeally good aim. But it's just good sense, and good parenting, to teach your kids that if they're going to have sex, they need to do what they can to make sure it doesn't result in a baby. And judging from the numbers, it looks like an increasing number of people are having that conversation.

Still Feel Like A Teenager? Maybe This Is Why

Karen Murphy — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 17:26:00 GMT

As it turns out, "older women" (that's anybody over the age of 20) are just as irresponsible about contraception as teenagers are. Woot! Findings from this small study performed by doctors in a Glasgow hospital, and appearing in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, report that "the proportion of older women who had used no contraception at all was roughly similar to the percentage of teenagers [failing to use contraception]", with a whopping 51% of "older women" seeking abortion in this study having used no contraception. Way to go!

And to what do the Scottish doctors attribute this widespread sexual irresponsibility? It turns out we are "human beings, who can get carried away in the passion of the moment and not use contraception." Well, yeah. (I'm glad to know I'm human; what a relief). Which may explain the presence of one of my children. But I'm not telling which one.

How about you? Ever forego contraception "just this once"? Or do you routinely play pregnancy roulette? Or are you consistently conscientious?

Strollerderby : contraception

Affordable Birth Control: No Longer a Thing of the Past

Family Planning Services Save Taxpayers Billions of Dollars

Birth Control Best For Families in This Economy?

Smackdown: I Need a Time Out!

Will Toy Tie-Ins Destroy Sid the Science Kid?

New for Mom: Spa Treatments on the Maternity Ward

They Say: Kids Might Not Doom a Marriage

Vatican to Women: The Pill Pollutes Environment, His Testes

Having a Kid Alone? Don't Tell Me Why I Have it Better

New to Birth Certificate: Does Mom Have Chlamydia?

Why They Shouldn't Eat the Snow

Vatican Issues Advice: Have Babies! Unless You're Infertile!

Vatican Issues Advice: Have Babies! Unless You're Infertile!

New Abortion-Opposition Strategy to Cripple Planned Parenthood

Last Gasp of a Dying Patriarchy?

In the Philippines, a Battle Over Contraception

Evangelical Teens' Very Active Sex Lives

Woman on Pill Conceives Identical Triplets

Abortion Blogger Gives Liberal Parents a Bad Name

Couple Sues After Failed Vasectomy

Women on the Pill Attract Mr. Wrong

Caseworker Helps 13-Year-Old Obtain Contraception

Is Mother Earth Pro-Choice?

History's Most Terrifying Contraceptives

States Turn Down Abstinence-Only Sex Ed Funds In Favor of Teaching, You Know, Actual Sex Ed

U.S. Teen Pregnancy Rate Hits All-Time Low

Still Feel Like A Teenager? Maybe This Is Why