A new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) shows that the abortion rates of 19459004 have declined across the board and that people are able to more effectively plan their reproductive future. Nevertheless, the Trump government has completed a regressive series of changes in health insurance that could provide access to what has helped us: birth control.
For the report . The CDC examined data from central health departments in the District of Columbia, New York City, and 47 states (except California, Maryland, and New Hampshire) for each year from 2006 to 201
The total number of reported abortions decreased by 24 percent during this period, from 842,855 in 2006 to 638,169 in 2015. The abortion rate for women aged 15 to 44 dropped 26 percent from 15.9 to 11.8 per 1000 women. The abortion rate also fell by 19 percent.
The report found that this number declined in all age groups, races and ethnic groups, but "well-documented inequalities exist". For example, abortion rates are 1.5-fold higher in Hispanic women than non-Hispanic white women and 3.6-fold higher in non-Hispanic black women than non-Hispanic white women.
The main reason for this downward trend, however, is not that access to these shrinks abortions (though that has undoubtedly played a role) – is our access to birth control. "Efforts to help women avoid pregnancies they do not want can reduce the number of abortions," the report said, adding that "free women prevention increases the use of these methods, and the Can reduce abortion rates. "  The CDC report follows previous research showing that access to effective birth control could lead to lower rates of abortion, likely contributing to the prevention of unintended pregnancies.
For example, from the Guttmacher Institute data from 2008 to 2011 found that "the sharp decline in unintentional pregnancy – including births and abortions – was probably driven by improved use in contraception."
The researchers explicitly point out that the use of highly effective reversible contraceptives (LARCs) – such as IUDs and – implants – during this time. These forms of birth control "do not have much leeway for user error, and therefore, people are less likely to get pregnant by mistake," says Dr. Rachel Jones, senior scientist at the Guttmacher Institute, told SELF.
Later, the implementation of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2012 supported this trend with a birth control mandate that requires employers to offer insurance plans that each cover at least one FDA-approved birth control method class Costs for the patient (does not mean additional payment or co-insurance). (The mandate contained exceptions for churches and certain religious organizations such as Catholic hospitals.)
These provisions "appear." According to Jones Guttmacher further improvements in the use of contraceptives beyond 2012 were advanced , The mandate made it more cost-effective for women to afford contraceptives, and especially costly LARCs, Jones says A study of 417,221 women in Contraception found that between 2012 and 2014, the rate of women, who pay for an IUD out of pocket, sank from 58 percent to 13 percent. And research shows that women are much more likely to choose LARC methods for eliminating financial barriers and are less likely to experience unwanted pregnancy and subsequent abortions.
The CDC report reflects this trend: The decline in abortion was much more dramatic between 2011 and 2015 (after the introduction of the ACA) than between 2006 and 2010. For example, the abortion rate dropped from 2011 to 2015 7.4 abortions per 1,000 live births per year. but of only 0.37 abortions per 1,000 live births per year from 2006 to 2010.
Despite these trends, the Trump administration has taken steps to restrict access to birth control based on the religious or moral beliefs of companies.
The Final Rules state that private or public companies, nonprofit organizations, universities or individuals may be exempted from the mandate by representing religious or non-religious beliefs against birth control.  6] If that sounds pretty vague to you, you're right. The text does not state what constitutes a "non-religious moral conviction". The broad, ambiguous wording seems potentially applicable to just about any person or organization that for any reason is against the prevention of births.
The rules will come into force on January 7, 2019, with the exception of lawsuits seeking to block them. As reported by SELF California and Pennsylvania have filed appeals after losing the federal government over earlier drafting of these rules. More lawsuits can now be filed as the rules are final.
The Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) estimates that the exceptions will have minimal impact, affecting 200 or fewer employers and between 6,400 and 127,000 women. Jones says her colleagues at Guttmacher also predict that the impact will be "relatively low," but it's too early to say for sure. "To be honest, we do not know how many companies or organizations will benefit," she says.
Reproductive health professionals consider the move as a medically menacing threat to women's reproductive health and the decline in abortion. The declines we have seen are "largely due to people's improved access to effective and affordable birth control," said Drs. Leana Wen, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). "Despite this unprecedented progress, the Trump Pence government and state politicians want to take our rights and access to reproductive health care, including limiting what we know – birth control."
On November 8, a broad consortium of medical organizations representing over 423,000 physicians and medical students – the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Physicians and the American College Psychiatric Association – issued a powerful joint statement rejecting the government's decision and calling on them to revoke the rules.
In private insurance plans, the final rules contradict our firm belief that no woman should lose the protection she has today, "they write." Preventing contraceptives without copay has an undeniable positive impact on the health of Women and families everywhere. " Accordingly, "efforts to reduce access to contraceptives will have a negative impact on public health." (Plus, SELF before ), hormonal contraception may be associated with a variety of benefits that are not related to pregnancy, such as the treatment of your period, the treatment of pain by endometriosis, and the lowering of the Risk for ovarian cancer .) "The final rules follow an alarming pattern of medically unnecessary decisions in women's health policies that together affect women's access to care," said Lisa Hollier, MPH, president of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Statement . "This birth control attack is only the latest in a series of attacks," Dr. Wen, as changes to the funding of Title X and the proposed Gag Rule and Defuse Lamentable Parenthood .
The final course of these policy changes is not yet clear, but the response of the medical community to this recent move has been loud and clear: we need more access to reproductive health, not less. "If we want to further reduce the rate of unintentional pregnancy in this country," Dr. Wen, "we need to make sure everyone has access to all birth control methods."