I read this article in the LA Times over coffee this morning and nearly lost it (the coffee, not the paper), when I came to the conclusion that funding for contraception services is not effective, because California, which has relatively high funding, has a higher rate of abortions than does Nebraska, which offers almost no family planning services to its citizens and yet has a very low abortion rate. Well, could that possible be because abortions are not readily available in Nebraska? Shouldn't the comparison between the two states be in the rate of unplanned pregnancies?

I fear that anyone would think that the Nebraska model is one to be copied.

Gosh few abortions in nebraska...it couldn't be that nobody fucking lives there!!!! How about some real quantitative analysis!!!!

I am glad to see that someone is finally advocating a more holistic approach to preventing unplanned pregnancies among low-income women. For too long the assumption has been that poor women have unplanned pregnancies because they aren't educated enough about reproductive health or about the long-term consequences of carrying their pregnancies to term. Advocates for the poor should not accept these theories without first examining the underlying cultural and class biases that feed these assumptions. Perhaps a more salient factor contributing to high birth rates in low-income women is their perception that middle class goals of high-paying careers or creative artistic pursuits are out of reach for them and they hope that child-bearing will give their lives purpose. It is also true that in some low-income communities becoming a mother elevates a woman's social status, so there is a strong motivation to bear children. While remedying such contributing factors to unplanned pregnancies is beyond my scope as a layperson, I am glad to see that someone in the professional community is beginning to recognize that the issue needs reexamination, as reproductive education and free birth control are insufficient in effectively addressing this social problem.

How many abortion providers are there in Nebraska.

How available are they geographically to female Nebrakans?

California should be compared with New York.

I can't tell if they are saying Nebraska has few abortions numerically or abortion rate (ie, number per fertile women) but there are some shady uses of numbers here. To say that Nebraska has a low abortion rate (even if they aren't just counting abortions) is not the same as saying there is a low rate of unintended pregnancies.

And, as everyone has pointed out, it's comparing apples and oranges. I think the study does demonstrate that the information and low-cost family planning has to be provided on a contextual basis that is sensitive to the needs of specific communities but I worry it will be used to scream that bc doesn't work (and that low income women are stupid morons who deserve it). It seems like CA has unique concerns in getting info and bc to those who need it that are not there or not as great in Nebraska--like minority populations suspicious of state-run programs, differences in the kinds of poverty women face, and cultural specificity.

Guttmacher says there were five providers in 2000 (that seems high--other provider sites listed 0 providers) and the services are primarily available in the Lincoln/Omaha area. NE has the usual restrictions like a waiting period. The state does not provide any $$ for low-income women to get abortions nor does the state require their health insurance provider to cover them.

Stupid number tricks.

While birth control is the best we have to offer for protecting against unwanted pregnancy, it's far from perfect. Many of the best known methods (the pill, for example) are not suitable for everyone, and extremely expensive for anyone who doesn't have excellent heatlh care prescription coverage.

Some great high tech methods exist (IUDs, etc.) but again are so expensive that few are willing to go to the upfront expense. The majority of women still use condoms for birth control! Despite the high (actual use) failure rates. Also methods such as withdrawal, "natural family planning" or over the counter spermicides. Better than nothing perhaps, but still with an unacceptable failure rate.

Most birth control has side effects and rarely fits into reasonable, normal lifestyles, such as allowing for spontaneity. In a culture where being thin is "all important", the pill or Depo Provera (shots) can cause substantial weight gain. Low dose pills must be taken EVERY day at the exact same time in order to work -- often impossible for young women on a hectic schedule. "Today" sponges cost about $3.50 EACH (a lot of dough for a young woman with a low paying job), are not covered by any insurance and are not readily available at every drugstore and bathroom like a condom.

It does seem like every method has a LOT of drawbacks and problems, as any heath care provider/OB-GYN will happily tell you.

We can't overlook that many young women from improverished backgrounds WANT to get pregnant, are casual about when this happens and with whom (in subcultures where fatherhood is marginalized), and don't see it as a problem or setback when they have two-three children before the age of 21. I have spoken to some women in this situation and they talk happily about love for the children, wanting to be a "young, energetic mom" and so forth.

In some respects -- while I am not in favor of illegitimacy, fatherless kids, poverty or teen moms -- "so called middle class values" are not so logical either. They call for a very long period of of time, from teens to late 20s or even later -- for a woman to put off childbearing, while having sex with several partners and using chemical (hormonal) birthcontrol for as long as 20 years continuously (16-36, roughly), and then expect that same woman to be able to get pregnant EASILY at virtually the end of her fertile years, and happily adapt to the strictures & responsibilities of parenthood after a lifetime of independence & carefree life. This is no more realistic, or empowering, than the inner city teen who thinks three babies by 19 is a good choice.

There is a happy medium somewhere, but we can't seem to locate it.....