Who's getting abortions? Not who you'd think / Half of the women are 25 or older

Source: MSNBC/AP

Who's getting abortions? Not who you'd think
Half of the women are 25 or older; most already have a child

updated 1 hour, 11 minutes ago

NEW YORK - In American pop culture, the face of abortion is often a frightened teenager, nervously choosing to terminate an unexpected pregnancy. The numbers tell a far more complex story in which financial stress can play a pivotal role.

Half of the roughly 1.2 million U.S. women who have abortions each year are 25 or older. Only about 17 percent are teens. About 60 percent have given birth to least one child prior to getting an abortion.

A disproportionately high number are black or Hispanic. And regardless of race, high abortion rates are linked to hard times.

“It doesn’t just happen to young people, it doesn’t necessarily have to do with irresponsibility,” said Miriam Inocencio, president of Planned Parenthood of Rhode Island. “Women face years and years of reproductive life after they’ve completed their families, and they’re at risk of an unintended pregnancy that can create an economic strain.”



Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22689931/

have sought to limit the number of their births in order to take care of the children they already have. This is necessary so that their born children can live and thrive. Women in dire poverty have been affected; it was just this kind of situation that led Margaret Sanger to work for the decriminalization of birth control. She was a nurse taking care of poor families and one of her patients who had several children and who was told not tohave any more children, died giving birth to her next child because she couldn't prevent another pregnancy.

As economic times get rougher for low income women, look for more tragic instances...

up to 5-7 years could prevent prevent unwanted pregnancy?

how does that work?

This exchange about breastfeeding shortchanges the discussion in a way I find distressing. Real contraception requires real birth control techniques. Period.

What is the problem, people? Can't you discuss this issue like intelligent human beings?

i just didnt understand what breast feeding had to do with birth control.

eom

it is my understanding that the protection against pregnancy is not 100%. The idea that breast feeding until the age of 5 and 7 is a contraceptive is strange, to say the least. And anyway, who does that?

and yes it's disgusting imo to do it that long.

> and yes it's disgusting imo to do it that long.

That's a lovely way to marginalize the discussion. In many industrialized nations, breastfeeding can go on that long. My wife breastfed our oldest until he was four, and our youngest until he was three. What do you find so repulsive about it?

To the general conversation, breastfeeding isn't birth control. It is true that there is a period of time (no pun intended) where breastfeeding interferes with ovulation hormones, but to rely on this is to play roulette. Even the rhythm method would be better, since that at least is based on being able to watch your cycle. Without an obvious cycle, you've got no idea what will happen.

I think that if the debate were reframed by calling it "conception control" instead of "birth control" (since that's what it really is), this would help. Abortion remains a difficult issue, because there simply is no universally accepted notion of how much fetus is too much fetus. For those of us on the pro-choice side, we've tried to reframe it into "who should decide -- the government, or the mom?" but this doesn't seem to be working.

you are free to do what you want and it's none of my business. i was just giving my opinion. we only have one child and my wife breastfed him till he was 9 months, which I think is pretty standard. I've read 3 or 4 babybooks and none of them recommended breast feeding that long. I have sen a mother breastfeeding her 6 year old before and to me, I think it's just wrong. I would cut the cord far earlier than that.

... the mother is more likely to start ovulating again. I nursed both my kids for a year, and didn't get my period back until they were almost that old even though they were eating solids from 7 months on. I don't know for sure if ovulation started in advance of that, but I surely didn't take any chances -- I used birth control.

In "traditional societies" a woman who breast feeds her infants is more likely to be able to space out her pregnancies, but it is not 100%.

Hekate

However, when you're breastfeeding, it keeps your body from producing the hormones that cause you to ovulate. It's very common for moms that exclusively breastfeed or pump, to not have periods for 6mo, year, even longer. I personally know of one women that went 19mo without having a cycle. However, most of the women I know find their cycles return between 6-9mo, when solids start being introduced in to the diet. Creating a change in the demand process of breastfeeding. In my case it was 7.5m with my first born, and 8mo with my second. Both times the changes coincided with increase intake of solids and decrease or changes in regularity of breastfeeding (spreading out time between feedings, even when the daily intake level remains the same).

Breastfeeding tends to help space births but is not a surefire method of birth control.

For instance, Britney Spears said her 2nd pregnancy, which started just 3 months after her first birth, was accidental.

I guess it's good for people to talk about this, if they don't know.

(This reminds me of a teen sex-ed pamphlet I read years ago, that dispelled the myth that douching with pepsi or coca cola after sex is NOT effective birth control. Duh!)

if you're not living a paleolithic hunter-gatherer lifestyle.

Yeah, I'd say that modern life kind of interferes with that.

Hekate

and lots of closely spaced babies prove that! I have a friend whose kids are 14 months apart because she 'thought she couldn't get pregnant while breast-feeding'.

BTW *Welcome to DU*

to insinuate a newbie is a freeper, just because they have misguided ideas about birth control.

We got pregnant when my wife was still breastfeeding our twins and we were using the mini-pill as well.

Some women can't breatfeed successfully, and most can't sustain it when they have to spend 10+ hours(counting commutes) in the workplace without much control over even their break conditions.
Plus, it becomes increasingly unreliable as a birth control technique as time goes on.

And believe me, most 3 to 7 year olds wouldn't go for it either. My 4- and 6- year old grandchildren don't want anyone to know they still carry their blankies around for comfort.

I know at least three children who defy that myth, one of them being my youngest son.

you're on your own after you're born.

I already knew this, but honestly, what the fuck does it matter? WHo the hell cares? It's just an abortion. People who call it murder are just religious freakshows. People need to mind their own fucking business if you ask me and just shut the fuck up about this stupid issue.

Women over 25 who have families have justas much of a right to an abortion as anyone else. you don't need a justification for eliminating a parasite(using this term in the biological sense) from your body.

My wife's 27 and she's had two Yeah some say we should have used birth control after the second time but it's really none of their damned business, especially since I pay for it out of my own pocket. Not that I have a problem with public financing- if we fund birth control publicly then it only makes sense to fund abortions

I think its an argument that is based off of the fact that sex ed promotes sex which promotes abortions. the fact that alot of women are over 25 is a good argument against it.

so basically there is no connection

sex ed may even decrease teenage sex, but teenage sex is natural. kids need to know the facts about condoms and birth control and abortion so that they don't ruin their lives. telling them to abstain is like telling an alcoholic to stop drinking. all the hormones are ragin and it's just impossible- i know- that was me 10 years ago.

what i think the op was directed was towards people who want to take away sex ed or planned parenthood.

nt

And government financing....is there any government assistance for low-income women to get abortions? I am willing to bet that there is absolutely NO help given by the government, at all, in paying for anyone's abortion, no matter how broke she is.

is limited to cases involving health or life of the mother I believe. states are free to choose to fund them or not. NY funds them more generously than most for low-income women. States like Alabama and Texas... don't.

in the only hospitals that will accept medicaid and charity patients. A good number of these are religiously affiliated. For example, in my pregnancies, I was sent to the local Catholic hospital for birth, and of course there was no mention of future birth control or even the option of ligation. I insisted on ligation (after three kids, I would WISH a doctor would quit asking 'are you sure?')and had the priveledge of having it done in the other local hospital because of course the Catholic one would rather have me spitting out kids for the greater glory of god the rest of my life.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, IMO, these women are not getting the information or help they need because of their necessary reliance on medicaid and charity and the hospitals and doctors they are then limited to.

PS I insisted on the ligation because of fertility. The second pregnancy was twins. 30% chance of having another pair. Three's enough.

Even counseling a woman about alternatives to childbirth is prohibited.

Thanks for bringing that up! :hi:

Spell Edit

it's obviously Clinton's fault.

:sarcasm:

your system goes a little wacko and you might ovulate more as you get older. Also, you don't see babies in that glowing light of bliss after you have had a few. You know how much work and sacrafice raising a child to adulthood takes, and you can make a TRULY informed decision about whether or not you are ready to do that again.

Birth control is wonderful, but can fail, and morning-after and abortion are necessary for those who don't want more children.

What ever happened to the notion of doctor/patient confidentiality? Compiling/citing stats like these just feed the notion that a woman's reproductive health decisions are a public matter, when they are not.

to the government, without identifying any patients by name or SSN#. The clinics could give out the ages of the women and gestational weeks of the fetus, along with other data such as geographical region, any previous births, any health problems the woman might report, etc.

Sorry, don't buy it -- just another way for the government to intrude on patient/physician confidentiality/rights.

Next time, the Right will use the stats to skew the argument their way ... then the left will counter -- when, in fact, it should not be ANYONE'S business, except the patient and doctor, to begin with.

You don't believe that it could be happening? I think it is happening, and I don't even think this is anything new to this Administration. I'm fairly sure that medical statistics are, and have always been, fair game.

allocations to these types of entities, I am telling you the type of data they are tracking is contrary to every statute known to this country or code of ethics accepted throughout the not-for-profit and/or health care community.

You're right. It's between a woman and her doctor. At least, it should be. Unfortunately, thirty years of what amounts to warfare against a woman's right to have a private operation performed have, well, made it pretty public no matter what. For the time being, that particular battleground has been lost. So the question is, is it worse to have statistics at all, or is it worse to have none and let the pro-lifers continue using lies to undermine women's rights?

To further "prove the moral decay of our once-great nation." By tying the two together they force a negative (children with unwanted pregnancies) to a positive (women's ability to control their reproductive systems). Humans, by nature a rather pessimistic lot, will focus on the negative side, and it will overshadow the positive, subliminating it.

They want to tie it with "irresponsibility" because, to these people, pregnancy is not a new life - it's a punishment from god for fornication. Anyone who's never looked up these people, please take the time to do so. Their goal is not, not, not to "save the lives of babies," it is to make women "suffer for their indiscretions. The anti-abortion movement is not based on any sort of feel-good Christian mythos bullshit about protecting the sanctity of life. Rather it's a bunch of people who's own sexual drives have been warmed and twisted into viewing intercourse as a crime, and having a child you can't afford as "fitting punishment."

What I do care about is how and where someone can have them.

My best guess is that high income allows women to afford abortions where as a poor person couldn't afford one. I wonder if there are any statistics?

... i just confronted a young women at the office who declared that we should srteralize anybody who is on welfare? I got the feeling that she was only echoing an already prevelant sentiment.