President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) J. Sonnenberg

(R) Ted Harvey

20%↑

15%↑

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Doug Bruce

20%

20%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

40%↑

20%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
July 01, 2015 12:40 PM UTC

IUD Funding Not A Done Deal After All

  • 31 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols

UPDATE: Statement from Planned Parenthood Votes Colorado:

It is disgraceful that Republican Colorado Senators this session voted to leave low-income teenagers and young women without access to contraception that will help them achieve their goals and stay financially independent. Funding for the program expired today – that leaves a huge gap for hundreds of thousands of young women in Colorado.

The long-acting reversible contraception program (LARC) is recognized as a critical part of making Colorado #1 in preventing teen pregnancies (by 40%) and reducing abortions (35%). A relatively small investment of $5 million in LARC would have saved an estimated $50 million in Medicaid and public assistance programs.

The Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment is searching for alternative funding to continue this vital service. Planned Parenthood is committed to supporting all programs like LARC that help teenagers stay in school and give them the opportunity to succeed.

—–

IUDs.
IUDs.

A story from KUNC community radio last month announced that a highly successful program to provide IUD contraception to low-income women in Colorado would be renewed for another year, despite the refusal by Republicans in the Colorado legislature to authorize public funds to continue the program:

Despite state lawmakers failing to pass a bill to fund the effort, a program to provide long acting reversible birth control to young, low-income women in Colorado is being extended for another year.

The long acting contraceptives, according to state figures, have helped cut teen pregnancy rates in the state by 40 percent. Abortions have gone down too…

[Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment Executive Director Larry] Wolk does want to come back to the state Legislature in 2016 and try to get the $5 million needed to again fund the program through the state – and even expand it to more clinics that serve lower income young women.

“It’s good public investment,” said Wolk. “It’s not fair that we have to keep going to the private or foundation community to fund something that is saving the state money.” [Pols emphasis]

But according to a press release today from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the lack of public investment in the Long-Acting Reversible Contraception program is a problem–making the previous declaration of victory problematic:

The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment continues to search for funding for its successful Colorado Family Planning Initiative. To date, there is engaged conversation and expressed interest, yet no firm commitment. [Pols emphasis]

“We are working closely with our partners who believe in this initiative to find the funding necessary to continue providing contraceptive choices to young women across Colorado,” said Dr. Larry Wolk, executive director and chief medical officer for the department. “Making sure Colorado women have access to safe and effective contraception is an investment in their futures and ours.”

There’s reportedly still a possibility that private funds will come through to continue this program, perhaps on a reduced scale depending on how much they can get. But the situation could still affect single women in the interim if funding isn’t locked in soon, and in either case illustrates the uncertainty involved with trying to fund an important public health program of this kind with fickle private contributions. As CDPHE executive director Larry Wolk says, this is a program that saves the state tax money in the end, so to refuse to fund it as Republicans in the legislature did this year was textbook pennywise and pound foolish.

Comments

31 thoughts on “IUD Funding Not A Done Deal After All

  1. I liked the last sentence.  This issue shows the fundamental (pun) problem with Republicans.  They don't care who gets hurt as long as they can score political points with their rabid and unreasonable base.  Results don't matter.

    1. Only if most Coloradans are so stupid they can't grasp that money spent on this most reliable form of birth control saves them multiple times the amount in tax dollars invested. 

      1. Most Coloradans probably aren't as fucking stupid as that dude with his finger on the pulse of the GOP.

        Yep. It's a very low bar. 

        1. Republicans have shown time and again that they're more than willing to pay handsomely for a smug sense of righteous indignation and the satisfaction that comes from punishing somebody for what they perceive as sinful transgressions (and something they're probably done themselves).

          Unfortunately, the more sane among them (that’s you, CHB) appear unable or unwilling to break up the coalition of social and financial conservatives that form today’s GOP.

  2. There is a slow, but sure, conspiracy underway by various religious groups to undermine the Roe and Griswold SCOTUS decisions. Moderatus needs to wake up to this fact.

    Unlikely that Roe would be overturned. So make it as hard as possible for women to obtain abortions; junk science such as mandatory ultrasounds, requiring hallways in clinics to be a certain width, treating doctors must have admission privileges at local hospitals, and so on. Clinics have to close if they can’t meet these unreasonable demands, or can’t afford to do so.

    Undermine Griswold by casting non-scientific doubt on the most effective contraceptive, IUDs, by calling them "aborti-facients," as did Senator Kevin Lundberg during Senate debate earlier this year.

    Visit the web sites of Americans United for Life and American Life League sometime. They even try to cast doubt on the Pill. These groups, and similar travelers, are chock full of nefarious propaganda about how they are concerned about womens’ health. Don’t believe it for a second; they care little for women or “unborn babies;” it’s all about imposing their religious ideology. I haven't explored far enough to see what their positions are regarding truck stop condom machines.

    Unfortunately, my party for a long time has been two-faced, calling for small government with one hand (which has a lot of merit), but then the other hand calling for big government interference in the personal and private lives of citizens. 

    1. Thanks CB.  What hurts my head is this obsession with preserving every wiggly sperm but not a dying planet.  Seriously if these folks are Pro-Life, they would be concerned about Climate Change and overpopulation of a finite planet.

    1. Blue Cat: I'm not sure what your meaning is for "small government." In my statement; confined primarily to female & family reproductive matters; I gave no details at all re my personal opinion about what constitutes "small government." Your assumption that my ideas mirror what is occurring in Kansas is an unsupported projection and nothing more.

      1. Just assumed both from previous posts and from the following statement and the fact that you call yourself conservative with conservatism, whether classic or 21st century style, always including belief in the theology of small government ( I call it theology because the basic tenants have never been supported by evidence so I can only conclude they are accepted on faith. Paying workers more has not been shown to slow the economy and cost jobs. Taxing the wealthiest less has not been shown to trickle down to improve it. Privatization has not been shown to be less costly and more efficient, etc.) that you share that belief. Sorry if I'm mistaken. 

        calling for small government with one hand (which has a lot of merit), – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/73226/iud-funding-not-a-done-deal-after-all#comment-584262

  3. Obamacare is the primary reason pregnancy rates have decline across the country because obamacare requires Larc and comprehensive reproductive services.  Furthermore obamacare requires colorado and to have insurance.  Why then do we need another duplicitous program at tax payer expense when we already make Chip+, medicaid and traditional insurance available. 

    1. Winstin, this program was reaching teen moms who can't access medicaid on their own, and whose parents may or may not get birth control for their daughters. It also helped rural women, and women who did not have a birth control clinic within driving range.

      Why do we need it? The fact that the program reduced teen births by  40% was pretty good evidence that it was needed. Or would you rather those kids had had more kids?

      The true costs of teen pregnancy are much higher than this program's modest price tag. You're looking at generational poverty, education cut short, more crime, more victims of crime, higher health care costs.

      Senator Evie Hudak knew all that. She was driven out of her office, but luckily, we inherited at least some of her sensible sex education policies.

      1. Teen pregnancy rates have dropped nationally over the last 6 years.  Other states have had the same results without this program because of the affordable care act requiring insurers to pay for comprehensive birth control.  Obamacare requires citizens to purchase insurance and has reduced the uninsured rate by half.  Furthermore, the affordable care expanded medicaid as well as the children's health insurance program for the under 18 crowd so they to could receive comprehensive care.  The program you support has no published numbers of how many women  they even provided with long term birth control  with their 25 million. 

        1. If you're talking about the last six years Obamacare wouldn't apply to most of those years. It's certainly true that many factors contribute to the drop but the IUD program is an inexpensive way to add reliable birth control to the mix that doesn't require remembering when to take pills. What's not to like?

  4. There are many reasons for the huge drop in teen births since 1991. This article mentions economic downturn, sex ed programs, more realistic media portrayals, and more reliable methods of birth control, such as IUDS. 

    There were hard numbers attached to this program. They did track data, not just blindly hand out  IUDs. The KUNC article (caption on the provider's picture) states that just one clinic gave out 6,000 IUDS to low-income women. This article mentions 30,000 IUDs given out through this program since 2009. 

    I assume that you, like Moderatus, are a conservative. Would you really have preferred to support those young moms and babies through WIC, TANFF, and other forms of welfare, rather than prevent the pregnancy in the first place? And how about your anti-abortion views – the teen abortion rate fell 35% in the counties that participated in this initiative.

    If you are logically consistent, you would support continuation of this program.

    1. mama jama,  

      Thanks for the links documenting the 30,000 Iuds provided by the initiative.  That is a good solid number that I didn't know.  I agree with you that teen births have been affected by several reasons and the family initiative is obviously one of those reasons.  What I havefound is that Colorado had about 7000 teen births in 2008 and in 2013 we had approximately 4500 births.  Thats the 40 percent reduction.  It's easy to calculate the amount of money the state saves from all of our efforts to prevent teen pregnancy but how do we calculate the benefit from just the family initiative.  Is their some documentation that shows each iud provided saved x?  One thing about the initiative as well, it wasn't just for teens.  How many initiative Iuds went to kids?  I would think a small percentage was for kids.  

      1. The State Dept of Health tracked birth rates by counties, and compared the counties which implemented the LARC program to those that didn't, and to the state as a whole.

        Is their some documentation that shows each iud provided saved x?  

        Common sense: Each IUD provided prevented a pregnancy. You don't have to be a statistical genius to figure that out. If they were going primarily to low income women, whom do you think would have ended up providing services for those families?

        I'm done researching for you – you're just going to quibble some more, no matter what I bring in. Look it up yourself if you still have issues with the program.

        1. Thanks for the info and links. No doubt it will help all of us when this subject comes up.

          No doubt also that winstin is off in another forum unscathed by your research.

    2. Interesting chart, mamajama. I looks like the only upward ticks in birthrat since the mid-1950s were under Nixon, Bush41, and Bush43. I can't but think those upward ticks resulted from policies like gag rules and disinformation (e.g., abstinence). 

      1. Good observation. My ex in laws had a big family with four girls. They are all evangelical Christians or Catholics, who preached abstinence before marriage. Every single one of them was pregnant when they married, as well as the wives of the sons who married, including myself.

        Preaching does not work to prevent pregnancy.

        1. I graduated from a Catholic high school. Official school colors were red and gold. Unofficial colors were pink and blue because of all the pregnancies; at least 7-8 per year for each of my years at the school.

    1. A Catholic friend once told me she thinks it's because when you're a teenage Catholic girl obtaining birth control feels like you're planning to sin as opposed to being swept away by passion in the moment which feels like a lesser sin. We both would have been teenage girls a very long time ago so I don't know how valid that theory is, you know, this century.

      1. Hormones and hedonism still push teens into early motherhood, as do the beliefs that this will create  a bond with the baby's daddy, or that having a baby will give her someone to love, or a way to be independent from a not-so-great family life.

        But at least most of them have more sense and knowledge now, and technology and law has allowed teens to get Plan B without a prescription. It's getting better. We need to support teens with more knowledge and more technology so that we don't go back to the bad old days of pink and blue ribbons and 1/3 of the girls disappearing in their junior and senior years.

        And the ones who choose, against all odds, to have those babies are not shunned, and their educations are not over, although it's much more challenging.  The valedictorian at one Denver high school said part of her speech with her little one on her hip.

        That Billy Joel song is now stuck in my head the rest of the night.

        1. And girls are more hopeful about their futures now. Sexism has been beaten back just a bit. There's lots of role models in all kinds of work, and nobody imagines that being a mommy is as high as they can reach.  That's huge, and I don't see any analysis of the lower teen birth rate taking that into account.

          Maybe even the boys are being more responsible now- I've seen that a few times. Even young kids want to do the right thing.

    2. Billy Joel: “I'd rather laugh with the sinners than cry with the saints. The sinners have more fun."

      Reminds me of last summer running into a group of young Iranians on a boat ride in Lake Van in eastern Turkey. Most seemed to speak good English and were glad to see some Americans. One young woman said that young Iranians go to Turkey when they want to have fun.    C.H.B.  

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

71 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!