Pro Life Resources

The following is from my friend who posted the following in a group I'm in, and I am copying it here for my readers benefit. He is British, so forgive his spelling. 
 
It's often claimed that it's better to vote for baby killing politicians because they'll actually reduce the number of babies being killed through sex ed, welfare and contraception. As usual, there is a surprising lack of evidence for claims which are taken to be common knowledge, but it's hard to find some of the better resources showing this.
Sex ed:
Cochrane reviews are very prestigious systematic reviews in the UK which are taken to be pretty much authoritative in Medicine. They have one specifically on schools-based sex ed:
They looked at 6 RCTs, with the conclusion that:
"In these trials, the educational programmes evaluated had no demonstrable effect on the prevalence of HIV, or other STIs. There was also no apparent effect on the number of young women who were pregnant at the end of the trial."
Welfare:
There are actually quite a few decent studies on this, but the most helpful summary I've come across so far is Laura Hussey's article (https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/659227). What Hussey shows is that welfare does indeed reduce the abortion rate, but *only in pro-life states*. In pro-choice states, welfare is associated with an increase in the abortion rate. So those people voting for Democrats in order to reduce the abortion rate are likely increasing it even through welfare alone - let alone through the other promotion of abortion the Democrats offer. Hussey also summarises some of the other research on this topic and points out that there's relatively sparse evidence in other studies that welfare helps reduce abortion rates.
Contraception:
This is the area for which it is hardest to find a proper review of the evidence, but a very good recent paper which summarises a fair amount of it is David Paton, Stephen Bullivant and Juan Soto's paper in Health Economics (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hec.4021).
They confirm in this study that sex education mandates don't do anything to reduce the teen pregnancy rate, but also have a pretty good summary of the evidence on contraception, little of which really shows any impact of contraception programmes on unwanted pregnancy rates. On emergency contraception, they cite a systematic review by some of the leading pro-abortion researchers in the US which concludes: "to date, no study has shown that increased access to [EBC] reduces unintended pregnancy or abortion rates on a population level". There's also a Cochrane review which looks at contraceptive promoting interventions (https://www.cochranelibrary.com/.../14651858.CD005215.pub3/) and finds: "For adolescents who received contraceptive‐promoting interventions, there was little or no difference in the risk of unintended first pregnancy compared to controls."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Milo

Image
So I decided to go see Milo Yiannopoulos at UCSB yesterday. I was really hesitant to do so, and decided not to go, but a few of my friends wanted to go, and they're all losers who don't drive, so, I had to take everyone. I didn't know much about Milo, and I still don't, but I did learn some things. In some of the more, ahem, colorfully conservative pages of facebook that I follow, Milo has been something of an iconoclast, destroying the feminist narratives left and right. But I also know that he is an active homosexual and he is a rabid Trump supporter (even calling him "Daddy"). So, for those reasons, I was never interested in what he had to say. He was, to take a phrase from Lenin, a useful idiot. That was my impression. But I was wrong. A few days before the event, I had read somewhere on these pages I follow but wont name, that Milo believed himself to be a Christian, and a Catholic at that. I dismissed this immediately, and my opinion of him stoppe...
Read more

What Does The Bible Say About Birth Control?

From the early church up to 1930, virtually every church believed contraception was a sin. That fact alone should have us induce that contraception is in fact a sin. Yet, there are many Christians today, even in my own congregation, that will never entertain the possibility of contraception being a sin.
Read more

Is Canon 28 Binding?

In my previous post , I discussed Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon (you'll find the full text of the canon there). But I should have put an asterisk on the conversation because Canon 28 isn't properly part of the council. You'll remember from an earlier post , that what makes a council ecumenical is ratification from the Roman Pontiff. Canons are part of councils. And naturally, canons also have to be ratified. However, Canon 28 was not ratified by Pope Leo (Roman Pontiff at the time). So Canon 28 isn't part of the council and thus isn't binding.  If you are Orthodox, this may sound too convenient. I've already suggested why Roman Ratification is the correct theory in the previous link. However, I want to add two things. First, even Saints in the East agree with the Roman position, and second, a case can be made for Canon 28 not being problematic for Catholicism.  First, there are the sayings of Pope St. Gelasius (about 490 AD), and Pope St. Gelasius is...
Read more