<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <title>Sharon Camp's blog</title>
  <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/sharon-camp"/>
  <link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/265/atom/feed"/>
  <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/265/atom/feed</id>
  <updated>2007-05-18T10:21:16-04:00</updated>
  <entry>
    <title>Congress -- Mind the Reality Gap!</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/11/28/congress-mind-the-reality-gap" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/11/28/congress-mind-the-reality-gap</id>
    <published>2007-11-28T09:10:31-05:00</published>
    <updated>2007-11-28T09:10:51-05:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Sharon Camp</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="abstinence-only" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>We should post "mind the gap" warnings in many of America's schools -- alerting students, parents and the public to the hazards posed by the huge, and growing, reality gap in U.S. sex education.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <p>&quot;Mind the gap&quot; signs on Amtrak trains warn riders to be wary when they step off a train. We should likewise post &quot;mind the gap&quot; warnings in many of America&#39;s schools -- alerting students, parents and the public to the very real hazard posed by the huge, and growing, reality gap in U.S. sex education.</p>
<p>Just how cavernous is the gap between the scientific evidence and our sex-education policies? Several authoritative studies released this year show compellingly that there is no evidence base to support the massive federal investment in abstinence-only-until-marriage sex-education programs. And yet, Congress wants to authorize a $28 million funding increase for these hard-line programs, on which we have already wasted about $1.5 billion -- including $176 million this year alone. </p>
<p>Let&#39;s review the evidence: A <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2007/11/07/Advisory_Emerging_Answers_2007.pdf">recent report</a> by the nonpartisan National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy finds that &quot;[a]t present, there does not exist any strong evidence that any abstinence program delays the initiation of sex, hastens the return to abstinence, or reduces the number of sexual partners.&quot; The report concludes that &quot;studies of abstinence programs have not produced sufficient evidence to justify their widespread dissemination.&quot; Is it unreasonable to expect, at a minimum, that such programs demonstrate a positive impact before hundreds of millions of our dollars are poured into them? </p>
<p>Also consider the eight-year, congressionally mandated evaluation by Mathematica Policy Research released in April, which shows that abstinence-only programs <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2007/04/18/index.html">have no beneficial impact</a>. Students who participated in a range of curricula funded through the federal Title V abstinence-only program were no more likely than non-recipients to delay sexual initiation, to have fewer partners or to use condoms when they did become sexually active. Apparently, that&#39;s what a $176 million annual investment in federally funded abstinence-only programs gets you: <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2007/07/16/index.html">no positive impact whatsoever</a>. </p>
<p>Recent research conducted by the Guttmacher Institute further exposes the dysfunctional, and at times outright absurd, nature of our government&#39;s approach to sex education. Even though we found that 86 percent of the recent decline in U.S. teen-pregnancy rates is the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/01/index.html">result of improved contraceptive use</a>, the Bush administration and some members of Congress want to increase funding for abstinence-only programs that-if they mention contraception at all-are prohibited from any discussion of its effectiveness and benefits. And never mind that, as our researchers found, <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/12/19/index.html">premarital sex is near-universal</a> among Americans. Federal abstinence-only programs now promote abstinence not just for young teens, but are encouraged to do so for all unmarried people through age 29. </p>
<p>Instead, it would be more effective and responsible to provide our young people with the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/11/28/index.html">skills and information they really need</a>-both to postpone the onset of sex and to be safe once they do become sexually active, which nearly everyone eventually will. This approach is bolstered by an <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2007/05/23/index.html">abundance of evidence</a>, including from the National Campaign&#39;s <a href="http://www.thenationalcampaign.org/EA2007/postitive_impact.pdf">just-released report</a>, showing that a substantial majority of comprehensive sex-education programs-which receive no dedicated federal funding-are effective; indeed, many succeed in delaying teens&#39; initiation of sex, reducing their number of sexual partners, and increasing condom or contraceptive use. </p>
<p>Policy-makers at the state level increasingly get it. Thus far, <a href="http://www.msmagazine.com/news/uswirestory.asp?ID=10663">14 states</a> have opted not to accept federal funds under the rigid Title V abstinence-only program -- among them New York, New Jersey and Ohio. Unshackling their students from hard-line ideology and offering them more comprehensive sex-ed programs instead not only is bolstered by a very strong body of evidence, but also is endorsed by the vast majority of Americans.</p>
<p>Just how overwhelming is the public&#39;s support for <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/137"><acronym title="Comprehensive Sex Education: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Comprehensive Sex Education">comprehensive sex education</acronym></a>? Even a <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/evidencecheck/2007/07/07/Advisory_NAEA_Zogby_Poll.pdf">Zogby survey</a> (chock-full of leading and misleading questions) commissioned by the National Abstinence Education Association (NAEA), the lobbying arm of the abstinence-only industry, found that almost 80 percent of parents agree that learning how to use condoms and other contraceptives correctly &quot;is best for [their] child&#39;s health and future.&quot; Too bad such instruction is <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/1/gpr090119.html">expressly forbidden by current federal guidelines</a> for abstinence-only programs on whose behalf the NAEA lobbies. </p>
<p>In short, one would be hard-pressed to find another issue where the thrust of our policies goes so strongly against the evidence-not to mention against the interests of a generation of American youth. However, Congress now has the opportunity to redeem itself following President Bush&#39;s successful veto (on grounds that it is too expensive) of the major appropriations bill that included the increase for abstinence-only funding. As it renegotiates the spending bill, Congress should do right by America&#39;s taxpayers and youth and stop-or, at the least, scale back-the funding for <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2007/05/10/sexed.html">ineffective abstinence-only programs</a>. </p>
<blockquote><p><em>This article was originally published in the November 20 edition of the <a href="http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/20071120_Congress_-_Abstain_.html">Philadelphia Inquirer</a></em>.</p>
</p></blockquote>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>A 12-Step Program to Tell Good Science from Bad</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/02/27/a-12-step-program-to-tell-good-science-from-bad" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2007/02/27/a-12-step-program-to-tell-good-science-from-bad</id>
    <published>2007-02-27T08:00:00-05:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-01T11:41:36-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Sharon Camp</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <category term="Contraception" />
    <category term="Maternal Health" />
    <category term="Sexuality Education" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p><em>Sharon Camp is the President and CEO of the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/">Guttmacher Institute</a></em>.</p>
</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>The very complexity of scientific studies can make them their own worst enemy. Valuable research is too often communicated in technical language and rigid formats that make it difficult for non-experts to interpret and evaluate the findings. Worse, some groups deliberately use outdated, incomplete, misleading and outright false information to further an ideological or religious agenda. This creates an environment in which it is increasingly difficult for the public and legislators to distinguish scientifically sound studies from agenda-driven junk science.</p>
<p>It needn&#39;t be that way. Social science research, with its focus on human behaviors, relationships and social institutions, can be a rich source of material for journalists, policymakers and program administrators. Indeed, social science findings have their greatest impact when they are useful to&#8212;and used by&#8212;groups that channel research into practice to improve people&#39;s lives.</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p><em>Sharon Camp is the President and CEO of the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/">Guttmacher Institute</a></em>.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>The very complexity of scientific studies can make them their own worst enemy. Valuable research is too often communicated in technical language and rigid formats that make it difficult for non-experts to interpret and evaluate the findings. Worse, some groups deliberately use outdated, incomplete, misleading and outright false information to further an ideological or religious agenda. This creates an environment in which it is increasingly difficult for the public and legislators to distinguish scientifically sound studies from agenda-driven junk science.</p>
<p>It needn&#39;t be that way. Social science research, with its focus on human behaviors, relationships and social institutions, can be a rich source of material for journalists, policymakers and program administrators. Indeed, social science findings have their greatest impact when they are useful to&#8212;and used by&#8212;groups that channel research into practice to improve people&#39;s lives.</p>
<p>The questions below (drawn from <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/07/27/IB_Interpreting.pdf">Guttmacher&#39;s &quot;Interpreting Research Studies&quot;</a>) are intended to help demystify social science research for those who could make use of the findings but lack specialized training in research methods. It identifies the key questions to ask when evaluating a research report and explains why the answers matter.</p>
<ol>
<li><strong>What makes the study important?</strong> <br />A study&#39;s importance or newsworthiness depends on how it contributes to what we already know. Does the study answer a previously unaddressed question? Does it address an old question in a new way or with surprising results? Reading through the abstract or executive summary with these questions in mind can help you evaluate the study&#39;s relevance even before you review the full publication.</li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Do the findings make sense?</strong><br /> Do study&#39;s key &quot;findings&quot; or &quot;results&quot; make sense, given what you already know about the subject? And are they rooted in the existing body of research? A scientific report should be properly referenced, with original sources for all factual statements and data from other research clearly cited. </li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Who conducted the research and wrote the      report?</strong><br /> It is important to consider whether the study results could be influenced by a researcher&#39;s conflict of interest. Are the authors well regarded in the scientific community? What are their professional credentials? Could their work have been influenced by those who employed or funded them? Any potential conflict of interest should be identified up front. That said, good researchers committed to a political or social agenda can still conduct unbiased, trustworthy studies that can withstand independent evaluation, provided they follow practices designed to protect the quality and integrity of research.</li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Who published the report?</strong><br />An article published in a peer-reviewed journal has been evaluated by experts in the field to help ensure that it meets high scientific standards. The prestige of the journal is one indication of a study&#39;s quality. While studies from sources other than journals (including reports that research institutions publish themselves) may also contain solid, useful information, if an external review process is not mentioned, you should be more cautious about accepting the study&#39;s conclusions.</li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Did the researcher select an appropriate      group for study?</strong><br />A social scientist&#39;s work is about people. In practical terms a study often focuses on a subset, or sample, of the larger population. This sample must be selected carefully to ensure that the study results are applicable to the relevant general population. Using a representative sample is the best way to ensure that findings can be generalized to all members of the target population. Other common approaches are acceptable and&#8212;with appropriate statistical adjustments for weighting&#8212;can produce valid and representative results. Sometimes, however, a researcher may have good reasons to select the target population in a different way. When they do, they should explain their reasons, and you should consider the extent to which their findings are applicable to other groups.</li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>If comparison groups are used, how      similar are they?</strong><br />If a study compares two or more groups (to evaluate the effects of an intervention, for example), the results will be valid only if the groups are similar in all ways other than their exposure to the intervention being studied. Any preexisting differences between the groups could account for different outcomes. In the best study designs, participants are randomly assigned to the study groups. But when differences do exist between the groups, researchers can use statistical techniques to control for differences. Experience and common sense can help determine whether the differences among them are important for the study.</li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>What has changed since the information      was collected?</strong><br />Ideally, the data used in a study will have been collected recently so that the information reflects the current situation. However, because national-level surveys can be quite expensive and time consuming, data may not become public for several years and special analyses may require additional time. For example, data from the large National Survey of Family Growth, which was conducted in 2002, became public only in late 2004, and analyses are still ongoing. It is important to consider how any changes that have occurred in the intervening period, such as new policies, could affect the outcomes today. </li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Are the methods appropriate to the research purpose?</strong> <br />Social science studies can rely on either qualitative or quantitative methods or a combination of the two. As a rule, quantitative techniques (collecting and analyzing measurements such as whether a person is currently using a contraceptive method, etc.) are best for answering questions such as &quot;How much?&quot; &quot;How many?&quot; &quot;How often?&quot; or &quot;When?&quot; Quantitative studies can also indicate important relationships, such as whether poor women are more likely than better-off women to have more children than they want. Qualitative research (recording and analyzing interactions with people through techniques such as in-depth interviews or focus groups) may be more useful in obtaining a better understanding of complex contextual, attitudinal or behavioral issues or documenting a process. </li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Does the study establish causation?</strong> <br />Often, the goal of a study is to determine the effect of something: for example, a program, medication or policy. However, it is usually difficult to isolate the effects of one discrete factor from all the other things going on in people&#39;s lives. Even if the study shows that a particular outcome occurred after a program got under way, it can be difficult to prove that this intervention caused the outcome. In general, studies can prove only that an outcome is &quot;associated with&quot; or &quot;correlated with&quot; (rather than &quot;caused by&quot;) an intervention. Be alert to researchers who make claims about cause and effect that seem dubious or who ignore other possible explanations for their findings.</li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Is the time frame long enough to      identify an impact?</strong> <br />Studies can either follow their subjects over time, checking in with them at various intervals (a longitudinal study), or take a &quot;snapshot&quot; of subjects at a single moment in time (a cross-sectional study). A cross-sectional study is good for comparing groups, while a series of cross-sectional studies conducted within the same general population (but selecting a different group of people each time) can also provide information on trends over time, as long as the groups sampled are truly comparable. Because a longitudinal study follows the same group of individuals over time, it can be better for examining the effects of a particular intervention, as long as it allows enough time for adequate follow-up and is able to retain a sufficient number of participants. </li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Could the data be biased as a result of poor research design?</strong> <br />The wording and order of questions in a poll or survey can affect the answers participants provide. In addition, a low response rate (say, fewer than 70% of those selected), suggests that the results may be biased because the people who participated are not representative of the target group as a whole. Studies of sexual and reproductive behavior face another hurdle. Participants do not always answer sensitive questions truthfully. For example, adolescent boys tend to overreport sexual activity, while adolescent girls tend to underreport it.</li>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<li><strong>Are the results statistically significant?</strong> <br />When a quantitative study uses a sample, it is important to determine mathematically that there is little probability the result could have occurred by chance&#8212;that is, that a different sample could have produced other results. In the social sciences, a study finding is generally considered statistically significant if there is no more than a 5% probability that it could have occurred by chance (often expressed as a &quot;p-value&quot; of 0.05 or less). Statistical significance alone is not enough to prove cause and effect, but it lends credibility to an argument. </li>
</ol>
<p>The answers to these 12 questions should help you evaluate and interpret reports of research findings. Of course, a study may be flawlessly designed, conducted without bias, appropriately analyzed and statistically significant, yet convey nothing important to you. But if the findings are something that you care about, and you believe that the research is sound, you are in a position to play a critical role in social science research&#8212;interpreting the findings and transmitting them to the wider world to have a greater impact.</p>
<p><em><a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/07/27/IB_Interpreting.pdf">&quot;Interpreting Research Studies,&quot;</a> on which this blog post is based, was written by Jennifer Nadeau and Sharon Camp and shaped by the valuable input of many Guttmacher colleagues and partners.</em></p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Keeping Our Promise to the World’s Youth</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/12/01/keeping-our-promise-to-the-world-s-youth" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/12/01/keeping-our-promise-to-the-world-s-youth</id>
    <published>2006-12-01T07:57:07-05:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-01T14:17:54-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Sharon Camp</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="STI/HIV/AIDS Prevention" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p><em>Sharon Camp, Ph.D., is the President and CEO of the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/">Guttmacher Institute</a></em>.</p>
</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>The theme of this year&#39;s World AIDS Day on December 1 is accountability: Stop AIDS, Keep the Promise.</p>
<p>When it was first discovered in 1981, the virus that causes AIDS threatened to wreak havoc on the lives of millions worldwide, and today - with 40 million living with the virus and four million new infections this year - the virus has kept its dire promise.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the global community has fallen short of its promise to provide adequate funding for prevention, treatment and care. Our failure holds grave consequences for the world&#39;s youth. We promised to take care of our future generations, but do today&#39;s adolescents - tomorrow&#39;s adults - have the knowledge, skills and resources to have healthy relationships and protect themselves against diseases such as HIV/AIDS?</p>
     ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <blockquote><p><em>Sharon Camp, Ph.D., is the President and CEO of the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/">Guttmacher Institute</a></em>.</p>
</p></blockquote>
<p>The theme of this year&#39;s World AIDS Day on December 1 is accountability: Stop AIDS, Keep the Promise.</p>
<p>When it was first discovered in 1981, the virus that causes AIDS threatened to wreak havoc on the lives of millions worldwide, and today - with 40 million living with the virus and four million new infections this year - the virus has kept its dire promise.</p>
<p>On the other hand, the global community has fallen short of its promise to provide adequate funding for prevention, treatment and care. Our failure holds grave consequences for the world&#39;s youth. We promised to take care of our future generations, but do today&#39;s adolescents - tomorrow&#39;s adults - have the knowledge, skills and resources to have healthy relationships and protect themselves against diseases such as HIV/AIDS?</p>
<p>Not quite.</p>
<p>Recent studies by the Guttmacher Institute and colleagues provide a good yardstick by which to measure our progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS in Sub-Saharan Africa, where the virus has hit the hardest. The findings are clear and troubling: Adolescents in <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/06/08/or22.pdf">Ghana</a>, <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/08/14/or25.pdf">Uganda</a>, <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/03/31/or21.pdf">Burkina Faso</a> and <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/07/25/or24.pdf">Malawi</a> are not getting the information they need to protect themselves from HIV. </p>
<ul>
<li>Awareness of AIDS is widespread, but knowledge of      how to prevent HIV is not: Fewer than one in three adolescents in these      four countries can both correctly identify ways of preventing HIV and reject      major misconceptions about HIV.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>Fewer than three in 10 adolescents use any kind      of contraceptive the first time they have sex. Most say they didn&#39;t use a condom      because they &quot;felt safe&quot; or didn&#39;t have one.</li>
</ul>
<ul>
<li>One of the best ways to reach young people before      they become sexually active - school-based sex education - remains underutilized:      Fewer than half of young women and fewer than 40% of young men ever      attended sex education classes.</li>
</ul>
<p>But the main message from our research is not pessimism, but hope. Young people are working hard to achieve their dreams. More than seven in 10 adolescents in Ghana, Uganda and Malawi expect to complete their education, and many young people aspire to good jobs that will allow them to support themselves and their families. Witness this exchange with one Ghanaian adolescent:</p>
<p><em>I: Now tell me what you will like your life to be like in the next five years.</em></p>
<p><em>R: I want to be at a teacher training college.</em></p>
<p><em>I: What could make this more or less likely to happen?</em></p>
<p><em>R: If I learn hard I can reach where I want to go.</em></p>
<p><em>I: But what do you think will not allow you to get to the training college by five years time?</em></p>
<p><em>R: If I become pregnant or infected with HIV/AIDS.</em></p>
<p>This World AIDS Day, young people from around the world are speaking up to draw attention to the need for well-funded, focused and sustained prevention efforts. We owe it to the next generation to support their dreams by promoting sound programs and policies and by opening our pocketbooks to invest in their futures and rid the world of this scourge.</p>
<p>According to a new report, AIDS is now promising to become the third leading cause of death worldwide. AIDS has a pretty good track record for keeping its promises. Will we?</p>
<p><em>Click here to <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/sections/sti.php">learn more about HIV and young people</a></em></p>
     ]]></content>
  </entry>
  <entry>
    <title>Losing Ground on Abortion</title>
    <link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/10/27/losing-ground-on-abortion" />
    <id>http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2006/10/27/losing-ground-on-abortion</id>
    <published>2006-10-27T09:00:00-04:00</published>
    <updated>2007-05-18T10:21:16-04:00</updated>
    <author>
      <name>Sharon Camp</name>
    </author>
    <category term="Leading Voices" />
    <category term="Access to Abortion" />
    <summary type="html"><![CDATA[ <!--paging_filter--> <!--paging_filter-->  <blockquote>Sharon L. Camp is President and CEO of the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/">Guttmacher Institute</a>.</blockquote><iframe src="http://digg.com/api/diggthis.php?u=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Losing_Ground_on_Abortion_By_Sharon_Camp_CEO_of_Guttmacher_Institute" frameborder="0" height="82" scrolling="no" width="55" align="right"></iframe><p>The recent decision by the Food and Drug Administration to allow women 18 and older to buy the emergency contraceptive <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/121"><acronym title="Plan B: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Plan B">Plan B</acronym></a> at pharmacies without a prescription is very welcome news. But Plan B alone will not be enough to overcome our nation&#39;s stalled progress in reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion. </p>    <p>The <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/08/03/index.html">latest data on abortion</a>, published by the Guttmacher Institute in early August, should make no one happy - not the anti-abortion activists who have successfully lobbied for a raft of new abortion restrictions (and who opposed over-the-counter sales of Plan B) and not those of us who want to keep abortion safe, legal and available.</p>    <p>The new numbers strongly suggest that a decades-long decline in U.S. abortion rates is stalling out.  In each year from 2000 to 2003, the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age) barely budged. There is no reason to expect 2004, 2005 or 2006 will look any better. Indeed, they might look a good deal worse.      ]]></summary>
    <content type="html"><![CDATA[ <!--paging_filter-->  <blockquote><p>Sharon L. Camp is President and CEO of the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/">Guttmacher Institute</a>.</p></blockquote><iframe src="http://digg.com/api/diggthis.php?u=http://digg.com/political_opinion/Losing_Ground_on_Abortion_By_Sharon_Camp_CEO_of_Guttmacher_Institute" frameborder="0" height="82" scrolling="no" width="55" align="right"></iframe><p>The recent decision by the Food and Drug Administration to allow women 18 and older to buy the emergency contraceptive <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/121"><acronym title="Plan B: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for Plan B">Plan B</acronym></a> at pharmacies without a prescription is very welcome news. But Plan B alone will not be enough to overcome our nation&#39;s stalled progress in reducing unintended pregnancy and the need for abortion. </p>    <p>The <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/08/03/index.html">latest data on abortion</a>, published by the Guttmacher Institute in early August, should make no one happy - not the anti-abortion activists who have successfully lobbied for a raft of new abortion restrictions (and who opposed over-the-counter sales of Plan B) and not those of us who want to keep abortion safe, legal and available.</p>    <p>The new numbers strongly suggest that a decades-long decline in U.S. abortion rates is stalling out.  In each year from 2000 to 2003, the abortion rate (the number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age) barely budged. There is no reason to expect 2004, 2005 or 2006 will look any better. Indeed, they might look a good deal worse.<!--break--></p>    <p>A decade ago, abortion rates were dropping significantly every year, as all groups of women benefited from improving contraceptive use. Today, abortion rates are declining only for better-off women. Rates for poor women are actually going up. This is very bad news, regardless of which side of the abortion divide you are on.</p>    <p>Given this latest evidence, anti-abortion activists may want to rethink their plan of action. Imagine what we could achieve if we could re-channel all the energy state and federal legislators now spend making it harder for women to get abortions into efforts to make it easier for them to avoid unwanted pregnancies in the first place?</p>    <p>The typical American woman who wants two children spends about five years of her life pregnant, post-partum or trying to get pregnant.  But in order to avoid an unplanned pregnancy, she will need to use contraception correctly and consistently for 30 years.  This is no mean feat in the American context, where contraceptives are relatively expensive (compared to other countries), increasing numbers of young women lack health insurance, and even those who have insurance may not have coverage for contraceptives.  </p>    <p>Indeed, a surprising number of American women-17 million, according to new <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2006/07/27/index.html">Guttmacher Institute estimates</a>-need help to cover annual cost of prescription contraceptives and the medical services associated with them. This total grew by a million women between 2000 and 2004. </p>    <p>But in much of the country, public subsidies for <a class="glossary-term" href="/glossary/term/122"><acronym title="family planning: Auto generated by glossary_taxonomy_nodetitle, for family planning">family planning</acronym></a> services failed to keep pace, with funding flat or declining in about half the states. Meanwhile, the cost to deliver such health care has gone <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/4/gpr090402.html">through the roof</a>. Many public health facilities can no longer afford to offer the most effective and easiest-to-use new contraceptive methods. Funding shortfall may be part of the reason why the number of sexually active women who are not using any birth control has gone up, especially among low-income women.</p>    <p>Publicly funded family planning services currently prevent an estimated 1.3 million unintended pregnancies each year. Without public funding for such services, the U.S. abortion rate would likely be 40% higher than it is. A good 10-year goal would be to reduce abortion another 40% by getting more resources to hard-strapped family planning clinics. Our country actually has a related goal: In 2000, we made it a national public health priority to reduce unintended pregnancy by 40%. But at the moment, we&#39;re making zero progress.</p>    <p>Instead, the <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/05/05/index.html">disparity in unwanted pregnancy</a> by income group has grown significantly. Unintended pregnancy has gone <em>up</em> 29% among poor women, and <em>down</em> 20% among better-off women. A poor woman is now four times as likely to have an unintended pregnancy, five times as likely to have an unintended birth and more than three times as likely to have an abortion as a woman living above 200% of the poverty level.</p>    <p>There are some easy ways to get things back on track, if our leaders would care to try. Many of them are revenue-neutral, meaning they cost nothing to implement or they pay for themselves quickly. The best examples are the 24 state Medicaid waivers that expand eligibility for family planning coverage to more low-income women. A <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2006/08/16/index.html">recent Guttmacher study</a> finds that making eligibility for contraceptive services the same as eligibility for Medicaid-covered pregnancy-related care would avert almost 500,000 unplanned pregnancies, 225,000 unplanned births and nearly 200,000 abortions a year, while also saving $1.5 billion in net state and federal expenditures.</p>    <p>Another good investment would be adequate funding for the categorical federal family planning program known as Title X. In inflation-adjusted dollars, funding for the program is just 40% of what it was in 1980.</p>    <p>We should also look for ways to make effective contraceptive use easier and less expensive for everyone. Following the example of Plan B, many experts think birth control pills and other newer hormonal methods should also be made available without a prescription. Regardless, we should try to remove unnecessary medical barriers that merely raise costs and inconvenience women. I believe conservatives call this deregulation.</p>    <p>Let&#39;s revisit contraceptive labeling. It&#39;s often outdated, inappropriately scary, confusing, incomprehensible or all of the above. Wouldn&#39;t it make better sense to have up-to-date, science-based labeling that most women could actually read? </p>    <p>We also need <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/gpr/09/3/gpr090312.html">better public education programs</a> - not just for teenagers, but for adults as well - education that stresses personal responsibility and that gives people medically accurate information on the safety and effectiveness of modern contraceptives, preferably before they start having sex.</p>    <p>We know how to make abortion rates start going down again. Let&#39;s stop wasting time and get on with the job.</p><blockquote><p>Editor&#39;s note: this piece was adapted from<font face="Times New Roman" size="2"></font> Sharon Camp&#39;s <a href="http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/editorial/15849384.htm">op-ed in The Philadelphia Inquirer</a>.</p></blockquote>         ]]></content>
  </entry>
</feed>
