In the driveway of the airport motel on the evening of the Viagra
question, McCain’s aides made an argument that would shape their
attitude over the next four months: If reporters were going to ask
about issues that they deemed irrelevant to voters, why should the
campaign give them access to the candidate at all?
Salter told me I had made the case for those who thought McCain should curtail his exposure to the press.
McCain aide Brooke Buchanan sarcastically asked whether contraception
was next on my agenda. And Steve Duprey, the candidate’s usually jovial
traveling companion who often visited the press cabin bearing Twizzlers
and chocolate, twisted my question into what I interpreted as an
accusation of bias: "Are you going to ask Obama if he uses Viagra?"
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Actually, the question wasn’t about if McCain used Viagra, but about underlying issues releated to the costs of birth control and insurance coverage, compared to Viagra. In tough economic times, couples are likely more interested, not less, in family planning.
Isn’t it fascinating how birth control costs are "irrelevant to voters" according to the far-right? The same people that want to ban all abortions are targeting your contraception, the best method for preventing unintended pregnancies.
If the Bush Department of Health Human Services goes ahead with its plans to issue a new ruling making contraception more difficult to get, likely to come this week before the election, voters will have a chance to decide if contraception, and its costs, are "irrelevant."
Until recently, a person who Googled "abortion clinic" might be directed to a CPC instead. CPCs, as a result, are reaching more clients than ever, but as statistics indicate, persuading very few to remain pregnant.
Crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) are billed as alternatives to abortion clinics, but new data suggests they largely fail at their mission, persuading less than 4 percent of clients to forgo abortion care.
Of the 2.6 million clients who visited crisis pregnancy centers since 2004, 3.52 percent, or 92,679 people, decided against having an abortion. The statistics come from eKYROS.com, Inc., an anti-choice, Texas-based software company, which says more than 1,200 CPCs use its software to track clients and measure results.
The publicly available data, as the eKYROS website explains, reflects “clients who came to the center with initial intentions of Abortion or Undecided and then changed their mind to carry baby to term.”
These “relationships” are key to the ability of CPCs to show their worth to religious backers. The centers showcase their “success stories,” or “lives saved,” in annual reports, fundraising campaigns, and promotional materials.
Meanwhile, Republican-held legislatures are funneling millions to these anti-choice facilities, buoyed by “success stories,” which statistics suggest are few and far between.
One of these “success stories” is Evelin, a 26-year-old who says she was jobless, going to school, and sleeping on her mother’s couch when she learned of her pregnancy. Recounting her story in a video produced by the CPC Los Angeles Pregnancy Services, Evelin describes how the center’s staff persuaded her to remain pregnant by showing her “how big” her “baby” was and by giving her a baby book.
Evelin’s story is one of a handful that Los Angeles Pregnancy Services promotes online.
But statistics reported by eKYROS suggest that CPCs overwhelmingly fail to reach or persuade their target audience of people seeking to end a pregnancy, despite outnumbering abortion clinics. At least 22 states furnish some form of public funding to CPCs, as Republican-majority legislatures cut financial support for Planned Parenthood.
CPCs are often tied to national anti-choice umbrella groups, such as Heartbeat International, the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, and Care Net, which alone numbers 1,100 affiliates. An eKYROS demo posted online indicates that some Care Net-affiliated CPCs use the software to report to the national office, although it’s not clear how many.
eKYROS and Care Net did not respond to multiple information requests, including a query about an apparent mismatch between figures reported by Care Net and eKYROS.
Care Net in its most recent annual report said it “saved” 73,000 lives in 2014. eKYROS, however, reported 3,476 births in 2014 from “clients who came to the center with initial intentions of Abortion or Undecided and then changed their mind to carry baby to term and the pregnancy outcome was confirmed as a birth by the center.”
Anti-choice groups typically equate preventing abortions to “saving lives,” so the basis for the 69,524 “lives” discrepancy is unclear.
Kimberly Kelly, who has studied CPCs for a decade and is associate professor of sociology and director of gender studies at Mississippi State University, told Rewire in an interview that the centers frequently count both the pregnant person and the fetus as “saved lives,” essentially double counting.
The tactics employed by CPCs to attract pregnant clients are legion and growing.
The centers are also evolving outreach to incorporate high-tech tools, employing digital marketing campaigns to reach patients seeking to end a pregnancy, and offering information via chat, text, and online video appointments.
CPCs, as a result, are reaching more clients than ever, as eKYROS statistics indicate, but persuading very few to remain pregnant. CPCs in 2015 convinced 4 percent of 307,068 clients to change their minds “to carry the baby to term,” compared to 1 percent of 43,086 in 2004.
Despite that, according to figures compiled by the Guttmacher Institute, ten states agreed to budget about $17 million in 2015 to providers of “abortion alternatives.”
By all accounts, eKYROS’ statistics, which rely on self-reports by CPC operators, are credible. Independent research and surveys by anti-choice groups find a similar lack of success by CPCs at dissuading patients seeking abortion.
In the first academic study of evangelical CPCs published in 2014 in the Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, Kelly, who has long studied CPCs, writes that the centers’ national leadership has “issued several reports lamenting the declining proportions of ‘abortion-minded’ women visiting centers.” These reports suggest, as Kelly observes, that CPCs “primarily serve women who would have continued their pregnancies anyway.”
A new study in the journal Contraception reinforces these findings, showing that 2 percent of 273 clients at an Indiana pregnancy center asked about abortion over a six-month period. The center in the study offers diapers, baby clothes, parenting resources, along with abortion referrals—the only center in the state to do so. Nearly nine in ten clients asked for diapers.
The institute reportedly recommended adding more comprehensive services, particularly medical services.
“People want a center that is medical and has services that are affordable,” institute president Chuck Donovan said of the survey results.
Kelly, however, suggested that attempts at reinvention by CPCs may ignore larger, institutional shortcomings. In her research, she described a fundamental disconnect between the staff at CPCs—largely white, middle-class women—and the clientele, who generally are low-income and racially and ethnically diverse.
And, as Kelly told Rewire, the fact that CPCs fall far short of their goal doesn’t mean operators will call it quits or regard the centers as failures. If anything, the meager results cast the centers in the role of David, squaring off against the Goliath of Planned Parenthood and other health-care organizations in a culture war.
“It’s their duty to take action as God would want, the actual outcomes are up to God,” Kelly explained. “The less successful they are, the greater the proof that a fallen society needs them.”
A Missouri lawmaker who has supported restrictions on accessing contraception has sponsored a bill to increase access to birth control.
HB 1679, sponsored by Rep. Sheila Solon (R-Blue Springs), would allow pharmacists to prescribe and dispense “hormonal contraceptive patches and self-administered oral hormonal contraceptives.”
“This legislation is meant to eliminate barriers to accessing birth control, which include having to make multiple trips to a pharmacy, taking time off from your job to see a doctor, and waiting hours at a doctor’s office for a new prescription,” Solon told KOMU.
Increasing access to birth control has gained momentum in several states, and making contraceptives available without a prescription is a policy proposal popular among many state lawmakers.
Like This Story?
Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.
Solon’s bill is nearly identical to the Oregon law.
HB 1679 would allow a pharmacists to prescribe birth control, “regardless of whether the person has evidence of a previous prescription.”
However, for those younger than 18, a pharmacist could only prescribe birth control if the person has “evidence of a previous prescription from a primary care practitioner or women’s health care practitioner for a hormonal contraceptive patch or self-administered oral hormonal contraceptive.”
“With my bill, women will be able to have timely and convenient access to birth control, thus decreasing unintended pregnancies,” Solon said.
HB 1679 marks an about-face in Solon’s stance on access to contraception. She did not return Rewire’s request for an interview.
Bills that Solon has sponsored in previous legislation sessions were designed to create barriers to “timely and convenient access to birth control” by allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions for it.
Bills sponsored by Solon in 2013 and 2014, both of which failed to pass, would have allowed medical professionals and health-care institutions to refuse to participate in medical procedures or research that violates their conscience, including the dispensing of contraception. The bills would have allowed refusal to participate in surgical and medication abortions, assisted reproduction, human cloning, and human embryonic stem cell research.
The bill would also have immunized medical professionals and health-care institutions from civil and criminal liability based on their refusal.
Solon has backed several other pieces of legislation that restrict women’s access to reproductive health care. She sponsored a 2014 bill that would require the Department of Health and Senior Services to conduct at least four annual inspections of any facility that provides abortion services. The GOP measure died in committee.
Solon sponsored a bill requiring the administration of the initial dose of RU-486 (mifepristone) or any other abortion-inducing drug to occur in the same room and in the physical presence of the physician who prescribed, dispensed, or otherwise provided the drug or chemical to the patient.
The bill was passed by the GOP-majority legislature in 2013 and became law without the governor’s signature. It bans the use of telemedicine for abortion care and creates a significant barrier to abortion access for women in rural areas.
HB 1679, the bill meant to expand access to birth control, was referred Wednesday to the Missouri House’s Emerging Issues committee.