Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

IGNORED

Family Planning Programs Saved Taxpayers $10.5 Billion in 2010: Report


Recommended Posts

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/family-planning-savings_n_3678531.html

 

 


Publicly funded family planning services saved the government a total of $10.5 billion in 2010 and prevented 760,000 abortions, according to a new study released on Tuesday.

The report, conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health think tank, found that every dollar the government spent to fund contraceptive services in 2010 saved taxpayers $5.68. A total of 8.9 million women received publicly supported contraceptive services that year through either the Title X federal family planning program or through Medicaid assistance, and 1.1 million unplanned births were prevented.

"Each year, millions of women are able to access highly effective contraceptive methods through these programs," said Jennifer Frost, a senior researcher for Guttmacher. "Investing in family planning to help women avoid pregnancies they don't want and for which they are unprepared is good public health policy. Saving money as a result of that investment is just common sense."

Republicans in Congress have tried several times over the past few years either to axe Title X funding entirely or to prevent Title X dollars from flowing to Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest provider of family planning services. The federal government spent $317.5 million on Title X in 2010, which was used to support clinics that provide affordable family planning services, such as different methods of contraception, to low-income women.

Several states, including Wisconsin and Texas, have slashed family planning in their budgets because some family planning providers also provide abortions. But the Hyde Amendment, which has been in place for more than three decades, prevents any public dollars from being used to pay for abortions.

Despite efforts to defund family planning providers, the level of savings generated by public family planning services is on the rise, particularly since the recession. The last Guttmacher study, conducted in 2008, used information from as far back as 2002 and found that every public dollar spent on family planning saved the government about $4 (compared to $5.68 in 2010). Adam Sonfield, senior public policy associate for Guttmacher, said the savings have gone up because the economic recession pushed more women into poverty and created a greater need for those services.

"Women who have not had access to public family planning services became more likely to not be using any method at all [in 2010], or to be using less effective methods, like withdrawal," Sonfield told HuffPost in an interview. "We suspect that is likely due to the recession."

The report estimates that without the services provided by Title X-funded family planning clinics in 2010, the unplanned pregnancy rate would have been 35 percent higher among women and 42 percent higher among teens. The program prevented about 590,000 unplanned births and 400,000 abortions.

 

it makes sense to get rid all planned parenthood facilities. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you count he 8.9 million women that were served by these programs the implication is a savings of over 1,000,000 per person serviced. I am not arguing the need for such services, that is for another thread. I am just saying that the numbers appear to be bullshit. The implication is the government would have spent 10.5 billion more if we didn't have these services. Implication hell the article actually says it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if you count he 8.9 million women that were served by these programs the implication is a savings of over 1,000,000 per person serviced. I am not arguing the need for such services, that is for another thread. I am just saying that the numbers appear to be bullshit. The implication is the government would have spent 10.5 billion more if we didn't have these services. Implication hell the article actually says it.

 

erm your math appears to be way off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think of how much money we could save if we just executed 5% of children under the poverty line.

I can't because I'm too busy thinking about all the money we did save by having programs in place that help stop people from unnecessarily adding to the "children under the poverty line" number. It's up to $10.5 billion I hear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...