I can't afford a child, I'm going on the pill! Oh snap, I can't afford that either...
The Guttmacher Institute released a new study yesterday revealing that the economic recession has not only caused women to be less prone to want to have children, but literally half of the women researched said the recession has led them to either delay pregnancy or limit the number of children they have.
On top of the cost of birth control, we're in a bind that leaves us pretty much screwed; while women want to avoid getting pregnant because they can't afford a kid, amost one in four women have put off seeing a gynecologist in the past year to save money, and report having a harder time paying for birth control than they did in the past. Dr. Sharon Camp, Guttmacher president and CEO, put out a statement:
"The recession has put many women--including middle-class women who are having trouble making ends meet--in an untenable situation. They want to avoid unintended pregnancy more than ever, but at the same time are having difficulty affording the out-of-pocket costs of prescription contraception. Unfortunately, while delaying a prescription refill or skipping pills may save women money in the short term, it increases their risk of an unintended pregnancy and results in greater costs related to abortion and unplanned birth later on."
Check out the entire report, "A Real-Time Look at the Impact of the Recession on Women's Family Planning and Pregnancy Decisions."
h/t to Leila.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Recession dramatically changing women's childbearing decisions.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16160
On the other hand, I heard an NPR report last week on some women who decided to *have* a baby after losing a job. The thinking was that they were making the best (having the child earlier than planned) of a bad situation (being forced out of work) and it meant they could probably be at home with the child for longer.
That's a good point, but to be fair those women probably have significant others who are financially secure.
Simplest yet most difficult solution: Stop having intercourse with men.
If you wouldn't want to engage in intercourse (with a man) the whole thing wouldn't be a problem in the first place.
The thing is, many of us actually want to have sex.
Shocking, I know.
I wouldn't advocate such a solution for everyone, but I know I abstain from sex with my boyfriend when I can't afford birth control. He understands, and is perfectly content with oral sex for now.
But that just isn't the answer for everyone. People need to be able to afford birth control, that's the bottom line.
"He understands, and is perfectly content with oral sex for now."
I can't seem to find the words to describe how much this statement bothers me.
I'd like to believe Nikki means the oral sex is going both ways.
I'd like to believe Nikki means the oral sex is going both ways.
Simple yet difficult, that sounds like a contradiction...
Really? If a married couple can't afford children right now, you think the best, easiest, most logical solution is for them to be celibate? Really?
Also, personally, I waited to have sex until I was 24. I've done all the "not having intercourse with men" I ever plan to do. And abstaining from sex is not going to fix the medical problem that I take birth control to address. I had to take the Pill for years before I was sexually active, and if I cease to be sexually active I will still need the Pill.
(I know, I said 'easier' and the word difficult was in the original post, but I just took that to mean that those of us having sex for pleasure were such hedonists we'd have a hard time keeping our legs together.)
I have never understood why people cannot see the connection between economic factors and the birth rate. Even women who want to have children are being more practical now that the cost of living and healthcare has increased so dramatically.
I must admit that, in addition to certain lifestyle factors (peace and quiet, career, and the ability to travel unencumbered), a compelling reason that I do not want children comes down to simple dollars and cents: they are too expensive.
I think what you are saying only applies to thoughtful, responsible people though. Too many people don't care what their circumstances are: if they want a baby, they'll have one no matter what. They don't let little things like having no income or a place to live stop them from doing what they want.
I just don't think that's true. Not to mention that this seems a little classist to me:
"They don't let little things like having no income or a place to live stop them from doing what they want."
What good can possibly come from attacking poor women?
How is it classist to point out that if you have no income and no home, it might not be the best time to deliberately plan to have a baby? Crumpet has a point - there are too many women who think that a baby is like an handbag or an iPod, something to have just because "I want one".
This is why it always boggles me when people call the childfree "selfish". What's more selfish than bringing another human being into existence and not being able to care for it properly, just because you "want" it?
because having a family, whenever and however you want, if you want one, is a basic human right, not a class privilege. and it's a right that, if i recall correctly, is one that feminists fight the anti-choicers for on a daily basis.
Yes, having children - or not - is a basic human right. But along with that right comes the responsibility to care for the child or children you bring into existence. If you can't do the latter, then you shouldn't do the former. Look, I'm as pro-choice as anybody on this forum. But a baby - a human being - isn't something you collect just because you "want" it. You wouldn't get a dog or a cat if you couldn't feed, shelter, or care for it, would you? So why would you have a child that you can't feed, shelter, etc.? That doesn't mean only rich people should procreate. But if you haven't worked in a year, you're living in your parents' basement, and you're subsisting on ramen noodles and Malt-O-Meal because that's all you can afford, chances are this is not the best time to have a baby. If that seems "classist" to you, then so be it.
you'll get no argument from me (a single mother in graduate school) that having a child is a huge responsibility. but it isn't my job to tell other women when it's OK for them to have kids. and people who have children in situations that i wouldn't consider ideal and wouldn't choose for myself don't need my judgment.
not to mention, this whole "so many people see nicole richie having a baby and then they want one, too!" meme is so insulting. the reasons people have families are myriad and not my business anyway. short of abuse, i make it a practice to keep my nose out of other people's childrearing.
don't we say we believe women should have access to abortion because we trust them to make the best decision for their lives and their families? seems like that's only the case if they have an abortion. however, if they choose to become a parent, that choice seems to be open to public debate.
It's also a really huge responsibility. Sometimes people forget that responsibilities come hand in hand with the rights we care so much about. It goes beyond the right to do whatever you want, whenever, regardless of your circumstances. For example, I happen to think it's irresponsible to have a baby with an abuser, for many reasons. Sometimes things in life aren't going well and it isn't okay to put a dependent child in the middle of that. Crack addicts or alcoholics might feel they have a right to bring drug addicted, impaired children into the world that they won't be able to care for and that most other people won't want to adopt. I'd disagree with them,too.
It isn't classist: it's common sense.
"there are too many women who think that a baby is like an handbag or an iPod, something to have just because 'I want one'."
What the fuck? Please tell me you're quoting Rush Limbaugh to be ironic...
Yes, there are lots of women like that, esp. here in Los Angeles, where babies are trendy. It is really sad. I think they look at people like Nicole Richie and Katie Holmes and think if they can do it so can I. We are way over-influenced by celebrity culture.
This is a massively offensive statement that I might add was made without any empirical data other than the fact that you've noticed there are "a lot" of women in Los Angeles who you think want to be like Nicole Richie. I respect every woman's right to make her own decisions concerning reproduction. No one on this thread called you selfish for deciding to remain childless. Please check your hostility and have the decency to respect other women enough to trust that they can make intelligent decisions when it comes to having children.
No, actually, I'm not, but if the iPod reference bothers you let me rephrase it. There are women who think that having a baby is something they should do simply because "It's so cute, I want one!" or "All my friends are having babies!" or "Having a baby will make me complete!" This is my personal opinion and I'm sure somebody will disagree with it, but I just don't think that "But I want one/everyone else has one" is a good enough reason on its own to have a child.
As you can see from my screen name, I'm right with you! No, we are not selfish, we are just doing what is best for us and our planet.
As you can see from my screen name, I'm right with you! No, we are not selfish, we are just doing what is best for us and our planet.
As you can see from my screen name, I'm right with you! No, we are not selfish, we are just doing what is best for us and our planet.
I am a childfree person. I do believe that having a child or conversely not having a child is a basic human right.
The point here, I think, is that the decision to have a child is a decision that should be made under consideration of all the factors that will most certainly affect a person's ability to be a good parent. Be it financial concerns, or just a plain old "kids make me gag" feeling. You don't get to do anything you want in this world without some kind of accountability.
The point here, I think, is that the decision to have a child is a decision that should be made under consideration of all the factors that will most certainly affect a person's ability to be a good parent.
Exactly, and well put.
I think planning to have a baby on one income doesn't necessarily mean you can't afford to have a baby at all. My husband only brings in $23,000 a year, and spends $4500 a year in child support, bringing our gross income down to $18,500 a year for our family of three before taxes. We chose to have a baby and chose for me to stay home with our daughter. We considered other options and really dissected our budget and decided what we could and couldn't afford. We sacrificed cable, cell phones, eating out, a second car, and really focus on utility consumption. We chose to breastfeed, cloth diaper, and make baby food at home. With the right planning, being low income doesn't mean you can't afford being a parent. We still put $40 dollars a year away for our daughter's college account. With that being said, we would NOT consider having another baby at this point and have taken steps (IUD combined with FAM) to prevent unintended pregnancy. We make too much money to qualify for medicaid or food stamps, we aren't on WIC, we have our own health insurance. We aren't milking the system and yet can still raise a family the way we want on little money. People take luxuries for granted that we don't consider necessities. I do think its irresponsible for people with absolutely NO income to bring a child into this world. I don't think its a rights argument, no one is going to or capable of preventing or ending such pregnancies. I would hope would be parents would consider doing the best for their families. Those who can't afford monthly pills and gyno visits could consider health department provided pap smears and most GPs can do pap smears too. The pill isn't the only form of birth control and it should go without saying that if you can't afford bc then you certainly can't afford a baby. But if you can afford a cell phone, car, new clothes, etc, why can't you afford bc?
not, $40 a year, $40 a month is what it should say, sorry for typo.
You're absolutely right, you can raise a child without being wealthy. You and your husband gave parenthood a lot of thought and you came up with a plan that works for you, and, hey, more power to you! What bothers me are people who decide to have kids with the mindset of "God/the government will provide, so I don't have to"; sometimes it seems like there are more safeguards to protect against irresponsible pet owners than irresponsible parents.
The pill isn't the only form of birth control and it should go without saying that if you can't afford bc then you certainly can't afford a baby.
Absolutely.
the entire point of this article seems to be how that's mostly not true. Most women do think about affording children before they have them. Now, you don't get to be the one with final vote on what counts as affording. and sure, surprises happen. but by and large, no.
I think what you are saying only applies to thoughtful, responsible people though. Too many people don't care what their circumstances are: if they want a baby, they'll have one no matter what. They don't let little things like having no income or a place to live stop them from doing what they want.
This is news? Welcome to my life.
If it weren't for Planned Parenthood I wouldn't have had a pap smear in the last four years. If it weren't for Planned Parenthood there is no way I'd be able to afford my birth control.
I have student loans to pay. I have a job that pays just enough so that I can get by. I'm applying to grad school but if/when I get in where will that leave me? In more debt.
Yeah, I definitely can't afford to be squeezing out a kid...
Exactly! What average person can afford a kid these days?
I don't know, but I know a ton of women who are either pregnant or just had babies. I don't get it.
Because of the recession and slowing business, earlier this year my boss cut out our health insurance. I don't make enough to afford getting it on my own, and I was paying in full for the rest of my birth control prescription. Now it's run out, and as soon as I can get to Planned Parenthood, I'm going.
In the meantime, I've been off the pill for over a month now and every time I have sex with my boyfriend we both freak out that I'm going to get pregnant (we still use condoms).
It's just beyond stressful and ridiculous.
One more thing: you have to see a gyneacologist to get the pill?
I went to my GP once, and now I can return to the pharmacy, saying: "i'll have another year's supply of these, please", pay 30 something euro and be done with it for another year.
Then again, this is Holland...
It doesn't work that way in the US. You need to go to the gyne once a year for a pap test and then they'll give you a year's refill of BC.
It is annoying but it is done to ensure regular pap testing. And since I just recently received an abnormal test myself (I wrote about it here: http://community.feministing.com/2009/09/my-colposcopy.html#more) and catching this early is extremely important, I'm not willing to say this is completely ridiculous and unnecessary.
I hear you about early detection and can personally sympathize with your story, but personally I (in bold) would like to be the person who decides how often I get tested for cancer(based on research and the advice of whatever professional I decide to consult). I would prefer not to have this decision made for me by doctors on pain of not having access to birth control.
The pill can increase your risk for cancer. Not requiring testing would be irresponsible for the doctors.
Well, isn't it kind of coercive? No pills without invasive medical procedure? Sure, the docs should inform you of the risks, but it's my body, my choice.
I've had an abnormal pap too... had to have some laser thingy (can't remember the name now) to clear it up. But still, getting a script for the pill should not be dependent on getting a pap.
In Australia they recommend pap every 2 yrs, can be done by the GP and is a totally separate thing to bc scripts.
Now you are starting to understand why Americans spend something like double of any other rich country per person on healthcare - by having highly trained surgeons like OBs handle things are relatively mundane as dispensing the bcp. Another example that muight shock a european, OBs deliver 99% of all babies here in the US (low or high risks women, it does not matter) and actively seek to suppress midwifery.
The safest form of avoiding an unplanned pregnancy is natural family planning with a recorded success rate of up to 99%.
More information on this at: http://www.billings-centre.ab.ca/general/index.html
I'm feeling lazy this morning so I'm just going to copy and paste from Planned Parenthood why this isn't the best choice for everyone:
FAMs may not work for you if you
* have more than one sex partner
* have a sex partner who isn't as committed to FAMs as you are
* don't want to keep close track of your safe days
* are not able to abstain or use another method for at least 10 unsafe days during each cycle
* take medicine that may affect reading the signs of these methods
Do not depend on tracking your fertility if you
* have irregular periods
* have a partner who is not cooperative
* have a sexually transmitted infection or frequent abnormal vaginal discharges
* cannot keep careful records
FAM stands for Fertility Awareness Method which is sometimes called "natural family planning".
With typical use, the failure rate for that method is 15-20%. Not a better failure rate than the pill.
I think you are confusing this with the Rhythm Method which is not a very successful way of family planning.
If you check the website I suggested you will see that they are not the same thing. FAM does require the co-operation of your partner though.
Quote from Planned Parenthood (in original "don't always" and "Always" are boldface):
Between 12 and 25 out of every 100 couples who use FAMs each year will have a pregnancy if they don't always use the method correctly or consistently. Always practicing these methods correctly will make them more effective.
"Always practicing these methods correctly will make them more effective."
That's true of all birth control methods. The issue is that it's a lot more difficult to always practice these methods correctly than it is to take a pill or use a condom.
I use a form of NFP along with condoms and contraceptive foam or jelly. It makes jme feel that much safer since I cannot use hormonal contraceptives. When I read some of that I was surprised. "A cooperative partner"? I sure hope so. Otherwise that would be rape...right?
I'm not saying that this method isn't good for you and your partner. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't the best birth control method for everyone. I think an uncooperative partner would be one who was less willing to abstain on the unsafe days.
OK, that makes sense. I was mostly just building up on what you all were saying, I think combining it with barrier methods can be just as effective as hormonal contraceptives with the proper education. I understand that it may not be best for everyone to want to abstain...but hey, during those days, doing other things work just find for us! But it is for people who are dedicated to doing things without hormonal contraceptives which wreak total havoc on my body :P
I think what they mean is that some partners don't really want to take responsibility for being part of the family planning process.
For example, fertility awareness requires you to take your temperature periodically and keep track of it on a chart. This would probably be easier to do if your partner helped remind you to do it, kept a backup copy of the chart, etc. It's not rape if he doesn't help out, but you can definitely call him "uncooperative" if he doesn't want to be a part of the process in any way.
Okay I get it now.. I guess it just sounded weird to me :P I think it's good to get men involved though, as an aside. My bf told me the other day that it is really cool getting to know how the female body works on another level.. it's really good to have that kind of closeness! Also, sorry if there are any typos in my posts, this computer is messing up on me..
Not necessarily - it depends on the person. Some of us are very good at taking our temperature every morning and tracking our cervical mucus! And I def think those failure rates are for rhythm. Rhythm is so ineffective because its based on the myth of the 28-day cycle for all women. Once you understand your cycle length and the day you tend to ovulate each month (i.e., when you are working off actual evidence of fertility as opposed to a random guess) you are much more likely to accurately predict it.
stellarose, I already covered this in my reply to prettyinpink. I said in my OP that this may not be the best method for everyone. Some people have a hard time remembering to take a pill every day at the same time. Some people have horrible reactions to the hormones in oral contraceptives. Some people dislike condoms for a multitude of different reasons. I think it's irresponsible to promote any form of birth control without citing the disadvantages.
That's what "typical use" means, Judy. Not everyone's going to use it perfectly 100% of the time.
Yeah, this is not a reliable method. I would stick with condoms. They are easy to use and they are cheap.
As soon as I pay off my deductible from the surgery I had this year, I am going to look into sterilization. The Essure method only costs you a co-pay but it is so new that it makes me a bit nervous. But with a tubal ligation, I would have to pay an entire hospital outpatient surgery co-pay plus the remainder of my deductible.
I just think its extremely judgmental to say "this is not a reliable method" period. For some people, its extremely reliable, others, extremely unreliable. Right for you? Apparently not. But bcp is not for me, nor are condoms...I'm not going around and judging others who use them happily. All have side effects and failure rates. People should have information about all of them upon which to make their own decisions. Just because something is low-tech does not mean its ineffective for some.
I remember by first gyn visit the doc treated me like a tramp. That was a fun experience. Luckily, things roll off me easy and I just found a new (female) doctor.
What about splitting the cost of contraception with partner? Either he participates in buying OK (and/or pay to gyn) or he buys have of the condoms? I think it is very... natural way of fixing problem.
depends in the dynamic of your relationships, oswid_. i can see splitting BC costs as ending up pretty coercive if you're in an abusive relationship. also, if your partner WON'T help you pay, then what? you could say 'break up!', but for some folks, it's not so easy and could just end up in 'i'll be forced or coerced into have sex anyway, regardless of the risk'.
@ Juli & Glauke:
Yes, you have to see a dr. There are pros, but, like Juli, I've had bad experiences as well. I went to a dr. one time who recommended some tests that I knew I a) didn't need and b) couldn't afford. He then said he wouldn't refill my birth control prescription until I took the tests (they were unrelated to the medication). I left furious and went home, then called the medical center to complain. He finally had his nurse call and say that he would refill it after all, but only when I contacted his supervisor.
------------------------------
More general response to the topic:
I went off of my birth control because of finances, but it was kind of the extra push I needed. I had no idea at first what we'd do -- how did I, a well educated feminist, wind up without a clue of how to control my own fertility? We turned to condoms, but I hated them. My partner of 6 years and I finally realized that withdrawal worked for us, and works well. I'm happier without the hormones that caused me to have horrible anxiety and I've had more energy as well.
Kind of a win-win.
If you can't afford birth control or a child you shouldn't be having sex. Sex is as much as a right and priviledge as having a child but they both come with consequences.
"If you can't afford birth control or a child you shouldn't be having sex. Sex is as much as a right and priviledge as having a child but they both come with consequences."
OMG, here comes the morality police! How about we skip the morality lesson and concentrate on something far more practical like making sure that all women have access to safe, affordable birth control and accurate information about the different kinds of birth control? That said, I'm laid off right now, and I have access to free birth control because I'm a veteran. Thank God for that, because my civilian health coverage (when I had it) didn't cover any birth control. Despite the veteran Administration's flaws in the treatment of female veterans, it at least allows female veterans basic gyn care and access to birth control (and you don't have to be disabled either). Frankly, I think this is something that all American women (and men also in terms of general healthcare) should have, and we shouldn't have to join the military to get it.
Because it's National Punctuation Day, I'd like to point out that "I can't afford a child, I'm going on the pill! " is a comma splice.
Perhaps this is a good time to remind folks that it's time to give men more birth control options.