Study: Family planning saved taxpayers $10.5 Billion USD in 2010

Huffington Post said:

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.

Click to expand...

Surprised at all? More impetus to fund family planning and contraception, or?

Well, just off-hand, I never put any weight behind a study from a thinktank that supports the thinktank's goals. lol

I'm fine with family planning, but I don't like them making a/the benefit savings in public dollars - as that's short term thinking. You don't want an aging population and workforce. You need people to support the greater economy. You need people to support the needed social programs of the elderly.

TRIFORCE89 said:

Well, just off-hand, I never put any weight behind a study from a thinktank that supports the thinktank's goals. lol

Click to expand...

I would agree if I already wasn't on board with the idea of family planning. I know anecdotally that unplanned pregnancies are a quick and hard path toward long-term financial difficulties.

I'm fine with family planning, but I don't like them making a/the benefit savings in public dollars - as that's short term thinking. You don't want an aging population and workforce. You need people to support the greater economy. You need people to support the needed social programs of the elderly.

Click to expand...

It's true that we need people to care for the elderly, but doesn't the standard idea of just having more kids necessitate and ever increasing population? That always seemed like short term thinking to me because at some point it'll be too big to handle and it'll all collapse. Better to get that over with as soon as possible and start aiming for zero population growth now.

Scarf said:

I would agree if I already wasn't on board with the idea of family planning. I know anecdotally that unplanned pregnancies are a quick and hard path toward long-term financial difficulties.

Click to expand...

Yes. But perceived truth doesn't indicate a lack of bias. It'd be like a study put out by the oil industrial saying that spills are rare. Essentially correct, but it plays into their own needs much too nicely.

Scarf said:

It's true that we need people to care for the elderly, but doesn't the standard idea of just having more kids necessitate and ever increasing population? That always seemed like short term thinking to me because at some point it'll be too big to handle and it'll all collapse. Better to get that over with as soon as possible and start aiming for zero population growth now.

Click to expand...

No. I don't see how a stagnant population would be beneficial. I would want growth. The Western world is not China, we do not have an overpopulation problem. They do. Us overcompensating doesn't solve their problem.

A steady growing population with fewer social welfare expenditures is needed in order to take care of the next generation, and the one after that, and so forth. Those who are able to manage some sort of self-sustainability help the country manage expenditures, as such, supporting our creditors. These groups give options to families in order to help them take part in financial responsibility and thus help decrease government expenditures, which allows for our credit rating to be better off than it would if these families were to have children that they cannot financially support. Further, economic growth is dependent upon a stead incline in population, not expotential. We've all witness the affects of countries with high infancy rates that exceeds their government's ability to provide for. If the United States, or any country for that matter, wants to be more able to provide for their populations, they need to give their creditors and the international market in general a sense of commitment and responsibility with managing funds. Programs like this are quite conducive with spending within a nation's means, as well as domestically. These young people are given a much higher probability of attaining higher education and thus a more competitive edge in the world economy. This is definitely a case of quality workers over quantity. Though, there needs to be some growth, that will likely not slow down unless we implement policies such as euthanasia of infants, even if a family is financial secure, such as China. Senseless rapid population growth is what has put China in the financial breaking point that they are in currently!

Frankly, I see how this study should appeal to the base of both parties, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, lowering tax burden, and increasing global investor/creditor confidence. It's such a win-win. in this case pro-life philosophy often overshadows fiscal conservatism within the republican party and independent conservatives, which is really a disappointment. Fiscal responsibility should be the foundation, as a good or bad economy is what actually allows families to either thrive or sink. The government's main duty is to provide their citizens with a proficient economy rather than reckless and excessive spending on social welfare (though that doesn't mean ALL social welfare is bad by any means!), as well as basing social and fiscal policies around sentimentality, religious faith, or for monetary support from interest groups with a vested interest that overshadows economic stability. Okay, I am done with my rant about bipartisan politics. I have just had it with both sides and their supporters, who say they want bipartisanship, yet refuse to see the flaws in their own ideology as well as the merits in the opposing ideology as it relates to public interests beyond the scope of their individual desires and dogmatic philosophy.

(No time to proof read this, and I couldn't sleep last night, so disregard the profuse amount of grammatical errors of my morning rant!)

TRIFORCE89 said:

Well, just off-hand, I never put any weight behind a study from a thinktank that supports the thinktank's goals. lol

I'm fine with family planning, but I don't like them making a/the benefit savings in public dollars - as that's short term thinking. You don't want an aging population and workforce. You need people to support the greater economy. You need people to support the needed social programs of the elderly.

Click to expand...

I'd agree, but in the case of the Guttmacher Institute, they're a world-renowned NGO, so I think they're pretty trustworthy when it comes to this kind of matter.

Frankly, I see how this study should appeal to the base of both parties, fiscal responsibility, civil liberties, lowering tax burden, and increasing global investor/creditor confidence. It's such a win-win. In this case pro-life philosophy often overshadows fiscal conservatism within the republican party and independent conservatives, which is really a disappointment.

Click to expand...

^