Major Study Concludes Planned Parenthood Services Don’t Reduce Teen Pregnancy



Planned Parenthood

(Washington, DC) Contrary to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America public relations and lobbying message, there is no correlation with PPFA community presence and reduced teen pregnancy. In contrast, teen pregnancies actually decreased with the absence of PPFA. So concludes a major meta-study released by American Life League, the nation’s oldest pro-life Catholic education and advocacy group.

“We know that the pro-abortion first-response will be ‘Consider the source.’ But American Life League is not the source; the source is the official records of 16 counties within the Texas panhandle,” said Rita Diller, national director of ALL’s STOPP International project. “From 1994 through 2010, Planned Parenthood facilities in these counties went from 19 to zero. In the same period, the teen pregnancy rate dropped almost in half, from 43.6 per 1,000 to 24.1 per thousand, and the population of teen girls aged 13-17 remained stable. Those aren’t our numbers; those are government numbers.”

Diller says the longitudinal analysis, included in the full report, Planned Parenthood Federation of America: A 5-Part Analysis of Business Practices, Community Outcomes, and Taxpayer Funding, is the first of its kind because, until now, the one variable, the presence of Planned Parenthood, could not be studied in isolation.

“People don’t realize that Planned Parenthood must work hard to replace the 43 percent of its customers it loses each year,” added Diller. “It normally does this by promoting sexual promiscuity to teens. This study suggests that, when Planned Parenthood leaves, teens are more likely to embrace chastity.”

You can read it below or here.

 

Photo credit: Nate Dorr via Flickr (CC-By-NC-ND 2.0)

Keep updated with Caffeinated Thoughts!

Please read our comment policy before leaving a comment.

  • BobSimonhouse

    Good job, you identified a correlation. … Why did you stop there? To support your conclusions you need to show causation… Oh, silly me, you’re a religious organization, scientific principles don’t apply to your “studies”, apparently. You do have lots of big words like “longitudinal” in the report though. Great job! And yeah, nice work proving that everyone should indeed “consider the source” in consideration of your reports. Way to provide proof to stereotypes. Chalk it up to propaganda.

    • Dr. P

      Stupid, reactionary, smug, dismissive, dishonest. Chalk it up to liberalism.

      • BobSimonhouse

        Chalk it up to realism. Everyone should be dismissive of this “study” for it makes conclusions that are not supported by the data. It may be “smug” and I’ll even allow for “stupid” because that is just your emotionally induced label for something you don’t like to see. Pretty funny you call it “reactionary” given the nature of your reply! But hey, you’re in the right fish bowl, you just didn’t know other fish would hold you accountable. You don’t hold yourself accountable, so someone has to.