Join 3,564 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


the Contraceptive Choice Project finds that free birth control access significantly cuts abortion rates
October 5, 2012 2:16 PM   Subscribe

Free birth control cuts abortion rate dramatically, study finds: "When more than 9,000 women ages 14 to 45 in the St. Louis area were given no-cost contraception for three years, abortion rates dropped from two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate."

TIME magazine:
The findings come amidst contention over President Obama’s health-care law, which offers women FDA-approved birth control without a copay. As of August 1, contraception is covered for women signing up for new health insurance plans or renewing their existing plans.

“[C]hanges in contraceptive policy simulating the Contraceptive Choice Project would prevent as many as 41% to 71% of abortions performed annually in the United States,” the study’s authors wrote.
previously - women's health care: now without co-pays
posted by flex (72 comments total) 38 users marked this as a favorite

 
Surely this will change anti choice opinion!
posted by emjaybee at 2:19 PM on October 5, 2012 [41 favorites]


Sure, but under that Arizona law that defines pregnancy as starting two weeks before conception, birth control is abortion.
posted by Nomyte at 2:25 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


Duh.
posted by NedKoppel at 2:26 PM on October 5, 2012 [8 favorites]


I was pretty sure that was an Onion headline.
posted by sparklemotion at 2:26 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


I'm pretty sure that a least a certain percentage of people strongly believe that sex should only be for procreation and a certain percentage of people will say that their tax dollars should support women having birth control but it seems like it would be a great thing for people that for a variety of reasons can't stomach a pro-choice position to get behind after all fewer abortions is good right?

It's just a shame that lack of access to low or no cost family planning seems to be such a contributing factor to abortion rates. Throw in some better sex education in schools instead of abstinence only programs and maybe the rate of abortions would drop to a even smaller number.
posted by vuron at 2:27 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


As of August 1, contraception is covered for women signing up for new health insurance plans or renewing their existing plans.

Which is awesome and all, except that insurance companies still managed to find a loophole. IUDs are now considered "medical" devices, not contraceptive devices, so insurance can still refuse to cover them. (Frustrating things I have learned in the past 2 weeks!)
posted by hopeless romantique at 2:32 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


It seems to me that insurance companies would give out contraception like candy.

At least pregnancy and parenthood seem really expensive by comparison.

I guess the invisible hand just doesn't want to touch you in your bathing suit area.
posted by poe at 2:36 PM on October 5, 2012 [40 favorites]


"The ARCH Foundation is a not-for-profit foundation established to assist low income patients who do not have insurance coverage for the Mirena intrauterine contraceptive system [IUD]."

For the ParaGard IUD, there's the ParaGard Patient Assistance Program and the ParaGard Patient Payment Program (PDF).
posted by flex at 2:37 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]


It always astonishes me how hard insurance companies squirm to get out of paying for contraception. Just from the green-eyeshade perspective, $1000 for the purchase and insertion of an IUD is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than a pregnancy utterly free of complications.

I am reminded of walking precincts in the 2004 election, and pointing out to undecided anti-choice voters that George W. Bush's support of abstinence-only sex ed had actually led to an increase in abortions.
posted by ambrosia at 2:37 PM on October 5, 2012 [10 favorites]


I'm glad to see the recommendations for IUDs for younger women -- they are so much more reliable than pills as commonly used (like by idiots like myself, who would miss a pill at least once every 2 months. Always had to use stupid backup).
posted by jb at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2012


If insurance companies have to cover maternity care, then sure, contraceptives are cheaper. But there are a lot of insurance policies that exclude maternity coverage.
posted by kristi at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


I teach a pretty conservatively pro-life student population, who are mostly also against government or insurance paying for birth control. If you ask them quite explicitly, "which is more important to you, reducing abortions or making a moral point about sexual responsibility?" you can make at least some headway in the argument. A lot of them (a lot of people generally) don't stop to think that laws can have practical and moral effects and that the two are not necessarily the same.

Plenty say that they think the moral point is more important, regardless of effects, and that people have to live with the "consequences" of their bad decisions, but lots of them are like, oh hey, yeah maybe we should think about what actually reduces abortion and try that thing even if it means giving teenagers condoms.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 2:47 PM on October 5, 2012 [59 favorites]


My response: "A-DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH."
posted by beaucoupkevin at 2:50 PM on October 5, 2012 [7 favorites]


Which is awesome and all, except that insurance companies still managed to find a loophole. IUDs are now considered "medical" devices, not contraceptive devices, so insurance can still refuse to cover them. (Frustrating things I have learned in the past 2 weeks!)

This doesn't sound right to me at all. The HHS regulations that came down in early 2012 require that "all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity" that are prescribed by a doctor be covered with no copay. So insurers can't unilaterally decide that IUDs are somehow not contraceptives, because that's a call that only the FDA can make. If some front-line agent at your insurance carrier is insisting that IUDs aren't covered because they are a medical device and not a contraceptive device, I'd insist upon speaking to someone higher-up because that's inconsistent with the regulations.

Of course, there are a bunch of other reasons that IUDs might not be covered (yet)--this regulation only applies to plans whose "plan year" (basically when the policy rolls over) is after August 1, 2012 and plans that haven't changed since before the ACA was passed are also grandfathered in. All of those exceptions should mostly expire by the time the health reform law fully kicks in, though, so the availability of IUDs should get a lot better in 2014.
posted by iminurmefi at 2:51 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


This is actually really timely for me - I had been toying with the idea of birth control for a little while, and I have some friends who absolutely love their IUDs. When I realized that one of the IUDs doesn't involve hormones (I had a very bad reaction to hormonal birth control some years ago and didn't want to risk that again), I knew what I wanted.

So I went to my OBGYN for a consult. They had stopped taking my insurance last year, but even out-of-network annuals were covered 100% (sweet!), so no big deal. But not so for the IUD, as mentioned above - no longer a contraceptive device. They checked on my insurance and said that it would be totally covered if I went to an in-network provider. They referred me to a clinic up the street who took my insurance, I had *another* consult, and a few days ago I got the IUD.

Of course, the first clinic had misspoken. The procedure was covered, but the device was not. Luckily, since no one had clarified that with me until *after I already had the procedure done, I wasn't forced to cough up $750 on the spot. Only $300. And the rest later.

While I'm really happy with all of this insurance reform, it's just glossing the fact that the entire system is completely broken.
posted by hopeless romantique at 2:51 PM on October 5, 2012 [23 favorites]


@iminurmefi: Thanks for the info. I've been angry at insurance companies all week from both sides (I'm an LMT who takes insurance - sooo many contradicting rules to deal with), but when my frustrating level dies down a bit I'll try calling them.
posted by hopeless romantique at 2:55 PM on October 5, 2012


IUDs are now considered "medical" devices, not contraceptive devices, so insurance can still refuse to cover them.

GAH! How does this even make sense? An IUD is a one-time cost, whereas oral contraception is a recurring cost. It seems like the IUD would be less expensive over time, no? WTF?
posted by spikeleemajortomdickandharryconnickjrmints at 2:57 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


GAH! How does this even make sense? An IUD is a one-time cost, whereas oral contraception is a recurring cost. It seems like the IUD would be less expensive over time, no? WTF?

The IUD itself was $750, not sure what the procedure costs. Good for 10 years. Comparable in cost, I guess, but do you think insurance companies are really taking the long-view with this stuff?
posted by hopeless romantique at 3:00 PM on October 5, 2012


hopeless romantique, I wouldn't necessarily put it past some (huge, amoral, publicly-traded) health insurance companies to try to creatively interpret the HHS regs in a way that perverts the spirit of the law, but the contraceptive language specifically is really clear and there's not a lot of wiggle room. At this point something like 75-80% of women are still in plans that are either grandfathered in because they haven't changed since 2010 or because their new plan year hasn't started, so it may well be a moot point for you, but barring the ACA being overturned, IUDs should be covered at 100% for nearly all women starting in 2014.

I personally think it's a little counter-productive for the Obama administration to have pushed the "free contraceptives! yay!" story so aggressively to the press back in August, given how few women are going to initially see this benefit. It seems like a recipe for women to get screwed financially (when they end up falling into one of the HUGE loopholes that don't close until 2014) and then lose faith that health reform is really going to come through and benefit them. Elections to win, though, I guess.
posted by iminurmefi at 3:06 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Weird - my OBGYN knew that the IUD wasn't going to be covered before she even checked my insurance. I need to do some research now, figure this out...
posted by hopeless romantique at 3:10 PM on October 5, 2012


I guess the invisible hand just doesn't want to touch you in your bathing suit area.

It does, but not in any way you want. The Invisible Hand is all about the bad touch. There is more profit in it.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:16 PM on October 5, 2012 [5 favorites]


The IUD itself was $750, not sure what the procedure costs. Good for 10 years. Comparable in cost, I guess, but do you think insurance companies are really taking the long-view with this stuff?

I just refilled a three month Nuvaring Rx. Insurance paid $222. I paid $40. The IUD is way cheaper in even in the short term.
posted by elsietheeel at 3:18 PM on October 5, 2012


I thought we already had this fight in 1988
posted by spicynuts at 3:19 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Of course, the first clinic had misspoken. The procedure was covered, but the device was not. Luckily, since no one had clarified that with me until *after I already had the procedure done, I wasn't forced to cough up $750 on the spot. Only $300. And the rest later.

When I had an IUD (Mirena) inserted, insurance covered the procedure but not the device. So with the encouragement of my awesome Nurse-Midwife, I ordered a Mirena from a Canadian online pharmacy for $250 (instead of the normal more than $500). Of course, when it came, all the packaging was in Turkish...

(We installed it anyway. Seems to be doing its job so far.)
posted by leahwrenn at 3:21 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


If insurance companies have to cover maternity care, then sure, contraceptives are cheaper. But there are a lot of insurance policies that exclude maternity coverage.

On first reading this I thought that mandating that insurance companies cover maternity would have been an easier, less-controversial way to ensure that they also cover (the far less expensive option of) contraception, but then I realized that would have just shifted the conversation from college "sluts" to "welfare queens."
posted by Navelgazer at 3:27 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Just called my insurance, they haven't actually processed the claim yet but she said something about the contraceptive devices still being subject to deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums (neither of which I've met). So, umm, that doesn't seem like much has changed, at least not on the surface.
posted by hopeless romantique at 3:30 PM on October 5, 2012


I know what you're thinking... "unless you try giving everyone free abortions, you're really comparing apples to oranges..."
posted by changoperezoso at 3:34 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


This makes it sound like all I needed to do was switch plans after March 2010 (I got my insurance 2/10) and then I wouldn't have been "grandfathered in" with such shitty benefits.
posted by hopeless romantique at 3:42 PM on October 5, 2012


"Sure, but under that Arizona law that defines pregnancy as starting two weeks before conception, birth control is abortion."

While it is differently unconscionable, this is not actually how that law works - like at all.
posted by Blasdelb at 4:00 PM on October 5, 2012


Hey - this project is how I got birth control and STD screenings for my 3 and a half years at Wash U! I <3 the Contraceptive Choice Project! And I love the fact that data collected about me might help change health care policies.
posted by ChuraChura at 4:11 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]


GAH! How does this even make sense? An IUD is a one-time cost, whereas oral contraception is a recurring cost. It seems like the IUD would be less expensive over time, no? WTF?

You and I like one time costs, but the people in charge of screwing us over medically do not. With a one time cost, we pay it, we're done. With something that involves a recurring cost, like the pill, it keeps, well, recurring. The doctors, the pharmaceutical companies, the insurance companies, they want you to keep buying, keep spending. Keep filling prescriptions, keep making appointments with your doctors, keep paying those co-pays, and the premiums ya gotta pay to keep those low co-pays.

Why would they want to lose a customer for the sweet, sweet 5-10 years of infertility that an IUD provides?
posted by esmerelda_jenkins at 4:18 PM on October 5, 2012 [4 favorites]


Healthcare should be free for everyone at the point of delivery. Everything else is madness.
posted by blue_beetle at 4:25 PM on October 5, 2012 [20 favorites]


It's a bit hard to believe we actually had to spend so much money and effort studying this. Of course, the Catholic Church will be too squicked out about the idea that someone, somewhere, of any religion might just be using an evil condom to care about these findings.

Though the pope did indicate that it might, possibly, be slightly less morally wrong for a gay male prostitute with AIDS to use a condom than not to do so, so maybe we're about 4,000 years away from progress on that point.
posted by zachlipton at 4:37 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


Healthcare should be free for everyone at the point of delivery. Everything else is madness.

Where I used to live, the ER cost a flat $30. Whether you were there for days, and got MRIs and surgery and stuck full of tubes, or just getting a few stitches after a butter-knife accident and discharged in an hour, it would cost you $30.

The purpose was so that if it wasn't an emergency, it was cheaper to visit your GP than just wander into the nearest ER and clog it up with your sniffles or wart removal.

I quite liked that. So I'm down with emergency healthcare costing a trivial amount. I assume you can wriggle out of the $30 fairly easily if you can demonstrate hardship.
posted by anonymisc at 4:55 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


Duh.

Maybe so, but it's not a bad thing to have solid research to back up "Well, it's obvious!"
posted by Greg_Ace at 4:57 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Of course, there are a bunch of other reasons that IUDs might not be covered (yet)--this regulation only applies to plans whose "plan year" (basically when the policy rolls over) is after August 1, 2012 and plans that haven't changed since before the ACA was passed are also grandfathered in. All of those exceptions should mostly expire by the time the health reform law fully kicks in, though, so the availability of IUDs should get a lot better in 2014.

For emphasis. New plans only. Plans already in place as of August 1, 2012 are not required to implement the law.
posted by dhartung at 5:00 PM on October 5, 2012


No no no, cus in the bible it says ......
posted by hellslinger at 5:00 PM on October 5, 2012


Wait, so you're saying that fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer terminations?!?!?
posted by Mister_A at 5:02 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


Wait, so you're saying that fewer unwanted pregnancies = fewer terminations?!?!?

The math! It just doesn't add up!
posted by anonymisc at 5:09 PM on October 5, 2012 [8 favorites]


hopeless romantique writes "The IUD itself was $750, not sure what the procedure costs. Good for 10 years. Comparable in cost, I guess, but do you think insurance companies are really taking the long-view with this stuff?"

There is some serious gouging happening there; Copper IUDs in Canada only cost a couple hundred dollars and Mirenas are around $350.
posted by Mitheral at 6:35 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


Commonsense. Who knew that would work?
posted by arcticseal at 7:46 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


For anybody who's a Kaiser member for whom this is relevant, check your coverage: my IUD cost me a $15 co-pay for the office visit. (Actually, it came to $45 total, due to two follow-up visits for details that don't warrant going into here. But still.)

Holy fuck am I glad for my Kaiser coverage. They suck, just less than everybody else as far as I can tell.
posted by Lexica at 8:28 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


IUDs are now considered "medical" devices, not contraceptive devices,

Well to be fair, IUDs are really shitty contraceptive devices.
posted by Malice at 8:29 PM on October 5, 2012


...two-thirds to three-quarters lower than the national rate.

This type of phrasing has always seemed peculiar to me, and possible wrong. Better to say: one quarter to one third of the national rate.
posted by neuron at 8:36 PM on October 5, 2012


Before anyone goes off on a tangent about my above comment, I'm half joking. Half not, because, anecdotal here, lots of people I know have been conceived while the IUD was in place. My sister, nieces and nephews, brother's grandkids, etc.

So yeah, half joking, half not.

Still don't think it should be treated differently from other birth control options.


An afterthought: I could have just edited and added that. Still not used to this glorious edit button!
posted by Malice at 8:45 PM on October 5, 2012


Well to be fair, IUDs are really shitty contraceptive devices.

In what way? They're more effective than tubal ligation, for cripes' sake.

lots of people I know have been conceived while the IUD was in place. My sister, nieces and nephews, brother's grandkids, etc.

Ah, you're talking about the old crappy IUDs. Modern ones are much, MUCH better.

I could have just edited and added that.

The mods have specifically asked that the edit feature be only used for typo correction, FYI.
posted by KathrynT at 9:08 PM on October 5, 2012 [11 favorites]


Well, to counter the anecdotal evidence about IUDs being sucky and lots of people getting knocked up on them... I'm just wrapping up my fifth year on a Mirena. No pregnancies here. And of the twenty-ish women I know who have had IUDs in the past decade, none of them have gotten pregnant while the IUD was in place.

Maybe you're thinking of the first versions of the IUD available in the States, or perhaps the Dalkon Shield. The most recent studies I've seen indicate that the IUD is more effective than the pill, I would guess largely due to not having to remember to take a pill at the same time every day.
posted by palomar at 9:41 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


And the beautiful thing about there being so many different types of birth control is that everyone can look at all the options and data, talk it over with their doctor, and choose what they like best.
posted by zachlipton at 10:09 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


Shocker: Free Birth Control Means Fewer Abortions
But what if free birth control just makes women into sluts? Jeanne Monahan of the anti-abortion Family Research Council told the AP that contraceptive use might make people have so much more sex that—since contraception sometimes doesn't work—there will actually be more unwanted pregnancies. "One might conclude that the Obama administration’s contraception mandate may ultimately cause more unplanned pregnancies since it mandates that all health plans cover contraceptives, including those that the study’s authors claim are less effective," she said.
posted by homunculus at 10:15 PM on October 5, 2012 [1 favorite]


If only there were other first world countries that do have free birth control access that the Family Research Council could look at to see if their argument had any merit...
posted by DreamerFi at 10:42 PM on October 5, 2012 [6 favorites]


Lizz Winstead, co-creator of Daily Show, launches Lady Parts Justice
posted by homunculus at 11:04 PM on October 5, 2012 [3 favorites]


Where I used to live, the ER cost a flat $30. Whether you were there for days, and got MRIs and surgery and stuck full of tubes, or just getting a few stitches after a butter-knife accident and discharged in an hour, it would cost you $30.

The purpose was so that if it wasn't an emergency, it was cheaper to visit your GP than just wander into the nearest ER and clog it up with your sniffles or wart removal.


When was this / where is this magical place? $30 is less than an office visit co-pay for most if not all insurances, and certainly not an amount that would make people think twice about using the ER as primary care. And it is a totally trivial amount that wouldn't make a dent in the bare-bones costs of even the simplest ER visit.
posted by charmcityblues at 11:24 PM on October 5, 2012 [2 favorites]


I always get a little rueful chuckle out of this stuff: The war on fucking, brought to you by the same people who brought you the war on drugs! We ain't winning this one either, but we sure do get off on making people miserable.

I recommend a spliff and a consequence free orgasm, you'll probably have at least a couple hours where you don't want to put a poor person in jail or ruin a woman's life because she was following a biological imperative.
posted by Divine_Wino at 6:37 AM on October 6, 2012 [12 favorites]


When was this / where is this magical place?

ER visits in BC cost $0. Doctor visits also cost $0. ERs are really good at triaging who needs attantion and who can just sit out in the waiting room for a few days. Seriously. Last time I was in an ER (my daughter woke up with a fever and coughing up blood) there was a drug seeker there who'd been waiting more than a day. No one with choices who in their right mind is going to use an ER as primary care.
posted by Mitheral at 7:54 AM on October 6, 2012


Jeanne Monahan of the anti-abortion Family Research Council told the AP

I just dick punched myself; to stop me from an ourobos-like meal of eating my own head because of the stupid required to understand her argument.

How's THAT for birth control?
posted by P.o.B. at 8:19 AM on October 6, 2012


What I'm not clear on is if the right hates poor people and dirty, dirty sluts so much why does it want so badly for them to reproduce? Is it a driving down labor costs thing?
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:02 AM on October 6, 2012 [4 favorites]


What I'm not clear on is if the right hates poor people and dirty, dirty sluts so much why does it want so badly for them to reproduce? Is it a driving down labor costs thing?

Dirty whore-sluts who filth up their God-created perfect holiest-of-holies (that should be reserved for her husband on their wedding when he assumes custody from her father) need to be punished and suffer negative consequences of their dirty, dirty whore-slutdom.

Not only do dirty whore-sluts need to be punished, they must be SEEN to be punished to act as w warning to others, like pirates hung from a gibbet on the dock.

It's not about reproduction, it's about punishment.
Beware men in whom the instinct to punish is strong
-Nietzche (or maybe someone else)

posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 11:02 AM on October 6, 2012 [1 favorite]


You will Never see an ad for birth control that goes like this:
"Interested in sex, [IMG: handcuffs] but afraid of having a baby? [IMG: squealing, diaper-wrapped poop-machine/sleep killer baby] Try birth control! You can have sex, but not have a baby. Most of the time."
-Target Women: Birth Control
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 11:09 AM on October 6, 2012


George_Spiggott

Jonathan Rauch: Red Families, Blue Families, Gay Families, and the Search for the New Normal
True, young people often make poor marital choices (or their hormones make the choices for them). But that, too, was usually alright, at least from society’s point of view, because divorce was stigmatized, fairly hard to get, and therefore rare. The couple did not necessarily expect deep personal fulfillment in marriage, a certain amount of adultery was taken for granted, and more of what would today be considered abusive or dysfunctional marriages were thought to be tolerable. So even a flawed marriage was likely to be a stable one. Over time, we had reason to hope, the spouses would grow into their responsibilities.

That is what “families form adults” means. Many teenagers and young adults formed families before they reached maturity, and came to maturity precisely by shouldering family responsibilities. Immature choices and what were once called, euphemistically, “accidents” were a fact of life; but the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation, combined with the pressure not to divorce, turned childish errors into adult vocations.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:13 AM on October 6, 2012 [2 favorites]


What I'm not clear on is if the right hates poor people and dirty, dirty sluts so much why does it want so badly for them to reproduce?

Oh, just because they don't want them to have access to contraception or abortion doesn't mean they want them to actually reproduce: "I'll tell you what really need to do with these illegitimate families on welfare—give all the kids up for adoption and execute the parents."
posted by homunculus at 11:17 AM on October 6, 2012


this regulation only applies to plans whose "plan year" (basically when the policy rolls over) is after August 1, 2012

I wonder if this is why my rates are going up so much? One month I get a happy birthday letter from insurance congratulating me on turing 35, and happy joy, that means another bracket for insurance... then the next month I get a letter that next policy year is going to cost even more. Wasn't there a part of the law that only allowed small increases in premiums?
posted by Bunglegirl at 1:11 PM on October 6, 2012


Another fun fact is that the reason crime rates plummeted in the 1990s is because abortion was legalized in the early 1970s - they youth most predisposed to crime were simply not around.
posted by four panels at 2:01 PM on October 6, 2012


Clifford Russell, the Romney extremist quoted in homunculus' link above, wants you to know that he was misquoted (go to the bottom, after the article):

"I did not say that I wanted to execute parents on welfare and give their kids up for adoption.

I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption.

Does it bother you that Progressives have to intentionally lie to make their positions look good? Could that intentional lie be a bases for a deformation of character law suit?"
posted by jb at 8:31 AM on October 7, 2012


Oh, well, that changes everything.
posted by homunculus at 10:15 AM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]


Study: Antiabortion laws inspire abuse. When legislatures target clinics, so do in-your-face activists, new research shows
posted by homunculus at 10:15 AM on October 7, 2012 [1 favorite]


‘Birth Control Is Turning the Men Gay!’: 14 Lessons from the Most Bizarre Anti-Contraception Video Ever
posted by homunculus at 10:17 AM on October 7, 2012


I said that it would be better to execute the parents of an illegitimate child and put their child up for adoption.

And these are the people who are up in arms about Islam and the boogeyman of "Sharia Law". What does a guy like this imagine is in Sharia law that's worse than what just came out of his own mouth?
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:48 PM on October 7, 2012


‘Birth Control Reduces Abortion’ Study Is Full of Slutty Lies, Says Totally Unbiased Anti-Choice Website
posted by homunculus at 8:50 PM on October 9, 2012


Celebrities Have Had it Up to Here With This Anti-Woman Crap
posted by homunculus at 9:01 PM on October 9, 2012 [1 favorite]


Judge Temporarily Blocks Arizona Planned Parenthood State Funding Cut
posted by homunculus at 1:46 PM on October 20, 2012


Sandra Fluke is a Spoiled Brat Because of Pakistan, According to Newspaper Columnist
posted by homunculus at 1:55 PM on October 20, 2012


The Associated Press Thinks All Women Who Have Abortions Are Delicate, Regretful Flowers
posted by homunculus at 11:22 AM on October 22, 2012


« Older This machine creates ANYTHING!...  |  How To Steal The Space Shuttle... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments