The Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) recently published the results of a survey titled “Who Uses Telecontraception and Why? A Closer Look at Clients of Four Telecontraception Companies.” KFF polled 5,925 clients of four different online contraception companies – namely Nurx, The Pill Club, Twentyeight Health, and Pandia Health – on a variety of subjects related to their use of telecontraception.
KFF reported on various demographic aspects of the sample, respondents’ levels of satisfaction with telecontraception services, rates of insurance coverage and usage, and other topics. Perhaps most interesting of all the subjects covered, however, were the changes in respondents’ contraception usage following the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health, which overturned Roe v. Wade.
KFF states:
In response to the [Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health] ruling, almost a quarter (24%) of respondents report that they have gotten emergency contraception to have on hand and over a fifth (22%) have considered sterilization. Twelve percent report that they have considered switching to or have started a more effective method of birth control, and eight percent have started using birth control due to the Dobbs decision.
These numbers suggest that a sizable portion of those surveyed were relying on readily available, legal abortion as at least a backup means of contraception.
According to the National Abortion Federation (NAF), it is a myth that people use abortion as a method of contraception. Anecdotal and some statistical and study evidence has challenged this assertion and suggested that at least some people do, in fact, use abortion as birth control. KFF’s telecontraception survey results lend credence to this theory.
Abortion advocates also postulate that pro-life laws do not change people’s behavior or likelihood to get an abortion. However, KFF’s survey – in which 22% of respondents said they were considering sterilization – challenges this notion, as well, and reinforces previous data which demonstrates that pro-life laws do, in fact, change people’s behavior in ways that ultimately reduce abortion rates. A 2004 study in the Journal of Law and Economics, for example, found:
[C]ountries where abortion is legal only to save the mother’s life or for specific medical reasons have abortion rates that are only about five percent of the level in countries in which abortion is legal on request. Furthermore, the results indicated that even modest abortion restrictions have an impact. Countries where abortion is legal only due to medical or social reasons have a 25 percent lower abortion rate than countries where abortion is available on request.
KFF reports that its findings “were fairly consistent across states regardless of whether abortion was banned or not,” suggesting that even the mere possibility of pro-life laws being enacted can affect people’s behavior.
