iGen concerns Americans born 1995-2012, about 74 million people and 1/4 of our population.
This generation has been vocal on Facebook, decrying the possibility that some working Americans will have to pay $9/month for birth control pills (see Why the demand for lesbian and transgender women to subsidize cisgender heterosexual women?). Yet it turns out that they may not need these pills:
The lack of dating leads to the next surprising fact about iGen: they are less likely to have sex than teens in previous decades
The drop is the largest for 9th graders, where the number of sexually active teens has almost been cut in half since the 1990s. The average teen now has sex around the spring of 11th grade , while most GenX’ers in the 1990s got started a year earlier, by the spring of 10th grade. Fifteen percent fewer 12th graders in 2015 ( vs . 1991 ) have had sex. Fewer teens having sex is one of the reasons behind what many see as one of the most positive youth trends in recent years: the teen birthrate hit an all – time low in 2015 , cut by more than half since its modern peak in the early 1990s ( see Figure 1.4 ). Only 2.4 % of girls aged 15 to 19 had a baby in 2015, down from 6% in 1992 . So with fewer teens having sex, fewer are getting pregnant and fewer are giving birth at a young age . Parenthood, one of the more irrevocable milestones of adulthood, is less likely to be reached by today’s teens .
The low teen birthrate is also an interesting contrast to the post–World War II era—in 1960, for example, 9% of teen girls had babies. Back then, though, most of them were married; the median age at first marriage for women in 1960 was 20. Thus, half of the women getting married for the first time in 1960 were teenagers—unthinkable today but completely accepted then. These days, marriage and children are many years off for the average teen, something we’ll explore more in chapter 8 (along with another intriguing question: Does the trend toward less sexual activity continue into adulthood?). Overall, the decline in teen sex and teen pregnancy is another sign of the slowed developmental speed of iGen: teens are waiting longer to have sex and have babies just as they are waiting longer to go out without their parents and date.
These young folks are more likely to have at least some kinds of sex, but those kinds wouldn’t seem to require birth control pills:
If younger generations are more likely to believe that there’s nothing wrong with gay and lesbian sex, does that mean they are more likely to have it themselves? They are: the number of young women who have had sex with at least one other woman has nearly tripled since the early 1990s. More men now report having had a male sexual partner as well
There is a particularly large generation gap in lesbian sexual experience. Among women born in the 1940s and 1950s, only about six in one hundred had had a lesbian partner during her lifetime by 2014–2016. But among those born in the 1980s and 1990s, nearly one in seven already had even though she’d lived decades less. Millennial and iGen women are much more likely than their predecessors to have had sex with another woman.
Maybe they need the free pills because, compared to the bad old non-free days, there is a greater chance of sexual assault leading to pregnancy?
From 1992 to 2015, the rate of rape was nearly cut in half in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports, which are based on reports to police.
the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), administered by the US Department of Justice. In a 2014 report, the DOJ broke down the data by age and student status. Figure 6.6 shows the rate of rape for 18- to 24-year olds enrolled in a college or university, an important population given the recent attention paid to sexual assault on campus. Here, too, rape was less common in recent years, with the rate more than cut in half (from 9.2 to 4.4 per 1,000) between 1997 and 2013.
More: read iGen.
Can you please point me to someone who has demanded _free_ birth control?
I ask because I am fairly sure that is a straw man lie that someone made up, no one questions, and which you just repeated.
As for why people want access to birth control medication, you have repeated a common false assumption. The reason birth control medication is so important has nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. Its value is in regulating a women’s hormones and keeping her healthy.
> keeping her healthy.
The WHO categorizes most hormonal contraception as a carcinogen. The urban sewage discharge of this stuff has also actually hit levels where it’s an environmental problem. Turning the frogs gay, and all that.
Nope, it’s not due to birth control medication:
http://www.newsweek.com/female-frogs-estrogen-hermaphrodites-suburban-waste-369553
” WHO categorizes most hormonal contraception as a carcinogen”
pshaw:
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/hormones/oral-contraceptives-fact-sheet
Are there Americans who have demanded free birth control pills? See
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/commentary/ct-feminists-free-birth-control-tom-price-trump-perspec-1202-20161202-story.html
https://www.allure.com/story/birth-control-coverage-mandate-trump-rollback-risk
contains a photo of some protesters holding up signs with their demands.
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2017/11/14/mass-senate-unanimously-passes-free-birth-control-bill/UZTL8qpl8vtAEMnFkLYTzJ/story.html
is the Massachusetts legislature’s response to some demands.
Nate: “Its value is in regulating a women’s hormones and keeping her healthy.”
Much as I might personally disagree with your point of view, it is good to see someone with the courage to go public with the idea that human females are inherently defective due to their hormones and that therefore they need supplemental chemical regulation designed by men such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Haberlandt .
[Separately, these pills sound awesome. If I wake up tomorrow identifying as a woman then I should take some to keep myself “healthy”?]
“This generation has been vocal on Facebook, decrying the possibility that some working Americans will have to pay $9/month for birth control pills”
The $9/month options are not suitable for all women.
Our human version of the “mouse utopia” experiment continues!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments
This proves us confirmed bachelor computer programmers were merely ahead of our time, socially as well as technologically.
@Neal
Your posts here are becoming tiresome.
While American’s are holding back on sex, looks like their counter part in UK are having fun at it: http://www.bbc.com/news/health-42051827
@Neal: The $9/month cost isn’t the real issue, it’s the side effect that gets created off of it. The fact that the cost is subsidize means manufacturers will size the moment and increase the price but then buyers will demand the same old price and this leads to loop back feed making the price go up. In addition, the fact that government is now running healthcare, it means this becomes a service and over time more services will be demanded of the government. New generations are becoming more and more dependent than ever — Phil’s earlier post on young generation and republican tax cut [1] is a good sign of this:
“A Wall Street Journal analysis of Federal Reserve data found that only 3.6% of households headed by adults younger than 30 owned at least part of a private company in 2013, down from 10.6% in 1989. All the talk about the young generation being attracted to entrepreneurship turns out to be just that—talk.”
[1] http://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2017/11/18/why-young-people-dont-like-the-republican-tax-plan-they-are-planning-to-be-w-2-wage-slaves/
George A: It is my assertion that the social value obtained by ensuring that every women has access to the birth control they want regardless of their ability to pay justifies whatever inefficiency is introduced by the government’s involvement in its distribution. However, my point in comment #6 was different: the posting’s description of the benefit is misleading. It may be that birth control is a trivial expense for some or even most women, but it is not a trivial expense for all women.
Neal: I think that you missed the main point of the posting. But, in any case, women who refrain from work are entitled to free birth control via Medicaid (also free housing, food, and Obamaphone!). The recent fight in the media was about women with jobs who receive health insurance as part of their employee compensation. You’ve postulated that there is a woman out there with a job and employer-provided health insurance who would be unable to have access to the birth control that she wants if the insurance company wouldn’t pay, but have you found an actual woman somewhere in the U.S.?
[And, once you find that woman, please explain to use why her lesbian, transgender, infertile, and older sisters should subsidize her! What is special about birth control that cost doesn’t matter? Suppose that Neal’s Pharma makes a $10,000/month pill and uses advertising to convince women that they want this awesome new pill. Now lesbians, transgender, and elderly woman have to pay higher premiums so that young fertile sexually active women can have this $10,000/month pill?]
“have you found an actual woman somewhere in the U.S.”
I certainly know women for whom some perfectly reasonable forms of birth control would be a financial burden (i.e. not a trivial expense like you seem to consider $9/month). If you don’t know any such women perhaps you should get out more.
“And, once you find that woman, please explain to use why her lesbian, transgender, infertile, and older sisters should subsidize her!”
There are some goods and services whose costs it is reasonable for society to share, and health care can reasonably be considered one of them (see http://philip.greenspun.com/politics/health-care-reform). Birth control can reasonably be considered a part of health care services. Lesbian, transgender, infertile, and older women can reasonably be considered part of society. Therefore, it is reasonable for lesbian, transgender, infertile, and older women to subsidize other women’s access to birth control.
“Suppose that Neal’s Pharma makes a $10,000/month pill and uses advertising to convince women that they want this awesome new pill.”
I suppose that particular pill shouldn’t be covered by government mandated insurance, but there aren’t any such pills on the market. What is it called when one substitutes a ridiculous and/or easily falsified proposition for the proposition actually under discussion? Oh right, that’s called a “straw man” argument. For someone who claims to value logical thinking you sure do put out quite a few logical fallacies.
Neal: So you know women who can’t afford $9/month and yet they aren’t on Medicaid? Why don’t they qualify for Medicaid if a $108 annual expense is beyond their reach?
“I think that you missed the main point of the posting.”
I got the main point of the posting, in comment #6 I was merely pointing out that one sentence in that posting was misleading.
“So you know women who can’t afford $9/month”
The birth control solutions which cost $9/month aren’t suitable for all women. Some women will need more expensive birth control solutions. I certainly know women for whom these alternative solutions would be a financial burden. Also, did not say that the expense is “beyond their reach”. I am claiming it could be a burden. That is, it may not be a trivial expense. Therefore, implying that the birth control mandate is about a trivial expense (as the original posting does) is misleading.
The mouse utopia reminds me of the current state of Japan and its declining population. Males and females existing in a sexless, career oriented life (self-absorbed?), holed up in tiny apartments. Are the ones that try to look like anime characters the beautiful ones?
From a German’s perspective, I think it’s funny that out of all health care costs, people in the US are arguing about birth control. Here pretty much all prescription medicines have a co-payment that is limited to 10 EUR. Except birth control, which is only free only for women under 21.
Tim J: There are roughly 10 U.S. states where the teen birth rate is six times higher than Germany’s, and roughly 20 U.S. states where the teen birth rate is six times higher than West Germany’s. Nationwide, the U.S. teen birth rate is roughly four times higher than Germany’s.
“The birth control solutions which cost $9/month aren’t suitable for all women. Some women will need more expensive birth control solutions. I certainly know women for whom these alternative solutions would be a financial burden. Also, did not say that the expense is “beyond their reach”. I am claiming it could be a burden. That is, it may not be a trivial expense. Therefore, implying that the birth control mandate is about a trivial expense (as the original posting does) is misleading.”
I’m getting intrigued, we need more concrete details.
Germany has one of those infamously low birth rates, doesn’t it? Yes, seems like it.
“Germany passes Japan to have world’s lowest birth rate – study” (2015)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32929962
Just searching for, say, ‘obamacare free birth control’ yields plenty of results in case anyone wonders.
“One of Obamacare’s biggest selling points for women is the guarantee of no-cost birth control, a new benefit that includes all forms of contraception from the pill to tubal ligation.”
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/26/obamacare-birth-control_n_5888320.html
(I’m surprised it counts as a ‘biggest selling point’. But who am I to doubt HuffPo?)
“I’m getting intrigued, we need more concrete details.”
The phrase “decrying the possibility that some working Americans will have to pay $9/month for birth control pills” implies that a discussion about mandating insurance coverage of birth control is between idiots who want to roll a trivial expense into an expensive insurance system and brilliant thinkers like philg who understand the folly of such an approach. However, the implication rests on an a fallacious argument which is embedded in the phrase. That argument is something like:
1) $9/month is a trivial expense for all Americans who don’t have Medicaid.
2) $9/month birth control options are available in the US market.
3) All women can and should use one of the $9/month birth control options.
4) Therefore, birth control is a trivial expense for all American women who don’t have Medicaid.
This argument begs proposition #3.
philg has stated in other posts on this blog that he cares about making logical arguments, so I have taken the time to point out this logical fallacy even though it is not central to the main point of the post.
You’ve switched from mentioning concrete examples to reasoning about potential fallacies.
Obviously the country want at least some pregnancies for women who already live in it so your prop 3 isn’t logically true. But skipping that, what is the actual situation you are worrying about? Let’s hear about these women you know.
It should not go unremarked that only men have contributed to this thread.
Let’s let women decide how many kids they want to have. That means free and confidential birth control, including IUD’s, for all.
“so your prop 3 isn’t logically true”
You’re right, 23.3 should read “All women WHO WANT TO USE BIRTH CONTROL can and should use one of the $9/month birth control options.
“But skipping that, what is the actual situation you are worrying about?”
A situation where the most appropriate form of birth control for a women is a financial burden for her or her family which increases the probability she will make do with a less appropriate solution or perhaps do without.
“Let’s hear about these women you know.”
As I said before, I know women whose income is low enough that the cost of some forms of birth control would be a financial burden for them. What else are you wanting to know?
> That means free and confidential birth control
Not taking any dick is free, and confidential. Ultimately we’re talking about subsidizing a recreational activity here. If all women get free birth control I want a monthly stipend from the government for golf equipment.
Neal: You do seem to be dodging the question. I have met quite a few people for whom spending $9 per month is noticeable, but they were all on Medicaid (“MassHealth” here) and therefore they would not be affected if some employer-provided insurance programs stopped covering some pills. So you know some poor people, apparently, but why aren’t they on Medicaid if they are poor?
@philg: I am not “dodging the question” because my argument doesn’t rely on the proposition that $9/month is burdensome for anyone. My claim is that one of the steps in your argument:
$9/month birth control solutions are available THEREFORE all women can obtain birth control for $9/month
is incorrect. In reality, there are women for whom the particular birth control solutions which are available at $9/month are not suitable. Those women require different, more expensive solutions. Some of those solutions are costly enough that they would be burdensome for lower income women even if they are employed and get their insurance through employer sponsored plans.
Neal: For women for whom a $9/month pill is not suitable, why do they “require different, more expensive solutions”? http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30764-price-of-top-tier-birth-control-plummets-as-new-liletta-iud-breaks-monopoly says that an IUD costs 40 cents to make, lasts for 20 years, and can be purchased from the U.S. health care system for $1200 or less (possibly much cheaper in Canada). Divided by 20 years, that’s actually cheaper than the $9/month pills. (https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/morning-after-pill-emergency-contraception/how-does-copper-iud-work-emergency-contraception says that the advertised life may be only 12 years, but low-income women without insurance will get a big discount off the $1,000 rack rate).
@philg: Are you arguing that $1,200 would never be burdensome to a low income person because the amortized cost is potentially less than $9/month?
As Planned Parenthood notes on its site, the out-of-pocket cost to a “low-income person” would be somewhere between $0 (Medicaid) and a discounted price (maybe not as low as the 40 cents in production cost!). But when evaluating Neal’s claim that a “more expensive solution” would be required, I was looking at the full $1200 that theoretically might be paid by taxpayers or donors or whoever else is subsidizing health care for low-income Americans. $9/month is the full retail price for birth control pills at Walmart and competitors and therefore it made sense to look at the full retail price of the IUD.
“whoever else is subsidizing health care”
Employers are not “subsidizing” health care, they are providing health insurance as part of an employees compensation package.
Anyway, my point was about one phrase in the original posting. philg, you seem to have conceded that some women may need to spend as much as $1,200 up front for birth control. Therefore, the phrase used in the original posting is misleading. The more complete statement:
“decrying the possibility that some working Americans will have to pay $9/month for birth control pills OR UP TO $1,200 FOR AN IUD”
leaves the reader with an entirely different impression than what was actually stated in the posting.
Anonymous: You’re right. These are unbearably high costs for people who don’t have sex!
No woman is truly free until someone else is paying for her birth control