Article: Why Can't Allyson Get Ahead?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also was religiously taking birth control correctly, same time every day, and got pregnant at 38. BC is not 100% effective even with perfect use. Being AMA didn't work out for not getting pregnant either.

She seems like a smart girl and a good mom. I hope things work out for her. I do think abortion should be easier to obtain. She was not in a good position to have a baby.

Birth Control isn't 100%, but most "unplanned" pregnancies aren't from situations where people were using birth control 100%. There is a segment of my family that is fairly typical rural poor. Most of them had children very young. None were using birth control at the time, and they consider all their pregnancies are unplanned, just something that happened.

If we separated out actual birth control failures and considered those unplanned, and separated them from people who used a condom once in a blue moon or took the pill almost randomly and labeled those as "not using prevention" we would see a huge difference in the number of "unplanned" pregnancies, because many of them would suddenly be categorized under "didn't use prevention."

Poster you are responding to, and I agree. The thing is, I started having (safe) sex at age 18, with my long time boyfriend. Other than twice when I planned to get pregnant, the pill worked for me without fail for 20 years. The problem is, millions of people are on the pill, some like me, for many years. So that means even a failure rate of 1% means over a decade or two or three, hundreds of thousands of women get pregnant. I wish we would acknowledge that more. The NY Times had a great article on it a few years back but people hear the pill is very effective and blame women for getting pregnant on it.

Anyway, the good new is that IUDs are on the rise and now they have a few on the market aimed for teens and young women who have never had a baby (most people don't know this, but many obgyns discourage IUDs for women who haven't given birth yet. My very good friend never wanted kids, and wanted off the pill when she turned 40. Her dr. discouraged the mirena because she hadn't given birth. But now there are more options, in the last 5 years).

The problem is that traditionally IUDs have been very costly. With the Affordable Care Act, more women have access to them but not everyone does. I'm guessing this young woman didn't have decent insurance. And she was probably growing up in a town where she didn't learn these options. Given where she grew up, I would be shocked if it were even close to an option for her.

I'm the PP who lamented about the pill being the go to birth control for everyone. I completely agree that even that 1% failure rate, over the course of 20-30 years and across a broad population is actually...quite high in the number of women who will have unintended pregnancies. And add in the user error rate and it is startling.

I am an IUD user and while I completely recognize that no one birth control method will work for all (like the pill worked for you for 20 years, the pill made me bleed daily for 2+ years and a hormonal mess) I think these alternatives need to be considered and pushed as they have in Colorado. I got my IUD as a single (in a 3 year long relationship using condoms), nulliparous woman. I had to go to 5 doctors before I found someone who would give me one and was delighted to do so, after citing medical research to four others showing it was safe in women who hadn't had children (Mirena) and was the most popular form of birth control in Europe and much of East Asia to the other doctors. It was ridiculous. I remember reading an article before I had my IUD inserted calling it "the Birkin Bag of Birth Control" specifically because it was hard to access (I was actually turned away from all birth control after saying no to the pill by multiple doctors), accessible mostly by word of mouth through almost "underground" awesome gynos, and EXPENSIVE. Very expensive. I was a white, upper middle class, 27-ish year old with rocking health insurance and I believe it was $900 for me. That would be prohibitively expensive as a one-time cost for the Allysons of this country.

This should not be.

The ACA has made this so much more accessible, but we also need the education and outreach so that these young people know their options. If I had a hard time getting an IUD 7 years ago in NYC and Washington DC as a woman who hadn't given birth with all of the knowledge and privilege that I had and I had to push for what I wanted (and is now standard...), I have very little faith that anyone in most of this country is getting the kind of preventative care they should be afforded. If we care about the cycle of poverty, addressing women's reproductive needs just makes sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I also was religiously taking birth control correctly, same time every day, and got pregnant at 38. BC is not 100% effective even with perfect use. Being AMA didn't work out for not getting pregnant either.

She seems like a smart girl and a good mom. I hope things work out for her. I do think abortion should be easier to obtain. She was not in a good position to have a baby.

Birth Control isn't 100%, but most "unplanned" pregnancies aren't from situations where people were using birth control 100%. There is a segment of my family that is fairly typical rural poor. Most of them had children very young. None were using birth control at the time, and they consider all their pregnancies are unplanned, just something that happened.

If we separated out actual birth control failures and considered those unplanned, and separated them from people who used a condom once in a blue moon or took the pill almost randomly and labeled those as "not using prevention" we would see a huge difference in the number of "unplanned" pregnancies, because many of them would suddenly be categorized under "didn't use prevention."

Poster you are responding to, and I agree. The thing is, I started having (safe) sex at age 18, with my long time boyfriend. Other than twice when I planned to get pregnant, the pill worked for me without fail for 20 years. The problem is, millions of people are on the pill, some like me, for many years. So that means even a failure rate of 1% means over a decade or two or three, hundreds of thousands of women get pregnant. I wish we would acknowledge that more. The NY Times had a great article on it a few years back but people hear the pill is very effective and blame women for getting pregnant on it.

Anyway, the good new is that IUDs are on the rise and now they have a few on the market aimed for teens and young women who have never had a baby (most people don't know this, but many obgyns discourage IUDs for women who haven't given birth yet. My very good friend never wanted kids, and wanted off the pill when she turned 40. Her dr. discouraged the mirena because she hadn't given birth. But now there are more options, in the last 5 years).

The problem is that traditionally IUDs have been very costly. With the Affordable Care Act, more women have access to them but not everyone does. I'm guessing this young woman didn't have decent insurance. And she was probably growing up in a town where she didn't learn these options. Given where she grew up, I would be shocked if it were even close to an option for her.

I'm the PP who lamented about the pill being the go to birth control for everyone. I completely agree that even that 1% failure rate, over the course of 20-30 years and across a broad population is actually...quite high in the number of women who will have unintended pregnancies. And add in the user error rate and it is startling.

I am an IUD user and while I completely recognize that no one birth control method will work for all (like the pill worked for you for 20 years, the pill made me bleed daily for 2+ years and a hormonal mess) I think these alternatives need to be considered and pushed as they have in Colorado. I got my IUD as a single (in a 3 year long relationship using condoms), nulliparous woman. I had to go to 5 doctors before I found someone who would give me one and was delighted to do so, after citing medical research to four others showing it was safe in women who hadn't had children (Mirena) and was the most popular form of birth control in Europe and much of East Asia to the other doctors. It was ridiculous. I remember reading an article before I had my IUD inserted calling it "the Birkin Bag of Birth Control" specifically because it was hard to access (I was actually turned away from all birth control after saying no to the pill by multiple doctors), accessible mostly by word of mouth through almost "underground" awesome gynos, and EXPENSIVE. Very expensive. I was a white, upper middle class, 27-ish year old with rocking health insurance and I believe it was $900 for me. That would be prohibitively expensive as a one-time cost for the Allysons of this country.

This should not be.

The ACA has made this so much more accessible, but we also need the education and outreach so that these young people know their options. If I had a hard time getting an IUD 7 years ago in NYC and Washington DC as a woman who hadn't given birth with all of the knowledge and privilege that I had and I had to push for what I wanted (and is now standard...), I have very little faith that anyone in most of this country is getting the kind of preventative care they should be afforded. If we care about the cycle of poverty, addressing women's reproductive needs just makes sense.

One way to do this is to support the BC Pill being a behind-the-counter medication, like Sudafed. Right now, in order to get the pill, I have to schedule an appointment with my doctor, have a vaginal exam, pay for this appointment and exam, and then go get my prescription and pay for that. As a professional woman with transportation, I have the ability to take off work, drive to my appointments and the pharmacy, and pay for all of this. But I can buy tylenol over the counter without even the pharmacist reminding me to be very careful about overdosing. There's no reason a quick pharmacist reminder about smoking, antibiotics, etc, wouldn't be perfectly sufficient so I could get the BC pill just by going to the pharmacy. More states are moving in this direction, but the gatekeeping required for all female-oriented birth control is still ridiculously paternalistic.

I have recently been reminded about how difficult this is because my 16 yo DD wants to try the pill, and her pediatrician wouldn't prescribe it. I was required to find a gyn practice that was accepting new patients, make an appointment (that was 3 months from the time I was making the appointment because that was their first new patient appointment available), etc. And yet she can go to the drug store and buy tylenol for herself, whenever she wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One way to do this is to support the BC Pill being a behind-the-counter medication, like Sudafed. Right now, in order to get the pill, I have to schedule an appointment with my doctor, have a vaginal exam, pay for this appointment and exam, and then go get my prescription and pay for that. As a professional woman with transportation, I have the ability to take off work, drive to my appointments and the pharmacy, and pay for all of this. But I can buy tylenol over the counter without even the pharmacist reminding me to be very careful about overdosing. There's no reason a quick pharmacist reminder about smoking, antibiotics, etc, wouldn't be perfectly sufficient so I could get the BC pill just by going to the pharmacy. More states are moving in this direction, but the gatekeeping required for all female-oriented birth control is still ridiculously paternalistic.

I have recently been reminded about how difficult this is because my 16 yo DD wants to try the pill, and her pediatrician wouldn't prescribe it. I was required to find a gyn practice that was accepting new patients, make an appointment (that was 3 months from the time I was making the appointment because that was their first new patient appointment available), etc. And yet she can go to the drug store and buy tylenol for herself, whenever she wants.

Curiously, I think the actual health concerns (not the paternalistic ones) with the Pill are for its older users as that’s when clots become more likely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink. But you can make them drink by withholding benefits with each pregnancy and mandatory sterilization after the second irresponsible pregnancy. That is theonlY way to eliminate some of the problem. Women have lost all self respect and treat their reproductive capacity horribly.

Are you in favor of mandatory sterilization for men after causing a second irresponsible pregnancy? Or is it all somehow the women's responsibility and fault? Part of the reason 'Allyson can't get ahead' is that the father doesn't seem to be paying any child support. Where are the consequences for him for irresponsibly fathering a child and then not supporting that child?

[Anonymous]

One of the key problems for Allyson is that after agreeing to proceed with the pregnancy at the boyfriend's behest, neither of them seemed to want to work too hard to make the relationship work. She should have conditioned continuing the pregnancy upon getting married, in which event she would now be having an easier time getting child support. But by not getting married, it made it that much easier for their family unit to fall apart.

Patrick Moynahan's seminal 1960s study identified the disintegration of the AA nuclear family as one of the pathways to systemic, multigenerational poverty. That same disintegration now affects the white working class. Yes, there are lots of macroeconomic factors such as the decline of the manufacturing sector at work---but she made it that much worse for herself by depriving her child of another income at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the key problems for Allyson is that after agreeing to proceed with the pregnancy at the boyfriend's behest, neither of them seemed to want to work too hard to make the relationship work. She should have conditioned continuing the pregnancy upon getting married, in which event she would now be having an easier time getting child support. But by not getting married, it made it that much easier for their family unit to fall apart.

Patrick Moynahan's seminal 1960s study identified the disintegration of the AA nuclear family as one of the pathways to systemic, multigenerational poverty. That same disintegration now affects the white working class. Yes, there are lots of macroeconomic factors such as the decline of the manufacturing sector at work---but she made it that much worse for herself by depriving her child of another income at home.

Yes, let’s blame the victims. Good idea.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the key problems for Allyson is that after agreeing to proceed with the pregnancy at the boyfriend's behest, neither of them seemed to want to work too hard to make the relationship work. She should have conditioned continuing the pregnancy upon getting married, in which event she would now be having an easier time getting child support. But by not getting married, it made it that much easier for their family unit to fall apart.

Patrick Moynahan's seminal 1960s study identified the disintegration of the AA nuclear family as one of the pathways to systemic, multigenerational poverty. That same disintegration now affects the white working class. Yes, there are lots of macroeconomic factors such as the decline of the manufacturing sector at work---but she made it that much worse for herself by depriving her child of another income at home.

Yes, let’s blame the victims. Good idea.

Let's shield everyone from bad decisions Everyone gets to be a winner!.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:One of the key problems for Allyson is that after agreeing to proceed with the pregnancy at the boyfriend's behest, neither of them seemed to want to work too hard to make the relationship work. She should have conditioned continuing the pregnancy upon getting married, in which event she would now be having an easier time getting child support. But by not getting married, it made it that much easier for their family unit to fall apart.

It would make more sense to fix that part of the system, rather than heap all of the blame on the woman. It shouldn't be that hard to perform a DNA test, prove the identity of the father, and make him start paying. I agree that Allyson made some bad choices, but the same people who seem determined to punish her for her bad choices likewise seem determined to absolve the father from any responsibility. The main problem here is that the dad ought to be supporting his child, but isn't.

[Anonymous]

yes, the father needs to be paying support. I don't disagree that we need to be encouraging people to have children within an established, long term committed relationship (which in many cases is signified most easily by marriage). So many single parents is certainly not a good thing for children. Neither are abusive relationships.

[Anonymous]

The main problem here is that adults (both Allyson and the boyfriend) should not be making babies that they do not have the ability to support but once they do, they need to think of what is best for the child as opposed to themselves---both of them seemed to be precariously in the job market. It is better for the child for them to stick together than to just decide that their romantic "happiness" was paramount. I'm sure that my spouse doesn't think I'm perfect all the time, nor do I think he is, but we both know that it is far better for our kids financially that we be together, as well as emotionally for seeing two people working through their differences in a healthy way rather than cutting and running.

[Anonymous]

yes, they made mistakes - but how is that helpful at this point?

My idiot BIL made 2 babies out of wedlock with his idiot baby mama. While I would love to berate them for their stupidity, it isn't helpful when they have kids to feed. They need to figure out ways to make it work now and don't have the luxury of navel gazing.

[Anonymous]

People have been making babies that they can't afford since the dawn of time. All of the 'should haves' in the world won't change that fact. Allyson's problem is much more widespread than you might imagine, and it's that people are caught up in the catch-22 of not being able to afford childcare, so they can't work. But because they can't work, they can't ever possibly afford childcare. Yes, it would be better to rewind time and have them not make poor decisions in the first place. But that ship has already sailed.

If we actually want to solve any problems, we should:
1. Provide free birth control so fewer unplanned pregnancies happen in the first place. Even if you feel like people ought to be responsible and pay for their own birth control, a pragmatic approach would be to recognize that it's cheaper to pay for the birth control than it is for taxpayers to support the child.
2. make sure that the fathers are paying child support.
3. provide whatever daycare subsidy to get people back in the workforce. Even if Allyson would be working a low skilled job, working is going to be the path toward some sort of upward mobility. Not working will get her absolutely nowhere. I'd prefer having taxpayers cover the daycare subsidy so she can work, be a productive member of society, and someday not be trapped in poverty than having taxpayers cover food stamps and other welfare for much longer.