Policy & families

Pro-Life. Pro-Family. Pro-Science.

Michigan should look at what Colorado and other states learned about preventing unintended pregnancy.

By Meegan Zickus, Candidate for Michigan House District 89

We spend an extraordinary amount of time arguing about abortion in America. Maybe we should spend more time talking about what happens before an abortion ever becomes a decision.

If we want fewer abortions, fewer unintended pregnancies, stronger families and less dependence on taxpayer-funded assistance, there is evidence from other states that Michigan should be willing to examine.

That’s why I believe being pro-life can also mean being pro-family, pro-prevention and pro-science.

Colorado tried something different

Beginning in 2009, Colorado expanded voluntary access to highly effective, long-acting reversible contraception, including IUDs and contraceptive implants. The program sought to remove financial and practical barriers while preserving individual choice.

A peer-reviewed economic analysis later estimated that the program reduced teen birth rates by 6.4% over five years in Colorado counties with participating clinics.

Dr. Larry Wolk, who served as Colorado's chief medical officer and executive director of its Department of Public Health and Environment, described the initiative's measurable outcomes as a “Game Changer.”

Colorado didn't discover a new way to argue about abortion. It tried to prevent unintended pregnancies before women ever had to face that decision. That is where pro-life and pro-science can meet.

Colorado wasn't alone

Researchers in St. Louis enrolled 9,256 women and adolescents in the Contraceptive CHOICE Project. Participants received contraceptive counseling and could choose their preferred reversible contraceptive method at no cost.

Researchers reported abortion rates among CHOICE participants at less than half the regional and national rates. They also reported a teen birth rate of 6.3 births per 1,000 participants, compared with 34.3 per 1,000 nationally in the comparison used by the researchers.

Iowa offers another piece of evidence. Between 2005 and 2012, long-acting contraceptive use among family-planning clients increased from less than 1% to 15%, while abortions among Iowa residents declined from 5,198 to 3,887. Researchers found increased LARC use was associated with reduced odds of abortion; that does not prove contraception alone caused Iowa's decline.

Delaware reminds us why the words “pro-science” matter. Researchers examining its contraceptive-access reforms did not find statistically significant evidence that the program reduced the state's abortion rate. Science means reporting evidence that supports your argument and evidence that does not.

What could this mean for Michigan?

Michigan recorded 3,254 births to mothers ages 15–19 in 2024.

If Michigan achieved a reduction comparable to Colorado's 6.4% research estimate, the arithmetic would represent roughly 208 fewer teen births per year. If sustained for five years at today's baseline, that would amount to approximately 1,040 fewer teen births.

Those numbers are not a forecast. Michigan is not Colorado. But they show the potential scale of the opportunity.

What about abortion?

Michigan reported 28,491 abortions among Michigan residents in 2023. It would not be responsible to apply Missouri's results mechanically to Michigan and claim thousands of abortions would disappear.

What Missouri's results tell us is more modest and more useful: removing barriers to effective contraception was associated with substantially lower abortion and teen-birth rates among the women participating in that program.

If we want fewer abortions in Michigan, shouldn't we at least study whether a voluntary prevention strategy could help us achieve that goal here?

The taxpayer deserves a seat at this table

Colorado economists estimated that reductions in unintended pregnancies associated with its family-planning efforts avoided approximately $66.1 million to $69.6 million in Medicaid, TANF, SNAP and WIC expenditures over the period they studied. The largest portion—approximately $52.3 million to $53.7 million—was attributed to Medicaid.

Michigan should not promise the same result. We should find out for ourselves.

If Michigan achieved just one-quarter of Colorado's historical estimated savings, the arithmetic would be roughly $16.5 million to $17.4 million. Half would represent roughly $33 million to $35 million. These are illustrations of scale, not forecasts.

Give taxpayers a scoreboard

Any Michigan initiative I would support should come with public accountability from the beginning. Tell taxpayers how much we spent. Tell them what happened to unintended pregnancy and teen-birth rates. Tell them what happened to the abortion rate. Calculate Medicaid, SNAP, TANF and WIC expenditures. Then calculate the return on every taxpayer dollar invested.

If it works, expand it. If it doesn't, change it or end it. That's responsible government.

Let women make the decision

Family planning is not simply about preventing pregnancy. It is about giving a woman control over two of the most consequential questions she may ever answer: When am I ready to become a mother? And with whom do I want to build my family?

A young woman should have the opportunity to finish her education, establish a career, become financially independent, build a healthy relationship and decide when she is ready to start a family.

Access must never become coercion. No quotas. No government official deciding which contraceptive method a woman should use. No pressure to choose contraception at all. Women should receive accurate information about their options and make their own decisions with their healthcare providers.

The government isn't making that decision. She is.

The pro-life case for prevention

If someone sincerely wants fewer abortions, preventing unintended pregnancies should be one place where we can find common ground. An unintended pregnancy that never occurs never becomes an abortion decision.

Someone who is strongly pro-choice can support giving women greater control over whether and when they become pregnant. Someone who is strongly pro-life can support a strategy that may help reduce unintended pregnancies and abortions. A fiscal conservative can demand that the program demonstrate whether it actually saves taxpayers money.

Fewer unintended pregnancies are better. Fewer abortions are better. Fewer teen pregnancies are better. Women having greater control over when—and with whom—they start a family is better. Children being born into families prepared for them is better. Saving taxpayer dollars is better. Stronger Michigan families are better.

Michigan doesn't need to copy Colorado, Missouri, Iowa or Delaware. We should study what worked, learn from what didn't and design something appropriate for Michigan.

Make it voluntary. Protect informed consent. Measure the outcomes. Publish the numbers. Follow the science. And hold government accountable for every dollar it spends.

If we can prevent unintended pregnancies, reduce abortions, empower women, strengthen families and save taxpayers money while respecting individual choice, that's a conversation Michigan ought to be having.

That's not left or right. That's responsible government.

← Back to priorities