Support goes a long way to boost birth control effectiveness 2%

By Aimee Cunningham0%

7/9/2026, 8:00:00 AM

Keywords: Birth Control

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Red Herring, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 17.8% saturation with 92 hits. Analysis detected 729 faulty-reasoning hits from 518 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 10.4% and a BS Rank of 2% (21,570 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.60% of the article peer group.

“People should feel really valid in whatever decision they make,” Sanders says. 
“These are all effective methods at preventing pregnancy.” 
The greater parity among the effectiveness of different methods stands in contrast to a memorable statistic from a 2012 study. 
The Contraceptive CHOICE Project’s stated goal was to promote the use of long-acting reversible contraceptives, according to the project team at Washington University School of Medicine in St. 
Louis. 
The study reported that participants using the contraceptive patch, the pill or the ring had a failure rate of 4.6 per 100 people per year, about 20 times higher than that of implants or IUDs. 
“What HER Salt Lake adds is incredible evidence that having the ideal access and support to use [preferred] methods actually increases the effectiveness of shorter-term methods for preventing pregnancy,” says Anu Manchikanti Gómez, a sexual and reproductive health equity researcher at the University of California, Berkeley, who was not involved in the study. 
That support and access can prevent lapses in consistent use. 
And it’s not only about forgetting to take a pill. 
It can be hard for some to take time off from work to see a doctor. 
Others don’t have transportation to get to the pharmacy. 
“A missed refill, a delayed appointment, out-of-pocket costs or an unavailable method creates that gap  it’s not necessarily on the person,” Sanders says. 
“The small disruptions matter.” 
The study also adds to the evidence behind respecting patient preferences in choosing a birth control method. 
Person-centered contraceptive counseling focuses on the values and priorities of the patient . 
Those could include effectiveness, avoiding side effects or being able to start and stop a method at home rather than depend on a medical visit. 
Often, health care providers have thought primarily in terms of effectiveness , recommending long-acting methods instead of prioritizing patients’ preferences. 
White starts conversations about contraception by asking, “What is important to you about your birth control?” 
and leaves it open-ended to let the patient be the guide. 
“When people feel heard,” she says, “they are more likely to have trust in the care they are getting [and] to reach back out if they have any problems.” 
More Stories from Science News on Health & Medicine 
Many U.S. teens underestimate fentanyl’s deadly risk 
By Aimee Cunningham July 7, 2026 
Acetaminophen in pregnancy shows no link to autism or ADHD, again 
By Aimee Cunningham June 29, 2026 
Even ‘safe’ air pollution levels may affect heart health 
By Isha Ishtiaq June 23, 2026 
The New World screwworm has returned to the U.S. 
Now what? 
By Fechi Inyama June 22, 2026 
A deadly fungus that can infect cats and people is spreading 
By Tina Hesman Saey June 17, 2026 
A blood test for dementia may tell you if you have more than one type 
By Michael Howerton June 16, 2026 
Why more male than female newborns may get the crucial vitamin K shot 
By Aimee Cunningham June 15, 2026 
A popular sunscreen ingredient can finally be sold in the United States 
By Meghan Rosen June 12, 2026 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.8%Aimee Cunningham: 1.3%Science News: 2.6%Confirmation Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 2.0%Science News: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Aimee Cunningham: 0.4%Science News: 2.6%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 1.2%Science News: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias3.3%This article: 1.9%Aimee Cunningham: 1.8%Science News: 4.1%Framing Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.9%Aimee Cunningham: 0.7%Science News: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Aimee Cunningham: 1.4%Science News: 4.0%Optimism Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.6%Science News: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Aimee Cunningham: 3.4%Science News: 4.1%Negativity Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error4.6%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 1.3%Halo Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 1.0%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.1%Science News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.3%Aimee Cunningham: 3.8%Science News: 4.4%Appeal to Authority3.3%This article: 1.9%Aimee Cunningham: 0.5%Science News: 1.2%False Dilemma1.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.6%Science News: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.6%Aimee Cunningham: 3.2%Science News: 3.9%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 17.2%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Red Herring17.2%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.4%Aimee Cunningham: 0.2%Science News: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion10.4%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.6%Science News: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 17.8%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.8%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.9%Aimee Cunningham: 2.7%Science News: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.9%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.5%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.7%Unattributed Quote9.5%This article: 3.1%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 12.7%Aimee Cunningham: 0.9%Science News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice12.7%This article: 2.1%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.9%Indoctrination2.1%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.0%Science News: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Aimee Cunningham: 0.7%Science News: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

518 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers34%attributed speech341writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSanders • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageContraceptive CHOICE Project’s stated goal • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageAnu Manchikanti Gómez • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSanders • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSanders • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWhite • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWhite • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWhite • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words30% of attributed speech65% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+96.2 ptsWriter: 3.8%Anu Manchikanti Gómez: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-2.3 ptsWriter: 2.3%Anu Manchikanti Gómez: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.