I read the other day that, according to the Centers for Disease Control, the rate of abortions in the United States fell by 5% in 2009, the largest single-year decrease in a decade. The CDC noted that about 18% of all pregnancies in the United States end in abortion and “factors from the availability of abortion providers, state laws, the general economy and access to health services including contraception can all influence the abortion rate.”
Although the CDC could not say with certainty which factor or factors were responsible for the decline, the pro-life PR machine was quick to claim credit. Within hours of the announcement, Americans United for Life President and CEO Doctor Charmaine Yoest called the news “a real cause for giving thanks. For more than 40 years, AUL has been working to advance a culture of life that protects women and children from Big Abortion. And today we celebrate this historic drop in the abortion rate.” She then added that AUL had “paved the way for this historic drop in abortion by pushing pro-life legislation in the states, such as clinic regulations holding abortion providers to acceptable standards of care.”
Now, in 2009, close to 60 pro-life laws were enacted across the states, a marked increase from 2008 but how the heck can the pro-life movement prove that their laws have resulted in less abortions? Have they found women who were thinking about having an abortion and then decided not to? Gimme a break.
And think about this. In most of the states where they enacted strict clinic regulations, the states required changes like wider hallways (ostensibly so the gurneys for all of those dying women could be wheeled out faster), thermostats set at certain standard temperatures, and other miscellaneous requirements that really have nothing to do with patient safety. How do these regulations actually stop women from getting abortions? Say a woman in Chicago is pregnant and she wants an abortion. She calls a few clinics, compares prices, counseling, etc. and then makes her decision. How did the width of the hallway deter her from having an abortion? What am I missing here?
Now if the pro-lifers would just admit that the regulations were designed to close the clinics, then they could legitimately argue that there are less abortions because they are making access to a clinic more difficult. But, no, that is not their reason for pushing for these laws. They are just oh-so-concerned about those poor innocent women who are being harmed in those clinics. How nice of them.
Spin, spin, spin. Of course, the pro-lifers cannot even think about admitting that maybe better sex education has made women a little bit smarter about birth control. No, we just can’t admit that one, can we? They just gotta make up some crap so they can beat their chests.
The bottom line is that the decrease is good as long as it’s for the right reasons. If women are having less abortions because of state law, that means they are being forced to give birth to unwanted children. And that is not a welcome development. But if they are just being smarter about sex, then bravo.
Related articles
- McCain urges immigration reform, leaving abortion ‘alone’ (politico.com)
- New CDC Report Shows That Abortion Is on the Decline Thanks to More People (Correctly) Using Birth Control (jezebel.com)
- Wisconsin Right to Life aims for further abortion regulations (jsonline.com)
November 25, 2012 at 4:53 pm
The anti Choice crowd are a bunch of real poor thinkers. It is sad to know that so many Americans are devoid of the capacity to the most basic elements of skeptical and scientific thought . . .
LikeLike
November 26, 2012 at 11:31 am
Actually, they might be smarter than you think. They jumped all over this news and put their spin on it. That’s a great way to rile up their troops…
LikeLike
November 26, 2012 at 4:27 pm
They put their spin on things when they believe they can take credit for something or when they want to downplay the tragedy of an event.
LikeLike
November 27, 2012 at 4:48 pm
recession? cannot afford an abortion, or out of work might as well have a child now while im sat at home
LikeLike
November 28, 2012 at 7:59 am
I’ve heard that theory, Emma. I just cannot imagine, however, how a woman who is having hard times and she gets pregnant and she just figures “well, I might as well have this baby.” Aren’t they looking at the long term consequences and costs? But maybe you’re right, maybe they’re just looking at the immediacy of the situation thinking the next baby will just “brighten” up her life? And, yes, maybe she just can’t afford to pay $400 or so for the abortion right then and there. It’s a Catch-22, for sure. Maybe i should write about that….
LikeLike
November 28, 2012 at 10:18 am
That would be a good article Pat.
Emma is right. It is not so easy for many women to immediately get the cash for an abortion. And depending on where they live it might even cost a lot more . . .
LikeLike
November 28, 2012 at 8:42 pm
I’m inspired!
LikeLike
November 27, 2012 at 5:11 pm
Great article Pat!
LikeLike
November 28, 2012 at 8:00 am
Thanks, Evan. I just hope there are more people like you who have the chance to read my stuff and Kate’s. It’s always interesting trying to track how much exposure this blog gets. I guess I’m just like any writer and I hope that someone is listening!
LikeLike