Abortion Numbers Reach Lowest Level in 30 Years, 25% Decline Since 1990

  • Thread starter Thread starter sertelt
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sertelt

Guest
Abortion Numbers Reach Lowest Level in 30 Years, 25% Decline Since 1990

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 17, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A new report by an organization affiliated with Planned Parenthood finds that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990. Pro-life groups point to laws limiting abortions, the effectiveness of pregnancy centers and abstinence education as the reason why.
 
The Guttmacher Institute report is a little more complicated than ‘laws = fewer abortions’. The sharpest decrease occured during the Clinton years.

The latest numbers we have show that the national trend is still downward, but at a slower rate. Some states have actually posted slight increases.

Since there is no measurable correlation between severity of laws and rates (laws vary from state to state), and no seeming correlation to changes in contraception availabiltiy, the researchers hypothesized that there is a change in attitude towards abortion. That is, a winning of hearts and minds.

The bad news is that the increases seem closely related to the sharpest down turns in propsperity. We know that there is a strong statistical correlation between poverty and abortion, but this data is an ominous sign if we are, in fact, heading into a long recession.

FWIW, the Guttmacher Institute is related to Planned Parenthood, but it is common to use it’s data. From a secular scientific point of view, it is pretty first rate. For example, the US government’s abortion monitoring program only counts about 800,000 abortions a year, but the Guttmacher’s much more complete methodology gives us the numbers most widely used by both sides of this issue.
 
Abortion Numbers Reach Lowest Level in 30 Years, 25% Decline Since 1990

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
January 17, 2008

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) – A new report by an organization affiliated with Planned Parenthood finds that the number of abortions nationwide have fallen to their lowest point in 30 years and have declined 25 percent since 1990. Pro-life groups point to laws limiting abortions, the effectiveness of pregnancy centers and abstinence education as the reason why.
I am reminded of what Geoffery of Monmouth said of Richard the Lion Hearted at the seige of Acre:

“With shot from the walls, they brake his engine. But he builded it up again, and by dint of repeated blows, he smashed the Accursed Tower.”

By dint of repeated blows we will smash this Accursed Tower, too.
 
This is great news especially with the upcoming March for Life in Washington right around the corner. Perhaps, it might make news coverage. Well, we can hope anyway
 
This is great news especially with the upcoming March for Life in Washington right around the corner. Perhaps, it might make news coverage. Well, we can hope anyway
The March for Life will be held in Little Rock this Sunday, too. We leave from Saint Mary’s at 9 in order to attend Mass there before the march.

Our Right to Life Committee in this little town (population 2,800) has put together a crowd. A Baptist church will contribute a bus, and we’ve over-filled it. They will leave later than we will, so we Catholics (who don’t have a bus) will car-pool it.
 
From 1.6 million down to 1.2 million.

That’s still over a million abortions per year.

And how many abortions were there in the U.S. in 1965?
 
From 1.6 million down to 1.2 million.

That’s still over a million abortions per year.

And how many abortions were there in the U.S. in 1965?
We know that there were already over 600,000 legal abortions just prior to roe v. wade. But we really have no idea how many illegal abortions have occured. The problem is that there is seemingly nothing tangible to count.

We know abortion was widespread when abortion laws were first passed in the mid-late 19th century. And we know that illegal abortion existed for all of the century that it was illegal. For example, we can find thousands of abortion related maternal deaths each year from the 1870s up though the 1940’s. But after plasma and antibiotics, even that metric all but vanished. Just prior to Roe v. Wade there are only about 200 abortion related maternal deaths each year. The actual number was probably a little higher because of family doctors fudging death certificates, but since back-alley abortionists were really a myth by Roe v. Wade (we were only ‘catching’ medical professionals), there is no reason to infer that abortions were fewer during ‘free love’ than during WW-II.

If it wasn’t clear, my point above was not to dismiss what is obviously a good thing. My point was just that there is a difference between what the researchers found and the causal theories expressed in the article. Remember, the Guttmacher Institute was involved with a huge WHO study which appears to show that, since the advent of chemical abortificants - which are legal in much of the western industrialized world, legal status, which has never proven to be a particularly effective deterrent, has almost not measurable impact on abortion rates at all.

Although it is an upsetting thought, it makes sense. We can’t stop the flow of narcotics into the country as it is, and non surgical abortions are generally done in the privacy of a woman’s home now. Since so many miscarriages occur anyway, it also would be extremely difficult to enforce. Since there are no significant tell tail signs, how do you tell a chemically induced miscarriage from a normal, spontaneous one?

Let’s hope that the Guttmacher Institute is correct about it’s own research and we really are seeing a change in societal attitudes.
 
It’s scary to think about the actual numbers. IF the U.S. population is around 300 million and there have been over 50 million abortions since legalization, that is staggering. That is one abortion for every 6 people that is alive.
 
I am curious to know the source of the figure for the number of legal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. Every time I look for stats I find the numbers begin in 1973.

I did find this with regard to the number of maternal deaths just prior to Roe. (119 in 1970). Some individual states kept stats, but those are hard to find.

Some states in the years leading up to Roe had liberalized their abortion laws, so there were increases in legal abortions when those laws were passed. And prior to passage of Roe, groups advocating for liberalization of abortion laws had reasons to exaggerate both the numbers of abortions and the numbers of maternal deaths.
 
I am curious to know the source of the figure for the number of legal abortions prior to Roe v Wade. Every time I look for stats I find the numbers begin in 1973.

I did find this with regard to the number of maternal deaths just prior to Roe. (119 in 1970). Some individual states kept stats, but those are hard to find.

Some states in the years leading up to Roe had liberalized their abortion laws, so there were increases in legal abortions when those laws were passed. And prior to passage of Roe, groups advocating for liberalization of abortion laws had reasons to exaggerate both the numbers of abortions and the numbers of maternal deaths.
Fifteen states liberalized laws in advance of Roe. Guttmacher researchers cite the US Government’s numbers, it started tracking legal abortions in advance of Roe. Historically, that methodology under reports (it turns up just 800,000 abortions now, which most research indicates is off by almost 50%), but the numbers are not adjusted in the last Guttmacher comprehensive report.

FWIW, I read more of the report today and it is more complicated even than I thought. The article originally linked to here seems to be quite a stretch. Oregon, which was just rated as the the “least pro-life state” by Americans United for Life, was a standout in terms of abortion rate reduction.

I was surprised to see that California was also significantly better than the national average. We are frequently given low marks by AUL and other groups.

The one thing that stood out to me most so far is that pregnancy rate in the 15-44 group fell 13 per thousand in the same period that the abortion rate in the 14-44 group fell 8 per thousand. Presumably, fewer pregnancies would also mean fewer unwanted pregnancies. Why there are fewer pregnancies is not clear (and the report does not claim to know), but it seems doubtful that it is legislation, at least based on the numbers.
 
Here’s the actual information from the Guttmacher Institute so that folks can see it.
guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/4000608.pdf

I have to say I have not been particularly impressed with the level of attention to accuracy of details vs. attention to spinning to show their own viewpoint that I have seen in articles quoted on these threads from LifeNews overall. I would strongly advise going to the source as much as possible rather than relying on their interpretation of it.
The one thing that stood out to me most so far is that pregnancy rate in the 15-44 group fell 13 per thousand in the same period that the abortion rate in the 14-44 group fell 8 per thousand. Presumably, fewer pregnancies would also mean fewer unwanted pregnancies. Why there are fewer pregnancies is not clear (and the report does not claim to know), but it seems doubtful that it is legislation, at least based on the numbers.
I’m trying to find the info in the report that talks about the pregnancy rate vs. the abortion rate but having a bit of trouble. Could you help me out? I would like to see the sources they reference specifically.

I did find this:
Finally, recent patterns in unintended pregnancy may
have affected abortion incidence and services. Numbers
and rates of adolescent pregnancies continued to decline
between 1995 and 2002, largely because of improved
contraceptive use among adolescents,9 and fewer adolescents
have needed to access abortion services. Overall
levels of unintended pregnancy among women aged 20
and older remained stable or increased between 1994 and
2001, but this general picture masks important subgroup
differences. Rates of unintended pregnancy and abortion
increased for poor and low-income women during this
period,2 and if these trends continued, the overall incidence
of abortion could have increased by 2005.


which references the following study on teen pregnancy
9. Santelli JS et al., Explaining recent declines in adolescent
pregnancy in the United States: the contribution of abstinence
and improved contraceptive use, American Journal of Public Health, 2007, 97(1):150–156.

This appears to be the article referenced on teen pregnancy
medscape.com/viewarticle/550450
 
I found this graph included in a New England Journal of Medicine article which was generally favorable toward abortion. But again, it begins with 1973.

I’m always rather skeptical of abortion numbers reported for pre-1973 years. Often the sources cannot be traced.
 
This is news that gives hope.

I do wonder at what price to society does this news come. How much has the use of “birth control” gone up in the same time period.
 
I have to say I have not been particularly impressed with the level of attention to accuracy of details vs. attention to spinning to show their own viewpoint that I have seen in articles quoted on these threads from LifeNews overall. I would strongly advise going to the source as much as possible rather than relying on their interpretation of it.
I would have to agree, for example, this phrase from the original article posted seems very dubious:
The Guttmacher report speculates that the lower abortion rates may be due to “more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term,” implicitly acknowledging that attitudes toward abortion and pregnancy may have substantially changed.
I think that it might be an issue of ‘phone line’. The LA Times article about the report:

latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-abort17jan17,1,2080274,full.story?coll=la-headlines-nation&ctrack=1&cset=true

Quotes a professor from Pomona College making that speculation. Perhaps in an article, about an article, about a study, the facts got blurred.
I’m trying to find the info in the report that talks about the pregnancy rate vs. the abortion rate but having a bit of trouble. Could you help me out? I would like to see the sources they reference specifically.
I’m sorry, I should have been clearer. I was looking at one of the reference sources (Finer) because I was interested in the methodology of determining “intended” vs. “unintended”. It then stood out to me that the drop in abortions has not been put in statistical context of a fairly sizable drop in pregnancy rates also in the data.

If abortion rates are merely tracking changes in pregnancy rates, then there is nothing to suggest a change in attitudes, or any other abortion specfic causal effect. I am not saying this is so, I am just saying that it warrants further study.
 
I found this graph included in a New England Journal of Medicine article which was generally favorable toward abortion. But again, it begins with 1973.

I’m always rather skeptical of abortion numbers reported for pre-1973 years. Often the sources cannot be traced.
You may wish to examine the slides here:

guttmacher.org/presentations/trends.pdf

We really only have one credible source on legal abortions prior to 1973, and that is the CDC Abortion Surviellence Program, which was issued as a report covering 1969-1972.

Abortion legalization was broadly expanded in 15 states by the end of 1970. By 1972, the CDC surveillence places the number of legal abortions at 600,000 (which is the number I cited a “just prior” above).

The Guttmacher presentation uses soley the CDC’s numbers and notes that a) it only covers legal abortions and b) there really is no other good data available.

Also, the CDC’s methodology and raw data can be reviewed as well. Because the methodology is largely unchanged, it now tends to under report abortion, but it is still the best data we have for the 1969-1972 period.
 
Something I read about this also seems to imply that the decline in pregnancy rates overall would explain the decline in abortions. The issue then is, why are pregnancy rates declining? Is it that couples are being better about using contraceptives? Is it because of the increased access to chemical abortives so women are never even reporting pregnancies? Or, is it that sex between unmarried couples is actually declining also? I pray for the latter, but the cyncical part of me says it it probably a combination of the first two choices.
 
Why can’t we be happy about this instead of being divided on the reasons behind it?
 
Why can’t we be happy about this instead of being divided on the reasons behind it?
The reason that people like me ponder ‘why’ is that I would, in fact, like to see fewer abortions and fewer unplanned pregnancies. If Oregon and California are, for exmaple, getting something ‘right’, I think it is worth understanding (especially since most pro-life activists have the states identified as ones getting everything ‘wrong’).

I’m not sure why a search for truth is divisive, but if it is, I’m sorry. At least take comfort in my motivation, wanting to see fewer abortions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top