Latin American women’s experiences with medical abortion in settings where abortion is legally restricted

[MJJean]

Again, though, the data deals with reported abortions. Of course areas that have abortion access restrictions are going to see a decrease in abortion. Because women seeking abortion either go elsewhere or use black market methods.

I do agree that things like crisis pregnancy centers are very important if we want to reduce abortion numbers. The problem is that those centers generally only offer support until the baby is born. Then the mother is on her own. We need more comprehensive support, including job training/education opportunities to make women feel comfortable choosing life. One of the biggest complaints is that the “right to lifers” don’t care about life once it has been born. To gain social momentum and encourage women to keep their babies, we need to offer long term support and prove to detractors that we do care about life at all stages.

 

[fnr]

The fact that some people may turn to the black market for an abortion is Roe v Wade is overturned, is not a good reason to not overturn Roe v Wade. What will be important if Roe v Wade is overturned as it is important now, are crisis pregnancy centers doing their part to reach out to women.

The reason I posted the article about Latin America is that abortion is overwhelmingly illegal there, and the article systematically reviews peer-reviewed journals that describe the behavior of women under those restrictions.

What I’m arguing is that because the desire NOT to have a child is so strong in some women that they will go to great lengths (and personal risk) to end their pregnancies. My contention is that by the time a woman who doesn’t want to have a baby gets pregnant, the legal status of abortion will not affect her intention. Like other Catholic commentators on abortion (e.g., Al Kresta), I believe that the cultural demand for abortion arose decades prior to Roe v. Wade.

I’ve done some additional math on the pre-Roe papers. While studies from the 1950s and 1960s indicate that the rates were 1 to 5 per 1000 capita (given the imprecision of estimates), compared with 4 per 1000 capita today.

I don’t have per capita rates from earlier periods yet, but the 1936 paper does allow calculation of late-1920s and early-1930s “abortion ratios,” that is per 1000 live births. From those rates, it’s clear that the abortion ratio then was about 10x lower than today’s estimates which the CDC puts at about 227. [However, one group actually had higher abortion ratios than that: women in New York City who were seeking advice in a “birth control clinic” had abortion ratios over 300.]

All together , the pre-Roe studies suggests to me that between the beginning of the Great Depression and the 1950s-1960s, a marked increase in the abortion rate took place. This occurred regardless of the legal status of abortion. During that same time, one major thing happened – the baby boom. See this chart : prb.org/Publications/Datasheets/2012/world-population-data-sheet/fact-sheet-us-population.aspx

[QuoteGuttmacher Institute says if Roe v Wade is overturned

Abortion Policy in the Absence of Roe | Guttmacher Institute

How could that have a little effect on abortion rate?

For me it’s an empirical question.

 

[fnr]

Dr Michael J New looked at abortion laws and it was published in peer reviewed State Politics and Policy Quarterly. He reviewed from 1985 - 2005 and found the 3 approaches to abortion restriction laws reduced the abortion rate and he said the laws

spa.sagepub.com/content/11/1/28.abstract

It is likely that the approaches discussed in the article above have contributed to reducing the abortion rate, and if that is so, it shows that seeking to change laws regarding to abortion is very important.

I’m glad you put this study up there. I actually agree that for some groups, there can be a change in abortions, but as a fraction of the total, it’s small.

To use statistics from the CDC, the abortion rate for 2009 was 15.1 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years, and the abortion ratio was 227 abortions per 1,000 live births. Using the coefficients by New for CDC data, informed consent laws reduce the abortion rate by 0.74, which is a reduction of 5% (-0.74/15.1 = 0.049). For Medicaid funding restrictions, the estimate is a -1.54 change in the rate, which is a reduction of 10% (1.54/15.1). Actually, those estimates are likely to be slight overestimates of the percentage reduction, because I’m using CDC’s data from 2009, and his data reflect 1985-2005. For example, his Table 1 indicates that the mean abortion rate across states and years in his study was 15.96 (vs. 15.1 for the CDC 2009 estimate). Also, parental involvement laws had no significant effect (despite evidence from other research that teenagers are reduce the amount of “risky sex” they have after parental notification laws – see Klick and Stratman, 2006).

The paper has one odd bit of wording, which I think is just poor writing. “As such, each state’s fertility rate is held constant…” is on p. 36. If he means that he included each state’s yearly value in the equation, that’s a good thing. If it means that each state is assigned a constant fertility rate, that’s extremely bad methodologically and opens the door to confounding the main results by trends in fertility (which have been declining over the same time period that the laws evaluated went into effect).

To me, the combined effect of a 15% reduction in abortions derive primarily from increasing the costs (i.e., funding restrictions) or perceived costs (i.e., informed consent) of abortion means that 85% of the abortions are still out there. That 85% reflects the underlying demand for abortion. And also, the widespread availability of Cytotec (a stomach ulcer drug that’s also an abortifacient) in recent years has meant that many medical abortions may get reported.

This still doesn’t address the issue in the OP. How in Latin America, where abortion is tightly restricted, it’s still widely accessible to most women.

 

[Brendan]

I wonder if we just apply this logic to rape. After all, that is often practiced in back alleys and in non ideal circumstances. It too has associated fatalities that could certainly be reduced if we just legalize rape.

 

[ncashion]

What we can infer is that the number isn’t changing much, the method is. We went from non-reported illegal abortion to legal abortion that we can keep better track of. That’s all.

Abortion isn’t going anywhere. Humans have been ending unwanted pregnancies for literally thousands of years.There have been reliable abortion herbs and procedures since ancient times. Anyone who thinks making it illegal will help is fooling themselves. Women don’t abort or not based on law. They abort based on desperation. The only thing making abortion illegal will do is cause an absolutely unsafe black market to flourish and endanger womens lives needlessly. Sure, the reported numbers will go down, but the numbers in reality will not. All making abortion illegal does is make whoever is reading the numbers feel better.

Take Ireland. Abortion is illegal in Ireland, so what do women do? They leave the country, order other drugs online that happen to cause abortion or use crackpot home methods.

There is a difference between condoning something and making it illegal.

I can’t repeat it enough…and forgive me for my strong words here, but “safe abortions” is an absurd description of the murder of unborn human beings…it truly is (and I am not purposely using this for drama) equivelant to us saying well at least those killed in the holocaust were in a controlled environment (in some cases) and it is better than them being executed in a “non-safe” manner. Once more as we are speaking on a Christian forum…can we honestly think that once we stand before God, that these excuses will work? We belong to a heritage that also four thousands of years has condemned the killing of innocents, especially the unborn. Can we stand before the Christ that said, “what you do unto the least of these, you do unto me”, and actually think that fighting to keep this legal will fly? If you think so, then I am afraid we must agree to disagree and you are in my prayers. God bless.

 

[ncashion]

I wonder if we just apply this logic to rape. After all, that is often practiced in back alleys and in non ideal circumstances. It too has associated fatalities that could certainly be reduced if we just legalize rape.

Yes, well I am sure there are some that would say that if we legalized prostitution then it would be a “safe” environment for sexual intercourse…rather than upholding the Sacrament of Marriage…We like to make excuses to allow ourselves to act like animals unfortunately.

 

[MJJean]

I can’t repeat it enough…and forgive me for my strong words here, but “safe abortions” is an absurd description of the murder of unborn human beings…it truly is (and I am not purposely using this for drama) equivelant to us saying well at least those killed in the holocaust were in a controlled environment (in some cases) and it is better than them being executed in a “non-safe” manner. Once more as we are speaking on a Christian forum…can we honestly think that once we stand before God, that these excuses will work? We belong to a heritage that also four thousands of years has condemned the killing of innocents, especially the unborn. Can we stand before the Christ that said, “what you do unto the least of these, you do unto me”, and actually think that fighting to keep this legal will fly? If you think so, then I am afraid we must agree to disagree and you are in my prayers. God bless.

We’re on the same side, but we approach it from different angles.

Of course abortion isn’t safe for the fetus. I was speaking in terms of safety for the woman. In that context, legal abortion under medical supervision is much safer than using herbs, concoctions, medications off label and shudder coat hangers. My thought process is that a woman who is determined to abort should be able to do so as safely as possible. The baby is already going to die, what sense does it make to risk the mothers life as well? And, taking it a step further, if the mother dies or becomes unable to have children in the future we are also losing the lives of those potential children.

I really do believe the focus should not be on legislation and more on prevention and assistance.

 

[ncashion]

We’re on the same side, but we approach it from different angles.

Of course abortion isn’t safe for the fetus. I was speaking in terms of safety for the woman. In that context, legal abortion under medical supervision is much safer than using herbs, concoctions, medications off label and shudder coat hangers. My thought process is that a woman who is determined to abort should be able to do so as safely as possible. The baby is already going to die, what sense does it make to risk the mothers life as well? And, taking it a step further, if the mother dies or becomes unable to have children in the future we are also losing the lives of those potential children.

I really do believe the focus should not be on legislation and more on prevention and assistance.

Or did you think that it may be possible that the women would not abort or maybe turn to adoption or even choose to remain chaste if abortion were illegal? Where do we begin assuming that they will all use herbs and concoctions? And furthermore if they are willing to endanger their own lives to murder their child…why should we help them do so…It is heart warming that you are concerned with the future children while advocating the legal murder of others…

 

[fnr]

Or did you think that it may be possible that the women would not abort or maybe turn to adoption or even choose to remain chaste if abortion were illegal? Where do we begin assuming that they will all use herbs and concoctions? And furthermore if they are willing to endanger their own lives to murder their child…why should we help them do so…It is heart warming that you are concerned with the future children while advocating the legal murder of others…

Your questions are exactly the reason I posted the article in the original posting (#1 message on this thread). Abortion is generally illegal throughout Latin America (and overwhelmingly Catholic, incidentally). Yet during the 1950s and 1960s, abortion occurred at rates higher than found here, at least according to the peer-reviewed articles that have been published in the scientific literature.

To me, the pro-life movement will save more lives by focusing on women before they get pregnant, in addition to the support services that crisis pregnancy centers offer today.