FROM THE PRESIDENT

FROM THE PRESIDENT'S DESK
Wanda Franz, Ph.D.

ABORTION STATISTICS & POLLS

In 1999, a total of 861,789 legal induced abortions were reported to CDC [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention] by 48 reporting areas [excluding Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma]. This represents a 2.5% decrease from 1998. In 1999, of women who obtained abortions , 52% were known to have obtained an abortion for the first time. [Forty-five percent were known to have had one or more previous abortions, and 19% had had two or more previous abortions. The history of 3% is unknown.]

--CDC, "Abortion Surveillance United States, 1999," Morbidity and
Mortality Weekly Report, Nov. 29, 2002, Vol. 51, No. SS-9, p. 3 & 4.

[According to a Zogby International poll, November 12-14, 2002] about 22 percent said they were less in favor of abortion today than they were a decade ago. About half that number said they were more in favor of it. Nationwide, one-third of people ages 18 to 29 said abortion should never be legal. That contrasts with about 23 percent for those ages 30 to 64, and about 20 percent for those over age 65. [O]nly about 4 percent nationwide said they always vote for pro-choice candidates. About 13 percent nationally said they always vote for anti-abortion candidates.

--"Attitudes Become More Negative on Abortion," The Buffalo News,
11/27/2002

It is worth highlighting that in July 1996, coincident with the emergence of a new national debate over partial-birth abortion, Gallup recorded a significant drop in the number of Americans saying abortion should be legal in all cases. Since then, the percentage favoring unrestricted abortions has averaged just 25%, down from about 33% in the previous five years.

--Gallup Poll Special Reports, "Public Opinion About Abortion--
An In-Depth Review," 1/22/2002

The most recent abortion statistics compiled by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirm trends that have been visible for several years.

The number of abortions peaked in 1990. In that year, there were about 1.61 million abortions, according to reports of abortion providers to Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), or about 1.43 million, according to incomplete health agency reports to the CDC. The numbers have steadily declined since then. From 1998 to 1999, the number of abortions reported to the CDC declined 2.5%.

There is considerable uncertainty about the total number of abortions in 1999 because Alaska, California, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma made no report to the CDC. Assuming that the ratio between the CDC figures and the more complete AGI figures is similar to that in recent years, there were about 300,000 fewer abortions in 1999 than in the peak year of 1990, which had a 1.61 million total, according to AGI figures.

Note that the number of women of childbearing age rose faster during the 1980s (10.5%, according to the Census Bureau) than did the number of abortions (about 3.9%, according to AGI figures).

The Zogby International poll, quoted above, demonstrates that the decline in the number of abortions over the past decade is matched by a change in attitude towards abortion. The attitudinal changes strongly favor the pro-life position.

The conventional explanations for the decline in the number of abortions do not explain the change in attitude. Why should, to quote from the CDC report, "reduced access to abortion services" or "changes in contraceptive practices" make people three times as likely to vote for pro-life candidates than for pro-abortions ones (13% vs. 4%, according to Zogby International)?

Or how would "a shift in age distribution of women toward the older less fertile stages" explain why, according to Zogby International, the young (18 to 29 years) are 50% more likely than those 30 and older to think that abortion should never be legal? (Women of age 18-29 have well over half the abortions, according to the CDC. Hence, conventional wisdom would postulate that a greater "need" for abortion would make the young more pro-abortion than the older age group.)

Clearly, the significant changes of attitude in the pro-life direction rest on more than changes in access to abortion or perceived "need" to have an abortion. While the routine use of ultrasound imaging has made the humanity of the unborn child more "visible" and thus strengthened natural pro-life attitudes, a large part of the positive change is the result of the hard work of pro-lifers.

During the past decade, NRLC and its chapters undertook three huge educational campaigns. These campaigns were of national scope, required the coordinated effort of thousands of grassroots pro-lifers from the local chapter level to the national office, reached millions of people through leaflets and advertising, and drained our resources enormously--but they produced results. The first two were defensive: Preventing the so-called "Freedom of Choice Act" from becoming law and defeating Hillary Clinton's health plan.

The former would have made unlimited abortion on demand a federally protected right. The latter would have made abortion on demand part of routine medical care ("no questions asked," as one columnist put it), federally mandated it as a health benefit, and rationed medical care for the elderly and disabled (and thus threatened them with involuntary euthanasia).

The third campaign, the effort to ban partial-birth abortions, put us on offense. It has been the most successful so far because it has had a far-reaching effect on attitudes.

Some misguided pro-lifers criticized NRLC over the partial-birth abortion campaign. It was "incremental" and therefore not "pro-life," they said. By focusing on partial-birth abortions, it would make people more tolerant of all other abortions, they said.

Well, they were wrong. They should look at the Gallup report quoted above.

Our educational campaigns, our work, our sacrifices have made people more pro-life. They also helped make women less inclined to have abortions, resulting in hundreds of thousands of lives saved every year. And now we are broke. As you are spending money on Christmas gifts, think of National Right to Life, too. (Please, see my letter on the back cover of this issue.) God bless you!