|
NRL News
Wonderfully Encouraging News: Abortions dropped a stunning 8% between 2000 and 2005, according to the Guttmacher Institute. Although tragically high, the 1.2 million abortions performed in 2005 is down 25% since it peaked in 1990. (See President’s column, page 3.) This most encouraging news, which came out a few days before the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, went hand-in-hand with a decrease in the abortion rate and abortion ratio which both plunged to their lowest levels since 1974. Put another way nearly one in three pregnant women aborted in the early 1980s. By 2005, the proportion is closer to one in five. Together this one-two-three development shows that the decline is not some sort of statistical aberration, or simply the reflection of a smaller number of women ages 15–44. (In fact, the number of women of childbearing age increased.) Rather the extraordinary drop is a testimony to the impact of pro-life education, outreach, and the passage of state laws that require women be given a chance to reflect before they abort their unborn children. The number of abortion “providers” dropped again but only slightly because some doctors opted to perform so-called “chemical” abortions (or “medical” abortions, as abortionists like to call them)—RU486 primarily. “We estimate if it weren’t for these providers who offer only early medical abortions ... the number of providers would have declined by 8 percent instead of by 2 percent,” said Rachel Jones, the lead researcher. The same report, published in the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, also revealed that the percentage of these non-surgical abortions increased from 6% in 2001 to 13% in 2005. Not only did some physicians not previously involved in abortion turn to the dark side, 57% of abortion providers offered RU486 in 2005, compared with 33% in early 2001. In addition, the growth toward “mega-clinics” continues apace. Lowest Figure in Nearly 30 Years Guttmacher reports that there were 1,206,200 abortions performed in the U.S. in 2005, the lowest annual figure in nearly 30 years, and down nearly a quarter from the high of 1.6 million in 1990. Abortion rates and ratios were also down to their lowest levels since 1974, strongly indicating pregnant women and the babies’ fathers are more likely to choose life. (See below.) Guttmacher, a one-time special research affiliate of Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion promoter and performer, generates numbers that are generally thought to be the most accurate available. Unlike the Centers for Disease Control, Guttmacher directly surveys abortion clinics, hospitals, and abortionists’ offices. But because Guttmacher does not do its surveys annually, it may be years before major national trends become apparent. For the years 2004 and 2005, Guttmacher not only obtained information about the number of abortions performed, but also tracked the gestational age of the baby, the type of abortion procedure used, and the procedure’s cost. Abortion Rate In 2005, according to Guttmacher, there were 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women ages 15-44. The last time the abortion rate was this low was in 1974 when it was 19.3. In 1980 and 1981, the abortion rate reached an all-time high of 29.3 per 1,000 and did not drop below 25 per 1,000 until 1994. The abortion rate gives us an idea of how common a feature abortion is in the lives of American women in their fertile years. Abortion Ratio Both the number of abortions and the abortion rate can be affected by any factor that reduces the overall number of pregnancies, whether it is family planning, abstinence, or disease. Not so with the abortion ratio. The abortion ratio deals specifically with those women who already are pregnant. Guttmacher asks this question: for every 100 pregnancies, how many end in a live birth and how many end in abortion? (Miscarriages are not factored in.) According to Guttmacher, the abortion ratio has substantially declined. Guttmacher reports that in 2005, out of every 100 pregnancies ending in birth or abortion, 22.4 ended in abortions. By contrast, in 1983, Guttmacher estimated the ratio to be 30.4. That ratio stayed above 25 from 1976 through 1998. Analysis Given its close historic links to Planned Parenthood, it is hardly surprising that Guttmacher suggests this decline may be due to “better contraceptive use, lower levels of unintended pregnancy ... , and greater difficulties accessing abortion services in some geographic areas.” In a vague nod to pro-life efforts, the report also mentioned one other explanation: “more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term.” As discussed earlier, population shifts, the use of family planning, abstinence, or anything reducing the number of pregnancies overall would have an impact on the number of abortions. But they would not account for higher proportions of pregnant women choosing life. Guttmacher raises the issue of “access”—whether there are abortion “services” in the community where a pregnant woman lives. The New York-based organization admits that although its survey found fewer abortion “providers” in the U.S. in 2005 than did surveys in 2000, 1996, and 1992, nonetheless about the same percentage of U.S. counties had an abortionist in 2005 as did in 2000. Moreover, about the same proportion of women in this survey as the last traveled more than 100 miles for their abortions. In speculating that lower abortion rates may be due to “more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term,” Guttmacher is implicitly acknowledging that attitudes toward abortion and pregnancy may have substantially changed. If you are not Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood, it is not difficult to figure out what may be responsible for these attitudinal changes. During the period of this extended decline in abortions, more than half of the states put substantial parental involvement statutes in place. Is it any surprise that abortion rates among teenagers have fallen further and faster than abortion rates as a whole? Dozens of states have passed women’s “right to know” laws, ensuring that women understand abortion’s risks, the development of their unborn children, and, significantly, the sort of governmental and private assistance that is available for them if they choose to bear their children. It is telling that an earlier study by Guttmacher cataloguing the reasons women said they have abortions found that many women said they didn’t want abortions, but saw no realistic alternatives. Obviously, when presented with accurate information and practical assistance, many women leapt at the chance to save their babies. And while Guttmacher naturally makes no mention, it is almost impossible to exaggerate the impact of the campaign to educate the public about the hideous partial-birth abortion technique. No less a source than Gallup pointed to partial-birth abortion in explaining the sharp increase in pro-life sentiment between 1995 and 1997: “Given the timing of the shift, it appears that the debate over partial-birth abortion is the cause for this adjustment in public attitudes. It appears it became an important factor for Americans to consider when crystallizing their own positions on abortion.” When you think about what partial-birth abortion is—puncturing children’s skulls and vacuuming out their brains—this comes as no surprise. The impact of the debate over partial-birth abortion continued as the battle was joined in the legislatures and the courts. It really causes people to think about abortion. Education clearly has an impact. In addition to thousands of pieces of literature and a wealth of information on the Internet (such as that found at www.nrlc.org), the widespread use of ultrasound has made knowledge of fetal development more commonplace. Across the country, pregnancy care centers staffed by loving and caring volunteers have offered practical help and personal support to help thousands of women make a decision for life. Falling abortion rates are a sure sign that, given truthful information about abortion, about its impact on their lives, about the child growing inside them, given even the slightest help and encouragement, many women will choose life. What the pro-life movement has done is working. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been saved and hundreds of thousands of hearts have been saved from breaking. Nearly 50 million lives have been lost to Roe v. Wade’s ravenous appetite, but thanks to the tireless efforts of pro-lifers, a generation of survivors has arisen that can help save generations to come. Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., is NRL-ETF director of education & research. |