For the fifth year in a row, the number of abortions
performed in the United States has declined, according to a December 5,
1997, report, issued by the federal government's Centers for Disease Control
(CDC).
According to the CDC, there were 1,210,883 abortions in 1995, a decrease
of 4.5% from 1994 when there were 1,287,416. Because the CDC relies on information
supplied by state and local health departments rather than actually surveying
clinics, this figure probably represents an undercount of 150,000 to 200,000
abortions, putting the actual number somewhere between 1,350,000 and 1,400,000
(see graph and sidebar page 15).
Even so, this still represents a substantial drop either from the 1.6 million
abortions recorded in 1990 by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI), which
directly surveys abortion clinics, or the 1,429,577 abortions reported by
the CDC in 1990. Forty out of the CDC's 52 reporting areas (77%) reported
fewer abortions than they had in 1994, confirming that this is a nationwide
trend.
Abortion advocates were quick to attribute this to increased use of contraceptives,
but the CDC cited other factors, including "attitudinal changes concerning
the decision to have an abortion or to carry a pregnancy to term" as
possible causes (Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 12/5/97).
What might account for these "attitudinal changes" about abortion?
Since 1989, 14 states have passed "right to know" legislation,
making sure women are told not only of abortion's risks and realities, but
also about alternatives that are better for them and their unborn children.
Twenty-two states now have substantive parental involvement statutes in
place, helping to protect teens from adolescent fears and exploitation by
the abortion industry. Waiting periods and limits on taxpayer funding of
abortion have also likely contributed to the decline. It was in 1995 that
NRLC launched its campaign to stop partial-birth abortions, which helped
many, for the first time, to realize that abortion really was about killing
babies. That surely contributed to the "attitudinal changes" that
reduced the numbers of abortions.
Moreover, in the last 25 years, millions of pieces of pro-life literature
illustrating the development of the unborn child have been distributed,
confirming what more and more women, in recent years, are seeing for themselves
in sonograms and hearing on fetal stethoscopes - - that abortion stops a
beating heart and ends the lives of children with hands, feet, and faces.
A closer look at the CDC's statistics lends credence to this explanation.
Besides decreases in the number of abortions, there were also decreases
in the abortion rate and abortion ratio.
The abortion rate is the number of abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing
age. For 1995, the figure was 20 per 1,000 women ages 15 to 44, one less
per thousand than in 1994, and four less per thousand than the 1990 rate
of 29 per thousand - - a drop of 17%. It represents the lowest figure
since 1975, when it was 18 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age.
The highest rate (25 per 1,000) was recorded in 1980. The abortion rate
hovered around 23-24 per thousand from 1981 to 1992.
With a lowered abortion rate alone, however, the argument could be
made that the drop was simply due to a decline in the number of pregnancies,
either because of increased use of contraceptives or a shift in the population
bubble within the age bracket from younger women to older, less fertile
women. But two other pieces of statistical information indicate that these
explanations are insufficient.
First, while there was a 4.5% decrease in the number of abortions between
1994 and 1995, there was only a 1.5% reduction in the number of live births.
What this means is that, unless there was an enormous increase in the number
of miscarriages and stillbirths (numbers not considered in CDC calculations),
the decline in the number of abortions was probably several times greater
than the overall decline in pregnancies. Thus, of those women who became
pregnant, more were choosing life for their babies.
Second, the abortion ratio - - the number of abortions per
1,000 live births - - also showed a significant decline. It decreased from
321 per 1,000 in 1994 to 311 per 1,000 in 1995.
Because this figure does not include miscarriages and stillbirths, it cannot
give a strict percentage of those pregnancies ending in abortion. Still,
it does show that a substantially lower proportion of women are choosing
to abort their babies than was the case between 1978 and 1990, when the
ratio stabilized between 345 and 359 per thousand.
The last time the abortion ratio was near the 311 per thousand recorded
for 1995 was in 1976, when the ratio was 312 per thousand.
The drop in the abortion ratio shows that it wasn't population shifts or
the increased use of contraceptives that led to the decline in overall numbers,
but the tireless efforts of people in the pro-life movement that have finally,
in the last few years, begun to have an effect.
However, the news is not all good. In the New York Times article
reporting on the 1995 CDC figures, there was mention of preliminary statistics
for 1996 that indicate the numbers maybe going back up again.
While national statistics for 1996 are not available yet, some state and
local health departments are reporting increases for 1996. In New York City,
Florida, Illinois, Texas, Missouri, and several other states, there were
increases over the previous year, some substantial.
No one knows precisely why this is the case. These increases do coincide
with a massive publicity campaign by the abortion industry to promote chemical
abortifacients as an "easy, safe, and simple" alternative to surgical
abortion.1
While the actual number of RU 486 and methotrexate abortions was, relatively
speaking, small, the promotion of RU 486 has helped generate traffic for
the abortion clinics. In July 1996, Gloria Feldt, president of Planned Parenthood,
told a Food and Drug Administration panel, "Every time there is a news
story about medical abortion women called Planned Parenthood."
Many clinics have already begun using the promise of chemical abortions
as part of an advertising strategy to lure clients. "Abortion Pill
Available" is already appearing in Yellow Pages ads and "medical
abortions" featuring methotrexate are already being advertised in newspapers
and on the Internet. Women who call or come in for the chemical abortions
may be sold surgical abortions if the pills aren't available or the clinic
decides they are medically inappropriate. Several of the states showing
increases in the preliminary 1996 statistics were states in which testing
of these chemical abortifacients was being done.
NRLC has taken the lead in educational efforts to counter pro-abortion attempts
to give the drug a positive image by letting people know that chemical abortions
are difficult and dangerous. NRLC has also promoted a consumer boycott of
the consumer products of Hoechst Marion Roussel, the American subsidiary
of the European companies re-sponsible for the development of RU 486. Unfortunately,
until the day when there is full legal protection for the unborn in this
country, there will always be new techniques and strategies pushed by the
abortion industry.
The encouraging news is that pro-life efforts have made, and still can make
a difference. The statistics tell us there are literally hundreds of thousands
of babies alive today that wouldn't be here if it weren't for the hard work
and sacrifices made by pro-lifers. There is still much to be done, but know
that your work is not in vain.
1 The first large-scale trial of RU 486 was conducted in 1994 and 1995 and Planned Parenthood began its own trial of the abortion-inducing cancer drug methotrexate in 1996. In 1995 veteran pro-abortion activist Lawrence Lader also began testing an RU 486 clone in several states.