Restrictive laws do not reduce abortion
So says the byline of an article in The Economist from last week. It makes the case that for those of us who desire to see abortion numbers drop (I think we're pretty much all in that category), legislation is not a tool that anyone should expect to be effective for achieving that outcome:
[According to] the largest global study of abortion ever...Restricting abortions...has little effect on the number of pregnancies terminated. Rather, it drives women to seek illegal, often unsafe backstreet abortions leading to an estimated 67,000 deaths a year. A further 5m women require hospital treatment as a result of botched procedures.
In Africa and Asia, where abortion is generally either illegal or restricted, the abortion rate in 2003 (the latest year for which figures are available) was 29 per 1,000 women aged 15-44. This is almost identical to the rate in Europe-28-where legal abortions are widely available. Latin America, which has some of the world's most restrictive abortion laws, is the region with the highest abortion rate (31), while western Europe, which has some of the most liberal laws, has the lowest (12).
Between 1995 and 2005, 17 nations liberalised abortion legislation, while three tightened restrictions. The number of induced abortions nevertheless declined from nearly 46m in 1995 to 42m in 2003, resulting in a fall in the worldwide abortion rate from 35 to 29. The most dramatic drop-from 90 to 44-was in former communist Eastern Europe, where abortion is generally legal, safe and cheap. This coincided with a big increase in contraceptive use in the region which still has the world's highest abortion rate, with more terminations than live births.
The Economist Article is unfortunate. The author of the article basically wants to paint a picture of dispair. There is by far no need for dispair.
I have two main points against this article:
1) Women actually need help to have their babies and to care for them or adopt them out. Planned Parenthoods $800 MM government grant has made a killing engine out of our tax monies. Often, pro-choice groups have found, that a mother is in dispair and needs a very small amount of help. This could be a car, a rent payment, money for diapers, etc. There have arisen a large number of crisis pregnancy homes that are providing this service - but largely through donations with little if any government help. Instead, almost $1B is going to Planned Parenthood to ensure the murdering continues.
2) We need a law that protects human life at the moment of conception. This is because a society that does not respect the dignity of human life is destined to destroy it. Our current situation marginalizes a class of citizens who have no voice. When societies do this genocide is typically the result. This is a holocaust against innocents - it is absolutely inexcusable for any society to resort to abortion as a convenience on a grand scale like we have done. A law is needed to remove this as a convenience - then women need to be directed to get help (see 1).
Joey,
I don't necessarily disagree with your points, but to me they don't really seem to be effective in going "against" the article. The article doesn't produce despair in me. It produces a curiosity about how anti-abortion activists might need to change their strategy in order to be more effective in decreasing abortion rates. The article presents data that suggests that legislation (the focus of many anti-abortion proponents) is not effective in reducing abortion rates. Your second point argues for legislation and sort of appeals to data ("When societies do this genocide is typically the result") but kind of weakly. Your first point proposes an alternative to legislation that might reduce abortion rates. It would be interesting to see the data.
jdm
JM,
There are many things that are showing effectiveness in reducing abortion rates outside of legislation. The changing of hearts is where the real battle will be won. A great example of this is a set of very soft TV ads that address women and where they are at while pregnant and considering this decision. (Can't find the link but will keep looking.) These ads are resulting in huge reductions in abortions. There are many other efforts that are also changing peoples minds through education and information.
However, the concept that we shouldn't bother with legislation because it won't matter is also problematic. This is because we are 1) culpable for the behavior of our nation, 2) responsible to the social implication that we currently legalize murder of an innocent, and 3) are paying a great deal of money to ensure that the job gets done.
I think we have to work for change at all levels: a) change the law of the land and $x10^8, b) support women in the context of crisis pregnancy centers, and c) gently change hearts through education.
The Economist article is not interested in the answer to this problem. The article aims to arm the pro-aborts who are seeing their position erode. Their position is that legislation is useless therefore let's keep the laws on the books. This is not an option. If the aim of the article was otherwise it would have presented evidence of effectiveness now seen in educational programs/ads/etc.
js
JS,
Yes, there can be reasons to desire legislation other than effectiveness in reducing abortion rate, but the latter is my primary concern. Since the Economist article didn't do it, I'm looking to you for the evidence about other approaches. I'm sure crisis pregnancy centers make a huge impact. I'm more skeptical about TV ads.
JDM