Question: when someone you know has a miscarriage, would you ever in a million years say to them, "sorry about the zygote"? Or "that's so sad that you lost the fetus"? Of course not. Because we all know what "it" is: a baby.
I spent 25 years going through the intellectual gymnastics required to support "a woman's right to choose" before finally being honest with myself.
800,000 abortions a year is a holocaust.
3
@Mike, "800,000 abortions a year is"... 800,000 women who got their lives back, because they weren't forced to gestate unwanted pregnancies against their will.
39
Robbiesimon,
Of course abortion clinics are out to make money. They make high profits when they perform abortions. They make very little for non abortion services and need to keep their facilities open and pay their employees. You are in denial if you think they perform abortions out of the goodness of their hearts.
1
Let's get the facts straight instead of looking for "click bait."
Numerous statistics have been published that free access to birth control and access to the Morning After pill have reduced abortions. The more access to free or low cost birth control, the more the numbers continue to decline.
Look at the reductions in abortions in states that included birth control in their Obamacare plans.
Banning abortions in states has only driven women across state lines and back to doing abortions at home.
More access to free birth control and Morning After pills work.
18
C's Daughter,
In North Dakota, an abortion can cost between $650 and $1100. You can make a killing (no pun intended) if an abortion facility performs enough abortions on a daily basis. This is what they are out to do. They are money making operations and not charity giving organizations. They have expenses and must pay their bills. They care little about the women.
1
I firmly believe that increased accessibility of long-acting reversible contraception (LARC), along with economic insecurity among women of child-bearing age is behind the decline. Look up Colorado's Family Planning Initiative. The results were stunning.
14
Facts can't speak for themselves, they have to be explained. This is only because of increased birth control, not because people have realized the evil of abortion itself.
@Nora - Why would it matter to you why people are having fewer abortions? Aren't you just happy that they are not having them?
11
Type this into a Google Search: how to buy abortion meds online.
It’s important to note that this option was not available when Roe v Wade passed.
Scared to tell you parents? Embarrassed to tell your friends? Worried that you’ll be discovered if it fails. No worries to all of those questions.
No facility will turn a patient away for bleeding in pregnancy, and treating a failed medically induced abortion is the same as treating somebody in the middle of a miscarriage. Trust me, I’m an OB.
Tracking abortion rates in this day and age is inaccurate. Too much information is out there. If an online option was available for “Roe”, she would have never pursued an abortion through Lawyers. She might have done it all on her own.
The real issue is: make it socially/legally permissible to have this conversation, and you won’t have women taking unnecessary risks.
21
You want to get an abortion, if you're in compliance with Roe v. Wade there's no problem out of me.
That said, I don't think that you should expect me, as a taxpayer, to pay for your abortion.
And when you want to deliberately get pregnant am I also supposed to pay for theater tickets, dinner and drinks?
2
@MIKEinNYC
Women contribute to your healthcare. But you do not want to pay for theirs. Nice.
27
@MIKEinNYC
You appear to be confused. Theater tickets, dinner, and drinks aren't medical procedures or health care.
The proper analogy would be whether you are okay with "paying for" prenatal care, delivery, and care for a newborn.
Ultimately, I'm really not sure why you think that you are paying for anyone's abortion, see, e.g., the Hyde Amendment. Side note: this taxpayer is tired of her tax dollars paying for obese, sedentary old white men's health care, but you don't see me whining about it.
23
@MIKEinNYC: There's a disconnect in what you've written above. As a taxpayer, you fund Medicaid and other social services that pay to support impoverished pregnant women and their off-spring. Prenatal visits, prescriptions, L&D services, post-partum care, WIC, etc. are all covered by taxpayer-funded services. Why do you separate out abortion, which when performed early in pregnancy is safe and inexpensive? Certainly much less expensive than the services a child, particularly an impoverished child, will receive for eighteen years after it's born. If this is a moral issue for you, then let it be a moral issue. Making it solely about money is entirely nonsensical.
17
Maybe the changes in what we're seeing has little to do with either better birth control methods or restrictive laws, but simply science. I have long believed that the available science about prenatal life in the womb will eventually drive us to realize that we're killing little children, not meaningless blobs of protoplasm. We need not the Bible to tell us that. Science leaves little room for alternative conclusions.
1
The far right has done more to contribute to declining birth rates which track with declining abortion rates by creating a bleak future full of uncertainty and risk. I see a lot of young people with pets instead of children who normally would be getting married and having babies. The right wing ha made that impossible for many young people.
16
We can thank Obama for making birth control free and available. No thanks to religious zealots and Trump who keep on trying to associate birth control with God. What about Trump giving govt grants to orgs that refuse to talk about birth control and tell misinformed women that the rhythm method is the Godly way. Awful!
16
Now can backward republicans turn their attention to more pressing issues that threaten society, i.e. climate change and MASS extinctions? up with life, right?
9
@dweeby
They will kill us for sure if they had to even pretend to think
2
Any reason why “fewer pregnancies” was lumped in with contraception as a causal factor? That seems like circular reasoning—fewer pregnancies do not “cause” fewer abortions, because abortion could not occur without a pregnancy in the first place. The study should rather have measured the annual percentage of pregnancies terminated, so as to identify what might be correlated with the differences.
One is not unreasonable who suspects ulterior motives here.
1
@William Harrison It's significant because if there were the same amount of pregnancies but fewer abortions, this means something is causing the abortion rate to decrease (basically either restrictive laws or people opting not to abort). Knowing that there are fewer pregnancies AND fewer abortions helps us draw the conclusion that access to and use of effective birth control is growing.
They did measure the percentage of pregnancies terminated. That's the abortion rate and as the article says, it has dropped from 21.2 to 18.4 abortions per pregnancy.
14
Guttmacher did the study which supports abortion rights. If a pro life group did a study saying that abortions were at an all time high, questions would be raised about their involvement in such a study. A non partisan organization might have been a better choice to do a report about abortion numbers.
3
While Guttmacher provides great data on abortions, their data alone won’t tell us why the numbers are lower.
Researchers will be eager to compare these counts to birth certificate data, distances to clinics and state laws. Then we’ll have a clearer picture of what these lower numbers mean.
The reasons may well vary widely geographically.
3
It is not surprising that birthrates have declined over time as women have been postponing pregnancy and birth in pursuit of postgraduate degrees and in achievement of higher professional success. In certain cases, this postponement incentives cryopreservation procedures and subsequent pregnancies; however, cryopreservation does not guarantee pregnancy and those women who do not freeze their oocytes experience a marked reduction in viable oocytes after age 37. Read more here: https://www.skymedicine.com/2019/09/12/oocyte-cryopreservation-what-are-your-thoughts-on-egg-freezing/
2
862,000 abortions is nothing to be proud of, though I'm glad it's not 1,062,000. This is a tragedy of epic proportions, and it should be cause for deep reflection.
We must encourage men and women to use their sexuality responsibly, always mindful of the consequences, chief among them being children. We do nothing of the sort in this country. We just build industries in top of it.
6
@Mark it is no more a tragedy than a miscarriage, which happens at extremely high rates in the first trimester.
It is no more a tragedy than egg working its way through a woman's system and dying every month.
29
@Evan
I strongly disagree. A miscarriage is an accident of biology. An egg is not a human being. Abortion is a conscious act of the will to end the life of another human being. They cannot possibly be in the same moral category.
4
@Mark You need to learn some biology. Miscarriages are often not accidents at all. Many, many things can go wrong in the development of an embryo, and many miscarriages are the result of those errors of nature. An early-stage abortion is a miscarriage chosen by the woman. The embryo or fetus is a potential human being, not an actual one. The human being in this picture is the woman. The human being in this picture is the pregnant girl or woman.
I would not presume to tell you when or whether to become a parent. We each get to make that choice for ourselves.
25
Great news. Rowe v Wade has seeded the field for the eventual end of abortion anyway. As medical technology improves and improves, the age of viability will get younger and younger.
As an intellectual exercise, imagine the invention of the transporter technology from Star Trek. A physician could now painlessly and non-invasively remove a fertilized egg and place it into an artificial womb.
Yes, I know it is science fiction, but as an exercise it proves that the destruction of a life would not be necessary to achieve what an abortion currently provides (no forced pregnancy, a person having agency over their body, etc).
Just as northerns could see a future world where slavery was unnecessary and see it for the moral evil is was, visionaries can see abortion as the moral evil it is and work to build the technology that makes the practice unnecessary.
3
@James
Sounds a great deal like the hatchery in “Brave New World”. Most people would consider the idea of fetuses developing in chemical filled, mechanical incubators to be rather dystopian. Wouldn’t providing resources for contraception and education be a better investment?
16
@Anon Yes, that is why I said "Great News"
The rest of the comment was an intellectual exercise about the morality of abortion. I recognize the need for it, and contraception does a lot to eliminate the need.
There was a philosopher on a podcast talking about what the discovery of fossil fuel (kerosene) allowed our society to do. Whale hunting became unnecessary once a technology that did the same job (lighting our homes) in a better and cheaper way. Taking an anti-whaling stance was only possible once it wasn't necessary.
Think about the world 100 years from now, a population that has technology that we can barely imagine - and consider what they will think about our practices. Currently, we cannot believe that our ancestors (really great grandparents) hunted whales for oil, destroying magnificent and beautiful creatures. This is a luxury made possible by technological innovation. What practices will our great grandchildren have the luxury of disapproving?
@James
Human overpopulation is literally killing our ecosystem - climate change, mass extinctions and pollution of every kind. The world will increasingly experience mass human migration away from the tropics and wars over scarce resources such as water.
Trying to salvage unwanted, possibly defective embryos through expensive medical techniques seems to me to be a waste of medical technology.
14
The prevalence of women seeing an ultrasound showing the humanity of the fetus is a major factor. Science is on the pro-life side. Plus more widespread use of contraception. Women deserve better than abortion for sure.
5
@Mary — As long as ultrasounds are not mandated by the state to be performed prior to a woman exercising her legal right to an abortion. (And I might add that depending on when it is performed, an ultrasound can be invasive and potentially traumatic.)
Such laws are a misuse of the pro-life science of which you speak.
32
@Mary
The majority of women getting abortions are already mothers. I doubt an ultrasound plays much if a role in their decision.
44
@Mary
So explain why the rates of pregnancy are also going down.
25
99 percent of abortions are due to an unwanted pregnancy - not failed contraception or rape or incest.
in other words, abortions are a direct result of people being irresponsible and lazy and having unprotected sex.
In theory, it's possible for this country to have very very few abortions.
Sex education, free contraception and teaching people to have responsible sex.
That should be the focus.
9
@John Please site evidence of your assertion that "99% of abortions are due to an unwanted pregnancy".
59
@John
"in other words, abortions are a direct result of people being irresponsible and lazy and having unprotected sex. "
Wrong.
Research shows that a majority of women who have abortions were using contraceptives during the month that they became pregnant. You're also ignoring health issues and you should be aware that rape is under reported.
I mean, you really think that a woman would prefer to deal with an unwanted pregnancy, and expensive and uncomfortable medical procedure, and putting up with anti-choice nonsense instead of simply using a condom or taking the pill? You think that hundreds of thousands of woman every year consciously make that choice?
43
@John: Agree with the focus.
Robbiesimon,
The abortion study was conducted by the Guttmacher Institute that supports abortion procedures. It would have been better to have had a study conducted by a group that had nothing to do with abortion. Hopefully there will be another study done that is conducted by a firm or organization that has no connection to abortion.
2
@KMW - If an institute supports abortion procedures why would they put out a study that said there were fewer of them? Wouldn't they want to inflate the numbers to show how successful they'd been at promoting abortions?
(And no one "supports" abortions - everyone would be happy if fewer people needed them.)
39
The Guttmacher Institute is the go to source for good data on abortions worldwide. They don’t do politics, they just count.
BOTH SIDES have been using their data since long before you began waving your flag. Check the sources in your next stack of anti-abortion pamphlets.
29
The Guttmacher Institute does not support abortion. It supports a woman’s right to obtain an abortion.
17
Huh, contraception. Imagine that.
6
What will America's hypocritical religious fanatics focus on next?
The absence of crucifixes in public schools?
12
Buried the lede: the birth rate is also at its lowest point.
3
I though it was only the will of Lord! Science is fake! Biology is the work of Satan! Belief and Faith are the only realities! I know,,,i'm from Alabama.
6
"But during the time frame of the research, 2011 to 2017, 32 states passed a total of 394 new abortion restrictions, the authors say." This could have had an impact of reducing abortions also. Combined with contraception use this probably brought the abortion rate down. This is good news.
Pro life groups also get some of the credit for the decrease in the number of abortions. They have been working tirelessly toward reducing the number of abortions with much success. They will continue to work to make them less.
The article states that fewer women are becoming pregnant, and the fetophiles continue to insist that it's because people are coming around to their point of view. Could it be that women are now choosing reliable, long-term, non-interventional birth control because they fear that once the right gets what they want in a reversal of Roe v. Wade, they'll go after Griswold v. Connecticut?
If only these people would care as much about children that are already here, such as those at risk every day in their schools from mass shootings, those held in cages at the border, and the children going hungry every day in poor neighborhoods. That they don't gives lie to the notion that they care one bit about "the sanctity of life."
17
I’m so frustrated by the photo accompanying this article, especially as a former photojournalist myself. Photography can have an editorial bias too, and this is a classic example. These exam rooms are never lit this way - they are normal medical rooms with unremarkable, fluorescent lighting. They’re not dramatically lit, ominous, creepy chambers of doom. This photo reinforces the notion that abortion is scary - not just a common medical procedure - and adds to the stigma that keeps women from talking about how common it is. These discussions should be happening out in the open, regardless of whether you are pro-choice or not.
11
Some have suggested that induced abortion, itself, has contributed to the reduction in abortion rates, for the same reason that abortion has reduced crime rates (Donohue–Levitt hypothesis).
1
According to the Centers for Disease Control, there were 638,169 abortions in 2015. It did spike up by over 200,000 abortions for 2017. It would be interesting to see the reason for the 2017 increase.
1
The religious base of the Republican Party will argue that the decrease in the abortion rate is the result legislating control over women's bodily autonomy. They will ignore the science that says anything else and call it fake news. And then they will reach for more legislation.
8
What are abortion statistics by socio-economic status. Teen pregnancy in poor neighborhoods is typically high. What is the drop in rates for that population, a significant crisis for those teens and worse for their offspring?
1
@C: The interesting thing is that most abortions are had by women in their twenties. Teenagers, particularly young teenagers, have relatively few abortions today. Poverty absolutely is at the root of the vast majority of pregnancy terminiations. Something like 75% of abortions are had by women who report an income at or below the poverty line. These statistics are why I am very much in favor of improving the accessibility and affordability of LARC (long-acting reversible contraception) for all women.
3
Seems like the subtitle is a no brainer that wouldn't require more than a rational mind to realize.
the anti abortion professional protest crowd don't care about babies or the unborn, they want to be able to shame women for having sex and to control in general when women have sex and in some cases with whom.
7
Lower abortion-ok.
Contraception is the conservatives next target...not of course that want to pay for any resulting children...
7
Just putting this out there- regardless of where you fall on this issue, please try to only comment if you have read the article. It helps.
3
And our birthrate is below replacement.
3
I don't have any scientific studies to support my comment, only anecdotal experience. My belief that the decrease in the number of abortions is because more young and single women, no matter what their economic realities are, are having babies; not because they have to or because there are no abortion services available (there are plenty where I live), but because they want to. I volunteer at an organization that supports homeless youth (ages 16-25) and the number of kids who come in with babies is astounding. My anecdotal evidence is not just associated with the homeless population though. I see this in every walk of life. I am curious if there are any studies looking at the number of babies either on governmental assistance and/or living with grandparents. This might explain what is happening.
They mention in the article that birth rates did not increase.
6
@Casey
Yes, I saw that, but are the numbers reflecting the same populations? Birth rates are lower (or so I have read) in populations of educated and economically secure people. More couples are opting to not have children, etc. But what about the economically insecure population? That is my question.
A 200,000 decrease in abortions in six years would be statistically significant if I remember my sociology classes correctly.
That means a cause/effect analysis is justified.
That's how a free society avoids the need for an abortion; the abortion prevention measures issued in some American States are not compatible with a free society.
What does the anti-abortion movement want? The rates of abortions are going down, no thanks to anti-abortion restrictions according to the study, but they choose not to accept it.
If the number of abortions is decreasing without a concomitant rise in birth rates, it means that more women are exercising control over their own bodies and reproduction. Anti-abortionists hate that.
Perhaps it was never about abortion at all. Perhaps it’s always been about simply controlling women.
55
@M I understand and appreciate your viewpoint. For some people, control may be the objective. In that case, I would decry their opinion alongside you.
Although, in order to make an informed opinion about the motivations of anti-abortionists, I would suggest trying to understand more about their varying belief systems and the heart behind what they are trying to accomplish. It is entirely unfair to group them all together and defame them as being anti-feministic.
For many anti-abortionists, including myself, it has nothing to do with this conspiratorial system of control which you suggest. It has to do with the preservation of life and the belief that an unborn child has just as much dignity and value as the woman carrying that child. It is rooted and founded in love for all individuals. I celebrate the decrease in abortion rates, but just because they are in decline does not mean I am going to pretend that everything is okay.
I hope that we can continue to talk about difficult subjects, such as this, with an open mind and an effort at understanding. When we start to build walls and throw unfounded accusations is when beneficial discourse ends, and dissension begins.
4
I am curious then what your response is to someone who doesn’t share your beliefs and wants to exercise complete autonomy over her body?
I cannot understand a point of view that claims “love” but refuses to allow individuals to make decisions for themselves. How does my having an abortion have anything to do with you? Why is your opinion more important than my freedom to choose to do whatever is best for MY life?
When you can answer these questions adequately then perhaps a real discussion can be had.
17
@AJ in reference to earlier comment
2
Affordable contraception can continue to drive down instances of the procedure, while the other side can take credit for it with their cruel legal roadblocks. Everybody wins something here.
The availability of mail order medication will be critical for eventually deescalating this highly fraught debate. It's hard to stage dramatic shouting matches in front of clinics when your reproductive health is assisted in the privacy of your own mailbox or pharmacy. The next Democratic Party led Congress MUST facilitate this.
22
Abortion clinics must not be happy with the number of reduced abortions. This is how they make the bulk of their money. They can still make money on contraceptives but women must use them. It is encouraging that abortions are decreasing but still there are too many. More must be done to reduce them further.
1
Clinics aren’t in it for the money. Their goal is to help women.
10
@KMW, if clinics were unhappy they'd be passing out Viagra instead of contraception, and they would lie to women like pro-life crisis pregnancy centers do.
10
@KMW
"This is how they make the bulk of their money."
Citation needed. Really not sure why anti's consider a $500 procedure such a cash cow.
10
The continued decrease in abortions is a cause to celebrate, and long-term contraception and sex ed are great and should be promoted.
But still...822,000 abortions a year? Not what I'd call safe, legal, and rare.
6
@Jim R.
If effective contraceptives were universally available, there would be even fewer abortions. We should have contraceptives available for purchase over the counter as many other countries do.
10
@Jim R., considering half of all pregnancies are unplanned..... we need to drastically improve our methods for making sure women that don't want to be pregnant don't get pregnant. Telling people never to have sex isn't going to cut it.
9
Has anyone checked the numbers of how many young people are having tubes tied because they are afraid they will be forced to have children? or not have have access to contraceptives? They are scared.
4
@amber213,
Actually, I suspect many young women are opting for long-term birth control via implants instead of any other choice. It is not about never having children. It is about having children when the woman is ready and able to both birth and support them.
33
@SWLibrarianI already know some that have and are just plain terrified to have children with what is going on in our country. Very Sad!
1
@amber213 From what I hear anecdotally, it's still really hard for young women to find a doc that will tie tubes. Traditional ideas like you'll change your mind, and what if you marry and your husband want kids still rule. Men get slightly less resistance to vasectomy.
4
862,000 abortions is still a lot of abortions that occurred in 2017. We should not be celebrating as this is far too many of the unborn losing their lives. The fact that the Guttmacher Institute, a liberal organization, conducted the survey is troubling. We should have a non partisan organization conduct their own survey. It would be an interesting study to compare the two.
1
- 862,000 abortions in 2017.
Does this commenter believe there would have been that many additional births that year?
No, if abortion was not legal, most women and girls would still have found ways to get the procedure they needed.
- If this commenter sees flaws in the methodology used by Guttmacher she should point those out.
18
The Centers for Disease Control, part of the US Department of Health and Human Services, has collected data on abortion since 1969. The latest CDC data available are from 2015 and show the same trends as the Guttmacher results. The number of abortions, the rate and ratio continue to decline over time. All three measures—number of abortions, rate and ratio—reached their lowest level in 2015 compared to 2006.
https://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/data_stats/abortion.htm
4
If you’re unborn you haven’t yet lived. Therefore you did not lose your life.
7
Maybe , just maybe people are thinking that human embryos are as important as sea turtle eggs or puppies.
1
@Bill
They aren't unless the pregnant woman says the clump of cell growth is. Thanks for playing.
4
@Bill
Is that why pro-lifers spend their days protesting fertility clinics?
4
@Bill, not if there was no corresponding rise in birth rates.
3
The right to life camp should celebrate this news, and yet we hear Clarke Forsythe's seeming displeasure with the conclusions of the study. It clearly shows women managing their own fates and that is precisely what anti-abortion laws claim to control. It has never been an issue of saving babies for them. It's about telling us how we can and cannot behave. Forsythe's hangwringing proves it.
21
The Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate in the world. They didn't accomplish this with right-wing religious fanaticism. They accomplished this with with strategies that include sex education, open discussions on sexuality in mass media, educational campaigns and low barrier services (e.g., birth control).
59
I am sure at least part of what you print is true. Education always outshines ignorance.
If the extreme right had any sense they would continue to oppose abortion on demand ie late term abortions but lobby for more education on contraception and family planning in general instead of trying to ban all abortions with back alley horror stories of not only the fetus by the women getting killed becoming common place like it was yrs. ago.
9
Thanks to the IUD. Wait for the GOP to try to outlaw it.
29
You would think that the right wing religious fundamentalists would be pushing contraception big time since it would bring about even larger decreases in abortion. Indeed, universally available, highly promoted contraception, freely available to all women could almost eliminate abortions. And since the right wingers make abortion their top social topic, that is obviously a no-brainer.
Enter the people with no brains, who campaign against abortion AND contraception! And, irrationally they say they are equal in effect of eliminating life. Not so, of course.
Folks, you will never, ever have it both ways - that is, promoting sex (try stopping sex!) and at the same time condemning contraception and abortion. One begets the other!
Of course these same people fawn over their Dear Leader, Con-Man Trump, so any hope of intelligent thought from that side is not happening in this millennium.
Ironically, or maybe logically, the people who have the highest rates of teen pregnancy and abortions are the States dominated by ultra right wing religious fundamentalists who insist on keeping their people ignorant of the facts of life.
16
@Joe Rock bottom how can they use abortion as a wedge issue if widespread access to contraception brings the rate to near zero? They’re not brainless, they’re power hungry and immoral.
5
And yet the religious right persists! Once they eliminate abortion, they'll want to eliminate contraception. Such an irrational group of people!
11
"in four of the (GOP-governed) states that enacted new restrictions between 2011 and 2017 — North Carolina, Mississippi, Wyoming and Georgia — abortion rates actually rose."
Nice work, Grand Old Phonies.
The #1 way to decrease abortion rates is to provide free or low-cost modern contraception to females....something progressive states have done and regressive states have refused to consider.
Republicans actually increase the abortion rate with their phony public policy, abstinence 'contraception' and refusal to acknowledge facts.
But at least they can feed their cognitively dissonant voters the Recommended Daily Allowance of 'abortion is murder' red meat every day.
Nice GOPeople.
20
OK, anti-choice people, here’s your chance to really stop abortions: provide lots of information to teens about sex and pregnancy, and make contraception as available as possible. This will accomplish your goal far better than a more ignorant, intrusive, condescending, and ineffective preaching. If you are really about stopping abortions and not just controlling the sexual lives of women, the path to success is clear. America is paying attention.
21
The "pill" over the counter and as cheap aspirin, just think what that would do to abortion rates.
8
Not a word about how the Guttmacher Institute "estimates" that the number of abortions has declined - to 862,000 in 2017. The fact of the matter is that the Centers for Disease Control are the likely source and its data is based on voluntary reporting from abortionists.
I would be thrilled if there were really meaningful reductions in abortion rates, but the truth is we don't really know.
2
@Red, the only way to stop abortions is to stop impregnating women that don't want to conceive.
1
Baffiling that the Pro Life movement isn't prioritizing a wide ranging and comprehensive strategy to tackle abortion including allowing women to gain access and realistically purchase contraception and also allow stronger protections for families including adequate family leave and medical assistance when children are born. It's as if this argument is structurally derived from a flawed party in the GOP that doesn't actually support its voters wishes or that the voters themselves dont hold the issue with the same weight as they claim. Ultimately no one actively wishes for abortion, but I only see one political party holding a genuine or serious conversation.
10
I would never stop women from getting abortions, but I am very happy that there are less of them--far less. It proves that I can actually call my pro-birth control position pro-life, whereas those who have reduced the number of clinics are definitely not. iI don't think they will be as glad as I am; for them it is all or none. Abortion is not a good thing, or something to be proud of. it is a necessity sometimes.
I certainly felt my daughter was a person early in pregnancy, but I would not foist this view on others.
11
@dr. c.c.
This is the only "pro-life" view I respect. All the others are forced-birth.
1
I work in a city in which sex ed is not allowed in the public schools, and in another state where it is not allowed in any of the public schools! Sex ed is just that -- important EDUCATION. Don't we want people to make responsible and informed decisions? And it reduces the rate of unintended pregnancies. Sheesh.
39
@concerned citizen — And there are some people who oppose the HPV vaccine — a cancer vaccine, basically — because they say it will give teens the incentive to become sexually activ — and they actively discourage parents from allowing their kids to get it.
There is really no way to have a sane, productive discussion on this issue anymore. In many respects we appear to be in a new Dark Ages.
35
Funny, there is an article on NYT today regarding how to "disagree better." As Ms. Belluck article shows, how are you going to talk to someone restricting contraception and, at the same time, restricting abortion? How? Yes, it's impossible because there is no possibility of arguments when religious beliefs replaced reasoning.
31
The abortion rate is down because out of wedlock births are up, dramatically. As a whole, 40 pct of American kids are born to unwed parents. In the 1960s, that number was less than 10 pct.
https://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/out-wedlock-births-rise-worldwide
5
@Who’d A Thunk It?: So, people getting pregnant out-of-wedlock are less inclined to have an abortion? Therefore, marriage is an incentive to a abort a pregnancy? Maybe the religious right wing should focus on banning marriage.
10
@Who’d A Thunk It? But overall birth rates aren't rising so... huh?
2
More access to contraception is imperative . As it lowers the rate of unwanted pregnancies and therefore abortion, great. But there will always be situations that warrant at least the option of abortion.
63
Doesn't this make it obvious? As a society, we should be doing everything we can to make long-term contraception ubiquitous, easy to acquire, massively subsidized, easy and simple. Anti-choice activists should be on board with this, too, if they want abortion to continue to decline. Big, big money-saver.
My personal opinion is that medication abortion should be just as available. If women are going to have abortions, don't we want those abortions to happen as early in pregnancy as possible? Yes. Let's be logically consistent, please, save lots of money, and help women. Is that too hard for America?
75
"Abortion in the United States has decreased to record low levels"
Wherever you stand on this issue this is good news. With further advances in contraception even fewer women with unwanted pregnancies seeking an abortion are possible.
Can we agree that this is what we all want?
27
@mlb4ever
I disagree.
What the anti-abortion crowd wants is to force all of society to live according to the dictates of their religion. The fetuses/babies are just a way of keeping score.
13
@mlb4ever what I want is what Hilary Clinton advocated: Safe, legal, rare.
5
Came here to type almost exactly this. Kudos!
2
Why isn’t the low rate of abortion ever mentioned by the anti abortion rights zealots who are flexing their power in republican states and in Trumpworld?
Why do they ignore research showing the key to fewer abortions is easier access to contraceptives and more sex education not restrictive laws?
Why is what a woman decides to do about a crisis pregnancy still a national issue?
47
@CinnamonGirl Elected leaders who lack innovative ideas are keen to mention abortion as they know it to be a controversial topic. It's a distraction. Sadly we don't have many officials who are really trying to solve problems. Unfortunately, too many lack creativity, imagination and brains.
6
@CinnamonGirl So long as the abortion rate is high, Republicans will see more people voting for them and against themselves. This is not good news for the Republican Party, and we can expect them to downplay the obvious success of contraception access.
6
@CinnamonGirl
Because screeching about "right to life" buys them votes.
8
"She said that in four of the states that enacted new restrictions between 2011 and 2017 — North Carolina, Mississippi, Wyoming and Georgia — abortion rates actually rose. More than half the decline in the number of abortions during that time happened in states that did not pass restrictive abortion laws, she said."
This is not at all a surprise.
Restricted access to abortion so often goes hand-in-hand with restricted access to contraception and low-quality/religious-agenda-driven sex education.
46
How does the average age of women play into this as well? Our population is getting older, with average white woman now in her 40s. Not exactly peak fertility years. This is the main reason for abortion panic and more restrictive laws in these conservative circles.
1
Women being educated about, and having access to, contraception is working. Excellent news for a change.
23
Human Sexuality is Human Sexuality. The need for abortion will never go away. Never has. Who has access to safe abortions underlies the current fight. Truly reducing abortion will involve increased male sexual responsibility, access to good sex and sexuality education in school, unencumbered access to contraception, unencumbered access to the abortion pill so it can be used early and effectively. Beyond that, doing a whole, whole, whole lot more for the children people want to birth, would be a game changer.
30
"The report suggests that one reason for the decrease might be the growing use of long-term contraceptive methods, like intrauterine devices and implants, which are now covered by insurance under the Affordable Care Act.
One more reason to save Obamacare.....Free or easily accessible contraception will prevent pregnancies and therefore lower the number of abortions. Restricting laws to attempt to end abortions (as the article indicates) does not.
It's logical. If only others could recognize it,
54
It’s clear that for some “pro-life” groups, the issue of abortion has become a means to manipulate and control the political agenda (among other things), as well as to stoke the culture wars and keep themselves (and any donations to the cause) front and center.
How else to explain their cynical take on a pro-choice organization’s conclusion that abortion rates have significantly dropped? Isn’t this encouraging news for them?
Sounds to me that they feel threatened by what they claim they’ve been fighting for since Roe.
23
@MDB - I've always thought that the right wing does not really want to overturn Roe v. Wade. They have lots of single issue voters who cleave to the Republican ticket because of their anti-abortion stance. If abortion ever did became illegal, how ever would they hold onto those voters?
22
The suggestion that legal restrictions on abortion have little effect is the most important finding here. Huge amounts of time, money, and heartache have been spent on matters related to these restrictions. It seems that all that effort would have been better spent on helping women one to one.
15
If you want fewer abortions, ensure fewer unwanted pregnancies. What is the actual goal here when anti-abortion people are also working to restrict access to contraception and education? Also, a more egalitarian society is also one where women do not feel shy about insisting on contraception.
The ideal would be a worldwide system where both men and women have to "opt-in" to fertility. Only situations where both mother and father openly want to have a child will result in pregnancy. In this system, no one would be barred access to opting in. The planet would get a break. Unwanted children, birth rates, crime rates, abortions, mental illness rates will drop precipitously. All children will grow up wanted and the small percentage of foster children will have more resources and couples standing in line to give them loving homes. 3rd world countries will become developing nations and developing nation's will become developed. People will be more educated because they won't be stuck in the crisis mode of keeping several children fed and alive.
Of course, this technology doesn't exist now and implementation would be problematic to say the least. But the benefits would transform the planet.
We would do well to devote more resources for better and better contraceptive and reproductive technology now and in the future.
18
I've always felt that there could be a common goal among pro and anti choice camps: To decrease the number of abortions - not be outlawing them but by giving women more control over their bodies BEFORE they become pregnant. But, reading the response from the anti-choice group toward the end of the article, it appears that they don't want to hear good news if it comes from a pro-choice source.
One thing: It would have been helpful if the data had included whether or not abortion rates had declined in states that had adopted the medicaid expansion. I suspect that there's a correlation there as well...
23
@Marie S
Many of those in the so-called “pro-life” movement are not the least bit interested in giving “women more control” - in fact, I would not be at all surprised to learn that there are quite a few who would gladly support laws denying women the right to vote.
5
It would seem that knowing WHY there has been such a decline is important given that abortion is such a contentious issue.
There is minimal or no access to abortion in some states - requiring a person to travel long distances to obtain one. It is difficult to believe that such limited access has NOT reduced abortion rates. Faced with an hours long trip out of state it seems sure that some who want an abortion will not be getting one. How can such conditions NOT reduce abortion rates for that area?
The same groups that are vehemently anti-abortion have tried to limit access to contraception - particularly 'morning after' pills. If places limiting abortion are limiting access to contraception, logically it would seem that unwanted pregnancies will still be occurring.
If we are also are seeing a decline in birthrates, we should ask 'Why?' Is it voluntary or not?
Are younger people fearful of the future? Or simply unable to start families now? People that might have married and started a family seem to be putting that off for economic reasons. Is that having an effect?
Given the precipitous drop in male sperm counts over the past 50 years, could that be a contributing factor? Are female fertility rates declining as well? Many are seeking help to get pregnant.
I would think unwanted pregnancy rates are highest among younger women less affected by such issues but..... If something like that is at work we should really be worried.
2
National healthcare coverage that includes contraception of all kinds, and easy access to women’s clinics, will prevent many more abortions. The “Pro-life” party has been doing all it can to destroy the ACA, reduce funding to women’s clinics, etc. They also prefer to spend money on prisons rather than schools, and on expensive private facilities for abusing refugee children rather than on addressing the underlying problems behind illegal immigration.
It seems that to retain power, the Republicans will deliberately NOT solve America’s problems, so they can then blame Democrats and immigrants for them and drive voters to the polls with fear and resentment.
We can improve education, fight climate change, stop illegal immigration, establish national health insurance, reduce abortions, reduce mass shootings, etc,, all while reducing the obscene budget deficit. We need the corrupt, blame-focused, pessimistic and cynical GOP to step aside and let Democrats start fixing what’s broken.
If you hear a politician bullying, blaming, or fearmongering, run the other way. We need grownups back in control of our country.
There’s nothing ‘left’ about being right, and nothing ‘conservative’ about abetting corruption and praising vicious dictators.
The Democratic Party is now the true Party if Lincoln.
60
Typically, the analysts all explain the statistics based on externalities that affect women. If you ask me, I’d guess that pregnancies are going down either because fewer women want to get pregnant or more women are trying harder to avoid accidental pregnancies. Similarly, abortions are going down because fewer women want to abort or their efforts to avoid accidental pregnancies have been successful. Why is the assumption always that society is responsible for changes in abortion rates and birth rates and never that women’s choices make most of the difference?
6
@michjas The "women's choices" that you mention are not isolated from societal influence. If these tens and hundreds of thousands more women are choosing to have a child or avoid accidental pregnancy, as you say, is it not likely that they made those choices based on what is going on in society? Maybe a new women's health clinic opened, and women who would otherwise have aborted an accidental pregnancy were able to access contraception. Maybe a local economy picked up and those women feel financially secure enough to start a family. None of us is outside of society and it's impossible to say which of our choices "society is responsible for" and which, if any, are purely our own.
14
@michjas
Because the reality is that women's choices are influenced by society. You can draw distinctions but you can't completely decouple them.
10
@Meagan. And yet the only way abusive and violent men can change is “if they decide to.” Generally, men are believed much more to control their own fates.
1
Wow, education and effective contraception actually work. Who could have guessed ? For the next crusade, the GOP will focus on banning both. Guaranteed.
130
@Phyliss Dalmatian
They already are.
4
@Roarke
Yes, I know. But they will re-double their efforts, as the Abortion Wars are old news, and not quite the novel money maker of years past.
Seriously.
4
The study would have been more compelling if it had been conducted by a group that is neutral, rather than by the Guttmacher Institute, an avowed supporter of abortion rights. Otherwise you're just feeding the Trump whine about media bias.
Since Roe protected the Constitutional rights of women in 1972 there is a discernible pattern. Abortion rates usually go up under Republicans and down under Democrats.
Because Democrats emphasize family planning and contraception
One of the only things trump has not managed to undo is the emphasis on actual sex education instead of the ridiculous "abstinence only" religious mumbo jumbo Republicans spew
Of course he will lie and say he is the cause.
25
Science is in many many cases obviating the need for physical abortion. Way way back in the sixties we had very little to help us in contraception. I remember if you wanted a simple condom, not only did you have to go to a druggist, but they were hidden behind or under the counter and you had to go through an interrogation by the pharmacist to get them. Thank God we have matured as a society.
31
America’s Abortion Rate Has Dropped to Its Lowest Ever
New research suggests contraception and fewer pregnancies may be more responsible for the decline than state laws restricting abortion..."
Lowered abortion rates via contraception are both realistic, (aka: 'reality, oriented'), 'N, wonderful; lowered abortion rates via forced birtherism are religio_political fantasies, NOT backed, up by hard science!
The question is NOT, 'Will girls, 'N, women receive abortions?'!
It's what kind of circumstances will we provide?
...'outpatient clinics', (staffed by medical professionals), Vs. 'George', employed by 'transmissions-R-Us', ('N studying medicine by correspondence course')?
BTW: NO offense is intended, either to transmission repair facilities, nor persons named 'George'!
1
Isn’t this a push/pull situation?
I wonder if more of an effect would be found if legislation that increased the feasibility of raising and unplanned child were included. How do wages, health care, and the availability of pre-k factor into couples’ decision making?
In general, our society leaves parents to just fend for themselves. Sometimes it seems like a miracle that anyone decides to have kids, given how little help is available.
7
No one actively “wants” to get an abortion. Women do what they can to prevent getting pregnant in the first place and the data reflects this. Let’s continue to offer more choices to prevent unwanted pregnancy and abortions will be less and less prevalent, being available in cases where nothing else could have been done. Truly a win-win.
97
@CP
"Women do what they can to prevent getting pregnant in the first place"
Not true.
"Typical use" birth control pill is 91% effective while "perfect use" is 99 percent effective.
"Typical use" male condom is 82% effective and "perfect use" is 98 percent effective.
People are casual about having unprotected sex. Why? Perhaps because abortions are readily available and relatively cheap.
1
@John
Ridiculous. People en masse are not casually having unprotected sex. Rather, it turns out that people are not perfect. Not being perfect is literally part of the human condition.
4
@John - "Perhaps because abortions are readily available and relatively cheap".
And perhaps not. People were casual about unprotected sex since long before abortion was available at all. Human nature, you know.
5
Despite the fact that access to science-based education and long lasting, reliable contraception has demonstrably lowered the abortion rate, people who oppose abortion access continue to undermined the ACA and Title X and are transferring funds for medically approved family planning methods to faith-based organizations that promote the rhythm method and abstinence. It’s almost as if their goal isn’t actually a reduction in the number of abortions.
141
@Anon
Their real goal seems to be fundraising and control.
22
@Anon: That’s because their goal isn’t really to reduce the number of abortions. Their goal is to control women. If people really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they would make sure that pregnant women and women with children got enough money and support to take care of themselves and their children, regardless of whether or not they were married. That isn’t going to happen in this country anytime soon.
41