Harvard-mit Study Shows Pro-life Laws Reduce Number of Abortions Posted: 12-10-07 14:20pm
January 21, 2004
Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation
on the Incidence of Abortion During the
1990s
by Michael J. New, Ph.D.
Center for Data Analysis Report #04-01
The 1990s saw both the election and
re-election of a "pro-choice" President.1
However, the "pro-life" movement made
considerable gains at the state and local
levels. Survey data indicate that by the
end of the decade, more people supported
restrictions on abortion and fewer
supported discretionary abortion.2
Meanwhile, the actual number of abortions
declined during the decade. For the 46
states reporting data to the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention in both
1990 and 1999,3 the number of abortions
fell from 1,035,5734 to 854,416,5 a
decline of 17.4 percent. This decline
translates into a reduction in the
abortion rate from 20.61 to 16.62
abortions per 1,000 women between the ages
of 15 and 44.6
What is the reason for this decline in the
number of abortions? The economy, which
grew at a brisk rate during the mid- to
late 1990s, might be partly responsible.
Studies indicate that abortion rates
decline during periods of strong economic
growth.7 However, an even more directly
related factor might be the impact of
legislation intended to reduce the number
of abortions.
Joined: 09 Sep 2007 Posts: 1104 Location: Toronto, Ontario (but only a private message away)
Thanks: 50
Thanked:8
Posted: 12-10-07 14:32pm
Does it say how many abortions were
performed by untrained individuals?
(obviously it's hard to report such a
number, but any estimations?)
It would be interesting to see if those
numbers fluctuate with the economy and
pro-life legislation.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 12-10-07 14:36pm
marvel
wrote:
Does it say how many
abortions were performed by untrained
individuals? (obviously it's hard to
report such a number, but any
estimations?)
I don't think that counting illegal
abortions was the focus of this study, no.
In fact, such statistics are notoriously
difficult to obtain, since they are not
"reported".
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 362 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 5
Thanked:1
Posted: 12-10-07 15:29pm
And the number of abortions have risen in
the last year. I would think the decline
is in large part due to 1. more women
using contraception and 2. more teens
delaying sex. However, now you have a lot
of "abstinence only" education in the USA
and what's happening? More abortions.
Co-incidence? I think not.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 12-10-07 15:33pm
According to the study, pro-life laws
which restrict availability to abortion
were the main reason for the reduction in
the states which passed them. And after
all, who can accuese MIT or Harvard of
having a "pro-life bias"?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 12-10-07 17:37pm
yodavater
wrote:
According to the study,
pro-life laws which restrict availability
to abortion were the main reason for the
reduction in the states which passed them.
And after all, who can accuese MIT or
Harvard of having a "pro-life
bias"?
I can not say that Harvard or MIT has a
prolife bias, but undoubtably the
individuals who publish studies can.
The author of that study, Michael J. New,
Ph.D., is Visiting Health Policy Fellow at
The Heritage Foundation and post doctoral
fellow at the Harvard-MIT data center.
Quote:
Founded in 1973,
The Heritage Foundation is a research and
educational institute - a think tank -
whose mission is to formulate and promote
conservative public policies based on the
principles of free enterprise, limited
government, individual freedom,
traditional American values, and a strong
national
defense.
Additionally, this statement is not
factually true, is it yoda?
yodavater
wrote:
According to the study,
pro-life laws which restrict availability
to abortion were the main reason for the
reduction in the states which passed them.
The study actually says this:
Quote:
There are a
number of different reasons for this
decline. However, one factor that cannot
be overlooked is the impact of pro-life
legislation in the states. By the end of
the decade, more states had adopted
parental involvement requirements,
informed consent requirements, and
"partial-birth abortion" bans.38 More
important, regression results provide
evidence that each of these laws was
effective at reducing the number of
abortions that took
place.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 12-10-07 17:44pm
Birch
wrote:
Additionally, this statement is not
factually true, is it yoda?
I have no idea. Care to be more
specific?
Birch
wrote:
The study actually says this:
There are a number of different reasons
for this decline. However, one factor that
cannot be overlooked is the impact of
pro-life legislation in the states. By the
end of the decade, more states had adopted
parental involvement requirements,
informed consent requirements, and
"partial-birth abortion" bans.38 More
important, regression results provide
evidence that each of these laws was
effective at reducing the number of
abortions that took
place.
Yes, that's what it says. Do you
disagree, or what?
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 12-10-07 18:13pm
yodavater
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
Additionally, this statement is not
factually true, is it yoda?
I have no idea. Care to be more
specific?
Birch
wrote:
The study actually says this:
There are
a number of different reasons for this
decline. However, one factor that
cannot be overlooked is the impact of
pro-life legislation in the &states.
By the end of the decade, more states had
adopted parental involvement requirements,
informed consent requirements, and
"partial-birth abortion" bans.38 More
important, regression results provide
evidence that each of these laws was
effective at reducing the number of
abortions that took
place.
Yes, that's what it says. Do you
disagree, or
what?
I
just showed you that the researcher is
biased, & that your statement "According to the study,
pro-life laws which restrict availability
to abortion were the main reason for the
reduction in the states which passed
them" is not accurate (see
the above section lifted directly from the
conclusion of said study) and you ask if I
disagree?
Seriously?
C'mon, quit yankin' my chain.
So, anyways, ha ha *wiping my tears*,
we've now determined that Mr. New had
better come up with a study that proves a
policy his institution backs or else, eh!
In your defense, which I will generously
suppy for you, the faulty study does
indicate that laws restricting abortion
will lower abortion rates. I know it is
not a popular prochoice position, but I
actually do think that laws severly
restricting abortion will lower the
abortion rates dramatically. It seems
quite logical to me.
However, I wonder if these laws will also
lower the numbers of unwanted, unplanned
pregnancies or the number of desperate
women, women who don't want to be parents,
domestic violence incidences related to
abortion, women who have neither the funds
or resources to support a pregnancy, or
women who do not have the social supports
to support a pregnancy?
I doubt it. Since I care, too, to lower
the abortion rates (that is, for women who
do not want an abortion but are compelled
for economic or other 'crises' reasons) I
recognize that laws restricting abortion
is not going to change the circumstances
of unwanted pregnancy. It is a shame that
studies are not done to show prolife
individuals that laws like this do not
change any circumstances.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-10-07 23:42pm
Yes, anti-choice laws will indeed lower
the number of abortions. But that doesn't
solve the actual PROBLEM which Birch
brought up.
The problem is not abortion. The problem
is unintended pregnancy. Restricting
abortions doesn't prevent sperm from
getting to an egg.
|
Darkmoon
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 08 Dec 2007 Posts: 414 Location: ,
Thanks: 87
Thanked:51
Posted: 12-10-07 23:51pm
Lower abortion, raise the number of dead
women, dumpster babies, infants born with
severe fetal alcohol syndrome and
deformities due to drug abuse. Denying
women safe access to the procedure only
ensures that they must use other, more
harmful means. An unwanted pregnancy will
still be unwanted. Women aren't robots
that you can program to think and behave
the way you'd like.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 12-11-07 11:54am
Birch
wrote:
I just showed you that the researcher
is
biased,
Hardly. You just made a claim that he
belonged to a conservative organization.
That falls far short of establishing
"bias" in the research.
Birch
wrote:
I know it is not a popular prochoice
position, but I actually do think that
laws severly restricting abortion will
lower the abortion rates dramatically. It
seems quite logical to me.
Me too.
Birch
wrote:
However, I wonder if these laws will also
lower the numbers of unwanted, unplanned
pregnancies or the number of desperate
women, women who don't want to be parents,
domestic violence incidences related to
abortion, women who have neither the funds
or resources to support a pregnancy, or
women who do not have the social supports
to support a
pregnancy.
I don't know. Actually, I don't believe
that such laws are specifically targeted
to accomplish that goal, do you?
Possibly, if more people realize that
abortions will be more difficult to
obtain, they will be more likely to use
birth control measures properly..... I
don't know. I would suggest that these
are two separate problems that probably
need to be addressed by two separate
legislative actions.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 12-11-07 14:12pm
yodavater
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
I just showed you that the researcher
is
biased,
Hardly. You just made a claim that he
belonged to a conservative organization.
That falls far short of establishing
"bias" in the research.
Birch
wrote:
I know it is not a popular prochoice
position, but I actually do think that
laws severly restricting abortion will
lower the abortion rates dramatically. It
seems quite logical to me.
Me too.
Birch
wrote:
However, I wonder if these laws will also
lower the numbers of unwanted, unplanned
pregnancies or the number of desperate
women, women who don't want to be parents,
domestic violence incidences related to
abortion, women who have neither the funds
or resources to support a pregnancy, or
women who do not have the social supports
to support a
pregnancy.
I don't know. Actually, I don't believe
that such laws are specifically targeted
to accomplish that goal, do you?
Possibly, if more people realize that
abortions will be more difficult to
obtain, they will be more likely to use
birth control measures properly..... I
don't know. I would suggest that these
are two separate problems that probably
need to be addressed by two separate
legislative
actions.
The researcher is employed by an
organization that promotes a conservative
viewpoint. If that is not evidence of
bias, then I throw my dictionary out the
window.
Again, your disingenuity has been noted
re: "main reason" claims even though you
refused to respond to it.
I would say that causation/correlation of
laws restricting abortion and the needs of
women should to be further researched. I
think if it was plainly obvious that laws
restricting abortion do not help alleviate
these issues, there might be changes made
that require higher intellectual
functioning than just slapping a band-aid
law on the problem.
I would be interested in knowing that if
abortions were completely illegal if
people would be more stringent in their
birth control habits. Does anyone know if
this has been shown in countries with
strict abortion policies?
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-11-07 18:11pm
Hey Yodaveter, what do you think about the
comment I posted? Don't you think that the
actual problem is unwanted pregnancies,
NOT abortions? If so, then aren't
anti-abortion laws focusing on the wrong
thing, too?
|
msrosie
Experienced User , Rather EHEALTHy
Joined: 02 Jan 2005 Posts: 362 Location: Ontario, Canada
Thanks: 5
Thanked:1
Posted: 12-11-07 18:58pm
Birch
wrote:
I would be interested in knowing that if
abortions were completely illegal if
people would be more stringent in their
birth control habits. Does anyone know if
this has been shown in countries with
strict abortion
policies?
There's a thread on this very board about
a study that shows that abortion is just
as prevalent in countries where it is
illegal as it is in countries where it is
legal. Granted, most of the time, birth
control is not widely available in
countries where abortion is illegal. I am
unaware of a country where abortion is
illegal but contraception is encouraged
and widely available.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 12-11-07 18:59pm
Birch
wrote:
The researcher is employed by an
organization that promotes a conservative
viewpoint. If that is not evidence of
bias, then I throw my dictionary out the
window.
That depends on what you mean by "bias".
If you mean someone is slanting the
statistics to favor their side, then no, I
don't think that working for a
conservative organization is prima facia
evidence that they are dishonest, or that
they cheated on the research.
Birch
wrote:
Again, your disingenuity has been noted
re: "main reason" claims even though you
refused to respond to it.
Again, your highly personal comment is
noted.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 12-11-07 19:02pm
Eiri
wrote:
Hey Yodaveter, what do you
think about the comment I posted? Don't
you think that the actual problem is
unwanted pregnancies, NOT abortions? If
so, then aren't anti-abortion laws
focusing on the wrong thing,
too?
There is no one cause of "unwanted
pregnancies", so I doubt that there is any
one solution.
Nor can it be said that abortion can be
eliminated by working exclusively on those
causes. Planned Parenthood's own surveys
of their customers show that many woman
abort for "social" reasons, which cannot
be addressed by throwing money at the
problem.
So there needs to be both a carrot AND a
stick, IMO.
p.s. It's yodavater.
|
Tylanas
Especially EHEALTHy
Joined: 13 Jul 2005 Posts: 12985
Thanks: 3
Thanked:0
Posted: 12-11-07 19:05pm
SO you feel it's okay to ignore the real
problem just because it's difficult to
solve? Outlawing abortion, now that's
simple and easy, one step. Creating a
proper sexual education program, making
birth control available to all women and
properly distributing Plan-B, now that's
hard. Too many steps. Let's just make
abortion illegal instead of preventing
it!!
You could prevent emotional and physical
pain. You could prevent death. Yet you
choose not to because it's too hard. It's
not the simple solution. You don't want to
take the effort, the time, or the
resources to properly reduce the numbers
of abortions. You just want to remove
women's rights; that's the easiest path.
The easy way isn't often the RIGHT way.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 12-11-07 19:44pm
yodavater
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
The researcher is employed by an
organization that promotes a conservative
viewpoint. If that is not evidence of
bias, then I throw my dictionary out the
window.
That depends on what you mean by "bias".
If you mean someone is slanting the
statistics to favor their side, then no, I
don't think that working for a
conservative organization is prima facia
evidence that they are dishonest, or that
they cheated on the research.
Birch
wrote:
Again, your disingenuity has been noted
re: "main reason" claims even though you
refused to respond to it.
Again, your highly personal comment is
noted.
I do not think you understand research,
and I do not have time to explain it to
people who have no intention of learning.
You lied; it's not personal; it's factual.
Now stand the correction and get back to
the business of rooting your points in
truth.
Good luck.
|
Birch
Supporter
Joined: 07 Nov 2005 Posts: 4038 Location: Bliss,
Thanks: 142
Thanked:13
Posted: 12-11-07 19:58pm
msrosie
wrote:
Birch
wrote:
I would be interested in knowing that if
abortions were completely illegal if
people would be more stringent in their
birth control habits. Does anyone know if
this has been shown in countries with
strict abortion
policies?
There's a thread on this very board about
a study that shows that abortion is just
as prevalent in countries where it is
illegal as it is in countries where it is
legal. Granted, most of the time, birth
control is not widely available in
countries where abortion is illegal. I am
unaware of a country where abortion is
illegal but contraception is encouraged
and widely
available.
I will never understand why people believe
legislating against abortion will
magically solve all the problems. I
believe it will solve their personal angst
which is focused solely on getting that
thing born and once that is ensured, they
wash their hands clean, "job well done"
and then turn & make snide remarks
about single mothers on welfare and
pregnant 16 year olds who 'should've kept
their legs closed'.
Conservatives frequently touting the
prolife fishing line are also frequently
against "liberal" views, such as those
that seek to empower women.
|
yodavater
Active User, Really EHEALTHy
Joined: 10 Dec 2007 Posts: 818
Posted: 12-11-07 20:05pm
Eiri
wrote:
SO you feel it's okay to
ignore the real problem just because it's
difficult to solve?
That is a non-sequeter, and a total
misinterpretation of my post.
Eiri
wrote:
Outlawing abortion, now that's simple and
easy, one step.
Not easy at all, but it's the first step,
IMHO. When that is accomplished, there
will be more opportunity to help with the
other problems, because we will not have
to worry so much about just keeping babies
alive.
Eiri
wrote:
You could prevent emotional
and physical pain. You could prevent
death. Yet you choose not to because it's
too hard. .
No, I don't think we'll ever eliminate
either of those things, do you? And I
don't "choose not to", as you so
disingenuously state, I just choose not to
discuss my other areas of concern on this
forum.
I
just showed you that the researcher 
