More Uncomfortable News for the Right: Decades of Work by Anti-Choicers Does Nothing to Decrease Abortions

Who knew that anti-choice activists were actually trying to increase the number of second-trimester abortions? Because that's precisely what they've done with their ill-advised, ongoing and ineffective attempts to restrict women's access to safe, legal healthcare.

While the American public has repeatedly rejected laws that would make abortion illegal and treat women like criminals, anti-choice lawmakers in twenty-four states have resorted to chipping away at abortion rights by making access more difficult by mandating counseling and waiting periods. Proponents of these tactics claim that they are designed to give women time and information upon which to base their decision to have an abortion.

But these barriers are really ruses to block access. They reinforce the myth that abortion is a decision that women take lightly. The unmitigated truth is that women facing unwanted pregnancies will have already carefully weighed their options before even picking up the phone to make an appointment with a provider. Women evaluate what is best for them based upon their needs and the needs of their families, often consulting with people whom they trust, like family, a partner, and friends.

A Guttmacher Institute paper released today ("The Impact of State Mandatory Counseling and Waiting Period Laws on Abortion: A Literature Review") once and for all validates the pro-choice community's opposition to obstacles like waiting periods and mandatory counseling sessions, finding that they do not reduce abortion rates, but rather cause unnecessary burdens. With the exception of one state that saw a decrease in abortions overall -- though, critically, along with a concurrent increase in second-trimester abortions -- not a single restriction showed any evidence of decreasing abortions.

Anti-choice activists have therefore succeeded not in reducing abortion rates, but in increasing the number of second-trimester abortions and in making life more difficult for women facing unwanted pregnancies. Because, while women aren't changing their minds about abortion based on these barriers, they do find themselves jumping through more hoops to circumvent them. Women are having more second-trimester abortions (on average, 3 weeks later than their original intent) on account of these barriers or are traveling to other states with less burdensome restrictions.

Waiting periods cause the added burden of having to visit a provider twice, requiring them to take extra time off from work and finding extra child care. For women who have to travel long distances to reach a provider who will perform an abortion, traveling back and forth to that site twice presents a double barrier. Counseling sessions could have the effect of shaming women who have already weighed all their options and decided on abortion as the best option for them.

If anti-choice activists are really interested in reducing abortions, then they would be wise to take the statistics into account before pressing forward with further barriers to women's access.

If they want to increase later abortions and make women's lives even harder -- well they've already done that.

Comments

[TriSeanK]

Kelli Conlin is spot on. The right has a way of working against themselves. Far-right anti-marriage equality activists try blocking gays from getting married yet they want most people in lifelong monogamous marriages. By working to ban gay marriage, they have only created the alternatives to marriage movement with domestic partnerships and civil unions. By working to block access to abortion all they are doing is making them less safe. They are making women facing an unwanted pregnancy into far unhealthier options that do lead to higher medical costs and even death. Thank you Kelli for writing about this new report.

[PaulBradford]

You and I would probably agree that efforts to restrict abortion access have not been particularly effective in saving lives (I don't think we'll be able to change laws until we've done more to change attitudes) -- but the Pro-Life movement has done a great deal besides attempt to change laws. We have promoted responsible sexual behavior and a respect for the reproductive function (The pregnancy rate for unmarried women has dropped 15% since 1991). We have worked to dispel the pernicious lie that developing fetuses are anything less than living human beings. We have encouraged the parents of the unborn to exhibit more care for their children, and we have supported both governmental and private measures to make it easier for single mothers to choose life.

That's why the abortion rate is going down and that's why the abortion rate will continue to go down under Obama and why it will go down further whether Obama is succeeded by a Republican or another Democrat. The American people, no matter who they choose for president, want to protect the lives of the very young and -- little by little -- they are succeeding.

The day will come when abortion will go the way of infanticide or human sacrifice, and our grandchildren will shake their heads when they read in their history books about organizations such as NARAL.

Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice

[PaulBradford]

Anti-choice activists have therefore succeeded not in reducing abortion rates.

Ms. Conlin,

You make an interesting comment, but the facts lead to a different conclusion. I would like you to examine these selected abortions rates (number of abortions per 1000 women of childbearing age) which come from US Census Bureau Data (abortion data is only complete through 2005):

1980 29.4
1988 27.3
1992 25.9
2000 21.5
2005 19.4

This indicates that, under Reagan, the abortion rate dropped 7%; under Bush 41 the abortion rate dropped 5%; under Clinton the abortion rate dropped 17%; under Bush 43's first term the abortion rate dropped 10%. Clearly, SOMEBODY is doing SOMETHING right.

Paul Bradford, Pro-Life Catholics for Choice