Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 17, 2008
By: Kevin Drum

ABORTION RATE CONTINUES TO DECLINE....The Guttmacher Institute (full study here) reports that the abortion rate in the United States has continued to go down. At its peak in 1990 it stood at about 27 per thousand women of childbearing age; today it's down to about 19 per thousand.

But why? Is it because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place, or is it because pregnant women are becoming less likely to get abortions? The study itself doesn't try to draw any conclusions, but the LA Times suggests it's the former:

Abortion rights advocates suggested women may be avoiding unwanted pregnancies, thanks in part to the morning-after pill, emergency contraception that is sold without a prescription to women 18 and older.

Conservatives, by contrast, [focus on] laws in more than 30 states mandating counseling before an abortion.

....Some of the biggest drops in the abortion rate, however, have come in states that do not impose tight restrictions. Oregon, for instance, was rated this week by Americans United for Life as the nation's "least pro-life state," yet its abortion rate dropped 25% from 2000 to 2005 — more than any state except Wyoming.

California also was ranked hostile territory by Americans United for Life, but its abortion rate fell 13%, significantly more than the national average. "Abortion rate" refers to the number of abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age.

Here are the basic numbers: excluding miscarriages, the pregnancy rate among women aged 15-44 has dropped by 13 per thousand since 1990. At the same time, the abortion rate has dropped by 8 per thousand. By itself this isn't conclusive, but it strongly suggests that the reduced abortion rate is mostly due to fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place. If increased regulation were the prime driver, you'd be more likely to see the pregancy rate staying about the same while abortions drop, and you'd be more likely to see bigger drops in states with more regulation. But that hasn't been the case. So yes: better access to contraception, better education, and better access to the morning after pill seem to have made a difference over time. For anyone who's pro-life but not anti-sex, that ought to be good news.

UPDATE: Megan McArdle suggests that maybe the pregnancy rate has gone down because people are having less sex thanks to fears of AIDS. Maybe. Teen sexual activity decreased during the 90s, and that might account for part of the drop, though not all of it. Increased use of condoms and increased availability of contraception seem like the most likely explanation for the bulk of the drop.

Kevin Drum 2:34 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (50)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

"For anyone who's pro-life but not anti-sex, that ought to be good news."

Unfortunately that's a pretty small set. The bulk of the pro-life people appear (from their actions, ignore the lies that come out their mouths) to be driven primarily by an anti-sex agenda.

(That's anti-sex for other people, sex for them is just fine.)

Posted by: Maynard Handley on January 17, 2008 at 2:41 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I'm missing something, but if a human life is prevented due to an abortion or prevented due to contraception seems to be a distinction without a difference. In either case, you're preventing someone from being born. Why celebrate one cause of prevention while condemning the other?

Posted by: Jim W on January 17, 2008 at 2:48 PM | PERMALINK

If increased regulation were the prime driver, you'd be more likely to see the pregancy rate staying about the same while abortions drop, and you'd be more likely to see bigger drops in states with more regulation. But that hasn't been the case. So yes: better access to contraception, better education, and better access to the morning after pill seem to have made a difference over time.

I think you left out the possibility that due to the greater funding and availability of abstinence programs by the Bush Administration, people were more likely to choose abstinence over sex and therefore less pregnancies occurred. This decline in pregnancies caused the decline in abortions.

Posted by: Al on January 17, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

There's some evidence that human fertility is declining because of environmental factors (sperm counts dropping, etc). I don't think that this effect is large enough to account for the drop, but it might make some difference.

Posted by: Joe Buck on January 17, 2008 at 2:51 PM | PERMALINK

even if you are not pro life. less abortions are a good thing.

unwanted pregnancies are bad and an abortion can be a traumatic experience and is never a pleasant one for most women who go through it.

so those of us who are pro women's right should be rightfully glad of this result.

Posted by: DIS on January 17, 2008 at 2:54 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin Drumm:

If you are truly outraged by racism, as it would appear in your Swill article for CBS News, why aren't you reporting on the overtly racist comments made by Barack Obama in his own book, Dreams From My Father? (which was not ghostwritten 20 years ago, may I add)

Barack Obama: “That hate hadn't gone away,” he wrote, blaming “white people — some cruel, some ignorant, sometimes a single face, sometimes just a faceless image of a system claiming power over our lives.”

Obama vowed to “never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own" and said “certain whites could be excluded from the general category of our distrust.”

And during college:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists.”

In addition, I'm sure you're well aware that Obama belongs to a Black-Only church, Trinity United Church of Christ, where whites, Mexicans, Asians, etc. are not welcome.

These are blatant, outrageous racist comments in the words of Obama in his own book and he is still participating in race division by joining this Church.

If you were honestly disgusted by racism in a presidential candidate, you would be reporting on Obama's racism instead of trying to smear Ron Paul -- someone who has admired and quoted Martin Luther King and Gandhi for years; admired Rosa Parks so much that he met with her and her family, and has fought against the war on drugs since the '80s because it is racist against minorities.

What is your *real* agenda, Kevin? Fair is fair, and I demand you devote equal time to the *real* racists in this campaign.


Posted by: blakmira on January 17, 2008 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I'm missing something, but if a human life is prevented due to an abortion or prevented due to contraception seems to be a distinction without a difference. In either case, you're preventing someone from being born. Why celebrate one cause of prevention while condemning the other?


Excellent. Therefore if I'm using the rhythm method as my form of "contraception" - it is what the Catholic Church recommends, after all - then I'm also preventing someone from being born every time my wife has an available egg for fertilization.

Are those the Python boys I'm hearing in the background?

Posted by: Chris on January 17, 2008 at 3:13 PM | PERMALINK

It would be interesting to know about the age makeup of the women having abortions over time. I would suspect that as boomer women became older they became more likely to get abortions of "surpise" pregnancies that occurred in middle age. Then, their husbands got vasectomies, they practiced birth control more rigorously, or they entered menopause. Just a decline in raw numbers of fertile/virile couples might account for some of the decline in abortions.

(Sorry if the study addressed that-- I'm too busy to read it right now.)

Posted by: gfw on January 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

What are the abortion rates for Western European countries? If I remember correctly they are some of the lowest in the world. They also have low birth rates; low rates of teenage pregnancy and on and on. The reason is good education in a wealthy society. They know how not to get pregnant.

The other alternative is conservative prohibition of everything but officially approved sexual activity. I bet the abortion rate in Saudi Arabia is pretty low.

It is by no mistake that calls for the government prohibition of abortion tend to be championed by people in traditionally less prosperous regions of the United States. Where the society is poorer there is less risk-sharing which means poor education and poorer resources for contraception. The same trend exists in Africa although it is more extreme. Ireland, which used to be quite conservative because of its poverty and its long nationalist struggle against the English, is, as its prosperity grows, becoming more like the rest of Europe.

Posted by: bellumregio on January 17, 2008 at 3:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think education has played a big part, but not necessarily education about pregnancy prevention but rather about avoiding STDs. I have a 20's-something daughter who is well-aware, as are her friends, of the dangers of unprotected sex in relation to AIDS, etc. It's one thing to have an unwanted pregnancy, quite another to contract a possibly life-threatening or uncurable disease.

Posted by: nepeta on January 17, 2008 at 3:19 PM | PERMALINK

fewer unwanted pregnancies in the first place

Fewer unwanted pregnancies should be the goal. Unwanted pregnancies, if they do not become abortions, become unwanted children.

Posted by: Brojo on January 17, 2008 at 3:25 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I'm missing something, but if a human life is prevented due to an abortion or prevented due to contraception seems to be a distinction without a difference. In either case, you're preventing someone from being born. Why celebrate one cause of prevention while condemning the other?

I'd say you're missing something: the experience for the woman, and the risk and health care costs involved. One method is an expensive, invasive, sometimes painful medical procedure for which a woman may have to miss work, travel great distances, fight pro-lifers and possibly her own family and friends. The other is comparatively cheap, simple, and can be done in the home. Why have surgery to fix something you can prevent?

Posted by: Riz on January 17, 2008 at 3:27 PM | PERMALINK

blakmira, who the fuck are you to demand anything of anyone?

Posted by: James on January 17, 2008 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

You don't have to target abortion as a problem which means you don't have to affirm the conservative frame. Educated women in a broadly educated society choose to have fewer babies and they make fewer "mistakes". If you make contraception available to poor women you will have even fewer unwanted pregnancies.

Posted by: bellumregio on January 17, 2008 at 3:37 PM | PERMALINK

I think the comment on Oregon as the least pro-life state probably reflects the assisted suicide law (which there's some evidence actually reduces the level of physician-assisted suicide) rather than abortion per se, so it's probably extraneous to the specific discussion of abortion.

Posted by: Gene O'Grady on January 17, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

So once again the conservative approach to a social issue is wrong, and the liberal one is successful.

Nobody could have anticipated that.

Posted by: craigie on January 17, 2008 at 3:45 PM | PERMALINK

What are the abortion rates for Western European countries? If I remember correctly they are some of the lowest in the world. They also have low birth rates; low rates of teenage pregnancy and on and on. The reason is good education in a wealthy society. They know how not to get pregnant.

I'm seem to recall that this is true:
European country with least sex education: Britain
European country with most (earliest) sex education: Holland
European country with highest teen pregnancy rate: Britain
European country with lowest teen pregnancy rate: Holland

Posted by: craigie on January 17, 2008 at 3:48 PM | PERMALINK

Chris,

Maybe I'm missing something, but if a human life is prevented due to an abortion or prevented due to contraception seems to be a distinction without a difference.

Ah, what a small word - 'if.'

If a pregnancy is prevented due to abstinence or prevented due to contraception seems to be a distinction without a difference.

So when do you think the human life begins? Do you think that might affect which you prefer?

Posted by: Tripp on January 17, 2008 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

So when do you think the human life begins?

I think life began 4 billion years ago. What happens in reproduction is not the creation of new life but rather than transformation of existing life. The sperm is alive, the egg is alive, and then the blastocyst is alive. What makes the blastocyst different from the sperm and egg is its genetic code. So, if you mean that life begins when a new genetic code is created, then fine. But, that seems rather arbitrary to me.

Posted by: Jim W on January 17, 2008 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe I'm missing something, but if a human life is prevented due to an abortion or prevented due to contraception seems to be a distinction without a difference. In either case, you're preventing someone from being born. Why celebrate one cause of prevention while condemning the other?

Yes, you're missing something -- while abortion could (arguably) be said to prevent someone from being born, the same can't be said for contraception, which merely prevents an egg from ever being fertilized. If contraception works, there's not even any fetus to be born in the first place.

Of course, if we apply your logic we should also condemn every woman who's ever refused to sleep with me. By not allowing me to impregnate her, she prevented a human life from being born. So why should we be celebrating the chaste, (OK, the sober and discriminating) who are the real killers here.....

Posted by: Stefan on January 17, 2008 at 4:26 PM | PERMALINK

unwanted pregnancies are bad and an abortion can be a traumatic experience and is never a pleasant one for most women who go through it.

Whereas nine months of pregnacy, with all its multiple medical complications, followed by the excruciating pain of childbirth, is never traumatic and unpleasant, especially when the pregnancy is unwanted....

Posted by: Stefan on January 17, 2008 at 4:28 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, what an interesting point of view Jim W. I've never ever heard it put that way before. Amazing!

Posted by: MarkH on January 17, 2008 at 4:29 PM | PERMALINK

It's all about punishing women for having sex.

Posted by: croatoan on January 17, 2008 at 4:34 PM | PERMALINK

The pregnancy rate is the number of pregnancies among women 15-44. Why is the abortion rate the number of abortions per women 15-44 and not among pregnant womenof. As Kevin sort of suggests, the abortion rate can fluctuate on the basis of the number of pregnancies - without regard to abortion policy. Presented as is, it's difficult to determine the extent to which fewer abortions per thousand is simply a function of fewer pregnancies per thousand.

Posted by: Beeg on January 17, 2008 at 4:42 PM | PERMALINK

Thanks Jim W. You beat me to the punch. Science has revealed a far more awe inspiring world than anything ever dreamed by religions which seem to me to be rather anemic. All life is connected by descent, one cell to the next slowly accumulating differences. Ultimately we are all made of star stuff as Carl Sagan used to say.

The question for the anti-abortions who would enshrine their morals into law is when does one become a human being with a soul and free will? This cannot be mapped onto the rather mechanical nature of gametogenesis and development. You end up with absurd arguments about gastrula and neurons. This just shows how shallow and arbitrary religious categories are. One takes an Iron Age moral order conceptually retooled at various times and tries to use it as a way to interpret 21st century biology.

The real reason these people ask these silly questions is because they have the rather nasty desire to know when the sovereign power of the state or the church can lay claim and protect the soul. In essence they would make a woman’s body the agent of the state as she protects the soul and the citizen. Hateful.

Posted by: bellumregio on January 17, 2008 at 4:45 PM | PERMALINK

Protect the soul, immolate the body.

Posted by: Torqy on January 17, 2008 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that the birth rate is actually up a bit, but the anecdotal evidence in my (grandma) set is that women 28-38 who want children are having difficulty getting pregnant. At a recent shower for my 30something daughter in law, I overheard her girlfriends who had babies and toddlers sharing that they had resorted to fertility drugs, and some said they were planning to conceive a second child the same way. If a significant proportion of pregnancies are not merely welcomed but the result of an focused investment of time, effort, discomfort, and $, those pregnancies are unlikely to become part of the abortion stats.

Posted by: G.L.Horton on January 17, 2008 at 4:58 PM | PERMALINK

For anyone who's pro-life but not anti-sex, that ought to be good news.

And if there's anybody who isn't anti-sex, please e-mail me. A little information should fix that.
Safe sex? Hah! Sex is never safe, nor should it be! Best to give it a miss.

Posted by: Mooser on January 17, 2008 at 6:25 PM | PERMALINK

You also fail to take into account Kevin that most pro-lifers consider the morning after pill to be an aborticide, so in their view there probably is no reduction in abortion and no good news. I can honestly understand objections to abortions after the first trimester, but when I hear people who think a fertilized egg is the equivalent of a child, my head explodes.

Posted by: Jim on January 18, 2008 at 1:28 AM | PERMALINK

To Stafan -- You owe me for the Starbucks I just snorted through my nose – and thank goodness it wasn’t the robust, because the Morning Blend really fucking hurt.

In the event you haven’t heard this story – obviously contrived but apropos of your post and, well, funny.

Posted by: tsynnott on January 18, 2008 at 9:00 AM | PERMALINK

Of course, if we apply your logic we should also condemn every woman who's ever refused to sleep with me. By not allowing me to impregnate her, she prevented a human life from being born.

I've tried that line, believe me. It doesn't seem to work.

Seriously, though, I don't think objective reality was designed for the sole purpose of making our ethical judgments neat and tidy.

The fact is that abortion, contraception, and abstinence all have the same consequence (setting aside inconvenience to the woman). If this fact makes it difficult for people to decide where to draw the line ethically, don't blame me.

Posted by: Jim W on January 18, 2008 at 9:40 AM | PERMALINK

Did Bill Clinton get a vasectomy?

By not allowing me to impregnate her, she prevented a human life from being born.
Posted by: Stefan

You're human? I thought you were a trading program.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 18, 2008 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

The fact is that abortion, contraception, and abstinence all have the same consequence

Tell it to the pope.

Posted by: e7 on January 18, 2008 at 11:02 AM | PERMALINK

I think better contraception plays a big role, but I'd say the long-lasting contraceptives (Depo-Provera) are far more likely to be the main change than the morning-after pill.

Posted by: SamChevre on January 18, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINK

So when do you think the human life begins?
Posted by: Tripp

I bet Shorthag hopes life begins at 40.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 18, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINK

I understand that there is a degree of animosity between you and shortstop that, frankly, causes me to just move on and not comment sometimes - but I have yet to see her call you out on a thread where you haven't even commented. What's up with that?

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 18, 2008 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINK

The thread made me think of this. I'm sure Shortstuff is tough enough to be a foil.

I'm sorry, but I must strongly disagree with Ms. Brewster. Life begins at 40!

For anyone out there about to turn the big four-oh and dreading it, let me assure you: I myself just hit the milestone earlier this year and, like a bottle of fine wine, I'm only getting better with age. As far as I'm concerned, 40 is when life really begins!

The truth is, you're only as old as you feel. And I've never felt better. Sure, gravity may be starting to kick in here and there, and the boobs may be a bit lower than back when I was in college, but I can still turn heads when I want to. And besides, I more than make up for it in wisdom and life experience! Oh, the things I know now that I didn't when I was younger! And more importantly, I know what I want, and I'm not afraid to get it...

Posted by: SJRSM on January 18, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

So when do you think the human life begins?
Posted by: Tripp

Jingo: I bet Shorthag hopes life begins at 40.

Hmmmm. Perhaps I'm unreasonable to expect a person who has already so thoroughly demonstrated mental and emotional illness to make sense, but I'm curious about what connection you think this comment has to anything in this thread.

I haven't even commented here. What exactly is wrong with you?

Posted by: shortstop on January 18, 2008 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

The thread made me think of this...

...which has zero parallel with anything I've ever said in any thread here, much less this one, in which I hadn't even commented. So now you're struggling to try to make a non-existing connection as cover for a remark that spoke volumes about you while having nothing to do with anything in this thread.

What exactly is wrong with you?

Posted by: shortstop on January 18, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINK

...which has zero parallel with anything I've ever said in any thread here, much less this one, in which I hadn't even commented.

I will type s l o w l y so you can understand. Did you follow the link? The Onion? Humor website? When does life begin? Conception? Woman sez "begins at 40"? You're a woman (right?) Humor? Snark?

Or are you that thin-skinned and humorless of a shrew? I guess your two posts answered that question.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

Or are you that thin-skinned and humorless of a shrew? I guess your two posts answered that question.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 18, 2008 at 1:26 PM

Maybe if there was some, you know, humor to respond to, the lame attempts at slandering Democrats (nice unnecessary Clenis reference that has no bearing on the discussion, by the way) that you would like us to view as puerile attempts to be funny were more offensive than anything else.

As far as the topic at hand, personally I think that the lowered pregnancy rates are caused by smarter kids, being fcuk buddies so they can understand and practice safe sex earlier and better, who stopped paying attention to all the sanctimonious horsehockey coming from the current sadministration.

Posted by: (: Tom :) on January 18, 2008 at 2:08 PM | PERMALINK

Have to agree with (:Tom:) - I've never found Shortstop humorless - mirthful, irreverent, hilarious, sure - but humorless? Not so much.

There wasn't anything funny there. It's like the time an old guy sat down beside me in a truckstop booth somewhere along I-80 where my sister and I stopped for lunch and started telling Jewish jokes. When we didn't laugh at the old fool but instead just looked at him aghast, he thought we were "humorless shrews." (No, just shiksa-looking Jewish babes.) The waitress comes over a bit later and leads him away, scolding him to stop bothering the strangers.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State (aka G.C.) on January 18, 2008 at 2:25 PM | PERMALINK

Jingo: I will type s l o w l y so you can understand. Did you follow the link? The Onion? Humor website? When does life begin? Conception? Woman sez "begins at 40"? You're a woman (right?) Humor? Snark?

Or are you that thin-skinned and humorless of a shrew? I guess your two posts answered that question.

Jingo, you got caught--give it up. This scramble for cover is embarrassing even by your spectacularly low standards.

We know you're congenitally incapable of ever admitting you are wrong, which in real life leads you to support policies that needlessly kill thousands and around here just gets you derision and laughter, but really, stop digging now. You're fooling no one.

And get this through your increasingly disturbed head: As I have already told you, I am not the moderator. I have never been the moderator. I will never be the moderator. If you really can't figure out why that should be--and what else is--you're even farther into the downward spiral than we thought.

I believe posts like the ones you've made above should stay up forever and continue to haunt and humiliate you in the estimation of all bright, reasonable and balanced people. The moderator knows I feel this way. So attempting to bait me with apropros-of-nothing teenage barbs in a thread in which I haven't even commented isn't having any practical effect other than making a bigger fool of you than usual.

And I hadn't thought that was possible, frankly.

Posted by: shortstop on January 18, 2008 at 2:27 PM | PERMALINK

Wow, you're wound up tight.

Yes, leave the posts up there for all time. Absolutely. Show people how easily injured and sensitive you really are, how you can dish it out but not take...what? A reference to a common quote, an old movie, an Onion article? Are you kidding me? Not even a casual murder accusation or gloating over getting fired.

Frankly, I thought you *were* tough enough to joke with, of all people here. You sold yourself that way with your, "I even post on conservative forums and take their flack" BS in the previous thread. But I see now that I've activated your quivering lower lip.

“Life begins at 40 - but so do fallen arches, rheumatism, faulty eyesight, and the tendency to tell a story to the same person, three or four times.”

-- Helen Rowland

Posted by: SJRSM on January 18, 2008 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Shhhhhhh, Jingo. Stop. Just stop. You're fooling no one. There was no "joke"--you came up with that as a desperate cover story for your original post at 12:28, and as several people have now explained to you, it didn't fly. You blew it. Let it go.

Even you don't believe my lip is quivering. You know the injury you're pretending I feel is raw derogation, contempt...and even a bit of pity for how far you've fallen. Just an itty bit, though. You've brought most of this on yourself. Like I said, someone who can't ever admit his own mistakes isn't very likely to do what it takes to make necessary repairs.

That includes fixing what's broken in your psyche. How long do you really want to go on feeling this way?

Posted by: shortstop on January 18, 2008 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

Even you don't believe my lip is quivering.

Oh I do. Maybe a tear too.

There was no "joke"--you came up with that as a desperate cover story for your original post at 12:28

OK, I do give up on this. So how exactly is "Shorthag hopes life begins at 40" so insulting to you? What am I trying to cover up exactly? Tell me how this has managed to wound your psyche. I am genuinely curious.

Posted by: SJRSM on January 18, 2008 at 3:38 PM | PERMALINK

No one observes the fact that the cohort of youth that came of age two decades after abortion was legalized were different from previous generations--i.e. there were fewer unwanted children in the mix. A study published by U. of Chicago and Stanford in the late '90's attributed much of the decline in juvenile crime in that decade to the changed demographics. In fact, the juvenile crime rate dropped first in the five states that legalized abortion first. The same authors have preliminary research, not yet published, on the decline in the teen pregnancy rate in the '90's. The connection is even easier to demonstrate due to birth certificate data, and again the rates begin to drop first in the five states that legalized abortion first, the decrease occuring about a couple of decades later when those teens would have become parents. So let's not fantasize that abstinence only has worked; the truth is, children need to be wanted, and those that are tend not to become juvenile delinquents and/or teen parents.

Posted by: Liza Tregillus on January 18, 2008 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

It is because of the awareness created over a time period about preventive methods. Whatever the reason it is appreciable outcome...
Car Breakdown Cover

Posted by: John on January 18, 2008 at 11:58 PM | PERMALINK

OK, I do give up on this. So how exactly is "Shorthag hopes life begins at 40" so insulting to you? What am I trying to cover up exactly? Tell me how this has managed to wound your psyche. I am genuinely curious.

its yer psyche that seems a tad bit how do you say it wounded because what fucking stands out is the lack of awareness
lack of awareness of what might be funny or punny
lack of social grace
lack of purrrr-spective
lack of something to put in that hole you call a soul

i dunno
i am a constipated bunny
i keep eating grass
nothing comes out
but when i read what ya wrote
makes me wonder makes me wonder

go on down the road
get some help
you're sad
but what you write
so much sadder than you know

Posted by: Constipated Bunny on January 19, 2008 at 12:28 AM | PERMALINK

To the anti-choice crowd, end of abortion is end of story. Once the child is born, it's a happy ending and they can go on to save the next snowflake, or whatever the hell they're calling them this week. But the other side of abortion is infanticide...that is, once people have babies they didn't want or couldn't support in the first place, how many of those babies end up dead? The figures put up by the Bureau of Justice covering the years 1976 through 2005 show an up-and-down trend, but dig it: for children under 1 year of age, 206 deaths in 1976, 205 deaths in 2005. And not a lot of progress in between.

But, hell, at least they got born, right?

Posted by: Riggsveda on January 19, 2008 at 4:10 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly