According to a survey by the Guttmacher Institute, abortions are all the way down to 1.2 million! Yeah, great.
The Guttmacher Institute, which surveyed abortion providers nationwide, said there likely were several reasons for the decline, including more effective use of contraceptives, lower levels of unintended pregnancy, and greater difficulty obtaining abortions in some parts of the country.
Clearly, Planned Parenthood (the infanticide arm of the Guttmacher Institute) can’t be happy about this dip in abortions. They’re all about removing that “greater difficulty.”
In the same list of links, there’s this. I don’t have enough information to know if there is any correlation, but there’s this in the article:
Experts believe there is a mix of reasons: a decline in contraceptive use, a drop in access to abortion, poor education and poverty.
So the reason for fewer abortions is “more effective use of contraceptives” and the reason for more births is “a decline in contraceptive use.” I suppose that means that, while fewer people are using contraceptives (hence, more births), but that those who are using them are using them better (hence, fewer abortions).
I don’t really know if there’s a common point behind these articles, but I was struck by the similarity in language between the reasons suggested in the two articles. A few thoughts: I find it hard to believe that people would have trouble gaining access to an abortuary, regardless of where they live. Also, Planned Less-Parenthood is doing its best to make sure that all women have access to abortion, especially the poorest. Hey, we can fight life and poverty at the same time! An end to poverty in our generation! Kill all the poor people! (Oops, did I say that aloud?)
[Or check this:] Of the 4.7 million women served by these clinics, 43 percent received care at health departments, 33 percent received care at Planned Parenthood health centers, 13 percent received care at other independent community-based clinics, seven percent received care at hospitals, and four percent received care at community or migrant health centers (AGI, 2004; Frost et al., 2004).
What does it mean when the G.I. says abortions are down because of lower levels of unintended pregnancy? That Pee-Pee (new favorite name!) has been winning the war against children? (Sorry, I mean: “against unwanted children”.) I don’t know, but I’m 99% sure that if Pee-Pee is involved, it ain’t good. Although they are pretty good at spinning the study:
Abortion rates declined worldwide from 1995 to 2003, according to a study published last month by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization (WHO). There were four million fewer abortions in 2003 than in 1995. The study found that the abortion rate declined most in developed countries where it is safe and legal. Significantly, the rate in developing countries, where abortion is usually illegal, was roughly the same as in developed countries. Abortion rates were the lowest in Western Europe, where contraceptives are widely available and abortion is generally legal and safe, and highest in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, where abortion is mostly illegal and unsafe. The findings of the report reinforce the importance of the availability of contraceptives and safe, legal abortions.
Wait: “Significantly, the rate in developing countries, where abortion is usually illegal, was roughly the same as in developed countries.” But: “Abortion rates were the lowest in Western Europe, where contraceptives are widely available and abortion is generally legal and safe, and highest in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, where abortion is mostly illegal and unsafe. The findings of the report reinforce the importance of the availability of contraceptives and safe, legal abortions.” Sorry, maybe I missed something, but if the rates are “roughly the same,” then how does this report “reinforce the importance” of Pee-Pee’s agenda?