Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content at the RNS Archives website.

(RNS) Researcher say the decline in both the abortion rate and the number of abortions was likely to do with the recession and increased use of contraception.

18 Comments

    • Greater access to contraceptives is finally having a positive effect in reducing unwanted pregnancy. Too bad the religious folks are still obstructing these policies. Thank goodness we are throwing away the foolishness of forced marriages.

      But we must remain vigilant as the religious people try to roll it back and reduce access to the very contraceptives which made this decline possible.

  1. Abortion rates should constantly reduce as better means are discovered to avoid unwanted pregnancies and sane and safe practices are developed to abort pregnancies that threaten the life of the mother and the mother, in all these cases, makes the choice. It is the mother’s life.

    Abortion, if chosen, except in cases to save a mother’s life when problems are discovered late-term, should be chosen as early as possible. There is no need, except in the case of a threat to the life of the mother, where a pregnancy cannot be determined as wanted or unwanted very shortly after the pregnancy is discovered.

    All of these freedoms and precautions would greatly reduce the vile and even murderous confrontations caused by those who oppose abortion for others and presume they have the right to control their lives.

  2. Pro-lifers must never mistake the meaning of these reduced levels. They have not been caused by their ugly behavior that has attempted to force their ignorant and prejudiced beliefs on others. The lower levels of pregnancies and abortions are due to better science and saner attitudes in society at large about contraception and abortion. We must enhance that science, make the methods more readily available, and never stop working to change illiterate attitudes with knowledge.

    It is a horrible and mean contradiction that pro-life people almost always base their position on their religious beliefs. Sadly, they also support reducing and/or eliminating all assistance strategies for the over-abundance of unwanted children, whether it’s medical care, food, clothing, housing, schooling, or jobs. You name it, from cradle to grave, the religious right opposes everything its scriptures proclaim.

  3. Whether because of ease of access to contraceptives, or shaming by believers, it matters less than the result. Although I believe it is a woman’s right to make the choice, I’m very glad less are.

    I think the believers should see this as an opportunity to reassess what is more important, preventing situation where women may have to make the choice for abortion, or abortion itself.

    If they would instead support contraceptives, as well as adoption, I may start to think their beliefs are less poisonous to society; but that’s not likely, so.

    Religion is still poison!!

  4. The affects of 3D ultrasound technology and growing awareness of fetal extraction procedures and partial birth abortions should be considered as well. Much has changed that has exposed and educated the populace about the realities of abortion and allowed them to consider the issue more fully.

    • Highly doubtful, ultrasound and scare tactics in describing abortion have been around for a while.

      Forcing unnecessary ultrasounds by legislation on women seeking abortion has had the effect of placing undue burdens on women who lack means (forcing additional visits to a clinic). Of course if the goal is to create such burdens, then such laws are illegal. (See Casey v. Planned Parenthood 1992)

      • If you read Casey vs Planned Parenthood you would know that these requirements were upheld and given to the states to regulate. One provision was struck due to the undue burden clause, but 4 others including the ultrasound requirement were upheld as reasonable. So apparently the Supreme Court does not agree that these constitute scare tactics, but fall within the public interest for states to oversee.

        • You should get yourself up to speed on how it is interpreted.

          Federal court recently rejected such laws where it was seen as an undue burden. SCOTUS did not bother to upset the Appellate court decision.
          http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303914304579193963092789006

          Either way, at least nobody is pretending it is based on medical necessity. The measures are constantly opposed by medical professional organizations as a blatant political misuse of medical services. Proponents make no bones about it being a deliberate burden on having an abortion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments with many links may be automatically held for moderation.