Michael New

Not even one peer-reviewed study shows Medicaid funding reduces incidence of abortion

Michael New

In recent election cycles, Democrats have made a series of ham-handed attempts to convince voters that they would actually do a better job lowering abortion rates than Republicans have. In 2004, Sojourners ran an article by Glen Harold Stassen which used data from a sample of states to claim the abortion rate went up under President Bush. However, comprehensive data later released by the CDC revealed the abortion rate actually fell during President Bush’s first term in office. In 2008, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good (CACG) released a study which purportedly found that welfare spending was effective at lowering abortion rates. However, after a data-coding error was corrected, the results indicated that welfare spending had inconsistent effects across time.

This year is appears that Stephen Schneck will be taking on this role for the Democratic party. Schneck used to be the chair of the Department of Politics at Catholic University of America. He is currently director of CUA’s Institute for Policy Research and Catholic Studies and is associated with the group Catholics for Obama. At a panel hosted by Democrats for Life on Wednesday, Schneck attempted to make the case Stassen and CACG tried to make in 2004 and 2008 respectively.

However, based on his Wednesday remarks, it does not appear he will be any more successful than his predecessors.

Schneck’s main argument is that since one-third of all births are paid for by Medicaid and the Romney-Ryan ticket wants to cut Medicaid — women who would have used Medicaid to pay their childbearing expenses will instead obtain abortions. There are obviously lots of problems with this logic. Schneck cites no research which shows that Medicaid spending is negatively correlated with abortion rates. There is also no evidence that women respond to higher childbearing costs by obtaining abortions in greater numbers. There is no guarantee that any Medicaid cuts would be focused on prenatal or perinatal care.

Medicaid is jointly run by the states and federal government and states could respond to federal cuts by increasing spending. Finally, past Republican efforts to cut spending have not always met with much success and there is no guarantee a President Romney would actually be able to cut Medicaid.

In the past, a number of Democrats have tried to make the case that social spending will reduce abortion rates. However, there is not one peer-reviewed study which shows that Medicaid spending or any other kind of welfare spending actually reduces the incidence of abortion.

There is, however, a substantial body of research which documents the effectiveness of pro-life laws. In 2009 the Guttmacher Institute did a literature review on public-funding restrictions for abortion. Of the 24 studies they considered, 20 found that abortion rates fell after public funding was reduced. They even acknowledged the best research indicates that restricting public funding lowers abortion rates. There is also an academic literature which documents the effectiveness of parental-involvement laws and properly designed informed-consent laws.

President Obama has pursued policies which will almost certainly increase the incidence of abortion. He rescinded the Mexico City policy which had prohibited foreign aid to organizations that perform abortions. He signed an appropriations bill which provided taxpayer funding for abortions in Washington, D.C.

His administration sued to prevent Indiana from defunding Planned Parenthood and stepped up with an HHS grant when New Hampshire cut taxpayer funds for Planned Parenthood. And, of course, Obamacare poses numerous problems for pro-lifers. If abortion is listed as a federal health benefit, that could easily nullify or weaken a number of state-level pro-life laws. Obamacare also provides federal funds to insurance plans which cover abortion. The HHS contraceptive mandate could require employers to cover abortifacients and is also a taxpayer bailout of Planned Parenthood.

The pro-life movement has been very shrewd in its marketing and Democrats can see the pro-life position making gains in the court of public opinion. They also know that their support for legal abortion is hurting them with several key demographic groups including working-class whites and Catholics. It is unfortunate that instead of actually offering substantial legal protections for the unborn, Democrats insist on trotting out these tired, unpersuasive arguments every election cycle.

Truth. Delivered daily.

Get FREE pro-life, pro-family news delivered straight to your inbox. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement

The Detroit News’ biased abortion coverage

Michael New
Michael New

Last week, the Detroit News ran an article about abortion trends in the city of Detroit and the state of Michigan. It found that abortion numbers were increasing in Detroit while falling elsewhere in the state.  In general, abortion trends tend to get very little coverage from the media.  As such, it was heartening to see the paper cover this important topic.

That said the coverage was extremely biased. Twice the article mentioned that legal abortion is a “safe” procedure. In reality, there is a substantial body of public health research which shows that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer and a range of psychological problems, and, more important, that both late-term abortions and multiple abortions significantly increase the risk of these health problems.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Additionally, everyone quoted in the article assumes that cuts in contraception programs have increased the abortion rate in Detroit and that contraception coverage through the Affordable Care Act will reduce the incidence of abortion. However, academic studies of free contraceptive programs in Britain, Scotland, and San Francisco found that these programs all had little impact on the incidence of abortion. Also, a study conducted by the University of Michigan’s Population Studies Center in 2011 found that increases in the price of oral contraceptives on college campuses resulted in less sexual activity and no significant change in the unintended pregnancy rate.

In reality, there are other factors that could be causing an increase in Detroit’s abortion rate. Some research shows that a slowing economy results in more abortions, and demographic shifts may be playing a role as well.  Unfortunately, the Detroit News chose to focus on contraception instead of thoughtfully considering other factors that might be causing the unfortunate rise in abortions.

Reprinted with permission from National Review.

Share this article

Advertisement

Politico spins poll results to make Dems’ abortion views appear mainstream

Michael New
Michael New

Last week Politico released the results of a poll of likely voters in competitive states and congressional districts. The results of their questions about abortion were interesting. Nineteen percent stated that they favored abortion on demand while only 11 percent favored banning abortion in all circumstances. The remainder favored two other categories where abortion would remain legal with some limits in place. These results were consistent with a body of survey data on abortion. Incremental pro-life laws enjoy broad support, but strong majorities think abortion should be legal in hard-case circumstances.

However, Politico’s analysis of this survey question was misleading. In their May 19 articlePolitico took the two most permissive categories — right to an abortion and right to an abortion with a few exceptions — and said that these positions were representative of the Democratic party’s stance on the issue. This is shocking news to anyone who follows pro-life politics at the national level. Of the four positions listed in the survey, abortion on demand most accurately represents the Democratic party’s position at the federal level.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Indeed, when incremental pro-life laws are introduced in the House or Senate, they typically receive the support of few Democratic elected officials. For instance, no Senate Democrat is currently co-sponsoring the 20-week abortion ban and the only Democrat to publicly announce he will vote in favor of the bill is Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.). Less than a third of House and Senate Democrats voted in favor of the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act (CIANA) in 2006, and less than a third of Senate Democrats voted in favor of the partial-birth-abortion ban in 2003.

Politico deserves credit for commissioning a poll that allowed respondents to express their views on abortion in a nuanced manner. That said they, like countless other media outlets, work overtime to present the Democratic party’s position on abortion as both popular and mainstream.

Reprinted with permission from National Review.

Share this article

Advertisement

Why is the abortion rate falling? Maybe fewer women want abortions

Michael New
Michael New

The Guttmacher Institute’s report finding a recent reduction in the abortion rate has generated a considerable amount of media coverage, drawing analysis not only from Guttmacher but by Andrew Sullivan and writers for The New Republic, Slate, and Bloomberg Businessweek. Most of these commentators appear to have a vested interest in giving pro-lifers as little credit as possible for the recent decline in the abortion rate, but the theories they offer are either problematic or incomplete. Below is a quick summary of the explanations put forth by various analysts as to why the abortion rate declined by 13 percent between 2008 and 2011:

  1. The slow economy: In their report, Guttmacher theorizes that the slow economy made people more determined to avoid pregnancy and more consistent in their contraception use. However, the 2007–09 recession did not result in a similar abortion decline — making this explanation seem unlikely. 
  2. The recovering economy: The recession officially ended in 2009 and there is some evidence that abortion numbers fall when the economy is doing well. That said, the recovery has been sluggish and times of even stronger economic growth did not result in similar abortion-rate declines.
  3. Contraception use: This theory has been put forth by both Andrew Sullivan and William Saletan of Slate. However, in their report, Guttmacher acknowledges contraception use did not increase between 2008 and 2011. Moreover, gains in contraception use do not always result in reductions in the unintended-pregnancy rate. In fact, that rate has remained fairly steady over the long term — despite increases in contraception use.
  4. Declines in the fertility rate: It is true that the fertility rate declined between 2008 and 2011, and this is likely part of the story. But it’s not clear why the fertility rate declined, and the abortion rate fell faster than the birthrate between 2008 and 2011 – so the declining fertility rate is not the whole story.
  5. Pro-life laws and abortion clinic closures: Guttmacher does acknowledge that certain laws, such as Louisiana’s informed-consent law, likely played a role in that state’s abortion decline. They also acknowledge that the reduction in the number of abortion facilities is playing a role in the declining abortion numbers in some states. That said, abortion rates fell in places where no substantial pro-life laws were passed and the number of clinics remained the same.

Interestingly, none of these analysts is willing to consider that shifts in public opinion on abortion may be playing a role. May of 2009 was the first time that a majority of Americans identified themselves as “pro-life” in a Gallup survey. “Pro-life” has outpolled “pro-choice” six out of nine times since the spring of 2009. The relationship between public opinion toward abortion and abortion rates is not well-researched, but it’s a theory that merits more attention from analysts.

Media outlets have paid considerable attention to the abortion decline that occurred between 2008 and 2011, but have generally given less attention to the fact that the abortion rate has declined by 35 percent since the early 1990s. This suggests the debate has shifted toward pro-lifers: It’s true that contraceptive use has increased since the early 1990s, but that was increasing well before the abortion rate started to decline. More important, data from both Guttmacher and the National Center for Health Statistics shows that the unintended-pregnancy rate has remained fairly stable since the mid 1990s. 

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Since the abortion rate is falling while the unintended-pregnancy rate is stable, a higher percentage of women facing unintended pregnancies are choosing to carry their children to term. Data from the Department of Health and Human Services support this, pro-lifers should take heart in it. 

Regardless of what mainstream-media analysts may say, declining abortion numbers provide evidence that pro-life efforts to change the hearts and minds of women facing unplanned pregnancies are bearing fruit — and, more important, saving lives. 

Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook