Not because fewer women decided to end an unwanted pregnancy
Surprised not surprised – it turns out that contraceptives reduce the abortion rate. Women’s Health reports:
The new analysis from the Guttmacher Institute, which was just published in the New England Journal of Medicine, reveals that the unintended pregnancy rate declined by a whopping 18 percent between 2008 and 2011, bringing it to the lowest it’s been in 30 years.
The study’s authors also found that 42 percent of unintended pregnancies in 2011 ended in abortion, as compared with 40 percent in 2008—meaning that although the number of abortions has declined (due to the lower rate of unintended pregnancies), the proportion of unintended pregnancies that end in abortion has actually remained about the same (and even increased slightly).
“These findings provide significant new clarity for the U.S. abortion debate,” Joerg Dreweke, author of the Guttmacher policy analysis accompanying the study, said in a press statement. “We now know that abortion declined primarily because of fewer unintended pregnancies, and not because fewer women decided to end an unwanted pregnancy.”
Women are so obstinate, aren’t they? Insisting on deciding for themselves whether they want to be pregnant or not?
Another study recently revealed that when low-income women were denied access to Planned Parenthood clinics, their use of long-acting reversible contraceptives dropped, and their rates of unintended pregnancies rose dramatically.
“In short, supporting and expanding women’s access to family planning services not only protects their health and rights, it also reduces abortion rates,” Dreweke said. “The clear implication for policymakers who wish to see fewer abortions occur is to focus on making contraceptive care more available by increasing funding and stopping attacks on all family planning providers.”
On the other hand if the goal is to remove all autonomy from women, keep whittling away at abortion rights.
It’s been obvious for a long time that anyone who wants to call themselves pro-life should be pr-contraception. The fact that so many aren’t shows what they are really on about. Controlling women.
That’s one thing I have to give Hitchens. He was anti-abortion but vehemently pro-contraception. He felt that would be the most sensible, and most effective, way of bringing down the abortion rate.
And while I do not share the distaste so many have for abortion, i do think it’s great if we can reduce surgeries of any sort, even ones that are relatively safe when done properly, not in a septic back alley clinic by a butcher.
@ iknklast:
Your comment reminded me of my college days, when I was very much of the Hitchens attitude towards abortion/contraception. That is, in a perfect world, elective abortion would be outlawed, because everybody would have access to 100% effective contraception.
Not to say that you’re advocating that position. Your comment just brought back how easy it was to judge (as a “disinterested” third party) the medical and personal choices of others. Not to mention my complete ignorance of the fact that birth was, like, dangerous. Or that pre-birth complications could arise. Or that personal circumstance and choice could make carrying to term undesirable. Or … well, I could continue pointing out my own glaring logical errors, but I’m already ashamed enough of 20-year old me. I got better?
It’s almost like women don’t need men like me (then OR now) telling them what to do. :)
Yeah. You got better. A lot of people do.
Patrick G – I don’t embrace Hitchens’s position. I am a strong advocate of the full right to choose, and would happily call myself pro-abortion, no weasel words. I think Ophelia and Katha Pollitt are probably the closest out there to my position of the writers that I read. That being said, I am willing to give Hitch points for at least not being totally anti- the whole shebang. He did recognize that if he wanted to get rid of abortion, contraception was the best way. And that doesn’t necessarily have to be an anti-woman position (though with Hitch? Well, I won’t comment). It could be perceived as a way of promoting women’s overall autonomy, while still disliking the idea of abortion.
Again, I don’t advocate that position myself, just recognize that it makes more sense than the Santorums of the world.
Trouble with the ‘right to choose’ is that it’s undermined at EVERY stage. The ‘choice’ not to be ‘married’ at nine. The ‘choice’ not to be incested right through puberty. The ‘choice’ to have reasonable access to basic healthcare, INCLUDING contraception.
I have reservations about abortion as birth control. A relatively large-scale intrusive procedure, possible abuse for sex-selection etc. BUT, in real life, abortion represents the last reserve of personal autonomy on the part of women who’ve been robbed of their self-determination at every previous stage.
So I’m solidly pro-abortion. Just like I’m solidly pro Fire Dept. Pro Seat-belt etc.
@ iknklast:
Sorry. I wanted to emphasize that in no way did I think you embraced that position. Your comment just got me thinking about the time that I did.
See, I’m not sure it really can. I’m limiting this to the position of “contraception should be legal, abortion should be illegal”. Obviously, increased access to contraception promotes women’s overall autonomy. But it then almost inevitably leads into vile, sanctimonious positions (e.g. didn’t take your pill? too bad slut!) in ways that further constrict autonomy.
Moreover, given that contraception is and cannot be 100%, this position automatically implies that either you need exceptions, or well, tough luck ladies. Of course, once you allow exceptions, there’s inevitably someone else who judges whether the exception is legitimate. Nothing autonomy-promoting about women being forced to prove to some third-party that they should be allowed to access medical care on the basis of medication-interactions*, malicious tampering by intimate partners, or just simple plain 0.4% failure when used exactly as directed.
In the Hitchens example, this is really advocating contraception use to reduce icky abortion, and completely accepting that this means sacrificing some women along the way. It’s not an argument for women’s autonomy.
Again, NOT ascribing this position to you, and certainly I’m in favor of anything that allows women more self-determination. But pro-contraception/anti-abortion is only really consistent with bodily autonomy if the person who dislikes abortion holds that position as an entirely personal preference without advocating legal or social restrictions on abortion.
@ Samantha Vimes:
And a lot of people don’t. :(