A closer examination of “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2011,” authored by Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman of the Guttmacher Institute, prompts a number of considerations. The findings are well-known, and the headline is a welcome addition to the discourse. As Jones and Jerman summarize, the estimated number of abortions performed in the United States in 2011 was 1.1 million, representing a 13% decrease from the number performed in 2008 and 550,000 fewer abortions than in 1990. The number of abortions performed in the United States has decreased since 1990, with 1.1 million abortions in 2011, representing a 13% decline from 2008. The abortion rate was 16.9 per 1,000 women aged 15-44 in 2011, a 13% decrease from 2008.
It is crucial to recognize that those who have been spared from the tragedy of abortion represent innocent babies who would otherwise have perished. It is deeply concerning that, despite the significant decline in the number of abortions, 1.06 million abortions were performed in 2011 (the most recent year for which data is available from Guttmacher). However, this should not prevent us from acknowledging the positive developments that have occurred.
Additionally, while writing yesterday, I came across a related point that I had initially overlooked. It is often assumed that both sides of the abortion debate are content with the current situation. However, this assumption requires further examination.
While we may be pleased with the decline in the number of abortions, it is unclear whether those who oppose abortion are genuinely celebrating the reduction in the number of fetal deaths.
Consider the following.
In their analysis, Guttmacher offers some broad indications that an undercount may have occurred. This is due to a number of factors, including (1) the organization’s difficulty in obtaining direct information from abortion providers and (2) the increased use of chemical abortions. It is likely that this goes beyond an admission of methodological shortcomings. If there has been no decline, this would serve to reinforce the conclusion that pro-life activists have had no effect.
Additionally, there has been a proliferation of conspiracy theories (a favorite topic among pro-abortionists) regarding a sudden influx of individuals traveling to Mexico to obtain misoprostol, a second drug utilized in the two-drug RU-486 abortion technique. While this drug is less “effective” (a curious term in this context), it is considerably less expensive than mifepristone.
The reason for this is the needless and annoying legislative limitations on how chemical abortions are performed. It is recommended that readers consult the pro-abortion websites and the people who make a living hacking away at unborn babies or grinding out papers explaining how (fill in the blank) will increase “access” to abortion. It would be reasonable to expect that they would be leaping for joy.
Whether it’s Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood, or pro-abortion academic institutions like the University of Southern California’s Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, the discourse is dominated by the necessity of “restrictions,” the critical importance of increasing access to “underserved” populations, and the pursuit of worldwide inroads into nations with protective abortion laws. Furthermore, there is a great deal of complaining about the number of counties without abortionists, restrictions on the use of public money, and discussions about the pain experienced by babies at 20 weeks who are disposed of.
It can be reasonably assumed that this viewpoint is widely held by those who oppose abortion. The desire for further abortions is evident in the actions of this motley crew.
This is the final post of the day, so it seems appropriate to conclude with a reflection on the recent decline in the number of abortions.
The celebration of this modest downturn in the slaughter requires a belief in the existence of a life that is terminated when an abortion is carried out. This life is snuffed out by the actions of the abortionist, who may cut them to pieces, poison them, or induce premature delivery and then slit their spinal cords.
If one does not accept this premise, then the news of a decline in the abortion industry’s caseload is, in fact, rather disconcerting.
Daniel Miller is responsible for nearly all of National Right to Life News' political writing.
With the election of Donald Trump to the U.S. presidency, Daniel Miller developed a deep obsession with U.S. politics that has never let go of the political scientist. Whether it's the election of Joe Biden, the midterm elections in Congress, the abortion rights debate in the Supreme Court or the mudslinging in the primaries - Daniel Miller is happy to stay up late for you.
Daniel was born and raised in New York. After living in China, working for a news agency and another stint at a major news network, he now lives in Arizona with his two daughters.
