Pages

Wednesday, August 15, 2018

New school year, new brochures!

Attention pro-life student leaders: Secular Pro-Life has just redesigned its signature brochure, Why Should Non-Christians Care About Abortion?, and we want to send you some free copies!

The brochure covers the science of when human life begins, the human rights and equality argument against abortion, and the diversity of the pro-life movement. New to this version, we've included quotes by abortionists admitting to the violence of abortion (thank you Sarah Terzo of ClinicQuotes!), updated statistics about non-religious Americans against abortion (there are 12.8 million of us!), and debunked the popular-at-the-moment-because-what's-old-is-new-again argument that legal abortion is necessary for women's health. Not bad for a two-sided folded piece of paper!

Secular Pro-Life has always had a soft spot for campus activists, and we make these publications with you in mind. To claim your freebies for the fall semester, email info@secularprolife.org with the subject line "Request for Brochures." Be sure to include the name of your school, the name of your student organization, your position in the group (president, vice president, secretary, etc.), and of course your mailing address. We'll send you as many brochures as will fit in a small USPS flat rate box. 

You can also get brochures from us in person. Find us in California and Pennsylvania this fall. 

Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Attacks on Ultrasound are Attacks on Women's Health

Christian author Rebecca Todd Peters released a book this year entitled Trust Women: A Progressive Christian Argument for Reproductive Justice. In the book, she argues that abortion is a moral, ethical solution to a problem pregnancy. She supports legal abortion up until birth.

Although some of the things Peters says about poverty and abortion rates is spot on, the book is filled with inaccuracies. This blog post is the first of a series, in which I'm going to debunk many of her claims.

Peters is very much against pro-life laws requiring doctors to tell women facts about fetal development and abortion's risks. But what really bothers her are laws requiring abortion facilities to perform sonograms. In some states, informed consent or "Women's Right to Know" laws require the abortionist to do an ultrasound and offer the woman a chance to see it.  Peters argues that this is a violation of women's rights. She quotes pro–abortion writer Rick Ungar claiming:
An ultrasound…is not standard practice for determining gestational age. This use of ultrasonography is at odds with the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which is stated that ultrasonography should only be performed when there is a valid medical indication.
He does not cite any source to back up his claim that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists opposes pre-abortion ultrasounds. The claim is wild and inaccurate. Ultrasounds are standard practice in abortion facilities. They make abortion safer.

A major textbook on abortion clearly says this. Dr. Warren Hern is a late-term abortionist who is been in practice for many decades. He wrote the abortion training manual Abortion Practice. The book is intended to train future abortionists. On page 70, Hern says:
Sonographic examination [before abortions] is invaluable for a variety of reasons. Aside from more accurate assessment of fetal age than other methods, it provides information concerning fetal presentation, placental location, multiple gestations, and such unexpected conditions as hydatidiform mole, myomas, uterine structural abnormalities, and extrauterine lesions (e.g. ovarian cysts). Many of these data can affect clinical management in important ways.
While ultrasound is not perfect, it appears to be considerably more accurate for determining fetal age than are menstrual dates and even a careful examination by an experienced physician.
A major study also shows that the majority of abortion centers use ultrasound. According to a study in the medical journal Contraception, 99% of Planned Parenthood facilities perform ultrasounds before abortion – regardless of the law.

What is so onerous, then, about ultrasounds? If abortion facilities already do them anyway, why do they oppose these laws so strenuously? The simple answer is that they don't want to show the ultrasound to the woman, out of fear that she will change her mind.

For the Supreme Court case Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, an affidavit was submitted highlighting the stories of 3,348 women who had abortions. All of these women were harmed emotionally or physically by their abortions, and many of them wrote about abortion clinic workers who lied or withheld information. Several wrote about how abortion workers refused to show them the ultrasound. One woman said:
They [abortion workers] don’t go into specific detail. I think that would scare you and you would back out. I also was not allowed to see the screen during the ultrasound and they did not share the results with me. The pain I endured from the time the dilation began and then through the actual procedure was alarming and VERY unexpected.
Another said:
I was not informed of the procedure, what it really involved and I wanted to see a sonogram and was refused. I was told I would bleed like a period but it was much, much more than that, I experienced a lot of cramping and was very depressed afterwards.
Another woman wrote in an online magazine that she was denied a chance to see an ultrasound:
The day of the abortion I showed up uneasily to the clinic. My boyfriend was there and waited in the waiting room. I went back when I was called into the ultrasound room. The technician started my ultrasound to find out how far along I was. It was January 7, 2006. The worst day of my life. I was seven weeks pregnant. I was experiencing morning sickness. I would later find out my baby had fingers toes a face and a heartbeat. That day I asked through tears to see the ultrasound. I was told no by the technician. I was told the only purpose was to date my pregnancy. I wasn’t allowed to see it. I asked through tears if the baby looked ok, or had a heartbeat. The technician told me she wasn’t allowed to disclose information like that.
Former abortion workers and abortionists have also admitted that they hid ultrasound screens from women. Dr. Joseph Randall, a former abortionist who is now pro-life, says: “They [the women] are never allowed to look at the ultrasound because we knew that if they so much as heard the heartbeat, they wouldn’t want to have an abortion.”

Another abortion worker, when asked about ultrasounds, said: “We didn’t show it to them. The idea was to keep their anxiety at a lower level.”

A woman denied a chance to see an ultrasound, who is not informed about the development of her baby, can suffer severe emotional trauma when she finds out the truth. One teenager who was not given accurate information at an abortion facility was horrified when she learned how developed her baby was:
In my junior year health class I found out that my baby had developed to the point of looking like a person with arms, legs, and a head. And she could feel pain. That knowledge will haunt me for the rest of my life… I would trade every success and milestone in my life to have her back.
Another woman, who regretted her abortion, says that she would not have aborted had she known the truth:
I know that my “story” would have ended differently had there been a pregnancy center to go to ... I know that I would’ve chosen life for my baby had I seen a sonogram, heard a heartbeat, and had more facts.
Fortunately, crisis pregnancy centers are there for some women. Much-maligned by pro-abortion activists and abortion workers, these centers show women their ultrasounds and tell them the truth.
One woman spoke out about her experience at a crisis pregnancy center:
I went to the sonogram appointment at Burleson Pregnancy Aid Center even though I had already been to Planned Parenthood and thought that abortion was right for me. But when I looked at the sonogram screen, I knew that I had been lied to. What I saw on the screen was not a “piece of tissue” like Planned Parenthood had told me. The tiny flicker of light, a heartbeat, was my child. I was instantly in love.
I would have been lost without the guidance of the Pregnancy Aid Center. Through their programs I learned how to care for my infant daughter. I would not be the person I am today if it hadn’t been for the caring people of the Burleson Pregnancy Aid Center and the experiences I’ve had there. Without them, my daughter would not be alive and I cannot imagine my life without her.
The reason groups like Planned Parenthood rally their pro-choice supporters to fight ultrasound laws is not because ultrasounds are invasive or unnecessary, despite what they tell their followers. Rather, it is because they do not want women to know how developed their babies are. This would lead to fewer women choosing abortion, which would be disastrous for them.

[Today's guest post by Sarah Terzo is part of our paid blogging program.]

Monday, August 13, 2018

Healing after a coerced abortion


Last week, Slate's parenting advice column featured a heartbreaking letter from a woman who had an abortion at the insistence of her boyfriend, only to see the relationship fall apart. 
My partner and I have been together for 2.5 years. We have built a very strong, loving, and committed relationship. My almost 5-year-old daughter has called him daddy, of her own accord, for the past two years. They love each other dearly. We do not live together, but spend most evenings/weekends together as a family. We were not officially engaged, but frequently discussed our two-year plan for work, school, living arrangements, marriage, and eventually a child together.
Four weeks ago, my partner lost his job and filed for unemployment for the first time. This was very difficult for him. I did my best to console him and also assure him that he would find a position soon and could use his time on unemployment to focus on himself, his career goals, and educational goals. Less than one week later I found out I was pregnant, despite birth control. Regardless of our rocky financial situation, I was very happy. I assumed we would both buckle down, save as much as possible, and move in together sooner than we planned. I was already a single mother through my first pregnancy and lived on my own. I know that where there is a will, there is a way. My daughter is thriving, and we live a blessed life despite my being a “broke student.” I understood that our financial situation was precarious, but not something we couldn’t overcome. I have had an excellent career in finance prior to going back to school and am more than confident in my ability to return to work and put my Ph.D. dreams on hold. That would obviously be a huge sacrifice, but one I would certainly make for my unborn child.
At first, we discussed plans in preparation for our new arrival. However, my partner “came clean” a few days later that he did not want to keep our baby. He repeatedly told me it was in everyone’s best interest to abort the child. I was heartbroken. How could killing our baby be in its best interest? We aren’t drug addicts, criminals, or homeless people. We are two able-bodied and educated adults with high ambitions. I told him that if he forced me to abort the child I would not be able to forgive him, and it would be the end of our relationship. He insisted. So, I had an abortion, and two weeks out I feel as if my life is over. I know I need to seek therapy to deal with my grief.
I want to know if I made the right decision in leaving the relationship. We argue constantly, more so me yelling at him. He is trying to be here for me, love me, support me, and I tear him down. I cannot stop being angry with him. I cannot stop feeling that he couldn’t love me or care about our future while simultaneously forcing me to abort the baby I wanted, knowing how I felt. I am the emotional one and he is the logical one by nature, this is fact. Still, I am not sure if my emotions are solely driving my decisions or if they are justified and logical. Was he selfish and wrong to force me to do this? Or did I make a mistake, and should I give him a second chance? When I try to imagine our future (post-abortion), a marriage to him, and eventually a child, it hurts so badly.
The response, by Carvell Wallace, makes some good points. He expresses sympathy for what the letter-writer is going through, tells her that recovery "is not a matter of weeks or months but a matter of years," validates her anger, gently pushes back against her "emotional one versus logical one" characterizations, and advises that "you cannot have a healthy relationship with someone for whom you feel this much seething rage. For that reason alone, it is better for the two of you to be apart." All of that is solid.

But Slate is a pro-choice publication, and that prevents any direct acknowledgment of the problem. Mr. Wallace writes in general terms about the "loss" of the child (I was pleasantly surprised he dared to say "child"), but he doesn't really treat the abortion as a death, let alone a killing. He locates the root of the problem not in the fact that letter-writer's partner pushed her to destroy their offspring, but in the fact that the letter-writer failed to adequately resist. He also frames resistance in terms of standing up for personal values, rather than for the child's life:
However: It doesn’t sound from your letter like your partner “forced” you to have an abortion. It sounds as though you made a decision to have an abortion in order to preserve a relationship in which you were otherwise feeling very happy and hopeful. And quite unfortunately you are finding that the pain of the lost child is making it impossible for you to be happy in that relationship. It is a tragedy in the very purest sense.
I mentioned that your recovery from this will take time, but I also want to talk about how it might take shape. It is a very specific kind of personality challenge to agree to do things in order to please other people, and then to resent those people for making you do those things. This is something you will need to slowly and methodically untangle if you are ever to have a healthy and working relationship, be it with this man whom you love, or with anyone else, including your daughter. There are 12-step programs like CoDA and Al-Anon that address this, and there are books like Codependent No More that do as well. This is also something you should explore deeply and openly with your therapist.
You deserve to follow a path in your life that is in line with your values. And there is no person, and no partner, who should have the power to keep you from that. This experience, though excruciating, can be life-changing. It can, if you let it, force you to examine the underlying issues that helped bring you to this point. You talked about being afraid of losing your partner. But I think what you should be most afraid of losing is any more years of your life spent pleasing people at your expense. You deserve better. My heart is with you.
Abortion coercion comes in many forms. Force doesn't always involve violence or the threat of violence; emotional manipulation is sometimes just as powerful. Mr. Wallace's approach here is victim-blaming. He has relatively little in the way of condemnation for the partner who precipitated the child's death, but wants the letter-writer to embark on a 12-step program to stop being a pushover. And naturally, recommendations for programs actually tailored for post-abortive regret are nowhere to be found in his response, because they are operated almost exclusively by the pro-life community.

How desperately do I wish that the letter-writer had sought advice before the abortion. Now one child is dead, another has lost the man she called her father, and a mother must grieve not only the death of her child, but also her involvement in that death and the loss of a long-term relationship, all at once. That is a tall order.

But hey, empowerment! Women's rights! Abortion is a family value! Right? Pay no attention to the devastation behind the curtain.

What advice to you have for the letter-writer? If you are post-abortive and your partner was coercive, what does your healing look like?

Wednesday, August 8, 2018

We asked, you answered: What are best practices for online debate?


Last week we asked our Facebook followers to give their advice for online debating. Dozens of people responded. Here is a sampling of the answers:

Ask questions:

Kelly F: Ask questions. Whether you get an answer or not, the thought is bouncing around in their minds.

Mary H:  Ask questions of the other party so they have to clarify their position. Usually ends up with me being called names after they realize their argument doesn't hold water, but questions tend to keep it more civil for longer.

Michael C: Ask questions to your opponent. Let them figure it out on their own by asking questions. If they come up with the answer on their own it's more likely to stick.

Be calm and polite:

Emily D: Never, ever resort to ad hominem attacks and always keep an even tone. Back up your arguments with logic, reason, and facts.

Toby E: Discuss the ideas, not the presenters. Be polite. Don't regurgitate fallacies.

Respect the other person:

Andie P: Assume the best intentions from everyone. Argue from reason, not emotion.

Jared N: Clarify terms. I'm amazed at how many people don't know what abortion is. Be utterly merciful. Most people are defending family, friends, or themselves who have had an abortion.

Krista W: Look at things from their point of view too. There's a reason they feel the way they do.

Recognize who you're talking to:

Regina G: Argue to convince the observers, not the opponent.

Jenni C: When someone is not going to listen, not share sources and discuss them like adults, only make insults or name call at all: block them and move on. Do not waste your time. Unfortunately that will be 90% of them but you’ll then be able to reach those willing to listen and open minded to change.

JoAnn S: Only discuss when people are honest and not just baiting and hating.

Melanie S: Other people are watching. You may feel frustrated with the person you are talking to, but you can change someone else's mind.

Or maybe don't bother at all:
Carie C: Don't do it.

Sarah E, Connor C, Christopher F, William A: Don't.

Esa H: Avoid it.

Chris L: Don't debate online.

Matthias A: I don't do it. I post my opinions and tell anyone who wants to argue I'll meet them in real life to discuss over a nice cup of tea.

And other advice:

Jeanette H:  Throw in a bit of humour where appropriate, add smilies. I've got an accent, and have found debating in an international forum that what I think something sounds like tends to come across as something far worse to those from other countries. Smilies can help clarify the tone you're using.

Julie D: Be committed for the long haul...

Alex B: Point out areas of agreement first. For example, I was there when both of my children were born so I totally agree that women sacrifice a lot to carry a pregnancy to term. I agree that women should have equal access to education and careers. I agree that parenting isn’t for everyone.

Monday, August 6, 2018

#Justice4Life Tour Schedule Announced


Attention pro-life advocates in Indiana, Missouri, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, Alaska, and Colorado! Students for Life of America is bringing its #Justice4Life bus tour to your cities this week. #Justice4Life urges U.S. Senators to confirm Justice Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Check out the schedule below (all times local).

TODAY, Monday, August 6

Indianapolis Event—9:45 a.m.
Sen. Joe Donnelly's Office
115 N. Pennsylvania Street
Indianapolis, IN 46204

Terre Haute Event—12:15 p.m.
Vigo County Courthouse
Ohio St. and Hwy 41
Terre Haute, IN

Lafayette Event—3:15 p.m.
Tippecanoe County Courthouse
301 Main St.
Lafayette, IN 47901

TOMORROW, Tuesday, August 7


Springfield Event—10:00 a.m. 
Sen. Claire McCaskill's Office 
324 Park Central W 
Springfield, MO 65806 

The Missouri GOP primary is also taking place August 7. One of the candidates, Austin Petersen, is a pro-life agnostic; his primary opponent, Josh Hawley, is a pro-life Protestant. The winner of that primary will go on to face Sen. McCaskill in the general election.

Wednesday, August 8

Annapolis Event—10:00 a.m. 
Lawyer's Mall
Annapolis, MD 

Columbia Event—10:30 a.m. 
28 N. 8th St.
Columbia, MO 65201 

Jacksonville Event—11:00 a.m. 
Sen. Marco Rubio's Office
300 N Hogan St.
Jacksonville, FL 32202 

Thursday, August 9

St. Louis Event—9:00 a.m.
Sen. Claire McCaskill’s Office
5850 Delmar Blvd. 
St. Louis, MO 63112 

Martinsburg Event—10:30 a.m. 
Sen. Joe Manchin's Office 
217 W. King St.
Martinsburg, WV 25401

Philadelphia Event—11:00 a.m.
Senator Bob Casey Jr.'s Office 
2000 Market Street
Philadelphia, PA 19103

Pittsburgh Event—11:00 a.m. 
Pittsburgh City Hall 
414 Grant St. 
Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Fairbanks Event—11:00 a.m.
516 1st Ave. 
Fairbanks, AK 99701

Denver Event—3:00 p.m. 
200 E. Colfax Ave.
Denver, CO 80203

Friday, August 3, 2018

Non-religious pro-life population grows to 12.8 million

There are 12.8 million non-religious pro-lifers in the United States. That's equal to the population of Illinois! And it's a huge jump from just five years ago, when you may remember that Secular Pro-Life ran a visibility campaign touting 6 million non-religious pro-life Americans.

How did this happen?

First, let's show our work. As of 2017, there were 55.8 million Americans with no religious affiliation. The Pew Research Center Forum on Religion and Public Life reports that among the unaffiliated, 23% say abortion should be illegal in all or most cases. 55.8 million times 0.23 is 12.8 million.

The growth in the secular pro-life population is due to at least three factors:

1. More people are leaving religion. In 2012, there were approximately 46 million Americans who answered religion surveys as atheist, agnostic, or "nothing in particular." That number has continued to rise. As there are more secular people, there are naturally bound to be more pro-life secular people. That would be true even if the percentage of "nones" opposed to abortion remained unchanged. But in fact...

2. More non-religious people are taking a pro-life stance. Back when we ran the "6 million" campaign, we pointed to Gallup polls showing that between 15% and 19% of non-religious Americans were pro-life. We're now up to 23%, a gain of 4 to 8 percentage points. Don't get us wrong: we still have a long way to go. But to make that gain despite extremely limited funds and media attention is definitely something to celebrate. (Want to keep the momentum going? Please donate!

3. Non-religious pro-lifers were previously under-counted. At the time of the "6 million" campaign, the data suggested a true number of between 6.9 and 8.7 million. We rounded down in an abundance of caution because at the time we were a young organization and lacked the know-how to fend off pro-choice P.R. attacks. 

The next time you hear someone equate opposition to abortion with religious dogmatism; the next time a national commentator erases your existence; the next time a group that claims to speak for all secular people advocates for abortion on demand; remember that you have backup. We are 12.8 million strong. The abortion industry ignores us at its peril.

Wednesday, August 1, 2018

The Democratic Party Needs Pro-Lifers

In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade, the Democratic Party has never had less control in Washington D.C. than it does now. Interestingly, the Democratic Party has also never had a more radical position on abortion. The official Democratic Party platform states:
Every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe and legal abortion... We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.
In short, the platform advocates for taxpayer-funded abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. The policy could not be more extreme than that. Democrats for Life of America (DFLA) believes the DNC’s radical position on abortion is largely responsible for the recent decline of the Democratic Party.

In DFLA’s position paper titled, “Open the Big Tent,” they note that 25 state legislatures are currently under complete GOP control, but only six are under complete Democrat control. The DFLA report also notes that the Democrats do not control a single legislative chamber in the South.

However, there is a lone bright spot for southern Democrats. John Bel Edwards, the governor of Louisiana, is a pro-life Democrat who recently signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks gestational age. As DFLA notes, Democrats have completely lost control of the South, but pro-life Democrats like Edwards prove this does not have to be the case. Democrats could win more elections in the South, but they need pro-life candidates to appeal to the South’s pro-life voters. The success of Governor Edwards and the failure of pro-choice Democrats in the rest of the South confirms this. 

Furthermore, the DNC’s position on abortion fails to reflect the views of their own voters. According to the Washington Times, 61 percent of Democrats support limiting legal abortion to the first three months of pregnancy. The New York Times “Abortion Memo” from February notes that only 24 percent of young voters support abortion under all circumstances. And earlier this month, the Washington Post stated Democrats must change to appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose late-term abortion, noting that “armies don’t shrink their way to victory.” 

The DNC party platform is terribly out of touch with American beliefs on abortion, and Democrats have suffered massive losses because of this. If the Democratic Party wants to gain political power, they must appeal to more voters by “opening the big tent” and welcoming pro-life candidates

[Today's guest post by Pat Thomas is part of our paid blogging program.]

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

Link collection: Evidence that pro-life laws mean fewer unplanned pregnancies.

Pro-life laws decrease abortion in two ways. The direct and more obvious way is by decreasing the number of pregnant women who get abortions. A wide body of research (part 1, part 2) demonstrates that when abortion is restricted abortion rates go down and birth rates go up.

But pro-life laws also decrease abortion in an indirect way: by decreasing unintended pregnancies. The idea is that people perceive abortion as an insurance policy. As Donahue & Levitt explain:
The decline in births is far less than the number of abortions, suggesting that the number of conceptions increased substantially—an example of insurance leading to moral hazard. The insurance that abortion provides against unwanted pregnancy induces more sexual conduct or diminished protections against pregnancy in a way that substantially increases the number of pregnancies.
If people know that in the event of unplanned pregnancy they can always get abortions, they're more likely to engage in risky sex.

There's quite a lot of research to suggest this is true. Liberalized abortion policy has been associated with increased STD rates, decreased use of effective contraception, and the aforementioned increase in unintended pregnancies. Below, in chronological order, are studies that found these and other similar results.

***

"We find that Medicaid funding restrictions are associated with a reduction in both the number of abortions and pregnancies."
The Effect of Medicaid Abortion Funding Restrictions on Abortions, Pregnancies, and Births, National Bureau of Economic Research, March 1995

"In particular, the results suggest that residents in counties with longer travel distances to the nearest abortion provider have lower abortion rates and lower pregnancy rates."
The impact of provider availability on abortion demand, Contemporary Economic Policy, April 1996

"We find that countries which changed from very restrictive to liberal abortion laws experienced a large reduction in births, highlighting the insurance value. Changes from modest restrictions to abortion available upon request, however, led to no such change in births despite large increases in abortions, indicating that pregnancies rose as well."
Abortion as Insurance, National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2002

"We find that gonorrhea and syphilis incidences are significantly and positively correlated with abortion legalization. Further, we find a divergence in STD rates among early legalizing states and late legalizing states starting in 1970 and a subsequent convergence after the Roe v. Wade decision, indicating that the relation between STDs and abortion is casual."
The effect of abortion legalization on sexual behavior: evidence from sexually transmitted diseases. The Journal of Legal Studies, June 2003

"Parental involvement laws resulted in fewer abortions for minors resulting from fewer pregnancies; there is no statistically significant impact on births. The reduction in pregnancy seems to be attributable to increased use of contraception rather than a reduction in sexual activity."
Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. Journal of Health Economics, September 2003

"Legalization itself is found to reduce the number of unwanted births. Beyond that, imposing moderate abortion restrictions do not appear to significantly increase unwanted births; abortions and pregnancies decline instead."
Abortion Policy and the Economics of Fertility, Society, May 2004

"First, the availability of abortion providers has the expected effect of reducing the supply of infants relinquished, particularly relative to the demand for abortion. Second, abortion law has an unexpected negative effect. This suggests that as abortion laws become more restrictive the total number of unwanted births may decrease."
The supply of infants relinquished for adoption: Did access to abortion make a difference? Economic Inquiry, July 2007

"Our results indicate that the enactment of parental involvement laws significantly reduces risky sexual activity among teenage girls."
Abortion Access and Risky Sex Among Teens: Parental Involvement Laws and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2008

"Taken together the empirical results are consistent with the hypothesis that women's sexual behavior is influenced by the direct and indirect cost of obtaining an abortion."
Abortion costs, sexual behavior, and pregnancy rates, The Social Science Jounral, March 2008

"We find restrictions on abortion availability (through abortion legislation mandating parental consent or notification) induce women to utilize birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies, while pro-choice sentiments in the legislature may have the opposite effect."
Variation in Pill Use: Do Abortion Laws Matter? International Journal of Business and Social Science, September 2011

"A state’s antiabortion attitudes, which likely contribute to the enactment of restrictive abortion laws in a state, are a major factor in inducing greater use of highly effective contraceptive methods by adult women at-risk of an unintended pregnancy."
Restrictive abortion laws, antiabortion attitudes and women’s contraceptive use, Social Science Research, January 2012

"While county‐level access to emergency contraception was unrelated to trends in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and abortions before access changed, access afterwards led to a statistically significant increase in STD rates (gonorrhea rates), both overall and for females. We do not find, however, an impact of pharmacy access on abortion or birth rates."
The effects of increased access to emergency contraception on sexually transmitted disease and abortion rates, Economic Inquiry, December 2012 (Note: This study was not examining abortion policy as related to pregnancy. It is a similar study examining how the availability of emergency conctraception was associated with increases in STDs. Like with abortion, emergency contraception may decrease the perceived risk of sex and so increase the instances of less protected sex.)

"Fewer abortion providers increase the likelihood of women using the pill."
Utilization of oral contraception: The impact of direct and indirect restrictions on access to abortion, The Social Science Journal, March 2014

"We find that providing individuals with over‐the‐counter access to EBC leads to increase STD rates and has no effect on abortion rates."
Access to Emergency Contraception and its Impact on Fertility and Sexual Behavior, Health Economics, February 2015 (Note: Like the Economic INquiry study above, this study is not examining abortion policy and pregnancy, but it demonstrates a similar phenomenon wherein people make riskier sexual decisions when they have an 'insurance' policy available such as emergency contraception.),

"Our findings reveal that restrictions on abortion funding have a significant and positive impact on a woman’s decision to use the pill."
The Role of Restrictive Abortion Legislation in Explaining Variation in Oral Contraceptive Use, Clinics in Mother and Child Health, October 2015

"Similarly, women in states characterized by high abortion hostility (i.e., states with four or more types of restrictive policies in place) were more likely to use highly effective [contraceptive] methods than were women in states with less hostility."
State Abortion Context and U.S. Women's Contraceptive Choices, 1995–2010, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, June 2015


Monday, July 30, 2018

Last chance: send comments to HHS on the Protect Life Rule


Tomorrow is the deadline to submit your comments to the Department of Health & Human Services in support of the Protect Life Rule. This regulation limits the ability of abortion businesses to obtain government subsidies through the Title X program. Title X is intended to fund contraception, not abortion. The Protect Life Rule will prioritize funding for federally qualified health centers and other community clinics that provide legitimate healthcare, including contraceptives, without killing anybody.

You can read the proposed rule here and submit your supportive comment here. I wrote:
I strongly support the proposed rule. For too long, Title X funds have subsidized abortion vendors. The provision of taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood—which has repeatedly defrauded Medicaid and failed to report the sexual abuse of children, among other scandals—is especially troubling. Federally qualified health centers and other community clinics are far more deserving recipients of Title X funds, and are fully capable of meeting women's nonviolent family planning needs.
Abortion lobbyists have predictably mischaracterized the Protect Life Rule as a "gag rule" that censors doctors. That's nonsense. Abortionists remain welcome to say whatever they like. And the government remains free to direct its tax revenue to deserving healthcare providers that do not destroy innocent human lives.

The Protect Life Rule is not even particularly novel. A similar rule was briefly put in place by the Reagan administration (but soon reversed by the abortion-friendly Clinton administration). Abortion industry groups brought a legal challenge at the time, which the Supreme Court rejected, holding that the funding limitation did not run afoul of the First Amendment; rather, the government "has merely chosen to fund one activity [family planning] to the exclusion of the other [abortion]."

Planned Parenthood would stand to lose, and nonviolent clinics would stand to gain, $60 million a year when the Protect Life Rule is enacted. While we'd still have a long way to go in removing Planned Parenthood's total government subsidy of approximately $500 million a year, this is a substantial first step. Submit your comment today!