Pro-abortion Chron cites bogus numbers from pro-abortion group
by Owen Courrèges · 10/17/2007 8:21 amI know what you’re thinking; what else is new? The Chronicle, a longtime contributor and support of Planned Parenthood, has penned an editorial based entirely on a study performed by an abortion rights group:
Abortion has been a fractious and polarizing issue in this country for decades, with little common ground between opposing, fiercely held positions. Now a new, comprehensive study — the largest ever on the global incidence of abortion — lays out in stark terms that it makes no difference whether the procedure is legal or even safe: women in every society seek abortions to end unwanted pregnancies.
In other words, outlawing abortion does not deter women from seeking it. The conclusions to be drawn here are that the best way to decrease abortion is to make contraception far more readily available than it currently is.
The study, a collaboration between the World Health Organization and the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive rights group, examined abortion trends from 1995 to 2003. Researchers found that while abortions have declined overall, the rates are roughly equal in developed and developing nations, with women just as likely to seek abortions in countries where it is outlawed as in countries where it is legal. The enormous difference lies in the health risks involved where abortions are obtained illicitly.
For the record, the Guttmacher Institute is named for a former president of Planned Parenthood, and works closely with that organization.
So, now let’s see the opposing view…
Steven W. Mosher, president of the Population Research Institute has attacked the global abortion estimates of the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute as “simply bogus.”
The Guttmacher Institute, which Mosher describes as the “research arm of Planned Parenthood,” has published a report claiming a reduction in global abortions. It estimates worldwide abortion statistics to have declined from about 46 million in 1995 to under 42 million in 2003. It attributes this decline to an increase in countries that legalize abortion and more access to contraceptives.
Mosher criticized these estimates: “In actual fact, neither Guttmacher nor anyone else knows how many abortions have been performed worldwide in this year or any other year.” He noted that abortion statistics were only reliable in a few developed countries. In other countries, he claimed, these numbers are “at best educated guesses.” Mosher said any decline is not necessarily due to contraceptive access but rather due to government sterilization programs, especially in China and Vietnam. Some of these campaigns are known to be coercive.
In the report Dr. Sharon Camp, president and CEO of the Alan Guttmacher Institute, argued for legalizing abortion: “…we know that the crucial first step in making abortion safer is to legalize the procedure, ensuring that it is performed by skilled providers under the best possible conditions. It’s high time for policymakers worldwide to renew their commitment to women’s health by addressing these crucial issues.”
To which Mosher responded: “Legalized abortion is never “safe” for the baby being aborted, of course. Neither is there any reason to assume that the legalization of abortion will instantly bring medical facilities up-to-date and start money pouring into rural clinics. Abortion, legal or not, is an invasive medical procedure with the potential for many complications and health risks.”
Mosher also reported statistical manipulations in arguments for legalizing abortion. In Columbia, abortion advocates claimed anywhere from 200,000 to 400,000 illegal abortions took place annually. According to Mosher, after Columbia’s legalization of abortion the Columbian Vice-Minister of Health reported only fifty abortions in government clinics over the following year.
He accused abortion legalization advocates of “deliberately exaggerating the magnitude of the problem in order to create a ‘health crisis’ to justify legalizing abortion-on-demand.”
Mosher’s an ideologue himself, but he has a point here. The Guttmacher Institute could simply use the high end of unreliable “estimates,” and twist the results to whatever outcome they desired. There’s no good reason to have faith in this “study,” unless you already have faith in its assumptions.
As for me, I don’t buy it. Looking at this from a clinical economic perspective (which I admit is difficult), the fact is that making abortion illegal increases the cost of abortion. It’s more expensive to get one, and penalties attach if what you have done is discovered. On the other hand, if abortion is legal, it’s less expensive and the mother doesn’t risk jail time for procuring one.
Now, it might be that there’s a fairly inelastic demand curve for abortion because of the stress that underlies the decision to have an abortion, but it’s also true that many abortions are done for convenience or are a tough call, or perhaps even the woman deciding happens to be extremely law-abiding. In other words, there will be situations where abortion being legal or illegal will be the deciding factor.
Bottom line? If abortion is illegal, you will see fewer abortions. It’s simple logic; the law can be a hurdle to abortion, and some abortions won’t make it over that hurdle. We can argue about the extent of the reduction, but it flies in the face of reason to argue that no reduction occurs. This is why the Guttmacher Institute resorted to bogus figures to make the contrary case.
Filed Under Uncategorized · · · · 
Print This Post
··
Comments
21 Responses to “Pro-abortion Chron cites bogus numbers from pro-abortion group”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...
Too many use abortion as after-the-fact birth control rather than taking responsibility for before-the-fact birth control, or for that matter, self control.
Isn’t it standard practice on both sides to use someone favorable to your side of an argument when you are quoting studies? Don’t you think a conservative trying to prove a point would quote the Heritage Foundation before Moveon.org?
Sure. But I wouldn’t claim — as the Chronicle editorial board does — that we’re “neither liberal nor conservative.”
gadboy,
Matt’s right — the Chron continually feins objectivity, and claims to be moderate in its editorial stances.
I’d also note that the Guttmacher study has a much higher hurdle to clear than most studies insofar as it flies in the face of logic for the reasons I described above. They would have you believe that making an act illegal has little to no influence on the incidence of said act. Even if you’re pro-abortion like the Chronicle, you should be skeptical of this claim.
I’ll agree with that. It’s hard to find common ground between one group that thinks its perfectly “humane” to rip apart living human beings limb from limb and another group that finds the practice abhorrent.
If a person chooses to have a back-alley, illegal, “unsafe” abortion, then they risk the consequences (infection, hemorrhage, etc). Why should we legalize such an inhumane practice because someone may choose to take that sort of risk?
jimb,
The idea is that if we want to save lives, we need to keep abortion legal to stop back-alley abortions from occurring because the same number of abortions will occur either way.
However, this requires you to believe that making abortion safe and easily available doesn’t itself encourage abortion when compared with a system of dangerous, back-alley abortions (or virtually none at all, depending on enforcement). That’s my problem — they say that women are JUST as willing to have dangerous back-alley abortions as they are legal abortions. That doesn’t sound likely to me.
NRLC has a good article on the FUD surrounding “back alley abortions” using Planned Parenthood and CDC’s own stats:
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/facts/responseargument4.html
It is not beyond the realm of possibility that some day the pro-choice folks will rue the day they were no longer satisfied with the legal exceptions–rape, incest, life of the mother–to the prohibition of abortion. Thus began the drum beat for abortion on demand. ‘Tis said be careful what you wish for; the backlash–however long delayed–can be worse than ever imagined.
The whole thing makes me so sick I want to vomit. It is beyond me to understand how you can see that small life growing inside you as a thing that you can just remove like a tumor. God help us!
I will be the first to admit I am not impartial!! I will NEVER lie to you and try to say I am impartial. I don’t think it’s right of Planned Parenthood to try to say they are impartial when they do studies and things like this. HELLO! If you provide a service is it a good idea to admit things that would slow down your sales??
Here’s a question (I’m too lazy to research so if anyone knows can they please answer!): How much does it cost to get an abortion? Who pays for them? If it’s truly a surgery type thing it seems like it would be rather expensive. Does insurance cover them? How do these people who are so desperate they would perform back alley abortions (evidently lower class people who can’t afford babies or whatever the reason is supposed to be) pay for them? Is it one of those things that you can qualify for if you make less than a certain amount of money, like welfare or food stamps? Pardon an ignorant almost 22 year old asking some questions that are probably answers everyone knows.
Meglet, dear young lady, I’m 66 and don’t know the answers to your questions either. I’m just sure that in the case of the “poor”, Medicaid pays the tab. Meaning we all pay the tab.
My mother-in-law gave birth to a son, and it took several years before it was confirmed that he was severely mentally retarded (symptoms didn’t show right away). By that time, she was pregnant with son number 2, who only acts retarded sometimes. Before the time it was determined that #2 was developmentally normal, she was pregnant with #3 - my husband, who has been her right hand. DH helps her with everything, and has been the only son to give her grandchildren. #2 is virtually worthless as far as support; actually, he has been a disappointment in more than one way. She loves him, but doesn’t count on him for anything important.
She confided in me some time ago that if abortion had been legal, she would have aborted my husband.
Just think of where she’d be if abortion had been legal…
Just another reason the Chron continues to loose circ. They are a one pony horse show picking and choosing which veiws and stories they print and support regardless of the facts. Didn’t used to be that way, but since Hearst sent a bunch of henchmen from the far north and the far west in here to run the paper….and since they no longer have competition from another major newspaper in town…they thumb their noses at anything that does not fit their liberal agenda. If they were a stock-owned company, their stock would like the New York Times stock. That thought probably thrills them….just to be compared to the NYT.
#10 In 1983,while unmarried and not wanting to become married, I checked out the cost of an abortion. Back then the procedure in a reputal clinic cost approx. $200. Thank God I didn’t go through with it, it would have been the biggest mistake of my life and I would have regetted it daily - FOREVER. The child I chose to have has been the greatest joy in my life and a magnificient contribution to this world. Raising a child alone is not easy, but it can be done and in my mind, there are other alternatives which do not include abortion.
Elizabeth:
Bless you!
Yours truly,
God
Kill terrorists.
Kill murderers on death row.
Not babies.
One of the songs I’ve been listening to contains these lyrics:
#7 - I know the “reasoning” of these people, I just think it is insane to justify the killing of millions of children because a few women may die due to risky, illegal, medical procedures when they have another choice or fifteen…
Bless you Elizabeth (#14) for making the hard but right choice and traveling the difficult and at times lonely road. Great are the rewards of your efforts.
“They would have you believe that making an act illegal has little to no influence on the incidence of said act. Even if you’re pro-abortion like the Chronicle, you should be skeptical of this claim.”
After all, look at how successful making marijuana illegal has been at eliminating pot smoking! And how passing laws has totally ended red light running!
Yup, don’t like something, pass a law against it. That’ll fix EVERYTHING, huh?
That’s ‘convicted’ murderers, fasternu. Remember Clarence Lee Brandley.