Skip to main content

Do abortion regulations lower the number of abortions?


Why do states enact ever more regulations under the conceit that they assist pregnant women in making truly 'informed' decisions about whether to have an abortion? Do they truly wish women to make more informed decisions, or is it something else? 

Scholar and professor Michael New, who generally produced scholarship and writes opinion pieces that favor pro-life views, says that it is something else, and that that is a good thing. 

If a gaffe is telling the truth, then this is a gaffe, except that the professor, at the Values Voter Summit, stated the obvious: Many regulations of the abortion process, ostensibly intended to assist with 'informed consent,' are really procedural obstacles designed to make getting an abortion more difficult. Mother Jones critiques the Professor New's remarks and has streaming audio of him.

Professor New established in a journal article that the number of known/reported abortions seems to go down with additional procedural regulation of abortions. He is, I think, admirably equivocal about whether this actually means the absolute number of abortions go down (or, e.g., women go to other states or obtain unreported abortions).

Elizabeth Nash, of the Guttmacher Institute, make a great point

"None of these restrictions reduces the need for abortion," Nash said. "This is all about abortion and has nothing to do with reducing unintended pregnancy."

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The irony of the inquiry into Dr. Halappanavar's death

The Associated Press (via  The Washington Post ) reports that the composition of the panel that is investigating Dr. Savita Halappanavar's death in Ireland has changed: Prime Minister Enda Kenny told lawmakers he hoped the move — barely 24 hours after Ireland unveiled the seven-member panel — would allow the woman’s widower to support the probe into why Savita Halappanavar, a 31-year-old Indian dentist, died Oct. 28 while hospitalized in Galway.   Kenny’s U-turn came hours after her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said he would refuse to talk to the investigators and would not consent to their viewing his wife’s medical records because three of the Galway hospital’s senior doctors had been appointed as investigators. Kenny said that the three doctors would be replaced by other officials “who have no connection at all with University Hospital Galway. In that sense the investigation will be completely and utterly independent.”   This makes sense. Why conduct an inquiry at all

Breast-feeding as an abortifacient?

I came across this citation while reading a William  Saletan column, which, if I can decipher the jargon, indicates that ovulation may still occur during the postpartum breast-feeding stage. Does this suggest that, during this stage, a woman may have a fertilized egg that does not implant due to breast-feeding? This would place breast-feeding as an abortifacient practice in line with other methods of contraceptive unacceptable to pro-lifers. Saletan's earlier column does a nice job of capturing the scientific uncertainty over what happens with eggs and implantation with emergency contraception (like Plan B).