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

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...
3 comments
Read more

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, ...
Post a Comment
Read more