The pro-life movement may have lost the most recent battle-- the reelection of President Barack Obama-- but they are winning the war of hearts and minds.
So says Michael J. New, professor of political science, frequent contributor to conservative publications, and data-driven critic of studies that support pro-choice policy positions:
First, he notes that the number of abortions performed annually (NB: the ones of which we are aware) have declined "from 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2008." This could be for any number of reasons, but Professor New attributes it "partly to the state level pro-life laws we have passed." Professor New is admirably open in stating that the recent rash of state laws that throw obstacles into the path of women considering abortion are just that-- obstacles that make it difficult for women to have abortions. He has conducted studies that purport a correlation between these additional restrictions and state-level abortion rates.
One objection to this line of argument, which Professor New himself immediately raises, is that these laws don't explain why "the abortion rate has fallen in every state-- even deep blue states that have not passed any pro-life laws since 1990."
Does this undercut his primary argument? No, states Professor New. Why? The national drop in abortion rates "is mostly because hearts and minds are changing."
Did you catch that? This is classic circular logic:
Nonetheless, Professor New concludes that "[o]ur efforts have made a difference over the past 20 years." Certainly, he makes some interesting assertions about American cultural views that are worth examining, but his own column does not live up to his normally high empirical standards. He is just making assertions.
Links:
Column by Michael J. New in First Things (November 9, 2012): An Open Letter to Pro-Lifers
Column by Michael J. New in the National Review Online, reviewing 2012 ballot measures on life issues (with a title that contains an unintended double entendre?) (November 7, 2012): Life Fares Well on the Ballot in 2012
For an example of Dr. New's modus operandi, see this op-ed piece in LifeNews.com, which questions the methodology and analysis of the "St. Louis" study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology (that demonstrates a strong correlation between access to free effective contraceptives and lower unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates)(October 10, 2012): Misleading Study Claims Obamacare, Birth Control Cuts Abortions
So says Michael J. New, professor of political science, frequent contributor to conservative publications, and data-driven critic of studies that support pro-choice policy positions:
I want to encourage you not to despair. We continue to make good progress. In fact, I would argue that our biggest successes during the past twenty years have neither been political nor legislative. Our biggest success story is that we have succeeded in changing the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.What is his evidence?
First, he notes that the number of abortions performed annually (NB: the ones of which we are aware) have declined "from 1.6 million in 1990 to 1.2 million in 2008." This could be for any number of reasons, but Professor New attributes it "partly to the state level pro-life laws we have passed." Professor New is admirably open in stating that the recent rash of state laws that throw obstacles into the path of women considering abortion are just that-- obstacles that make it difficult for women to have abortions. He has conducted studies that purport a correlation between these additional restrictions and state-level abortion rates.
One objection to this line of argument, which Professor New himself immediately raises, is that these laws don't explain why "the abortion rate has fallen in every state-- even deep blue states that have not passed any pro-life laws since 1990."
Does this undercut his primary argument? No, states Professor New. Why? The national drop in abortion rates "is mostly because hearts and minds are changing."
Did you catch that? This is classic circular logic:
- Assertion: American culture is becoming more pro-life.
- Evidence: The abortion rate has dropped nationally from 1990 to 2008.
- Explanation for the evidence: American culture is becoming more pro-life.
- Evidence that American culture is becoming more pro-life: The abortion rate has dropped nationally...
- And so on.
Professor New also cites "increasingly smart and savvy . . . outreach efforts":
There are too many good pro-life outreach efforts for me to name in this letter. However, I think that the Silent No More campaign has done a great job communicating the regret of many post-abortive women. The 40 Days for Life campaign has inspired thousands of people to become more active in their pro-life work. The annual Students for Life of America (SFLA) conference during the March for Life weekend routinely attracts thousands of college students—making this the largest pro-life conference in the country. Finally the videos produced by LiveAction Films have done a great job exposing unethical and illegal activities at Planned Parenthood facilities across the country.
While this does show that the pro-life movement is organized and active, it does not indicate whether all of that work has actually affected a) the overall American view of abortion or b) the abortion rate. Public opinion polls, to cite empirical evidence, do not tell a story of widespread shifting of American opinion against abortion. Groups like Live Action, while generating a lot of publicity, are not necessarily doing more than preaching to the converted.
Nonetheless, Professor New concludes that "[o]ur efforts have made a difference over the past 20 years." Certainly, he makes some interesting assertions about American cultural views that are worth examining, but his own column does not live up to his normally high empirical standards. He is just making assertions.
Links:
Column by Michael J. New in First Things (November 9, 2012): An Open Letter to Pro-Lifers
Column by Michael J. New in the National Review Online, reviewing 2012 ballot measures on life issues (with a title that contains an unintended double entendre?) (November 7, 2012): Life Fares Well on the Ballot in 2012
For an example of Dr. New's modus operandi, see this op-ed piece in LifeNews.com, which questions the methodology and analysis of the "St. Louis" study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology (that demonstrates a strong correlation between access to free effective contraceptives and lower unplanned pregnancy and abortion rates)(October 10, 2012): Misleading Study Claims Obamacare, Birth Control Cuts Abortions
Comments