Have Bush's policies produced more abortions?

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
Exodor
Posts: 17211
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Have Bush's policies produced more abortions?

Post by Exodor »

One conservative blogger seems to think so:
Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4% decline during the 1990s. This was an average decrease of 1.7% per year, mostly during the latter part of the decade. (This data comes from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies).

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.

I found three states that have posted multi-year statistics through 2003, and abortion rates have risen in all three: Kentucky's increased by 3.2% from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3% from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002. I found 13 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3% average decrease).

Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

First, two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Second, half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of the 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001, and in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Third, women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency - with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million - abortion increases.

The U.S. Catholic Bishops warned of this likely outcome if support for families with children was cut back

Interesting.
Dirt
Posts: 11025
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:17 am

Post by Dirt »

It's sociological, not Presidential.
User avatar
Eco-Logic
Posts: 990
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 11:43 am

Post by Eco-Logic »

What the hell will be blamed on him next?
User avatar
$iljanus
Forum Moderator
Posts: 13689
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:46 pm
Location: New England...or under your bed

Post by $iljanus »

Eco-Logic wrote:What the hell will be blamed on him next?

Headline from the Wisconsin Star Ledger

"LOCAL COW PRODUCES SPOILED MILK! BUSH CAMPAIGN VISIT BLAMED!"
User avatar
Exodor
Posts: 17211
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:10 pm
Location: Portland, OR

Post by Exodor »

Eco-Logic wrote:What the hell will be blamed on him next?
Yeah, those damn conservative Christian bloggers are always dumping on Bush, aren't they?

:roll:
User avatar
SuperHiro
Posts: 6877
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by SuperHiro »

Andrew Sullivan brought it up as well, but he didn't point any figures, just as a curious link.

I do find it really ironic though. But for an administration that is really pushing abstinence education and touts the protection of the unborn, this can't look good. I know they have no control over it... but still.
Mookee
Posts: 1175
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:28 pm

Post by Mookee »

The socio-economic status of a woman does not have any bearing on her choice to abort. That's ludicrous. Don't allow issues like economics and social issues to intertwine. That'd be thinking critically about complex issues and that's fucking boring. BLACK AND WHITE. CLEAR VISION FOR THE FUTURE, I SAY!

;)


I can't say I agree with the author and would say outright that "GWB caused more abortions". But, the point remains that rate of abortion and the overall socio-economic well-being of the populace are most likely connected.

Whether Bush caused a general downturn in that well-being could be debated ad nauseum, I suppose.
It's sociological, not Presidential.
Those two things are not mutually exclusive.
Post Reply