Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Abortions Hit Lowest Number Since 1976
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 17, 2008; Page A01
The number of abortions performed in the United States dropped to 1.2 million in 2005 -- the lowest level since 1976, according to a new report.
The number of abortions fell at least in part because the proportion of women ending their pregnancies with an abortion dropped 9 percent between 2000 and 2005, hitting the lowest level since 1975, according to a nationwide survey.
At the same time, the long decline in the number of abortion providers appears to be stabilizing, partly a result of the availability of the French abortion pill RU-486, the report found, because some physicians who do not perform surgical abortions provide it to their patients.
The report did not identify reasons for the drop in abortions, but the researchers said it could be caused by a combination of factors....
"It could be more women using contraception and not having as many unintended pregnancies. It could be more restrictions on abortions making it more difficult for women to obtain abortion services. It could be a combination of these and other dynamics," said Rachel K. Jones of the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive-health research organization, which published the report in the March issue of the journal Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health.
What's the increase in teenage pregnancies?
From your link:
So, while it's good that abortion numbers are down... I think if teenage pregnancies and the like are up, not such a good thing.
Notice the dancing around for reasons?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/16/AR2008011603624.html
Summary of Results
Evaluation of these 11 programs showed few short-term benefits and no lasting, positive impact. A few programs showed mild success at improving attitudes and intentions to abstain. No program was able to demonstrate a positive impact on sexual behavior over time. A description follows of short- and long-term impacts, by indicator.
*snip*
Conclusion
Abstinence-only programs show little evidence of sustained (long-term) impact on attitudes and intentions. Worse, they show some negative impacts on youth's willingness to use contraception, including condoms, to prevent negative sexual health outcomes related to sexual intercourse. Importantly, only in one state did any program demonstrate short-term success in delaying the initiation of sex; none of these programs demonstrates evidence of long-term success in delaying sexual initiation among youth exposed to the programs or any evidence of success in reducing other sexual risk-taking behaviors among participants.
You wish.
There has not been a huge upswing in illegal/unsafe abortions.
The reason there are fewer abortions is because we have by and large stopped promoting them, and started promoting things like abstinence and adoption, and birth control by both parties.
But mostly abstinence. Sad but true. Values are making a comeback.
Kids today realize what the Great minds of the usmb still wont admit ...
ABORTION IS MURDER... you were wrong ... oh well only a couple million dead children thanks to your ignorance...
There was an investigator on cspan a while ago who suggested the reason crime and abortion were down was because of RoevWade. The point being the problem was not able to replicate itself. I wonder what an evolutionary biologist (eb) would say about this, I have been reading Trivers', 'natural selection and social theory.' Also interesting is when a certain level of affluence is reached people have less children because their investment tends to rise, another aspect of EB. We sometimes think it is values or some other piece that changes but maybe we are looking or hoping, for the wrong reasons.
There was an investigator on cspan a while ago who suggested the reason crime and abortion were down was because of RoevWade. The point being the problem was not able to replicate itself. I wonder what an evolutionary biologist (eb) would say about this, I have been reading Trivers', 'natural selection and social theory.' Also interesting is when a certain level of affluence is reached people have less children because their investment tends to rise, another aspect of EB. We sometimes think it is values or some other piece that changes but maybe we are looking or hoping, for the wrong reasons.
Abortion to me is a gruesome act, but it's hard to get around the fact that many abortions are sought by low-income folks from whom much crime springs. Maybe there is a connection. But as you note, there's an effect on the higher end, too, with "rich girl" abortions happening.
Be careful of wading too far into Trivers' work. You could end up a racist like me!
