"!Harry Hope!" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:iuk3r09ua2c18i8trs2k4b3nm3um5rsu6v@4ax.com...

http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?3628

Abortions high with Republicans in office

By Josh Steichmann

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2004


Why do Republicans want more abortions?

Clearly, they say otherwise.

President George W. Bush has repeatedly proclaimed his desire to
cultivate a "culture of life," and the recent flame-up over Arlen
Specter's potential nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee was
over his perceived lack of anti-abortion conviction.

Certainly the "values vote" analysis has been inescapable after the
election, and one of those major values is an opposition to legalized
abortion.

The Republicans control the executive office and both legislative
offices.

You can even argue they control the judiciary.

Yet they have managed to reverse a long-term trend of decreasing
abortion rates, abortion rates that have been declining since 1990,
with most of the decline occurring under the Clinton administration.

Abortion rates for 2003, the last available public data, have risen in
the three states where the data is available.

In Pennsylvania, rates have increased by 1.9 percent since 1999.

In Kentucky, they have increased by 3.2 percent since 2000.

And in Michigan, they have increased by a whopping 11.3 percent.

In 13 other states where multi-year data is available, eight have had
an average increase of 14.6 percent, and five have had an average 4.3
percent decline.

Still, this means roughly 52,000 more abortions in 2002 than if the
trend of declining rates had continued.

Why have the trends reversed themselves, and why do people who
consider themselves pro-life support this trend?

For the first question, it's handy to look at the causes for abortion,
and the causes of the decrease in abortion that took place over the
'90s.

According to a 1988 study conducted by Torres and Forrest, the reason
given for nearly 66 percent of abortions by the mother was that they
could not afford to have the child.

In terms of real effects, the increase in unemployment under Bush has
no doubt influenced these statistics, especially in states like
Michigan that have been hit disproportionately hard by the recession.

Add to this the effects of the tax cut, which has slashed revenues
available for social services, especially through a reduction in
federal money provided to the states for things like Medicare and
unemployment assistance.

These critical social services that have been underfunded by the
federal and state governments mean that many women who might have been
able to afford having a child in the '90s now simply cannot do so.

By favoring tax cuts that benefit the rich at the expense of social
services, Republicans have increased the number of abortions.

The other major factor is the one that had the most impact in creating
the decrease: improved access to contraceptives.

According to a 2003 study by Darroch, Jones and Henshaw, roughly 40
percent of the decrease in abortions since 1990 has been due to the
introduction of emergency contraceptives such as the "morning after
pill," which prevents an egg from implanting in the uterine lining.

This pill has been blocked from over-the-counter sale by Dr. Steven
Galson, acting drug chief of the Food & Drug Administration, citing
concerns that it was unsafe for teens, despite having a lower
mortality incidence in adolescents than actual pregnancy.

Conservatives welcomed this decision as well, despite the fact that it
will likely lead to more abortions.

So why do conservatives favor more abortions?

The methods that have been proven to decrease the incidence of
abortion here and around the world, such as increased social services,
increased sex education and increased access to contraceptives, are
routinely opposed by conservatives who seek to have an ideological
victory rather than a practical one.

Even their stated goal, the criminalization of abortion, has not been
shown to have a significant effect on the practice, with countries
that outlaw abortions only having a 3 percent lower incidence (though
the incidence of death is nearly three times as great, and the
incidence of complication and lasting injury is nearly eleven times as
great).

Why do they keep clinging to causes proven ineffective?

One possibility could be that since they know that so many of their
constituency opposes abortion that they have no incentive to actually
decrease the numbers.

In fact, higher numbers can be an effective mobilization tool.

Or they could simply be so blinded by their absolute belief in the
evil of abortion that they are unable to work pro-actively to decrease
its occurrence.

If so, this is another example of "faith based" communities perversely
pursuing goals that hurt their own interests.

Either way, it is time for those truly opposed to abortions to stop
opposing their legality and their safety, and to rather work on making
them as rare as possible.

And that doesn't mean criminalizing them, but rather giving up your
tax cuts and deficit spending in order to provide better for all
Americans, especially those most at risk.

_________________________________________________________

Harry

1. Don't cite a student newpaper as a credible source.

2. It appears that 6 years after BJ's scandal made teens and twenties

BJs aren't sex, they've moved on to thinking coitus isn't anything to

about either.

Have a nice day,
Ken

"!Harry Hope!" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:iuk3r09ua2c18i8trs2k4b3nm3um5rsu6v@4ax.com...

http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?3628

Abortions high with Republicans in office

By Josh Steichmann

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2004


Why do Republicans want more abortions?

Clearly, they say otherwise.

President George W. Bush has repeatedly proclaimed his desire to
cultivate a "culture of life," and the recent flame-up over Arlen
Specter's potential nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee was
over his perceived lack of anti-abortion conviction.

Certainly the "values vote" analysis has been inescapable after the
election, and one of those major values is an opposition to legalized
abortion.

The Republicans control the executive office and both legislative
offices.

You can even argue they control the judiciary.

Yet they have managed to reverse a long-term trend of decreasing
abortion rates, abortion rates that have been declining since 1990,
with most of the decline occurring under the Clinton administration.

Abortion rates for 2003, the last available public data, have risen in
the three states where the data is available.

In Pennsylvania, rates have increased by 1.9 percent since 1999.

In Kentucky, they have increased by 3.2 percent since 2000.

And in Michigan, they have increased by a whopping 11.3 percent.

In 13 other states where multi-year data is available, eight have had
an average increase of 14.6 percent, and five have had an average 4.3
percent decline.

Still, this means roughly 52,000 more abortions in 2002 than if the
trend of declining rates had continued.

Why have the trends reversed themselves, and why do people who
consider themselves pro-life support this trend?

For the first question, it's handy to look at the causes for abortion,
and the causes of the decrease in abortion that took place over the
'90s.

According to a 1988 study conducted by Torres and Forrest, the reason
given for nearly 66 percent of abortions by the mother was that they
could not afford to have the child.

In terms of real effects, the increase in unemployment under Bush has
no doubt influenced these statistics, especially in states like
Michigan that have been hit disproportionately hard by the recession.

Add to this the effects of the tax cut, which has slashed revenues
available for social services, especially through a reduction in
federal money provided to the states for things like Medicare and
unemployment assistance.

These critical social services that have been underfunded by the
federal and state governments mean that many women who might have been
able to afford having a child in the '90s now simply cannot do so.

By favoring tax cuts that benefit the rich at the expense of social
services, Republicans have increased the number of abortions.

The other major factor is the one that had the most impact in creating
the decrease: improved access to contraceptives.

According to a 2003 study by Darroch, Jones and Henshaw, roughly 40
percent of the decrease in abortions since 1990 has been due to the
introduction of emergency contraceptives such as the "morning after
pill," which prevents an egg from implanting in the uterine lining.

This pill has been blocked from over-the-counter sale by Dr. Steven
Galson, acting drug chief of the Food & Drug Administration, citing
concerns that it was unsafe for teens, despite having a lower
mortality incidence in adolescents than actual pregnancy.

Conservatives welcomed this decision as well, despite the fact that it
will likely lead to more abortions.

So why do conservatives favor more abortions?

The methods that have been proven to decrease the incidence of
abortion here and around the world, such as increased social services,
increased sex education and increased access to contraceptives, are
routinely opposed by conservatives who seek to have an ideological
victory rather than a practical one.

Even their stated goal, the criminalization of abortion, has not been
shown to have a significant effect on the practice, with countries
that outlaw abortions only having a 3 percent lower incidence (though
the incidence of death is nearly three times as great, and the
incidence of complication and lasting injury is nearly eleven times as
great).

Why do they keep clinging to causes proven ineffective?

One possibility could be that since they know that so many of their
constituency opposes abortion that they have no incentive to actually
decrease the numbers.

In fact, higher numbers can be an effective mobilization tool.

Or they could simply be so blinded by their absolute belief in the
evil of abortion that they are unable to work pro-actively to decrease
its occurrence.

If so, this is another example of "faith based" communities perversely
pursuing goals that hurt their own interests.

Either way, it is time for those truly opposed to abortions to stop
opposing their legality and their safety, and to rather work on making
them as rare as possible.

And that doesn't mean criminalizing them, but rather giving up your
tax cuts and deficit spending in order to provide better for all
Americans, especially those most at risk.

_________________________________________________________

Harry

1. Don't cite a student newpaper as a credible source.

2. It appears that 6 years after BJ's scandal made teens and twenties think
BJs aren't sex, they've moved on to thinking coitus isn't anything to worry
about either.

Have a nice day,
Ken

"!Harry Hope!" <rivrvu@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:iuk3r09ua2c18i8trs2k4b3nm3um5rsu6v@4ax.com...

http://www.easternecho.com/cgi-bin/story.cgi?3628

Abortions high with Republicans in office

By Josh Steichmann

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2004


Why do Republicans want more abortions?

Clearly, they say otherwise.

President George W. Bush has repeatedly proclaimed his desire to
cultivate a "culture of life," and the recent flame-up over Arlen
Specter's potential nomination to the Senate Judiciary Committee was
over his perceived lack of anti-abortion conviction.

Certainly the "values vote" analysis has been inescapable after the
election, and one of those major values is an opposition to legalized
abortion.

The Republicans control the executive office and both legislative
offices.

You can even argue they control the judiciary.

Yet they have managed to reverse a long-term trend of decreasing
abortion rates, abortion rates that have been declining since 1990,
with most of the decline occurring under the Clinton administration.

Abortion rates for 2003, the last available public data, have risen in
the three states where the data is available.

In Pennsylvania, rates have increased by 1.9 percent since 1999.

In Kentucky, they have increased by 3.2 percent since 2000.

And in Michigan, they have increased by a whopping 11.3 percent.

In 13 other states where multi-year data is available, eight have had
an average increase of 14.6 percent, and five have had an average 4.3
percent decline.

Still, this means roughly 52,000 more abortions in 2002 than if the
trend of declining rates had continued.

Why have the trends reversed themselves, and why do people who
consider themselves pro-life support this trend?

For the first question, it's handy to look at the causes for abortion,
and the causes of the decrease in abortion that took place over the
'90s.

According to a 1988 study conducted by Torres and Forrest, the reason
given for nearly 66 percent of abortions by the mother was that they
could not afford to have the child.

In terms of real effects, the increase in unemployment under Bush has
no doubt influenced these statistics, especially in states like
Michigan that have been hit disproportionately hard by the recession.

Add to this the effects of the tax cut, which has slashed revenues
available for social services, especially through a reduction in
federal money provided to the states for things like Medicare and
unemployment assistance.

These critical social services that have been underfunded by the
federal and state governments mean that many women who might have been
able to afford having a child in the '90s now simply cannot do so.

By favoring tax cuts that benefit the rich at the expense of social
services, Republicans have increased the number of abortions.

The other major factor is the one that had the most impact in creating
the decrease: improved access to contraceptives.

According to a 2003 study by Darroch, Jones and Henshaw, roughly 40
percent of the decrease in abortions since 1990 has been due to the
introduction of emergency contraceptives such as the "morning after
pill," which prevents an egg from implanting in the uterine lining.

This pill has been blocked from over-the-counter sale by Dr. Steven
Galson, acting drug chief of the Food & Drug Administration, citing
concerns that it was unsafe for teens, despite having a lower
mortality incidence in adolescents than actual pregnancy.

Conservatives welcomed this decision as well, despite the fact that it
will likely lead to more abortions.

So why do conservatives favor more abortions?

The methods that have been proven to decrease the incidence of
abortion here and around the world, such as increased social services,
increased sex education and increased access to contraceptives, are
routinely opposed by conservatives who seek to have an ideological
victory rather than a practical one.

Even their stated goal, the criminalization of abortion, has not been
shown to have a significant effect on the practice, with countries
that outlaw abortions only having a 3 percent lower incidence (though
the incidence of death is nearly three times as great, and the
incidence of complication and lasting injury is nearly eleven times as
great).

Why do they keep clinging to causes proven ineffective?

One possibility could be that since they know that so many of their
constituency opposes abortion that they have no incentive to actually
decrease the numbers.

In fact, higher numbers can be an effective mobilization tool.

Or they could simply be so blinded by their absolute belief in the
evil of abortion that they are unable to work pro-actively to decrease
its occurrence.

If so, this is another example of "faith based" communities perversely
pursuing goals that hurt their own interests.

Either way, it is time for those truly opposed to abortions to stop
opposing their legality and their safety, and to rather work on making
them as rare as possible.

And that doesn't mean criminalizing them, but rather giving up your
tax cuts and deficit spending in order to provide better for all
Americans, especially those most at risk.

_________________________________________________________

Harry

Why are there more abortions? Because less people can afford to have
children or the means to prevent them. Period.