I was thinking about Senator Mark Udall's campaign lately because I read this:
47 percent of all Democratic general election spots in the Colorado Senate race focused on abortion (courtesy Kantar Media/CMAG). http://cookpolitical.com/story/8145?politicalwireAnd I was thinking about the whole Democratic Party's "War on Women" campaign strategy and how it didn't really do much and why it failed. I mean, access to abortion is being curtailed in an increasing number of states, and a lot of people (including myself) give a "sigh" to it now.
Is it simply because there are less abortions now?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_Stateshttp://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.htmlNow, I did think a possible reason for the decline of abortions could be the laws that are designed to discourage them, but it looks like there has been a general decline since 1980:
The authors suggested that one factor was greater reliance on new kinds of birth control, including intra-uterine devices such as Mirena, which can last for years and are not susceptible to user error like daily pills or condoms.
They also noted the economy as a contributing factor, because people tend to adhere more strictly to their birth control during tough economic times. But they did not credit the recent wave of state laws restricting access to abortion, because most of those took effect in 2011 or later.Basically: Why should voters care about abortion as an issue if there are multiple methods to avoid arriving at that decision in the first place? I think
access to birth control should be a more important issue.
New Democratic Strategy:More access to birth control = reduce the chance of getting an abortion.
Expansion of child care services = less reason to get an abortion.
Higher minimum wage = if you have more money, then you are less likely to get an abortion.
"Vote Democratic, reduce the # of abortions."
