Is abortion less of an issue simply because there are less abortions?

[retromike22]

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?politicalwire

And 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_States

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/study-abortion-rate-at-lowest-point-since-1973/2014/02/02/8dea007c-8a9b-11e3-833c-33098f9e5267_story.html



Now, 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."

[Indy Texas]

I think, at least for Generation Y, protecting a woman's access to abortion is less compelling because:

1. The ways of preventing pregnancy to begin with are more numerous and more reliable. The Pill, IUDs, and the Morning-After pill are all commonplace, allow a woman to have control over whether or not a pregnancy can happen, and have very low failure rates.

If someone has an unwanted pregnancy, it's a lot harder not to look at it as a case of irresponsibility.

2. The consequences of illegitimate births are less severe today. Even social conservatives, in part because they became so slavishly devoted to the anti-abortion cause, have tacitly condoned unwed single mothers. Most babies born in 2014 are what would have been called "bastards" a few decades ago. While single motherhood certainly isn't "easy", there are far more options to make it work: women have access to a wider scope of job opportunities, whereas their pre-Roe counterparts would often have been consigned to "taking in laundry" to make ends meet while living in a parent or sibling's attic. And childbirth in general is a lot safer. Dying in childbirth is practically unheard of nowadays.

[CountryClassSF]

The problem for the Democrats is that the majority of Americans support a ban on partial birth abortion as well as abortions after 20 weeks. 

From a completely political standpoint, it is curious as to how Democrats can equate supporting religious freedom for employers = a ban on contraception.

Congressman Gardner, for example, wanted to make these pills available over the counter, which would reduce costs further.  If DC pols weren't completely owned by Big Pharma, patents (which raise costs insanely) could be restricted on free market grounds.

Voters in that race, in particular, seemed to understand the difference between supporting religious freedom vs. actually restricting access to birth control.

It's about freedom of decision making - if one needs contraception covered under my insurance plan, working for a religious biz (and requiring insurance to be paid for by that biz) may not be the best choice.

I am staunchly pro-life and strongly oppose abortions on moral grounds - but I would prefer expanded access to contraceptives on free market grounds, and it can be done in the way Gardner proposed, without infringing on constitutionally protected free exercise of religion

[Beet]

Maybe it's because Gardner wasn't all that radical on abortion. He extinguished one potentially deadly issue by coming out against the Personhood Amendment at the state level, successfully muddling the issue. It's hard to say that a guy who wants to make contraception pills over the counter is exceptionally right wing on this issue compared to your standard Republican, especially since his position actually put him to Udall's left on that particular issue.

You have to remember that in 2010, Ken Buck's problem wasn't just that he opposed abortion, it was that as a prosecutor, he basically turned around and berated a rape victim/accuser, refusing to take the case. Electing him to the Senate would have basically amounted to a big FU to the rape victim/accuser, and by proxy all rape victims/accusers. I think a lot of voters are more willing to forgive a candidate who takes a formal position against womens' rights than one who displays misogyny in their personal speech or behavior - because they implicitly know that it's possible to be pro-life but not a misogynist. Buck, Akin, and Mourdock didn't lose because voters thought their political positions were misogynist, they lost because voters thought they were misogynist.

On the other hand, maybe the strategy didn't fail - after all, Udall came within 2 points against a candidate generally thought to have run a good campaign in a Republican year. He did a lot better than Bruce Braley and some other Democrats this year. Sometimes that's just the way chips fall.

[King]

You'd need a constitutional amendment to do anything definitively about abortion and there will never be 67% support in Congress either way on this issue.

[Likely Voter]

Well Udall's campaign focused just as much on birth control as abortion as Gardner once backed the Personhood thing.
http://blogs.denverpost.com/thespot/2014/04/22/mark-udall-cory-gardner-ad-birth-control/108396/

The women's issues worked well for the Dems in 2012 and for McAuliffe in 2013 in VA. Problem is Udall made too much of it in 2014, making it the focus of his campaign, hence the 'Mark Uterus' label.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/10/13/mark-udall-has-been-dubbed-mark-uterus-on-the-campaign-trail-thats-a-problem/

[© tweed]

I doubt your run-of-the mill evangelical pro-lifer knows or cares about actual abortion statistics.

[The_Doctor]

I can see a future where Roe v. Wade is effectively dead but not the letter of the ruling. (Or Planned Parenthood, 1992). Interestingly, this country is becoming steadily more pro-life relative to past years. The PBA was not in law in 1992, and the 20 week ban wasn't even seriously discussed until the Republican wave of 2010.

Eventually, I figure the 20 week ban will become law like the partial birth abortions and more abortion clinics will be shut down, becoming a specialty of liberal havens on the coasts and Illinois & Minnesota. Birth control will still be freely available, but abortions will be increasingly more difficult to obtain in the vast majority of the country.

I think down the road, if we're very good at framing the issue, we can get it down to 10 weeks. It can't probably go beyond that.

It's unfortunate, but we will never get legal abortions down to 0 and never will make it completely illegal (except for the mother's life). But we've made great strides since 2010 to undercut the access and availability to abortion clinics and hindered the ability to open new ones, while shuttering many clinics. I count that as a solid victory.

[user12345]

I think down the road, if we're very good at framing the issue, we can get it down to 10 weeks. It can't probably go beyond that.

It's unfortunate, but we will never get legal abortions down to 0 and never will make it completely illegal (except for the mother's life). But we've made great strides since 2010 to undercut the access and availability to abortion clinics and hindered the ability to open new ones, while shuttering many clinics. I count that as a solid victory.

This post explains exactly why Republicans aren't in touch with woman. Woman have brains too, they can make the best decision under their circumstances. Nobody ever wants to have to have an abortion, but life isn't perfect. A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life. We can't just make these laws and expect woman to stop being raped, and having accidental pregnancies. A fetus is not a person and needs to stop being put above a woman's own life. Abortion is a constitutionally-protected legal medical procedure.

[Cory]

I doubt your run-of-the mill evangelical pro-lifer knows or cares about actual abortion statistics.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Be careful interpreting that graph.  The number of women aged 15 to 44 increased dramatically during the 1970s. The rate of increase then declined beginning in the early 1980s but continued to increase in absolute terms until the early 1990s. Then the number leveled off and has since grown very slowly.

The number of women in peak abortion years (teens and 20s) rose rapidly in the 70s but shrank after the early 80s... So the rate of abortions decreased some because the proportion of younger women in the 15-44 group declined while the more-likely-to-be-married and settled portion of 30 somethings grew.

This explains why overall pregnancies ceased growing even while births increased, peaking in 1990.  At that time, the most numerous age group of American women were between 27 and 33 years old, an age associated in modern times with starting families.

These tempo effects are not taken into account in that graph.  Also remember the age of the average child bearing mother has increased in an unprecedented manner beginning in the 1960s with the advent of the pill and has progressed since.

So the high rates of abortion around 1980 were caused by there being a huge number of younger women with a much smaller cohort of older child bearing age women.

Because of this the effective rate of abortions more or less plateaued during the 80s and the first real falls in the rate of abortions then occurred only after 1990.

There are artifacts as well... Teen pregnancies showed an unusual rise beginning around 1988 and peaking in 1990 before continuing long term slide downwards.  I'd be interested in finding a reason for this.  This blip mainly impacted girls born from 1970-1975.  

Overall, though, baby boomer women had the most abortions on average and as Gen X women moved into motherhood, abortion rates and overall numbers fell.  Keep in mind baby boomers were coming of age during Roe v Wade.

[© tweed]

I doubt your run-of-the mill evangelical pro-lifer knows or cares about actual abortion statistics.

..except for, I should add, that one big number: 52 million murdered since 1973!

[Mister Mets]

It's an interesting question.

A reduction in abortions will certainly be a factor in debates.

Abortion could also have remained a significant issue for Democrats in a political cycle where other issues favored Republicans.

[King]

I think down the road, if we're very good at framing the issue, we can get it down to 10 weeks.

As a fervent pro-abortionist, I certainly hope so. Ramping up the pressure on women to make a decision ASAP will rapidly increase the number of those microscopic f***ers into the garbage cans, increase the stem cell supply, and reduce single parent households. All a huge plus.

At least get it down to 15 weeks would be ideal for starters, since that's right around the cusp of when the prospective non-mother might accidentally start to feel it kick and grow attached.  If we can just keep it in the tumorous sweet spot stage where the thing just sort of makes the woman ill and doesn't actually seem alive, and say "this is your last chance" right then and there, man... it'll be a gold rush of prenatal tissue.

[pbrower2a]

Fewer abortions. Sorry to be so fussy. Most are for medical reasons, but the Right wants even those stopped. If God gave a woman an ectopic pregnancy, then such was His choice -- at least as I understand the Religious Right.

[Simfan34]

I think down the road, if we're very good at framing the issue, we can get it down to 10 weeks.

As a fervent pro-abortionist, I certainly hope so. Ramping up the pressure on women to make a decision ASAP will rapidly increase the number of those microscopic f***ers into the garbage cans, increase the stem cell supply, and reduce single parent households. All a huge plus.

At least get it down to 15 weeks would be ideal for starters, since that's right around the cusp of when the prospective non-mother might accidentally start to feel it kick and grow attached.  If we can just keep it in the tumorous sweet spot stage where the thing just sort of makes the woman ill and doesn't actually seem alive, and say "this is your last chance" right then and there, man... it'll be a gold rush of prenatal tissue.

What the hell is wrong with you!?

[DC Al Fine]

I think down the road, if we're very good at framing the issue, we can get it down to 10 weeks.

As a fervent pro-abortionist, I certainly hope so. Ramping up the pressure on women to make a decision ASAP will rapidly increase the number of those microscopic f***ers into the garbage cans, increase the stem cell supply, and reduce single parent households. All a huge plus.

At least get it down to 15 weeks would be ideal for starters, since that's right around the cusp of when the prospective non-mother might accidentally start to feel it kick and grow attached.  If we can just keep it in the tumorous sweet spot stage where the thing just sort of makes the woman ill and doesn't actually seem alive, and say "this is your last chance" right then and there, man... it'll be a gold rush of prenatal tissue.

What the hell is wrong with you!?

Best ignore him. I haven't seen a substantial post from King in a long time.

[The Arizonan]

I think down the road, if we're very good at framing the issue, we can get it down to 10 weeks. It can't probably go beyond that.

It's unfortunate, but we will never get legal abortions down to 0 and never will make it completely illegal (except for the mother's life). But we've made great strides since 2010 to undercut the access and availability to abortion clinics and hindered the ability to open new ones, while shuttering many clinics. I count that as a solid victory.

This post explains exactly why Republicans aren't in touch with woman. Woman have brains too, they can make the best decision under their circumstances. Nobody ever wants to have to have an abortion, but life isn't perfect. A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life. We can't just make these laws and expect woman to stop being raped, and having accidental pregnancies. A fetus is not a person and needs to stop being put above a woman's own life. Abortion is a constitutionally-protected legal medical procedure.

Have you ever heard of giving a child up for adoption?

While a fetus that is not fully developed is not a person, everyone was a fetus at one point. How would you like it if your mother had an abortion while she was pregnant with you? Would you say that your mother has the right to abort you?

I'm not advocating banning abortion, I still think it should be legal. I don't believe in abortions, except as a last resort.

EDIT: An unborn child should be considered a person if it is fully developed.

[Cory]

I think down the road, if we're very good at framing the issue, we can get it down to 10 weeks.

As a fervent pro-abortionist, I certainly hope so. Ramping up the pressure on women to make a decision ASAP will rapidly increase the number of those microscopic f***ers into the garbage cans, increase the stem cell supply, and reduce single parent households. All a huge plus.

At least get it down to 15 weeks would be ideal for starters, since that's right around the cusp of when the prospective non-mother might accidentally start to feel it kick and grow attached.  If we can just keep it in the tumorous sweet spot stage where the thing just sort of makes the woman ill and doesn't actually seem alive, and say "this is your last chance" right then and there, man... it'll be a gold rush of prenatal tissue.

What the hell is wrong with you!?

I'm sure it's at least somewhat of a joke.

[SNJ1985]

A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life.

Yes, she should be forced to have the child in all of those circumstances. None of them are in any way the child's fault. Children don't get to choose the manner in which they are conceived, and they certainly do not deserve to be killed because of things that weren't their fault in the slightest.

[Gass3268]

A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life.

Yes, she should be forced to have the child in all of those circumstances. None of them are in any way the child's fault. Children don't get to choose the manner in which they are conceived, and they certainly do not deserve to be killed because of things that weren't their fault in the slightest.

A fetus is not a child and it is a fetus until it pops out.

[SNJ1985]

A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life.

Yes, she should be forced to have the child in all of those circumstances. None of them are in any way the child's fault. Children don't get to choose the manner in which they are conceived, and they certainly do not deserve to be killed because of things that weren't their fault in the slightest.

A fetus is not a child and it is a fetus until it pops out.

The unborn child, or ''fetus'', is a living being from the moment of conception.

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

[Türkisblau]

A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life.

Yes, she should be forced to have the child in all of those circumstances. None of them are in any way the child's fault. Children don't get to choose the manner in which they are conceived, and they certainly do not deserve to be killed because of things that weren't their fault in the slightest.

A fetus is not a child and it is a fetus until it pops out.

You do realize you aren't adding anything to the debate? This is the entire crux of the issue and where the fundamental misunderstanding between both sides is.

[The Arizonan]

A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life.

Yes, she should be forced to have the child in all of those circumstances. None of them are in any way the child's fault. Children don't get to choose the manner in which they are conceived, and they certainly do not deserve to be killed because of things that weren't their fault in the slightest.

A fetus is not a child and it is a fetus until it pops out.

Even if it is fully developed?

[Türkisblau]

A woman shouldn't be forced to have a child that she can't take care of, have a child who's father raped her, or if she's still in high school and a child would ruin the rest of her life.

Yes, she should be forced to have the child in all of those circumstances. None of them are in any way the child's fault. Children don't get to choose the manner in which they are conceived, and they certainly do not deserve to be killed because of things that weren't their fault in the slightest.

A fetus is not a child and it is a fetus until it pops out.

Even if it is fully developed?

None of it matters to him. Many Democrats like to close their minds to any possibility of moral quandaries that arise with some of their social positions.