What this artcle conveniently leaves out is that the report also attributes the drop in the number of abortions to the effectiveness of artificial birth control methods. This report showed up in a number of news outlets on 11/26.  The complete new story indicates that the effectivenss of artificial birth control lessens the nummber of abortions.  So its sad to see that the Register has chosen to deliberately leave out that part of the story.  Talk about right-wing bias!  Artificial birth control is pro-life:  it is pro-woman, pro-child, pro-family, pro-planet.  There is nothing in scripture that prohibits the use of artificial birth control.

What this comment conveniently leaves out is the last three paragraphs of the article. It’s sad to see someone commenting on an article that they don’t read. Talk about un-informed bias!

Lisa, while I agree with your point that the article leaves out the possibility that Artificial Birth Control could be a contributing factor, that is about the only thing I agree with you about.

You can no more state that the drop in abortion rates are due to increased effectiveness of Artificial Birth Control than you could say that they are due to increased Pro-Life viewpoints in the general public. The fact of the matter is that the DATA as to why there was a drop is just NOT THERE.

There could be several contributing factors and the most you can say is that more research is needed to determine the cause. I think both sides of the fence would agree that a lower abortion rate is a GOOD thing.

However, your bold statement that ” Artificial birth control is pro-life:  it is pro-woman, pro-child, pro-family, pro-planet.” is so completely false in every point. Artificial birth control aims to prevent/end life; it burdens women with the responsibility and often harsh side effects. It prevents/kills children and hence cannot be PRO-child by its very definition. It gives many people license to engage in sexual activities outside of the context of marriage and family and does nothing to promote people to form family bonds before risking pregnancy. It pollutes the earth with its artificial hormones and discarded devices. It is the exact opposite of being PRO-anything that you have mentioned.

Lisa, birth rates dropped as well in 2009, but only by about half the rate - 2.7% - that abortions dropped ( http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/us-birth-rate-in-2009-reaches-record-low-amid-recession-woes/ ).  That same article predicted a rise in abortions due to the recession, so this is indeed a pleasant and unexpected surprise from a Catholic perspective.  Whatever the effectiveness of artificial contraceptives, I think that the numbers signal a definite shift away from abortion, which may involve among other things a greater acceptance of the reality of artificial contraceptives’ limitations, which are almost universally unacknowledged in other news outlets.

Why does it matter how many abortions occur against women of childbearing age?  This statistic is just a red-herring.  The most important statistic is the number of obortions vs live births.  Look at New York.  A baby in the womb has basically a 1/3 chance of being murdered.  That is a scary statistic.  Pro-lifers need to write their own statistics and not just regurgitate CDC statistical nonsense.
The rate did not drop by 5%.  Look at the number of total abortions vs total births.  There were 825,564 abortions in 2008 with 4,247,694 births.  This is a rate of 19.44 percent.  There were 784,507 abortions in 2009 with 4,130,665 births.  This is a rate of 18.99 percent.  So when you subtract the percentages, the abortion rate only decreased by 0.45 percent.  That is right.  This is no where near the 5% that is being gloried.  Statistics can be used very deceiptfully.  As it has been done here.  Once again, pro-lifers have been fooled.  The great deceiver is not named that for nothing.

Praise God! I’m so happy to see these numbers! I believe that there has certainly been a renewed sense of understanding that the unborn person is still a person. I pray each day that our country finds the moral courage to fully end all legalized abortions within the United States.

However, I also fear Lisa may be right when she says that artificial birth control contributed to this drop. But that’s perhaps the only thing she’s correct about. Artificial birth control is pro-woman and pro-planet? What fantasy world does she live in? Birth control contributes to a man’s sense of entitlement in the bedroom and allows him to view his wife/girlfriend as a mere play thing. It allows women to view sex as merely a chore that she must do to keep their partner happy. As far as being pro-planet…what the heck does that mean? What does the planet matter if there are fewer human beings here to use it? According to her logic we could magically “cure” the planet if we removed all human life, but what good would that do any of us? Planet-worship is an idol.

Why does it matter how many abortions occur against the number of women of childbearing age?  This statistic is just a red-herring.  The most important statistic is the number of abortions vs live births.  Look at New York.  A baby in the womb has basically a 1/3 chance of being murdered.  That is a scary statistic.  Pro-lifers need to write their own statistics and not just regurgitate CDC statistical nonsense.
The rate did not drop by 5%.  Look at the number of total abortions vs total births.  There were 825,564 abortions in 2008 with 4,247,694 births.  This is a rate of 19.44 percent.  There were 784,507 abortions in 2009 with 4,130,665 births.  This is a rate of 18.99 percent.  So when you subtract the percentages, the abortion rate only decreased by 0.45 percent.  This is the true difference.  This is no where near the 5% that is being glorified.  Statistics can be used very deceitfully.  As it has been done here.  Once again, pro-lifers have been fooled.  Satan is not called the great deceiver for nothing.

Lisa,
Genesis 38:1-10 speaks about contraception.  The spilling of seed.  Onan who is the one who spilled his seed was struck dead by God. I think God clearly was not in favor of messing with his plans to create his children.  If you read more of the bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, you will find that when God was please with someone, he usually rewarded them with a child (Isacc or John the Baptist are two examples).  I at one point thought much like you.  I picked only the doctrines of the Catholic Church I wanted to believe,  and just like you contraception was one I didn’t want to follow.  Now many years later, well past my ability to conceive, through much grace, God has revealed to me just how much I lost.  I know from my success in fertility as well as other family members, I probably should of had a few more children that I denied because I trusted the world’s point of view rather than in God’s.  God has or had special plans for each one of his children.  If only our faith in God would be stronger than that of the world’s.  I pray that you would be open to listen and trust in God’s plans for you, rather than believe we are much better off making the decisions in our life according to pride and the belief that we know what is best for us.  May God Bless you

A drop in abortion rates could indicate a new attitude—increased use of contraception.

Kevin,
Could you determine if any of the drop could be due to MAP? What statistics can help in determining how MAP is affecting the abortion rate. Seems the timelines coincides related to the dates or use and dates of decline.

Onan’s sin was his failure to fulfill his responsibilities to his dead brother’s widow.  His sin was, incidentally, a form of contracepting, but it was a very narrow, limited type of contracepting.  I don’t think you can make any broad generalizations about the morality of contraception from that example.  JP2 in Theology of the Body roots the sin of contraception in a much broader framework of the nature of male and female, covenantal faithfulness, and trust in God.  I remain perplexed why the use of contraception is “grave matter”, but I certainly understand that it’s a sin.

Jeff, this is the only thing I could find in short order:
‘Though experts had hoped the availability of the morning-after pill would reduce unplanned pregnancies, “so far there’s no evidence that this is happening,” Kavanaugh told Reuters.’  http://healthland.time.com/2011/04/28/whos-using-the-morning-after-pill/
 
It could easily be the case that the availability of the morning-after pill leads some people to be less concerned about having casual sex, which, like the availability of other contraceptives, could easily negate its expected benefits.  Or women could be switching from traditional contraceptives, which are more effective, to less-effective morning-after pills.

The percentages here are misleading. It reflects reduced incidence of *surgical* abortions. The availability of many types of Plan B pills means that women can abort in her home, and these abortions aren’t being recorded. Also, there is evidence that PP under-reports the number of abortions it performs. In no way does this mean people are becoming pro-life. Look who was just re-elected as President.

There are also less women of child bearing age because less were given a chance to live to child bearing age.

Lady Hat, you raise a good point, one that I hadn’t considered before. Because abortifacients are available over-the-counter, and because they can be purchased and possibly not used, there is no way of tallying or measuring how the availability of that drug impacts these statistics. Thank you for raising the point.

Thanks Kevin and Ms. Hat Lady.
I think that both are true. I believe that if we consider the MAP and Plan B issue we really aren’t seeing the reduction in abortions we think we are. The figures are somewhat erroneous when these two abortifacants are left out of the research. It would be hard to determine what the affect is, as Ms. Lady has mentioned.

Another way to look at it is whether the reduction in pregnancies are more among those that are “planned” or “unplanned.”  Nearly all “planned” pregnancies end up in the birth column rather than the abortion column, whereas a significant number (about 40%) of “unplanned” pregnancies end up in the abortion column.  All sources indicate that the reduction in pregnancies probably has a lot to do with the economy.  If that’s true, then one would expect to see a bigger impact on “planned” pregnancy numbers than on “unplanned” ones.  That suggests that all else being equal, the drop in birthrates should exceed the drop in abortions.  But the opposite has happened.  Either “unplanned” pregnancies have shifted from the abortion column to the birth column (resulting in the overall birthrate dropping less than might otherwise be expected given the economic conditions), or the efficacy of artificial contraceptives, including MAPs, has somewhat suddenly improved so much that the reduction in “unplanned” pregnancies has not only kept pace with an expected drop in “planned” pregnancies, but far exceeded them.  I find that very unlikely, especially absent any real evidence to support the possibility, and in the face of rather recent assertions in the mainstream press that MAPs themselves haven’t actually reduced “unplanned” pregnancies.

@Hat Lady
Interesting, but I think you are factually incorrect and might be confusing Plan B with mifepristone.

There does appear to be an increased use of IUDs which are abortifacient as well as Plan B and contraceptives. Plan B (‘morning after’/‘emergency contraception’) pills are abortificaent by preventing embryo implantation IF fertilization has already happened. But IF fertilization has not taken place it generally prevents ovulation.

IUDs and ‘Plan B/Morning after’ methods have never been included in the abortion statistics.

But if you look at the CDC source document paragraph on Method Type
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm?s_cid=ss6108a1_w
you will see that non-surgical abortions (eg mifepristone) ARE included in the CDC statistics:

“In 2009 ... 16.5% were performed by early medical abortion (a nonsurgical abortion at =8 weeks’ gestation) ” and also lists the other methods.

There has been a real reduction in the number of abortions.

@Maggie
One way to test your hypothesis is to look at the Rate per 1,000 women of reproductive age and the Ratio of abortions to live births rather than the total number of abortions. Comparing these theree would identify the tragic ‘blip’ you suggest.
But the Rate per 1000 and Ratio have both gone down - see the CDC graph here
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6108a1.htm?s_cid=ss6108a1_w#Fig1

This would seem to eliminate the explanation you have suggested.

The biggest drop in a decade.

“But, but, but ... Obama is the arch baby killer - the most pro-abortion President ever! How can this have happened after he took over?”

Sarcasm aside, a reduction in the number of abortions - for whatever reasons - is good news to pro-lifers like us who want to save as many lives as possible. Increases and decreases in abortion rates, and their possible reasons, are something to learn from - as objectively as possible without important facts being filtered out by eg Republican or Democrat spectacles. Life is too important for party-political biases or electioneering.

So why the drop? Which has been gradual for a number of years but particularly marked in 2009.

Like most social trends, there is probably more than one cause and this CDC study does not attempt a detailed explanation.

Most of the slight legal restrictions on abortion have happened since 2009 (after these data). I say ‘slight’ because of the overwhelming libertarianism of Roe v Wade. I don’t think restrictive legislation has been significant in this reduction.

Attitudes? The ratio of pro-life and pro-choice voters has also remained roughly the same over the years. Although there may be an increase in the pro-choice camp of women who are “personally pro-life but don’t want to impose their morality ...” But this has to be weighed against those who are publicly pro-life but who will rush their unintentionally pregnant daughter for a discrete abortion. Inconclusive.

Other explanations suggested by the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/11/23/surprise-the-abortion-rate-just-hit-an-all-time-low/
include greater use of effective long-term ‘contraception’ (including IUDs) - if you don’t get pregnant you won’t ‘need’ an abortion. It also mentions financial circumstances “As the economy moves into recession, a 1-point rise in the unemployment rate leads to about a 3 percent increase in abortion rates.”

One of the saddest things I have personally come across are cases of married women having abortions, because the husband lost his job after she became pregnant and they felt they could not afford another child.

Asking the question “why do women have an abortion?” is the key one. The Guttmacher Institute found that 20% of women had one because of their financial circumstances.

Another approach is to look at people or places with significantly higher or lower rates. eg Why is the abortion rate amongst black women 5 times the general population, and for Hispanic women 3 times more?

Is it because black women are more evil or because they are more poor?

By poverty, I include access to healthcare: pre-natal checks, confinement and baby health care vs the $ cost of an abortion; housing, food, clothing etc..

Romneycare in Massachusetts (which includes abortion, unlike Obamacare) seems to have helped reduce the abortion rate in that state. Perhaps due to regular access to contraception, childbirth and child healthcare). The graph here is striking http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/08/increased-access-to-health-care-may-decrease-abortions/261463/

This Christmas and Holy Innocents Day, many parishes will invite “crib offerings” to give practical support to pregnancy crisis centres. Will you donate in order to give practical life-savng help? or is it a waste of money?

If you donate, you are admitting that practical welfare help for things, which money can buy, can save unborn lives. Consider how much more a government can spend on welfare-related items and your attitude to the Ryan welfare-slashing budget, welfare-spending and the forthcoming ‘fiscal cliff’.

I have been a volunteer at a crisis pregnancy center for many years. The center went through many steps to be a certified medical center, which enabled it to obtain a sonogram. The difference was overwhelming; women were excited that their body would “give life.” Most returned for parenting and/or Bible study earning needed baby items and diapers for one year. It seems now that we know there is a life in there many women rethink and carry the baby. I have seen a beating heart at 28 days gestation and the ability of the baby to move independently. We give each mother a lot of support. I only wish more would place for adoption if they are very young or if other circumstances prevent parenting. Too many would rather kill the baby than let someone else raise the precious gift.