On Tuesday April 18th Senators Hillary Clinton and Harry Reid co-wrote a piece for the Times Union regarding abortion and contraception. Here is an excerpt:
We believe that it is necessary for all Americans to join together and embrace policies that will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, decrease abortions and improve access to women’s health care.
There is no question that the rate of unintended pregnancy is too high in the United States. Half of the 6 million pregnancies each year in this country are unintended, and nearly half of these unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. It doesn’t have to be this way. Most of these unintended pregnancies — and the resulting abortions — can be prevented if we eliminate the barriers that prevent women from having access to affordable and effective contraception.
Only senators could say so much wrong in so little space!
First, I find it schizophrenic that abortion-choice advocates like Clinton will champion abortion rights on the one hand, and yet want to reduce the number of abortions on the other. If abortion does not take the life of an innocent human being we should no more want to reduce the number of abortions than we want to reduce the number of tooth extractions. The reason some abortion-choicers want to reduce the number of abortions is because deep down they know abortion is morally wrong. At the end of the day the only sure way to reduce the number of abortions is by making it illegal.
Can you think of any other Constitutional right where even advocates of the right want to reduce the number of times it is exercised? As Jivin Jehoshaphat once wrote, “It obviously doesn’t work for many of the rights we consider foundational. Imagine someone being a champion for the right to free speech yet saying that we should work to reduce the number of nonviolent protests. Or a champion of voting rights working to reduce the number of votes that are cast in a given election. Both situations are absurd.”
Secondly, what barriers to receiving affordable and effective contraception are Clinton and Reid talking about? How hard is it to buy a condom from the local drug store or Wal-Mart? Getting the Pill is as easy as walking in to a Planned Parenthood clinic. People choose not to use contraception.
Thirdly, both senators are perpetrating the myth that there is a tandem between increased access to contraception and a decrease in abortion. It sounds logical, but is not necessarily supported by statistical data.
The Alan Guttmacher Institute recently released a report on contraception in America. They ranked each state according to its efforts to help women obtain and properly use contraception. The three categories against which each state was measured were service availability, public funding, and laws/policies. California was ranked first in the nation for their superior contraceptive services, and New York was ranked fifth. What’s so ironic about this is that these two states also have among the highest percentages of abortion per pregnancy in the nation (NY = 2nd highest with 31%; CA = 6th highest with 26%). If greater access to contraceptives is the key to significantly reducing the number of abortions, why is it that the states with the greatest access to contraception are also the nation’s greatest abortion mills?
Thinking to Believe 
April 25, 2006 at 10:42 am
“At the end of the day the only sure way to reduce the number of abortions is by making it illegal.”
hmm.. interesting comment. Do you think this holds true for illegal drugs? illegal guns? illegal prostitution? what about during the prohibition? Did making alcohol illegal reduce it’s use? You might be right, but you might be wrong. how do we know?
Perhaps we should look at the statistics before and after Row vs. Wade. How many illegal abortions took place before, and how many legal abortions took place after?
In my mind, this fight is not about abortion itself, but about freedom.
Can you honestly say that Hillary Clinton is SUPPORTING the act of abortion? Do you think that she is SO morally corrupt that she is PROMOTING abortion? That she is ENCOURAGING women to HAVE an abortion? I don’t believe so. But that’s me.
{Almost} everyone agrees that abortion is wrong. {Almost} everyone is trying, in every way possible, to reduce/eliminate the number of abortions. I don’t believe ANYONE wants ANYONE to HAVE an abortion, nor do I think ANYONE is happy about the statistics and number of abortions.
Do you believe that Hillary Clinton and/or Reid jump for joy when they read how high the abortion rates are?
No, I don’t think so. I believe it is about something else.
Do I agree with abortion? No. Would I urge a woman to have an abortion? No. Do I think that women will have abortions whether they are illegal or not? Yes, it’s a fact that they did. Do I think the number of abortions would go down if abortion was illegal? hmmmm. Don’t know. Would the number of drug users go up if it was make legal? Not sure.
So, what should our abortion rate in the US be? Zero!!! Isn’t that what Hillary is saying by supporting birth control, Planned Parenthood programs, etc.? Isn’t she saying that she wants to help get the abortion rate down to zero?
Isn’t the church suppose to be the light? the salt? well, let’s stand up and help. Instead of “praying for the lost” let’s “evangelize” them. What I mean is -> instead of crying “make it illegal!” let’s HELP prevent unintended/unwanted pregnancies. And when they do happen, let’s help these people make the right choice. OH! That sounds like a lot of work doesn’t it! And so there we have it. Two sets of believers. The hear’ers of the word, and the do’ers of the word. The hear’ers say “make it illegal!” “so I don’t have to lift a finger!” and the do’ers say “I want to help! What can I do to help these {mostly} young teenagers make the right choice?”
Is your church involved in abstinence education and abstinence projects in your local schools? Why or why not? mine isn’t. in fact, I’ve never attended an apostolic church that was. Why? Isn’t that what the light/the salt is suppose to be doing?! promoting morality in a wicked world? Ah! Too much work? We are too busy praying? Are we so separate from the world that we have the privilege to ignore REALITY?! Are we suppose to be isolated, in our own little group, and not reach out? how can we be the light, if we barricade our light inside the church walls?
I don’t think that making abortion illegal would have a HUGE impact on the statistics. It seems like the “easy way out.” kinda like “praying for the lost.” “Make it illegal”, so I can feel like I had an impact on the moral wrong that is going on in this country. Oh, and I didn’t have to lift a finger!
I think we should make pre-marital sex illegal. That may have a better chance in reducing the number of abortions. According to the CDC, 81% of women that have abortion are unmarried. hmm…I may be on to something!
In the end, I have to say, that I don’t believe it is schizophrenic to fight for the legality of abortion, and at the same time, try to reduce the abortion rate to zero.
Is it schizophrenic to fight for the right for people to own guns, but at the same time try to reduce the number of murders {by guns}?
LikeLike
April 25, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Linda,
Yes, it does hold true for illegal drugs, illegal prostitution, and the like as well. That which is legal is more accessible, assuring that more people will get/do it. It also takes away the fear of getting “busted”—that extremely self-serving and practical motivation that makes many people refrain from doing/buying it. In other words, it removes all of the barriers that prevent people from engaging in it.
Abortion is a good case in point. The number of abortions in this country rose from approximately 150,000 in 1972 to 745,000 in 1973 when abortion was made legal in all 50 states. That’s a 500% increase in just one year! Within seven years of Roe we were killing 1.5 million babies a year. That’s a ten-fold increase from 1972! There is no question that making something legal will increase its activity.
Some will counter that making something illegal will not eliminate it. True, but eliminating the activity is not the express purpose of the law (laws against rape don’t eliminate rape, but no one argues that rape should therefore be legal). Making something illegal does two things: (1) it allows us to prosecute against a particular behavior; (2) it sends a moral message to the community. The law is a moral teacher, communicating to a society what is good and what is bad. Consider abortion. I can’t count the number of times I have read or heard someone say, “Well if abortion is wrong why is it legal?” People intuitively know that the foundation of law is morality. If something is legal, they reason that it must be moral. And if it’s moral, they will engage in it.
You said the fight is not about abortion, but freedom. What do you mean by that?
Yes, Hillary does support the act of abortion. We know this by looking at her votes on abortion-related issues. That doesn’t mean she thinks abortion is wonderful and wishes everyone had one. I quoted her as saying so, and I noted that her “let’s reduce the number of abortions” shows she thinks something is wrong with abortion. But that is muddled thinking. If abortion is such a bad thing that we should do all we can to reduce it, why should it be legal, and why should we pass laws that make it so easy to obtain one?
Put yourself in 1940 Nazi Germany. Would you buy the following argument from a German lawmaker: “I think euthanizing Jews is a bad thing and want to see a reduction in the number of those euthanized, but I do support keeping Jew-euthanizing legal, and I do support making it easier to euthanize them.” Anybody who stood by and allowed that mass destruction of human beings would be considered morally complicit, yet alone someone who actually passed laws that allowed it to continue unfettered. That’s what Hillary does. Same principle, different time in history.
I can’t say for sure if Clinton wants to reduce the number of abortions down to zero, but I wouldn’t doubt if that is the case. But again, making it easy to get an abortion is not the way to get there! The very existence of legal abortion ensures that this goal will not be realized. Legal abortion makes women less responsible. They know that it doesn’t matter if they use effective contraception because there’s always a way out if they get pregnant.
In regards evangelizing rather than praying for the lost, I completely agree. I had a whole post on it with a very long string of comments that you can read here: http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22668227&postID=114128967030665526
No, my church is not involved with the issue at all. I don’t even hear it preached about from the pulpit.
I disagree with your conclusion. If you are opposed to abortion I imagine it is because you believe it takes the life of an innocent human being. Does it make any sense to fight for someone’s right to murder an innocent human being so long as they don’t do it too often? Would you fight for the right of one adult to kill another adult so long as you also work to reduce the number of homicides? Of course not! What’s the difference? The only difference is the size of the person, the level of development, their location, and level of dependence. None of those things are morally relevant. If the unborn are truly human beings (and science is clear on this question) then taking their life unjustly is murder on the same level as taking the life of a human being this side of the womb. The 8” journey down the birth canal does not confer moral value on the baby.
Your comparison to guns is invalid because they are not similar in relevant ways. While guns can be used for evil means, they can also be used for good means as well: hunting, sport, protection. Cars kill more people than guns, and yet no one argues that we should make cars illegal. What we do is try to make them safer. With guns we try to make sure that only those who will use them for good own them. But with abortion there is no such thing as a good or safe use of abortion. Every abortion results in homicide. The only way your comparison would work is if there was no good use for guns, or if every gun was used to kill someone. If that were the case I would be opposed to guns and abortion, but it’s not.
Jason
LikeLike
April 26, 2006 at 9:21 am
Jason,
Thanks for your comment back! You have made some VERY good points, and I can now see a few flaws in my logic.
In your comment you said “with abortion there is no such thing as a good or safe use of abortion.”
By this, are you saying that abortion should NEVER be used? Ever? No matter what the circumstances? What about when the life of the mother is in danger {“medically necessary”<-not my words}, rape {or things like that}? Also, what about abortifacients {like the birth control pill}? Where are the efforts to make abortifacients illegal? Isn’t making abortifacients illegal equally important? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortifacient
BTW, GREAT website! I’ve learn a lot so far. Keep up the good work!
God Bless!!
LikeLike
April 26, 2006 at 9:35 am
Jason,
You said:
“The number of abortions in this country rose from approximately 150,000 in 1972 to 745,000 in 1973 when abortion was made legal in all 50 states. That’s a 500% increase in just one year!”
Where did you get this statistic?
From what I’ve found, the number of abortions in 1972 was 586,760.
Where did you get 150,000 as the total count?
LikeLike
April 27, 2006 at 7:42 am
Jason, when providing the statistic on the number of abortions in 1972 is that the number of legal abortions, illegal abortions, or both? In an article that I read a while back, Dr. Bernard Nathanson, co-founder of NARAL, stated that his group purposely inflated the numbers of illegal abortions to media outlets in order to garner support for the legalization of abortion. He stated that in 1968 the number of illegal abortions was approaching 100,000. Depending on the number of legal abortions performed, then we would be able to come to a reasonable number of the total abortions being performed at the time.
Just a few thoughts that I have regarding the status of abortion and its relation to reducing the number of abortions and regarding Senator Clinton’s possible position on the subject. With regard to reducing the number of abortions performed, it will reduce the number of abortions that take place if it the law making them illegal is enforced. The best analogy that I can make to this situation is the current illegal immigration situation. We have laws against coming to the US without proper visas/papers that were made stricter in the mid-1980’s, and yet we currently have the worst problem of illegal immigration that we’ve ever had in this country – why? Simply put, the current laws aren’t enforced and those breaking the laws know it. So, if a law were to go into effect to make abortion illegal, it would require enforcement of the law to get the results that proponents are looking for. I think this is needed for many of the reasons that Jason pointed out regarding the morality of abortion, I just question the fortitude of law makers and law enforcers in following through once the law is passed.
With regard to Senator Clinton, let me provide a very technical opinion regarding her comments. Before trying to make an assessment one must remember what Sen. Clinton’s profession was prior to becoming a Senator – she was an attorney. With that in mind, we must look at how attorneys phrase comments that they make (especially publicly). Attorneys, by training, are very technical and precise with what they say and the way that it is said. I think the law of aiding and abetting provides the best ground for interpreting what she said, specifically in the quote, “We believe that it is necessary for all Americans to join together and embrace policies that will reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, decrease abortions and improve access to women’s health care.” When abetting a person in what they are doing, one must provide SUPPORT or ENCOURAGEMENT to that person toward the act that they are committing. As Jason stated, making abortion legal (i.e. improve access to women’s health care) makes it easier for a woman to have an abortions. This absolutely provides support and encouragement to women that are contemplating the decision of “keeping the baby or not”. From an attorney’s standpoint, Sen. Clinton is abetting women by supporting legalization of abortion. Sen. Clinton being an attorney is fully aware of definition and likely would not publicize comments if she had the opposite opinion. She also knows that the majority of Senators are lawyers and would understand this logic as well. Therefore, I would agree with Jason’s assessment of her comments.
LikeLike
May 1, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Linda,
I should have been more careful in my wording. I do believe there is a morally legitimate exception (but I still would not call it a “good” use—it is always regrettable). Abortion is a morally acceptable option when the mother’s physical health is at risk (i.e. if she will die otherwise), but I do not believe there is a moral justification for abortion the case of rape/incest. See “Abortion: The One Exception” at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/abortionexception.htm and “Pro-Life With a Footnote” at http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/prolifefootnote.htm to read my rationale for both positions.
You might want to read another article of mine dealing with the libertarian “choice-tactic” of the abortion-choice side found here: http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/righttochoose.htm
Regarding abortifacient pills (in whatever form), yes, I think that is a very important issue as well. If the Pill and other forms of chemical contraceptives can cause abortions (and there is good reason to believe they can) they should be opposed by pro-lifers. Strategically, however, they should be excluded from the political fight. It’s hard enough to win the public fight on surgical abortion. If we add chemical abortion to the table we will only eliminate more of our base and lessen our chances of stopping one form of egregious evil. It’s best to win where we can win when we can win, and then tackle other issues after our first victory. It’s an incremental approach to public policy. But that’s the public, not the church. For the church we use a different approach.
Thanks for the compliment.
Jason
LikeLike
May 1, 2006 at 3:28 pm
Jason,
Where did you get your 1972 abortion statistic? You quoted 150,000 abortions. I can’t find this number anywhere. I find the numbers to be around 586,760 in 1972.
LikeLike
May 1, 2006 at 4:18 pm
Jason,
The cause of pro-lifers is to protect the life of unborn children, right?
Doesn’t that include ANY and ALL threats against their lives? including abortifacients?
When you say “Strategically, however, they should be excluded from the political fight. It’s hard enough to win the public fight on surgical abortion. If we add chemical abortion to the table we will only eliminate more of our base and lessen our chances of stopping one form of egregious evil.” Are you saying that fighting the “day-after” pill would weaken your “strategy”, and political fight against surgical abortion?
That doesn’t sound very logical.
BTW, what is THE Strategy of stopping this form of egregious evil {legal abortion}? What is Your strategy? What is the churches strategy to-date?
In my opinion, state your cause, and support it, all the way. Whether it’s a popular one or not. People shouldn’t be lukewarm. They should be Hot or Cold. Pro-Life is pro-life. Fighting the legality of abortion is a PART of the fight. right? To me, you can’t really fight one thing and leave the others untouched.
It seems wishy washy to say “I am pro-life! We MUST fight for the life of all unborn children!” and then say “well, we have to pick the political fights we can win”
And oh, BTW, Roe vs. Wade is still on the books!!!
So, until it’s overturned, the church pro-lifer’s are doing what, exactly, to help all these unborn children?
No, really. Where are the DO’ers? Where’s to call to action?!! We need to start a godly war against evil! The people on the pews need to get their pious super-spiritual butts UP out of the pews, and into the world! Let’s share the love of Jesus with the hurting, the lost, the mixed-up teen on the road to pregnancy and abortion.
Let’s fight abortion on the legal front and at the home front. At the same time. Christians Can Make a Difference! We need the vision and marching orders from our leaders, or are they too busy pondering the deep things of God, are they too busy building the fortified walls around the church-to keep the ‘OTHER’ from getting in? or from letting the one’s in->from getting out!? What is going on! Our world is dying, our neighbors are committing suicide, our teenagers are having abortions, and what is the church doing!!???!!
it’s inside a building, yelling, pointing it’s finger, and condemning the world to hell.
Someone in our denominations needs to put together a plan of action! Nationwide programs that target the women that are at high-risk {of pregnancy, abortion, etc}. There is power behind unity!
LikeLike
May 1, 2006 at 4:21 pm
BTW, In all my posts, when I say “YOU” I DO NOT mean, specifically “YOU.”
I’m speaking in general.
i appreciate many of your writtings. Very thought provoking.
God Bless!
LikeLike
May 1, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Linda,
I got that figure by averaging the low (89K) and high estimates (210) given by Thomas Hilgers and Dennis Horan in their book “New Perspectives on Human Abortion” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890933790/qid=1120264225/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/002-4258809-1420840?n=507846&s=books&v=glance) Now that you have questioned me on this, however, I have done some more checking and it appears that this statistic was limited to ILLegal abortions. The number of legal abortions is noted to be 587,000 as you noted. Thanks for making me do more research!
If you go here (http://www.physiciansforlife.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=885) you will see the number of legal abortions per year for every year back to 1968. Prior to 1967 it is estimated that there were about 8,000 abortions per year. By 1990 there were 1,609,000. It was noted that “at a daily rate, the number of legal abortions has increased from 22 per day prior to 1967…to 3,597 per day” today. That’s astounding!
If you’re interested in how they calculate the number of possible illegal abortions prior to Roe here is a quote from the above link:
Earlier “guesstimates” placed the annual number of illegal abortions at from 200,000 to 1.2 million (U.S. DHEW, 1971). More recent estimates suggest this is much too high.
Tietze (1975) for example, suggested that the illegal abortion maternal death rate in developed countries is 40 per 100,000 cases. In 1966, the last year before the laws began to change, the National Center for Health Statistics reported a total of 189 maternal deaths due to abortions of all types: legal and illegal induced, and spontaneous. [By 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, it had decreased to 90.]
Even if we were to allow for underreporting of illegal abortion maternal deaths by assuming all of these maternal deaths were due to illegal abortions, the total number of illegal abortions in 1966, at a maximum, would have been 189/40 x 100,000 = 472,500.
Cates and Rochat (1976), utilizing a lower estimate of 30 maternal deaths per 100,000 illegal abortions, state that there were only about 130,000 illegal abortions in 1972, one year before Roe v. Wade, when legal abortion was available only in a few larger cities.
…
Finally, the most comprehensive study done suggests that the best estimate of the total number of abortions (legal + illegal) occurring in 1966, before any laws changed, is about 125,000 (McKnight 1992 – 124,342). Since permissive laws began to be passed in 1967, therefore, induced abortions have increased 10 to 12 fold.
I have emailed a couple of pro-life websites I trust to get additional information. If they respond with some reputable sources and numbers I will post them as well.
Jason
LikeLike