[inquest]

Correlation doesn't establish causation. There are a number of factors that would affect the abortion rate one way or the other. IOW, comparison needs to be made in the same state/country before and after the laws were put into place, rather than comparing one country where it's legal with another where it's not. I, and I think most people, would require some pretty solid evidence that laws against abortion do not reduce the incidence of it. We know that in the U.S., Roe vs. Wade has resulted in (or at least contributed to) a substantial increase in it.

[BearArms]

We know that in the U.S., Roe vs. Wade has resulted in (or at least contributed to) a substantial increase in it.

Yes, but in the years subsequent to the Roe decision, state laws such as informed consent and waiting periods were not yet in place. After the courts upheld these laws and they were allowed to go into effect in several states, they proved unquestionably successful. Pro-life sources have credited them with significant reductions in abortions in the states that have them.

That, plus the remarkable success of the Dutch policy, shows that abortion can be effectively combatted without resorting to complete prohibition, which would inevitably bring with it severe consequences for many young women in trouble who are not evil, just desperate.