|
Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1990s by Michael J. New, Ph.D.Center for Data Analysis Report #04-01
|
Posted on 09/12/2004 7:12:31 PM PDT by Coleus
|
Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1990s by Michael J. New, Ph.D.Center for Data Analysis Report #04-01
|
The 1990s saw both the election and re-election of a "pro-choice" President.1 However, the "pro-life" movement made considerable gains at the state and local levels. Survey data indicate that by the end of the decade, more people supported restrictions on abortion and fewer supported discretionary abortion.2
Meanwhile, the actual number of abortions declined during the decade. For the 46 states reporting data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in both 1990 and 1999,3 the number of abortions fell from 1,035,5734 to 854,416,5 a decline of 17.4 percent. This decline translates into a reduction in the abortion rate from 20.61 to 16.62 abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44.6
What is the reason for this decline in the number of abortions? The economy, which grew at a brisk rate during the mid- to late 1990s, might be partly responsible. Studies indicate that abortion rates decline during periods of strong economic growth.7 However, an even more directly related factor might be the impact of legislation intended to reduce the number of abortions.
This study used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) to estimate how state-level "pro-life" legislation affected abortion rates and ratios.8 This paper reports a number of findings based on these data. Among them:
The rest of the article can be found here
The number of abortions rose consistently throughout the 1970s and the 1980s.36 However, that trend reversed during the 1990s as the number of legal abortions declined by 17.4 percent between 1990 and 1999.37
There are a number of different reasons for this decline. However, one factor that cannot be overlooked is the impact of pro-life legislation in the states. By the end of the decade, more states had adopted parental involvement requirements, informed consent requirements, and "partial-birth abortion" bans.38 More important, regression results provide evidence that each of these laws was effective at reducing the number of abortions that took place.
Michael J. New, Ph.D., is a post-doctoral fellow at the Harvard-MIT Data Center.
Let's continue working on our state legislators to get more pro-life legislation passed. Lives depend on it.
First, without challenges from state and local governments, the Supreme Court won't feel pressure to re-examine the issue, and Presidents won't know the political costs of being pro-abortion, especially in their court choices.
Secondly, if the Supreme Court should open the door to legislation, local and state governments need people in place who really believe in the importance of protecting innocent human life.
Finally, one cannot underestimate the moral and spiritual impact of having elected officials and leaders who believe in protecting the innocent.
Bump, thanks Coleus.
patent
True, NJ has the least amt. of abortion laws and the highest rates of teen abortions in the Nation, the Republican state legislature and Governor (Whitman) consistently voted NO against parental notification, the ban on PBA, and on a 24-hr. waiting period. It's no wonder children get the wrong ideas.
New Jersey, NJ, surpasses all states in teenage abortion rate
A 15-year-old anguishes over abortion decision
Sexual abstinence speakers canceled (by NJ Teacher Union)
NJ County Right to Life BANNED from St. Patrick's Day Parade, Action Needed!
However, one factor that cannot be overlooked is the impact of pro-life legislation in the states.
Which could be greatly expanded by the Life-Protecting Judicial Limitation Act of 2003 To provide that the inferior courts of the United States do not have jurisdiction to hear abortion-related cases. See argument @ Limiting Federal Court Jurisdiction To Protect Marriage For The States
FOXNews.com - Politics - Report: 30 States Ready to Outlaw Abortion
Thirty states are poised to make abortion illegal within a year if the Supreme Court (search) reversed its 1973 ruling establishing a woman's legal right to an abortion, an advocacy group said Tuesday.
The pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights said some states have old laws on the books that would be triggered by the overturning of the landmark Roe v. Wade (search) decision. Others have language in their state constitutions or strongly anti-abortion legislatures that would act quickly if the federal protection for abortion was ended and the issue reverted to the states.
The center found that 18 states had pre-Roe laws totally or partially banning abortion. In some cases those laws have been blocked by a court, but could easily be revived if Roe were overturned. Alabama is one state where the abortion ban was never enjoined by the courts, and could be immediately enforced.
There is a poignant aspect to today's opinion [upholding Roe v. Wade]. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation, and of our Court. Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish. We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining.
Scalia again in STENBERG V. CARHART
While I am in an I-told-you-so mood, I must recall my bemusement, in Casey, at the joint opinion's expressed belief that Roe v. Wade had "call[ed] the contending sides of a national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution," Casey, 505 U.S., at 867, and that the decision in Casey would ratify that happy truce. It seemed to me, quite to the contrary, that "Roe fanned into life an issue that has inflamed our national politics in general, and has obscured with its smoke the selection of Justices to this Court in particular, ever since"; and that, "by keeping us in the abortion-umpiring business, it is the perpetuation of that disruption, rather than of any Pax Roeana, that the Court's new majority decrees." Id., at 995-996. Today's decision, that the Constitution of the United States prevents the prohibition of a horrible mode of abortion, will be greeted by a firestorm of criticism-as well it should. I cannot understand why those who acknowledge that, in the opening words of Justice O'Connor's concurrence, "[t]he issue of abortion is one of the most contentious and controversial in contemporary American society," ante, at 1, persist in the belief that this Court, armed with neither constitutional text nor accepted tradition, can resolve that contention and controversy rather than be consumed by it. If only for the sake of its own preservation, the Court should return this matter to the people-where the Constitution, by its silence on the subject, left it-and let them decide, State by State, whether this practice should be allowed. Casey must be overruled.
For instance, the only common forms of state-level legislation before the Casey decision that consistently withstood constitutional scrutiny were parental involvement requirements and restrictions on Medicaid funding of abortions. However, Casey gave constitutional protection to informed consent laws. These laws require abortion providers to inform pregnant women about the health risks associated with abortion, the development of their unborn children, and resources for pregnant women and young mothers. Additionally, a number of states passed "partial-birth abortion" bans before the Supreme Court struck down Nebraska's ban in Stenberg v. Carhart in 2000.
Second, pro-life candidates made considerable and lasting gains in state legislatures during the 1990s. While it is well-known that Republicans obtained control of both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate in 1994, the gains they made in the states have received considerably less attention. Republicans obtained majority control in both chambers of 11 additional state legislatures in 1994.15 Overall, the number of states where Republicans controlled both chambers of the state legislature increased from six in 1990 to 18 in 2000.16 In 2001, Republican state party platforms for 48 of 50 states contained planks that supported restrictions on abortion.17
I know, I know, nothing makes any rational sense when it comes to liberal judges and the abortion slaughter they've been protecting ...
I know, I know, nothing makes any rational sense when it comes to liberal judges and the abortion slaughter they've been protecting ...
I wonder, Ed, what will it take in the way of a court case coming up through the appeals process to bring the penumbral house of Roe to a summary fall? Could the Peterson appeals do it? I don't think so, not with the leftist mindset of Garagos. I'm hoping to make a really good discussion atmosphere among moderates r3egarding the notion that underpins the abortion rationale, namely 'self defense'. In the final analysis, moderate Americans aren't in favor of abortion as birth control if they learn of the aliveness of the unborn. Only the notion of self defense can keep moderates accepting the horrible 'choice'. I intend to enjoin the debate regarding/defining self-defense and raise the truth that the little ones have a right to self defense (since the women's right to abortion rests solely on the notion of self defense for continued legality), undertaken on their behalf by we who hold them dear, their fellow Americans already born and in horror over the holocaust. Technology is fast approaching which will make pregnancy termination a woman's procedure that moves the little one to an artifical womb for continued life support ... and you don't need life support for someone that's not already alive.
A judge convinced against her will, is of the same OPINION still.
We The People are still the sovereigns, if we can keep it by being responsible enough to vote!
Indeed!
Ole Hickory left a message on what sort of person should get the vote:
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve. The Avalon Project : President Jackson's Veto Message Regarding ...
Pat Robertson has a new book out on Judicial Tyranny.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
