Heritage Scholars Dispute N.Y. Times Abortion Study

NewsMax ^ | 3/6/06 | NewsMax

[wagglebee]

Scholars at the conservative Heritage Foundation are disputing the conclusions of a study newly released by the New York Times that claims parental notification laws have little impact on state abortion rates.

The Times analysis involved six states that introduced parental-notification laws in the last decade. It found divergent trends.

In Tennessee, the abortion rate dropped after a federal court suspended a parental-notification requirement, but rose again after the law went back into effect.

In Texas, the abortion rate declined after the parental-notification law went into effect, but not as fast as it did in the years before the law was passed.

But economist Michael New of the University of Alabama and the Heritage Foundation disputes the Times’ methodology.

"First and foremost,” he wrote in an e-mail to the Heritage policy blog Monday, "the authors analyze only six states and get their data from state health departments, which are notoriously unreliable.”

Prof. New noted that it was data from state health departments that led researcher Glen Stassen to wrongly and infamously conclude that abortions had increased under the Bush administration.

In fact, evidence from the Center for Disease Control and NARAL - a pro-choice lobbying group - points to a different conclusion: that parental-notification laws actually reduce abortions.

Prof. New published a paper in late January that came to the same conclusion.

"When a parental involvement law is enacted,” New discovered, "the abortion rate decreases by 16.37 abortions for every thousand live births.”

[wagglebee]

The New York Slimes and their leftist ilk are desperate to do anything to insure that as many babies are slaughtered as possible.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping.

[nina0113]

My brother was enforcing parental notification long before his state law took effect - he told the girls who turned up pregnant in his office that they had three choices: they could tell their mothers without him, they could tell their mothers with him, or he could tell their mothers for them. The one choice they did NOT have was for their mothers not to know.

[Nevadan]

If there was no impact whatsoever on the number of abortions when parental notification is in effect, then it would seem to me that Planned Parenthood, Naral, NOW, and your "friendly" local abortionist would not be opposed to laws requiring parental notification. But the abortion industry does indeed know that notification of parents has the undesired effect of cutting into their business.

[SuziQ]

Either way, the Times can't get it right. Usually they fight AGAINST parental notification laws on the grounds that girls just can't tell their parents so they'll be denied the opportunity to kill their babies. Now they're on the horns of a dilemma because their argument has been shown to be wrong, and the parents being notified has nothing to do with the rates of abortion.

Whatever will they do?

[wagglebee]

The one absolute FACT that the New York Slimes will NEVER report is that in the past 33 years, nearly 50 MILLION infants have been slaughtered.

[SuziQ]

You got that right!

[RobbyS]

They will continue to fight parental notification laws, because they are lying.

[Irish_Thatcherite]

Liberals hiding their agendas as usual!!

[Pyro7480]

The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis reports relevant to this story:

Using Natural Experiments to Analyze the Impact of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion (2006)

Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1990s(2004)
(Both reports are also available in pdf format at the links above.)

[cgk]

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!