New Abortion Study Fuels Criticism of Obama and Praise of Palin

U.S. News & World Report ^ | September 19, 2008 | Liz Halloran

[Berlin_Freeper]

A new survey commissioned by a prominent conservative evangelical group found that abortion rates dropped an average of 13.6 percent in states that passed laws requiring that minor girls either notify their parents or get their consent before medically terminating a pregnancy.

The study for the Family Research Council was conducted by Michael New, a University of Alabama political science professor and senior FRC fellow. And it comes as abortion, as well as the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court, has emerged as a more prominent campaign issue since the vice presidential nomination of Republican Sarah Palin, who opposes the procedure even in cases of rape and incest.

In fact, the Susan B. Anthony List, a national organization devoted to the election of antiabortion women to Congress, used New's findings to take aim at Democratic nominee Barack Obama and his running mate, Joseph Biden, both of whom support legalized abortion, and to make a case for proposed federal legislation that would make it a felony for a nonparent to take a minor across state lines for an abortion.

"The contrast between presidential tickets couldn't be greater," says SBA List president Marjorie Dannenfelser. Palin "passionately defended Alaska's parental consent law," she says, while the Democrats "consistently vote to undermine" such requirements.

[Albion Wilde]

Hard to believe that the schizoid USNews actually ran this article. But I’m glad they did.

[TigersEye]

Abortion is not about saving women’s lives!

Studies Find Abortions Have Long-Term Effects

An Unexpected Correlation: The Legacy of Abortion

Study: Previous Abortions Linked With Pre-Term Birth and Cerebral Palsy

American Psychological Association Ignores Abortion-Depression Link

48,589,993

Total Abortions since 1973

------------------------------------------------------------

Why the drop after 1960? (in deaths of women from illegal abortions)

The reasons were new and better antibiotics, better surgery and the establishment of intensive care units in hospitals. This was in the face of a rising population. Between 1967 and 1970 sixteen states legalized abortion. In most it was limited, only for rape, incest and severe fetal handicap (life of mother was legal in all states). There were two big exceptions — California in 1967, and New York in 1970 allowed abortion on demand. Now look at the chart carefully.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abortion Statistics - Decision to Have an Abortion (U.S.)

· 25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing

· 21.3% of women cannot afford a baby

· 14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child

· 12.2% of women are too young (their parents or others object to the pregnancy)

· 10.8% of women feel a child will disrupt their education or career

· 7.9% of women want no (more) children

· 3.3% of women have an abortion due to a risk to fetal health

2.8% of women have an abortion due to a risk to maternal health

----------------------------------------------------------------------

So how many women’s lives have been saved by abortion?

Only about 3% of abortions since 1972 were reported to be “due to a risk to maternal health.” A reasonable person would recognize that not all of those cases represent a lethal risk. But let’s say they did. That means that nearly 45 million fetuses were butchered to save the lives of about 1.3 million women. Or put another way; 35 babies are killed to save each woman.

Abortion was legal in all 50 states prior to Roe v. Wade in cases of danger to the life of the woman.

Roe v Wade: FULL Text (The Decision that wiped out an entire Generation 33 years ago today)

[JusPasenThru]

bump for later, and thanks for the info.

[Truthsearcher]

Right now, the number of mothers who die in child birth in the US is 13 per 100,000.

That’s the real risk, all the other numbers are fake made up “health risks”. The real risk is 0.013% chance of death.

Or about 8,000 babies killed for every mother saved by the abortion.

[TigersEye]

You are welcome.

[Mashood]

Add a few more zeros in there.

[TigersEye]

I’m sorry, I don’t follow your figures. I’m sure not all women who die in child birth are having abortions performed in an attempt to save them.

[Truthsearcher]

The number of women who die in childbirth in the US is 13 per 100,000 live birth.

That means the percentage of pregnancies that are actually life threatening is 0.013%.

That is the real actual danger of pregnancy, 13 death for every 100,000 births. Any other number you see is a false made up inflated number to justify abortion.

[supercat]

That means the percentage of pregnancies that are actually life threatening is 0.013%.

No, it doesn't. While that may possibly be the percentage of pregnancies that are lift threatening, there are four classes of pregnancies to consider:

1. non-life-threatening; aborted
2. non-life-threatening; carried to term
3. life-threatening; aborted
4. life-threatening; carried to term, fatally

The 13/100K statistic implies that the ratio of #4 to #2 is about 13:100K. That does not imply that the ratios of #3 to #1, nor (#3+#4) to (#1+#2) are are similar.

[Truthsearcher]

“The 13/100K statistic implies that the ratio of #4 to #2 is about 13:100K. That does not imply that the ratios of #3 to #1, nor (#3+#4) to (#1+#2) are are similar.”

Yes, but since the everyone admits that the overwhelming majority of cases health isn’t the reason women get abortions, there is good reason to assume that the ratio of 3 to 1 would not be differ significantly from the ratio of 4 to 2.

But don’t believe me, check out the numbers. In Ireland, where abortion is illegal, the maternal mortality rate is a minuscule 2 per 100,000 birth.

Given the low frequency the matter actually comes into play, the maternal health risk issue is a complete red herring in the abortion debate. Brought up only to distract us from the real issue.

[supercat]

Yes, but since the everyone admits that the overwhelming majority of cases health isn’t the reason women get abortions, there is good reason to assume that the ratio of 3 to 1 would not be differ significantly from the ratio of 4 to 2.

Sorry, but I don't think that argument works. Suppose that in a hypothetical community, there are 200,113 pepople broken down into the four categories thusly: 100,000; 100,000; 100; 13. You will observe that about half of pregnancies result in abortions, and that only 0.1% of abortions are of pregnancies that would otherwise be life threatening. Nonetheless, the ratio of #3 to #1 is not even close to the ratio of #4 to #2.

In reality, I suspect that the percentage of what would-be life-threatening pregnancies that end in abortion is nowhere near as large as in the hypothetical examine above, but the statistics you cited would not preclude that possibility.

[Truthsearcher]

You failed to address my second piece of evidence.

[supercat]

You failed to address my second piece of evidence.

Ireland's rate of 2 per 100,000 would tend to suggest that either (1) In the U.S., non-life-threatening pregnancies are more likely to end in abortion than life-threatening ones, or (2) some factor other than abortion causes Ireland to have a maternal fatality rate 1/6 that of the U.S.

If Ireland's lower maternal fatality rate was due to factors other than abortion, any attempt to judge the effect of abortion on it would be meaningless. If the lower rate is due to the abortion ban, that would suggest that life-threatening pregnancies are kept (versus aborted) at a disproportionate rate compared to non-life-threatening ones. I suppose that's possible, but it seems unlikely.

[MHGinTN]

Ping-a-ling-a-ling

[Republic]

Kinda shocked myself, way to go US News and World Report.

[cpforlife.org]

Another ray of light shines through the rotting façade of the Demoncrat Media.

My bumper sticker:

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[Lexinom]

These people (most Dems) do not care for anyone who can't do anything for them. This includes the unborn. They do not care about our law sanctioning the dismemberment of babies. They would prefer not to think about it, delegating the responsibility to the would-be-mother.

News to them: insofar as they promote laws that allow the grisly practices of partial birth, saline, aspirator, and chemical abortion of fellow human beings, they are responsible. It will not be a "private, personal matter" when God laughs at their calamity on the Last Day.

[Truthsearcher]

You’ve completely missed the point.

Which is to prove that pregnancy related death is a NON-issue when it comes to discussions about abortion. They happen so infrequently that to use it as a decision making factor in the debate over abortion is nothing more than an attempt to distract attention from the real issue.