Recently, Naomi Cahn and Jane Carbone, the authors of Red Families v. Blue Families had an article in Slate criticizing pro-lifers for an increase in single-parent families. They argue that the religious culture in many southern and midwestern states makes women less likely to choose abortion when confronted with an unintended pregnancy. This leads to more single-parent families in red states.

However, in a response at NRO, I argue that the contraceptive culture that Cahn and Carbone promote also bears a great deal of responsibility for the rise in single-parent families. Indeed, several economic studies indicate that expanded access to contraception encourages more women to engage in premarital sex and increases the number of unintended pregnancies. Furthermore, men who impregnate women face considerably less social pressure to marry. The end result has been more sexual activity, more abortions, and yes, more single-parent households.

Not surpsingly Cahn and Carbone fail to engage this issue. They claim contraceptives are effective, but remain blissfully unaware of the studies of contraception programs in Scotland, Spain, and San Francisco that show no impact on abortion rates or unintended-pregnancy rates. Overall, Cahn and Carbone need to address the fact that the contraceptive culture they avidly promote has also played a role in the rise of single-parent households.

Last month, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his support for the Reproductive Health Act in his “State of the State” address. The Reproductive Health Act would make abortion a “fundamental right” in New York law, rendering it very difficult to pass incremental pro-life laws in the future. Additionally, it would legalize abortions after 24 weeks for health reasons, allow non-physicians to perform some abortions, and remove some criminal charges against individuals who kill an unborn child against the mother’s will.

The fact that Governor Cuomo is willing to invest political capital in such legislation is puzzling to say the least. New York has one of the highest abortion rates in the country. Also, Americans United for Life (AUL) consistently ranks New York among the “least protective” states in terms of the amount pro-life legislation it currently has in effect.

Furthermore, even though New York is a blue state with strong sentiment for legal abortion, a recent poll commissioned by the Chiaroscuro Foundation and conducted by McLaughlin and Associates, finds that many aspects of the Reproductive Health Act are unpopular with New York residents. Over 78 percent of New Yorkers believe there is sufficient access to abortion in New York state. Similarly, 75 percent oppose changing the law so that someone other than a doctor can perform surgical abortions.

Interestingly, the same poll shows that a substantial majority of New York residents support a variety of incremental pro-life laws. The results indicate that well over 70 percent of New Yorkers favor parental notice laws, 24 hour waiting periods, and providing information about options and risks to pregnant women prior to the abortion.

Pro-life groups should continue to conduct and publicize research on attitudes toward incremental pro-life laws. This is because professional polling organizations rarely do this on their own. For instance, since 1995 Gallup has asked respondents to identify themselves as either “pro-life” or “pro-choice” over 35 times. In that same timespan, they have conducted opinion surveys about waiting periods before abortions three times and parental-involvement laws four times. This is likely because, up until recently, more people self-identified as “pro-choice” rather than “pro-life.” However, a substantial body of polling data indicates that many incremental pro-life laws enjoy broad public support—even in deep blue states like New York.

Pro-lifers were saddened to learn that long time pro-life activist Michael Schwartz succumbed to ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) this past weekend. Schwartz was a behind-the-scenes strategist for pro-life efforts on Capitol Hill. He is probably best known for serving as the Chief-of-Staff to Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). However, Schwartz also served as the director of the Free Congress Foundation’s Center for Social Policy and as national director of public affairs for the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights. He was also part of the group that met in 1973 to plan to first ever March for Life. He was exceptionally knowledgeable about the history of the pro-life movement and gave a great presentation on the subject at a Students for Life of America (SFLA) conference several years ago.

I remember my first meeting with Michael Schwartz. It was after the release of one of my Heritage Foundation studies on the impact of state-level pro-life legislation. I was announcing the release of a study at a gathering on Capitol Hill. Someone from Senator Coburn’s office indicated that Michael Schwartz wanted to meet with me afterwards. He took a real interest in my research and we had a long conversation about the current direction of the pro-life movement. Afterwards he would quickly respond to any question I had about old articles or papers which I thought could help me with my research.

Even in the months leading up to his death, Schwartz frequently met with pro-life leaders to think and strategize. Before his passing, Schwartz received the National Pro-Life Religious Council’s Pro-Life Recognition Award at the National Memorial for the Preborn and Their Mothers and Fathers. He was a great friend, a great activist, and a great leader. He will be missed. RIP.

Michael New is an assistant professor at the University of Michigan–Dearborn, a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute, and an adjunct scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New.

Last Monday, David Frum wrote an essay for CNN.com titled “Let’s Get Real About Abortions.” Frum chides pro-lifers for placing too much emphasis on legally restricting abortion while neglecting the material needs of women facing crisis pregnancies. Frum does not favor banning abortion and his concerns about the state of the modern conservative movement in the United States are well documented. However, it is still disheartening to see a conservative commentator spout tired liberal talking points about how generous social programs are an effective strategy for reducing the abortion rate.

Now Frum is correct that the incidence of abortion is affected by the strength of the economy. However, Frum overstates his case. For instance, the number of abortions rose sharply throughout the 1970s. This was not because the economy was poor, but rather because the legalization of abortion changed sexual mores and shifted attitudes toward the issue. Additionally, even though the economy was strong during the 1980s, the number of abortions actually increased slightly between 1980 and 1989. Finally, today’s slow economy may be increasing the abortion rate. However, the Guttmacher study Frum cites indicates that the number of abortions increased by only one percent between 2005 and 2008—hardly a dramatic increase.

Like other commentators, Frum touts Europe as a model to follow. He argues that the reason why abortion rates are lower in Germany is because they have more generous social programs. However, while the U.S abortion rate has fallen, Germany’s abortion rate has gradually increased since the early 1980s. Frum also cites the Netherlands as a country with low abortion rates. Again, despite the generous social programs, over 60 percent of pregnancies to women under 20 in the Netherlands still end in abortion. Overall, there is no body of peer reviewed research which shows that increased welfare spending reduces abortion rates. Furthermore, studies of abortion rates in the U.S. states found that the level of welfare benefits failed to have a statistically significant impact on the incidence of abortion.

Pro-lifers do realize that many women seek abortion due to economic hardship. That is why they enthusiastically support the thousands of pregnancy resources centers in the country. Pro-lifers may disagree about what types of assistance the government should provide to women facing crisis pregnancies, but nearly all agree that pregnancy resource centers have played a valuable role in helping countless women who decided to bring a crisis pregnancy to term.

As veteran pro-lifers are well aware, we need to pursue several strategies simultaneously. We need to change the culture, enact protective laws, and offer assistance to women facing crisis pregnancies. That is certainly a realistic approach to stopping abortion.

Michael J. New is an Assistant Professor at The University of Michigan – Dearborn and an Adjunct Scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute. Follow him on Twitter @Michael_J_New.