An Open Letter To Pro-Lifers
November 9, 2012
Michael J. New
To my Pro-life Friends and Allies:
The results of Tuesday’s presidential election were certainly disappointing. We knew the next president might get the opportunity to appoint as many as four new judges to the U.S. Supreme Court. We also knew that the 2012 election marked our best opportunity to repeal Obamacare. We were running against an incumbent president who very openly and aggressively supported legal abortion. We knew the stakes were high, and we responded admirably. In the end, our efforts came up a bit short.
However, I want to encourage you not to despair. We continue to make good progress. In fact, I would argue that our biggest successes during the past twenty years have neither been political nor legislative. Our biggest success story is that we have succeeded in changing the hearts and minds of millions of Americans.
Allow me to explain. One simple measure of the effectiveness of the pro-life movement is the number of abortions that are performed every year in this country. The number of abortions has declined from 1.6 million in 1990 to about 1.2 million in 2008. That is 1.2 million too many. But it is also a 25 percent decline. The consistent decline in the incidence of abortion is progress the pro-life movement could sometimes do a better job advertising.
So why has the abortion rate declined? It is due partly to the state level pro-life laws we have passed. I am probably the most dogged defender of the incrementalist strategy in the pro-life movement. I frequently cite numerous academic studies, including my own research, which shows that public funding restrictions, parental involvement laws, and properly designed informed consent laws all reduce abortion rates. I also detail how the strategies our opponents promote, like greater spending on welfare or contraceptive programs, have no effect on abortion rates—or are, in many cases, counterproductive.
However, I want to remind everyone that the abortion rate has fallen in every state—even deep blue states that have not passed any pro-life laws since 1990. Why is this? It is mostly because hearts and minds are changing. Ultrasound technology has developed that allows people to see clear pictures of sons, daughters, nieces, and nephews in utero. We have also developed an impressive network of pregnancy resources centers that provide vital assistance to literally thousands of women facing unplanned pregnancies.
Furthermore, we have become increasingly smart and savvy in our outreach efforts. There are too many good pro-life outreach efforts for me to name in this letter. However, I think that the Silent No More campaign has done a great job communicating the regret of many post-abortive women. The 40 Days for Life campaign has inspired thousands of people to become more active in their pro-life work. The annual Students for Life of America (SFLA) conference during the March for Life weekend routinely attracts thousands of college students—making this the largest pro-life conference in the country. Finally the videos produced by LiveAction Films have done a great job exposing unethical and illegal activities at Planned Parenthood facilities across the country.
We have realized that we have to work smarter and work harder than our opponents. Many fail to realize the difficulties that Roe v. Wade has imposed on the pro-life movement. Roe not only legalized abortion on demand and made abortion policy resistant to change, it also changed society’s sexual and cultural mores in such a way as to make subsequent restrictions on abortion more difficult to enact. It gave abortion rights mainstream political legitimacy. Moreover, it created a national network of abortion providers with a financial interest in easy access to abortion. Overall, through creativity and dedication, we have done a good job overcoming many of these obstacles.
Of course, I do not want to dismiss politics. After the 1998 election, many conservatives were disgusted that the Lewinsky scandal did not result in a greater political backlash against the Democratic Party. Some suggested that conservatives disengage from politics. However, I would never recommend that course of action. Winning elections and passing laws has certainly done some good. Furthermore, if nothing else, pro-lifers have to play defense. The unique problems posed by both the HHS contraception mandate and Obamacare will only be solved through political engagement.
Most important, I do not want pro-lifers to despair. The past 20 years have been good to us. It was just 20 years ago we received a very disappointing judicial ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. A number of surveys indicated that the pro-life position was losing ground in the court of public opinion. The Republican Party was having serious discussions about removing the pro-life plank from their platform. Pro-lifers certainly had plenty of reasons for pessimism. But now everything has changed. Many surveys show that the pro-life position is gaining support, and no one disputes that the Republican Party will remain a pro-life party for the foreseeable future.
So please keep doing your pro-life work, with pride, conviction, and confidence. Our efforts have made a difference over the past 20 years. And I have every confidence that if we stay the course, the next 20 years will be even better.
Michael 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.
Become a fan of First Things on Facebook, subscribe to First Things via RSS, and follow First Things on Twitter.
Comments:
11.9.2012 | 2:03am
Bob O'Connell says:
What about the increase in artificial contraception? Are we misleading ourselves in regard the degree to which legislation or ethical education has reduced the number of abortions in the U.S.?
11.9.2012 | 9:27am
Michael PS says:
I do sometimes wonder how much impact a change in the law, without a corresponding change in public attitudes, would have on abortion rates.
Anyone who remembers France in the 1960s & 1970s, before the Veil Law of 1975, will know that pretty well every village seemed to have its « faiseuse d’anges » or “angel-maker.” Everyone knew about it, nobody talked about it and the police regarded it as “women’s business” and turned a blind eye to it. Occasionally a woman died and, then, the Parquet, like Captain Renault in “Casablanca” would be shocked, shocked to discover that such things went on and there would be a brief flurry of prosecutions of unqualified women, quickly rounded up and, so, obviously known to police. Medical practitioners, doctors and midwives were never, ever, prosecuted.
Many people will recall « le manifeste des 343 salopes » on 5 April 1971, when 343 mostly prominent women admitted to having had an abortion and challenging the authorities to prosecute them. This, needless to say, did not happen. Perhaps even more significant was the publication of a similar manifesto in February 1973, by 331 doctors, including professors in the leading teaching hospitals, again challenging the authorities to prosecute them. The procurator of the Republic excused himself on the grounds of “lack of evidence.”
Does anyone imagine the position in the United States would be so very different?
Anyone who remembers France in the 1960s & 1970s, before the Veil Law of 1975, will know that pretty well every village seemed to have its « faiseuse d’anges » or “angel-maker.” Everyone knew about it, nobody talked about it and the police regarded it as “women’s business” and turned a blind eye to it. Occasionally a woman died and, then, the Parquet, like Captain Renault in “Casablanca” would be shocked, shocked to discover that such things went on and there would be a brief flurry of prosecutions of unqualified women, quickly rounded up and, so, obviously known to police. Medical practitioners, doctors and midwives were never, ever, prosecuted.
Many people will recall « le manifeste des 343 salopes » on 5 April 1971, when 343 mostly prominent women admitted to having had an abortion and challenging the authorities to prosecute them. This, needless to say, did not happen. Perhaps even more significant was the publication of a similar manifesto in February 1973, by 331 doctors, including professors in the leading teaching hospitals, again challenging the authorities to prosecute them. The procurator of the Republic excused himself on the grounds of “lack of evidence.”
Does anyone imagine the position in the United States would be so very different?
11.9.2012 | 10:23am
harry says:
One big problem with the Pro-Life movement is its over reliance on worldly wisdom and worldly strategies. We will never defeat the Prince of this World on his own turf playing by his rules. Never. Not in a million years.
When we carry out our own plans we go with our own power – which is clearly insufficient. That ought to be evident to all Pro-Lifers by now, but it isn't. Many just can't resist the urge to go back to the drawing board and come up with another worldly plan of their own and rally the troops behind yet another strategy that is just as doomed to fail as were all that preceded it After 40 years and 55 million dead babies it is time we humbly submit to God's will and become a part of *His* plan. Then we will go with His power – which the Prince of this World cannot resist. In short:
– Human effort in – human results out – if the plan was our own.
– Same human effort in – divine results out – if the plan was God's.
A lack of faith is what keeps us from simply taking up our cross and our place in God's plan, which will always be frightening and won't make sense according to the wisdom of the world. That is why faith is required to follow Christ:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters – yes, even their own life – such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. … those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
– Luke 14:26-27, 33
But how can *that* work? How can we possibly be effective if we lose everything? Well, what Christ wants of us is a *willingness* to lose everything for His sake. He knows we need the things to which we so desperately cling. He just doesn't want us clinging to them as though God wasn't really there. He wants us to bear witness to the truth that He *is* there:
For the pagans run after all these things. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
– Matthew 6:32-33
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields – along with persecutions – and in the age to come eternal life.
– Mark 10:29-30
Our lack of faith and our clinging to that which we should simply trust in God to provide is the biggest obstacle the Pro-Life movement has – not the Prince of this World. If we all did what we knew was the right thing to do instead of only what doesn't seem too risky – if we took up our cross and followed Christ and didn't count the cost – child-killing would soon be viewed with the horror with which it ought to be. This would be because hearts would have changed, not because the law changed. Political success and the changing of the law will be easy after hearts have changed – and impossible before that.
When we carry out our own plans we go with our own power – which is clearly insufficient. That ought to be evident to all Pro-Lifers by now, but it isn't. Many just can't resist the urge to go back to the drawing board and come up with another worldly plan of their own and rally the troops behind yet another strategy that is just as doomed to fail as were all that preceded it After 40 years and 55 million dead babies it is time we humbly submit to God's will and become a part of *His* plan. Then we will go with His power – which the Prince of this World cannot resist. In short:
– Human effort in – human results out – if the plan was our own.
– Same human effort in – divine results out – if the plan was God's.
A lack of faith is what keeps us from simply taking up our cross and our place in God's plan, which will always be frightening and won't make sense according to the wisdom of the world. That is why faith is required to follow Christ:
If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters – yes, even their own life – such a person cannot be my disciple. And whoever does not carry their cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. … those of you who do not give up everything you have cannot be my disciples.
– Luke 14:26-27, 33
But how can *that* work? How can we possibly be effective if we lose everything? Well, what Christ wants of us is a *willingness* to lose everything for His sake. He knows we need the things to which we so desperately cling. He just doesn't want us clinging to them as though God wasn't really there. He wants us to bear witness to the truth that He *is* there:
For the pagans run after all these things. Your heavenly Father knows that you need them. But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.
– Matthew 6:32-33
“Truly I tell you,” Jesus replied, “no one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields – along with persecutions – and in the age to come eternal life.
– Mark 10:29-30
Our lack of faith and our clinging to that which we should simply trust in God to provide is the biggest obstacle the Pro-Life movement has – not the Prince of this World. If we all did what we knew was the right thing to do instead of only what doesn't seem too risky – if we took up our cross and followed Christ and didn't count the cost – child-killing would soon be viewed with the horror with which it ought to be. This would be because hearts would have changed, not because the law changed. Political success and the changing of the law will be easy after hearts have changed – and impossible before that.
11.9.2012 | 11:03am
The reduction in the number of abortions from 1.6 million to 1.2 million since 2008 is indeed remarkable. I was not aware of this, and I agree that the pro-life movement needs to do a much better job of publicizing this fact.
I also want to believe that this reduction is in substantial measure due to increased awareness of what abortion really involves by the wider public, but it would be nice to have some more solid corroboration of this claim than merely anecdotal evidence. If the reduction in abortions is more widely publicized (as it should be), the other side will no doubt be quick to attribute it to other factors, such as more readily available contraception. Convincing evidence that the underlying factor really is a widespread change in hearts and mind, and not something else, should also be widely publicized.
It is not clear to me, though, that Romney's defeat represents that much of a loss to the pro-life cause. Romney is justifiably notorious for his flip-flopping, and the evidence that he is a man of no principles who will say anything to get elected is quite strong, for those willing to search out and contemplate the publicly available evidence.
In my opinion, the pro-life movement has failed to learn the principal lesson it ought to have learned in the wake of the failure of the Reagan Administration to do anything substantial in eight years to advance the pro-life cause: One must not be too eager or quick to trust the sincerity of any politician's claims regarding pro-life conviction.
Talk is cheap; if it is followed up by a failure of assertive action to place the pro-life cause at the top of the political agenda in every possible way, it is of little if any value. I did not see any evidence of such assertive action during the entire duration of the Reagan Administration, and drew some painful albeit important lessons from that about the value of political rhetoric in general. A good deal more realism on this fundamental point might have led to much more effective strategies to advance the pro-life cause than has been the case in the intervening quarter century.
I also want to believe that this reduction is in substantial measure due to increased awareness of what abortion really involves by the wider public, but it would be nice to have some more solid corroboration of this claim than merely anecdotal evidence. If the reduction in abortions is more widely publicized (as it should be), the other side will no doubt be quick to attribute it to other factors, such as more readily available contraception. Convincing evidence that the underlying factor really is a widespread change in hearts and mind, and not something else, should also be widely publicized.
It is not clear to me, though, that Romney's defeat represents that much of a loss to the pro-life cause. Romney is justifiably notorious for his flip-flopping, and the evidence that he is a man of no principles who will say anything to get elected is quite strong, for those willing to search out and contemplate the publicly available evidence.
In my opinion, the pro-life movement has failed to learn the principal lesson it ought to have learned in the wake of the failure of the Reagan Administration to do anything substantial in eight years to advance the pro-life cause: One must not be too eager or quick to trust the sincerity of any politician's claims regarding pro-life conviction.
Talk is cheap; if it is followed up by a failure of assertive action to place the pro-life cause at the top of the political agenda in every possible way, it is of little if any value. I did not see any evidence of such assertive action during the entire duration of the Reagan Administration, and drew some painful albeit important lessons from that about the value of political rhetoric in general. A good deal more realism on this fundamental point might have led to much more effective strategies to advance the pro-life cause than has been the case in the intervening quarter century.
11.9.2012 | 1:05pm
Kamilla says:
Sadly, we simply cannot conclude that the reduction in the number of surgical abortions is an actual reduction in abortions.
Abortion is going medical and private. Take a pill, flush the toilet and be done with it. NO ONE on the pro-life side is tracking these abortions. No one is studying the numbers of medical abortions, period.
I'd like to think that we are gaining ground. And there are bright pockets of hope. But the plain truth of the matter is that Humanae Vitae was right. The Casey decision was right. Abortion is the back-up plan. And it always will be. It will just become private and no one need see anymore pictures of dismembered babies.
Abortion is going medical and private. Take a pill, flush the toilet and be done with it. NO ONE on the pro-life side is tracking these abortions. No one is studying the numbers of medical abortions, period.
I'd like to think that we are gaining ground. And there are bright pockets of hope. But the plain truth of the matter is that Humanae Vitae was right. The Casey decision was right. Abortion is the back-up plan. And it always will be. It will just become private and no one need see anymore pictures of dismembered babies.
11.9.2012 | 1:23pm
mary joan rourke says:
I am pro-life and have been fighting abortion since the 60's. my belief is that we must change hearts. laws do not do that and so our fight continues.
11.9.2012 | 2:05pm
Kamilla says:
It would be nice to believe the actual number of abortions is going down, but the truth of the matter is that NO ONE knows this because no one is tracking medical abortions (RU-485, Plan B, etc.). Not Right to Life, not HLI, not even Guttmacher - no one.
As the use of medical methods of abortion increases, the messy surgical abortions will necessarily decrease. Flush the toilet and you're done. No awful medical waste bins filled with dismembered bodies parts to be photographed and put on posters, no bodies to be buried. No, instead the new graveyard is the common sewer.
How appropriate is that?
As the use of medical methods of abortion increases, the messy surgical abortions will necessarily decrease. Flush the toilet and you're done. No awful medical waste bins filled with dismembered bodies parts to be photographed and put on posters, no bodies to be buried. No, instead the new graveyard is the common sewer.
How appropriate is that?
11.9.2012 | 3:07pm
Fr Stephen says:
Pro-lifers in ministry do not despair. Pro-lifers who tend to be overly political usually overreact. There will never be a political solution to abortion. The answer lies in ministry to our babies, our moms, and those wounded by abortion.
11.9.2012 | 5:59pm
Citizen Jerry says:
My concern is how much longer we'll be allowed to sacrifice our future generations on the altar of "choice" before we REALLY find out what the judgment of God is.
The ancient Aztecs also practiced human sacrifice. At least they believed they were appeasing their gods to spare their civilization. We do it for no other reason than convenience. And we will surely pay the consequences. Ora pro nobis.
The ancient Aztecs also practiced human sacrifice. At least they believed they were appeasing their gods to spare their civilization. We do it for no other reason than convenience. And we will surely pay the consequences. Ora pro nobis.
11.9.2012 | 6:14pm
Don Roberto says:
Certainly we must not despair. We know who is victorious in the end. But I participated in the recent 40 Days for Life campaign, and my sense is that Roe has indeed changed people's views: The law is a teacher. Kids (anyone under 40) think that because it's legal, it must be okay. And I fear much of the reduction is due to Day-After-Pill abortions not being counted. Hollywood and other libertine thought leaders have convinced many that evil is good.
But we will not give up hope. As Blessed John Henry Newman said "...error may be said, without a paradox, to be in some instances the way to truth, and the only way.... This being the case, we are obliged, under circumstances, to bear for a while with what we feel to be error, in consideration of the truth in which it is eventually to issue.... No one can go straight up a mountain; no sailing vessel makes for its port without tacking."
But we will not give up hope. As Blessed John Henry Newman said "...error may be said, without a paradox, to be in some instances the way to truth, and the only way.... This being the case, we are obliged, under circumstances, to bear for a while with what we feel to be error, in consideration of the truth in which it is eventually to issue.... No one can go straight up a mountain; no sailing vessel makes for its port without tacking."
11.9.2012 | 6:56pm
Chuck says:
If one looks at the facts, the arguments in this article are based on some serious misreading of the data.
One reason the number of abortions has dropped is the decrease in the number of women in the population pool most likely to have an abortion. Boomers, who fueled the large abortion numbers through the 90s are past child bearing age now so a decrease in the raw numbers is only to be expected. The other is that birth control has become much more effective. Not only is the medication better but the combination of that and the increased use of condoms at the same time makes an unplanned pregnancy much less likely to happen to unmarried women, so the largest percentage of abortions now are performed on married women. And that means that the much touted parental notification laws have had no impact whatsoever as these are all adults, and as adolescent abortions are usually paid for by the parents, obviously they know. They were nothing more than a cosmetic bone thrown to the pro-lifers by politicians who were laughing at them at the same time. (And on those rare occasions when it was necessary for the parents not to know, the kid just took the notification form, had a friend forge the parental signatures and then had the abortion and no one was the wiser.)
As far as state laws restricting abortion having an impact? How far is it to drive to a state with less restrictive laws? How hard is to fly to one? The last I saw there is a really big airport in Chicago. And how will those state laws fair in a court that will be overwhelmingly pro-abortion by the end of the next four years? I think the answer to that is obvious. As far as the courts are concerned, that fight is going to be over.
And let us look to one race in the last election. Tammy Baldwin defeated one of the most popular politicians in the history of Wisconsin and her advertising used pro-choice as one of its key selling points. Her voters were heavily young folks, so the notion that somehow the younger voters are pro-life is, well, not born out by actual data.
So what you face is a situation where the forces against you are building up momentum where it matters and your side is stuck with it were it increasingly does not matter.
One reason the number of abortions has dropped is the decrease in the number of women in the population pool most likely to have an abortion. Boomers, who fueled the large abortion numbers through the 90s are past child bearing age now so a decrease in the raw numbers is only to be expected. The other is that birth control has become much more effective. Not only is the medication better but the combination of that and the increased use of condoms at the same time makes an unplanned pregnancy much less likely to happen to unmarried women, so the largest percentage of abortions now are performed on married women. And that means that the much touted parental notification laws have had no impact whatsoever as these are all adults, and as adolescent abortions are usually paid for by the parents, obviously they know. They were nothing more than a cosmetic bone thrown to the pro-lifers by politicians who were laughing at them at the same time. (And on those rare occasions when it was necessary for the parents not to know, the kid just took the notification form, had a friend forge the parental signatures and then had the abortion and no one was the wiser.)
As far as state laws restricting abortion having an impact? How far is it to drive to a state with less restrictive laws? How hard is to fly to one? The last I saw there is a really big airport in Chicago. And how will those state laws fair in a court that will be overwhelmingly pro-abortion by the end of the next four years? I think the answer to that is obvious. As far as the courts are concerned, that fight is going to be over.
And let us look to one race in the last election. Tammy Baldwin defeated one of the most popular politicians in the history of Wisconsin and her advertising used pro-choice as one of its key selling points. Her voters were heavily young folks, so the notion that somehow the younger voters are pro-life is, well, not born out by actual data.
So what you face is a situation where the forces against you are building up momentum where it matters and your side is stuck with it were it increasingly does not matter.
11.9.2012 | 8:57pm
Janet Baker says:
With all due respect, Fr Stephen, I must disagree. The solution will never be entirely political. However, we deceive ourselves if we think that politics and law has no role in this matter. Both St Thomas Acquinas and yes, Martin Luther King would have objections to the dismissal of law that seems to be featured in so many comments. "Ministry to the babies, etc" as you state must occur, but if that is our sole focus, we will see no end to the bloodbath. We simply must engage in the political sphere (without neglecting the other arenas of pro-life activism).
11.10.2012 | 12:00am
teri colby says:
It is true that the only way the culture of death will change is when the hearts of God's people change and submit to his will and his alone. The hierarchy of the Church have done it's flock a GRAVE disservice by the vacuous and erroneous teachings we have been receiving for the last 40 years (as Cardinal Burke has spoke on many times.) The laity flounder around while the Bishops double speak and the priests remain silent on the most important issues we will ever face. 70% of Catholic women who attend mass say they get ALL of their education on the faith AT MASS. Well there in lies the problem. The ones who can change the most hearts and save the most souls, who hold the authority because they wear the collar of Christ are afraid to speak. With all my heart I love the men of the cloth, I would give my life. Would they be willing to give theirs?
11.10.2012 | 12:40am
Pete Burg says:
We did not respond admirably. More than 60 percent of Catholics voted for President Obama. This is very discouraging.
11.10.2012 | 5:26am
Michael PS says:
Janet Baker
Why do you suppose that legislation now would be more effective than it was before legalisation?
In France, the 331 doctors who signed the manifesto of 3 February 1973 admitted to performing an average of 300 abortions each in the preceding year. That is 993,400 abortions, in a country with a population one-fifth of that of the US. Moreover, no one suggests that these were the only abortions performed.
The figure recorded in the first full year after legalisation (1976) was 134,176
Indeed, it has been suggested that the programme of mandatory counselling put in place by a strongly pro-natalist government and the wide range of benefits offered to mothers actually reduced the number of abortions.
The last available figure was 209,268 and includes those performed using RU-486, which is very strictly regulated
Why do you suppose that legislation now would be more effective than it was before legalisation?
In France, the 331 doctors who signed the manifesto of 3 February 1973 admitted to performing an average of 300 abortions each in the preceding year. That is 993,400 abortions, in a country with a population one-fifth of that of the US. Moreover, no one suggests that these were the only abortions performed.
The figure recorded in the first full year after legalisation (1976) was 134,176
Indeed, it has been suggested that the programme of mandatory counselling put in place by a strongly pro-natalist government and the wide range of benefits offered to mothers actually reduced the number of abortions.
The last available figure was 209,268 and includes those performed using RU-486, which is very strictly regulated
11.10.2012 | 7:20am
MGM says:
We are called to be faithful not successful. It's about values not numbers. Results belong to God.
11.10.2012 | 8:31am
JD Fisher says:
I really like Professor New's work, but he engages in circular logic in his assertion that the 'hearts and minds' battle is being won.
I conduct a brief analysis here: http://reproductivepolitics.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-pro-life-movement-winning-hearts-and.html
Best, JDF
I conduct a brief analysis here: http://reproductivepolitics.blogspot.com/2012/11/is-pro-life-movement-winning-hearts-and.html
Best, JDF
11.10.2012 | 9:28am
Blake Helgoth says:
What we should have learned is that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats are friends of the pro-life movement. The latter are sworn enemies, the first only use the movement as a pawn for their own political ends without ever intending to do much at all to actually save lives. We need to leave the Republican party and begin anew. Wasn't forcing Romney down our throats as the canidate and then asking us to pretend that he was pro-life close enough to distain? What is it that Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? Let's stop the insanity, regroup and begin a party that will make a change.
11.10.2012 | 11:15am
friend says:
Hi Mike,
Has the age-adjusted abortion rate decreased, or just the raw number? We would need to adjust for changes in the age distribution of the population of 'fertile women' between 1990 and 2008 if we wanted to look at whether we are having any impact at reducing the number of surgical abortions.
Moreover, as a medical practitioner, I see that the movement in medicine overall is toward non-invasive and medical means of doing procedures. I suspect that part of the decline in surgical abortions is merely a product of the fact that more physicians and nurse practitioners are easily prescribing medications that induce abortions-from the morning after pill to methotrexate. Is there any way to capture these women who have medical abortions in a national dataset?
Finally, I do think hearts and minds are changing, but for the worse. The truth is that people under the age of 30 years old overwhelmingly went for Obama who ran a very successful "war on women" campaign with female celebrities and lots of lies about Planned Parenthood providing mammograms. Single women also overwhelmingly went for Obama, and more and more women are choosing to not get married or have children either until very late (like in their 40s) or not at all (because the young generation does not believe in the institution of marriage, they think we are overpopulating the earth, and they are also incredibly self-centered). And sadly, these young people who worship Obama, instead of God, are the future of America.
We are losing on many fronts, not just the pro-life front, but they are all connected because they are related to the loss of cultural values and the loss of patriotism. The traditional marriage front lost in multiple states this election. We have lost on the education front-from grade school through universities--young people have little historical memory of the recent atrocities of the 20th century. Huge emphasis is placed on learning geography and ancient civilizations instead. American exceptionalism is scorned. Young people these days are decidedly anti-American and anti-organized religion (especially anti-Catholic).
None of this means we should give up fighting and praying. However, conversion begins with our own-and how sad it is that most Catholics voted for Obama-despite the HHS Mandate and every other horrible thing he has done against life and against organized religion thus far? Well, it was not that surprising given the widespread mis-belief that catholics and christians can pat themselves on the back for having 'voted their conscience' as part of 'faithful citizenship' by electing a 'social justice' president.
We need a real cleansing of the churches in America-a real call to conversion-and possibly churches need to forego their tax-exempt status so that they can start actively organizing and taking a stand against the forces of evil both through organized prayer/fasting with explicit intentions or petitions, and through unified political voice and peaceful demonstrations.
Has the age-adjusted abortion rate decreased, or just the raw number? We would need to adjust for changes in the age distribution of the population of 'fertile women' between 1990 and 2008 if we wanted to look at whether we are having any impact at reducing the number of surgical abortions.
Moreover, as a medical practitioner, I see that the movement in medicine overall is toward non-invasive and medical means of doing procedures. I suspect that part of the decline in surgical abortions is merely a product of the fact that more physicians and nurse practitioners are easily prescribing medications that induce abortions-from the morning after pill to methotrexate. Is there any way to capture these women who have medical abortions in a national dataset?
Finally, I do think hearts and minds are changing, but for the worse. The truth is that people under the age of 30 years old overwhelmingly went for Obama who ran a very successful "war on women" campaign with female celebrities and lots of lies about Planned Parenthood providing mammograms. Single women also overwhelmingly went for Obama, and more and more women are choosing to not get married or have children either until very late (like in their 40s) or not at all (because the young generation does not believe in the institution of marriage, they think we are overpopulating the earth, and they are also incredibly self-centered). And sadly, these young people who worship Obama, instead of God, are the future of America.
We are losing on many fronts, not just the pro-life front, but they are all connected because they are related to the loss of cultural values and the loss of patriotism. The traditional marriage front lost in multiple states this election. We have lost on the education front-from grade school through universities--young people have little historical memory of the recent atrocities of the 20th century. Huge emphasis is placed on learning geography and ancient civilizations instead. American exceptionalism is scorned. Young people these days are decidedly anti-American and anti-organized religion (especially anti-Catholic).
None of this means we should give up fighting and praying. However, conversion begins with our own-and how sad it is that most Catholics voted for Obama-despite the HHS Mandate and every other horrible thing he has done against life and against organized religion thus far? Well, it was not that surprising given the widespread mis-belief that catholics and christians can pat themselves on the back for having 'voted their conscience' as part of 'faithful citizenship' by electing a 'social justice' president.
We need a real cleansing of the churches in America-a real call to conversion-and possibly churches need to forego their tax-exempt status so that they can start actively organizing and taking a stand against the forces of evil both through organized prayer/fasting with explicit intentions or petitions, and through unified political voice and peaceful demonstrations.
11.10.2012 | 3:54pm
Kathy says:
It may be declining in the public sector with mothers carrying healthy newborns. In the world of Down Syndrome, of which I belong because I am blessed to be the mother one of the most precious 12 year old daughter with DS, the abortion rate is going up. Eighty percent of mothers who find out they are carrying a baby with DS abort. EIGHTY Percent. Now I realize I am preaching to the choir, but we have got to get the word out that children with DS are children first and blessings beyond imagining. Please take my word for it. I have two other "highly successful" adult children - one is an OB/Gyn and one is a Psychologist. I am extremely proud of all three, but in all honesty have learned the most about the value of people and God through my youngest.
ANONYMOUS
ANONYMOUS
11.11.2012 | 8:05am
Dan LaHood says:
Pregnancies with a poor prenatal diagnosis have created a reflexive response from the culture, social, medical, the momentum when encountered is always toward abortion, my wife and I went through this 30 years ago, my wife's response was to found Isaiahh's Promise which counsels families in these difficult circumstances, what has been the result? a majority of families find Peace, even Joy in bringing their child to term. A National Network is being knitted together with Isaiah's Promise, Be Not Afraid among others to point out that it's Love which carries the day, forget Government it's heart to heart in Peer Ministry and personal witness where Hope lay.
11.11.2012 | 9:22am
Matthew says:
Excuse me! Why are most pro-lifers (excluding myself) unaware of the fact that Roe v Wade was put into effect by a 5 to 9 majority of republican appointed justices? Obviously, the pro-life movement has more to do with a long term culture shift in America and less to do with republican appointed justices, as history demonstrates!
11.11.2012 | 1:19pm
Peg says:
I have recently heard great, inspiring ads from Autism Speaks, featuring celebrities (Tommy Hilfiger, Ernie Els, Toni Braxton, etc.). I wonder what happens if or when we develop pre-natal tests for autism?
11.11.2012 | 7:10pm
Charles R. Williams says:
Matthew, many people who know the fact you cited also realize that the Democrats were the pro-life party in the fifties. This is no longer true. The only practical path to a pro-life Supreme Court that might reverse R v W is the election of a Republican president. A necessary condition but not a sufficient condition.
11.11.2012 | 9:12pm
TeaPot562 says:
To those who state that whether the president is a democrat or republican makes no difference: Consider the "Mexico City Policy". First adopted by Reagan, it stated that no US foreign aid funds would go to organizations that promoted abortions outside the USA. Pres. Clinton repealed the Mexico City policy by executive order in the early days of his presidency. Pres. George W. Bush reinstated the Mexico City policy, by executive order. Pres. Obama repealed it.
It is much easier to adopt or repeal a matter such as the "Mexico City policy" by executive order than to cobble together a majority of the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority of the Senate, to install a legislative solution.
For those babies born in foreign lands during the presidency of the two Bushes, it DID make a difference which party controlled the presidency.
TeaPot562
It is much easier to adopt or repeal a matter such as the "Mexico City policy" by executive order than to cobble together a majority of the House of Representatives and a filibuster-proof majority of the Senate, to install a legislative solution.
For those babies born in foreign lands during the presidency of the two Bushes, it DID make a difference which party controlled the presidency.
TeaPot562
11.11.2012 | 10:44pm
Alan says:
The article is a rallying cry for pro-life, but its advocacy is marred by factual claims that are questionable. According to the Guttmacher Institute, which is the most widely cited source of figures on abortion, the number of abortions per 100,000 women has decreased since the early 1990s. Since most of the major efforts to restrict access to abortions did not develop until the 2000s, this suggests that factors other than state restrictions are at work. Indeed, the change in the 2000s is not a sharp drop but a continuation of the decline that began a decade earlier. As to public opinion on abortion, the election and the effectiveness of the so-called "war on women" claim suggests that most Americans are not in favor of the elimination of abortion. Certainly the adverse and almost unanimous reaction to Murdock's and Akin's comments also suggest this. Reversing Roe cannot be the aim. Reversing public opinion and providing alternatives for those who do not wish to abort--being really pro-choice by providing real choices--is the slow but steady path to success.
11.12.2012 | 10:01am
William Keevers says:
We have much to be thankful for. Not to be pointlessly critical, but there are several areas in which we could bear improvement.
This election was one of the most media-driven in history--if that were possible--with media bias assuming so serious an aspect as to draw concerns over parallels with the history of media monopolies in totalitarian regimes, from Hugo Chavez to Hitler and Stalin. One of the most important causes of the change in hearts and minds of the bases populace has been the expert marketing research and production of outlets like the Vitae Caring Foundation and Heroic Media; the fall in abortion rates in markets they have been allowed to enter, as much as a 35% fall, is even greater than the national average fall in such rates.
Yet the lessons in "First Things' " own April 1998 article "Abortion: A Failure to Communicate" by Paul Swope http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/004-abortion-a-failure-to-communicate-49 have been largely lost as the choir continues to preach to itself without making significant inroads in the grievous need to influence the educated elites. As Dr. Carl Landwehr showed, ( "Life on the Rock - Prolife Message - Fr Mark and Fr Anthony w Carl Landwehr - 11-18-2010" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcR8cz0eHY ), we can't just open up our opponents' heads and perform "a dogma dump", after which everything will be alright and they will see things our way. While we do need to exhort each other to stay the course, we aren't the ones having the abortions. We need to reach the 33% of the unreachable, upwardly mobile young women who are liable to make the worst decisions of their lives.
Another area with great room for improvement is the area of infighting. It was recently announced that some groups publicly at odds over strategy managed to bury the hatchet and stick to the subject, abating abortion. It is scandalous beyond imagination that this should ever happen in the first place, yet some such public dispute or another is nearly continually ongoing. The enemy of souls and those under his influence are vividly aware of these conflicts, which are the greatest succor to the enemies of life.
Also very disappointing was the lack of public mourning at the murder of Dr. Edward Tiller. We should primarily have been concerned with his seeming final unreprentance and, therefore, the possible loss of his soul; this would have showed the opposition that even in the midst of the most serious conflict, our hearts are in the right place. Yet an extremely prominent pro-life leader I saw on television in the immediate aftermath of Dr. Tiller's death, showed no such remorse. In view of the nearly complete political victory of the opposition, Dr. Tiller's assassination could end up being our "Reichstag Fire", the pretext for taking away our civil liberty to prayerfully protest. After all, in neighboring Canada, it is illegal to engage in peaceful public opposition. It is the seeming small things like this that actually make up the large strategic issues in our battles with powers and principalities.
This election was one of the most media-driven in history--if that were possible--with media bias assuming so serious an aspect as to draw concerns over parallels with the history of media monopolies in totalitarian regimes, from Hugo Chavez to Hitler and Stalin. One of the most important causes of the change in hearts and minds of the bases populace has been the expert marketing research and production of outlets like the Vitae Caring Foundation and Heroic Media; the fall in abortion rates in markets they have been allowed to enter, as much as a 35% fall, is even greater than the national average fall in such rates.
Yet the lessons in "First Things' " own April 1998 article "Abortion: A Failure to Communicate" by Paul Swope http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/11/004-abortion-a-failure-to-communicate-49 have been largely lost as the choir continues to preach to itself without making significant inroads in the grievous need to influence the educated elites. As Dr. Carl Landwehr showed, ( "Life on the Rock - Prolife Message - Fr Mark and Fr Anthony w Carl Landwehr - 11-18-2010" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJcR8cz0eHY ), we can't just open up our opponents' heads and perform "a dogma dump", after which everything will be alright and they will see things our way. While we do need to exhort each other to stay the course, we aren't the ones having the abortions. We need to reach the 33% of the unreachable, upwardly mobile young women who are liable to make the worst decisions of their lives.
Another area with great room for improvement is the area of infighting. It was recently announced that some groups publicly at odds over strategy managed to bury the hatchet and stick to the subject, abating abortion. It is scandalous beyond imagination that this should ever happen in the first place, yet some such public dispute or another is nearly continually ongoing. The enemy of souls and those under his influence are vividly aware of these conflicts, which are the greatest succor to the enemies of life.
Also very disappointing was the lack of public mourning at the murder of Dr. Edward Tiller. We should primarily have been concerned with his seeming final unreprentance and, therefore, the possible loss of his soul; this would have showed the opposition that even in the midst of the most serious conflict, our hearts are in the right place. Yet an extremely prominent pro-life leader I saw on television in the immediate aftermath of Dr. Tiller's death, showed no such remorse. In view of the nearly complete political victory of the opposition, Dr. Tiller's assassination could end up being our "Reichstag Fire", the pretext for taking away our civil liberty to prayerfully protest. After all, in neighboring Canada, it is illegal to engage in peaceful public opposition. It is the seeming small things like this that actually make up the large strategic issues in our battles with powers and principalities.
11.13.2012 | 3:43pm
Adam Baum says:
I wonder what happens if or when we develop pre-natal tests for autism?
No more geniuses like Nikola Tesla (widely speculated to have a form of autism) and a good portion of world IT staffs (known to have traits of autism, in varying degrees).
We need to be careful when branding a trait a "defect".
No more geniuses like Nikola Tesla (widely speculated to have a form of autism) and a good portion of world IT staffs (known to have traits of autism, in varying degrees).
We need to be careful when branding a trait a "defect".
11.14.2012 | 1:35pm
Ferde Rombola says:
I'm mildly surprised that no where in this long list of opinions is chastity mentioned. It's a hard sell, no doubt, but shouldn't be in the mix?
