Abortion: Just the Data

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co...cle/2005/07/18/AR2005071801164_pf.html
A new analysis of the most recent abortion data shows that the number of U.S. women having the procedure is continuing its decade-long drop and stands at its lowest level since 1976.

In the year 2002, about 1.29 million women in the U.S. had abortions. In 1990, that number was 1.61 million.

The data, collected by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that collects information from abortion providers and public sources, show that for every 1,000 pregnancies that did not result in miscarriage in 2002, there were 242 abortions. This figure was 245 in 2000 and 280 in 1990. The institute's mission is to protect reproductive choice, but its reports are considered accurate across the political spectrum.

With President Bush preparing to nominate at least one new Supreme Court justice whose presence on the high court could produce new rulings on abortion, the data are already being interpreted differently by abortion rights advocates and antiabortion activists. But scientists say it is difficult to determine why the number of abortions has been dropping.

"There are so many things feeding into" the decline, said Lawrence Finer, associate director of domestic research at Guttmacher. Possible factors, he said, include changes in contraceptive technologies and use, changing ideas about family size and abortion, and reduced access to abortion services. Pregnancy clinics and abstinence programs may also have contributed to the declines, he said.

Who Gets Abortions?

Women with unintended pregnancies are those most likely to get abortions. According to the Guttmacher report, 47 percent of unintended pregnancies are aborted. Teenagers, unmarried women, black and Hispanic women, and those with low incomes are more likely than the population as a whole to have unintended pregnancies.

The report shows that non-Hispanic white women get about 40 percent of all U.S. abortions, black women 32 percent and Hispanic women, who can be of any race, 20 percent. Women of other races account for the other 8 percent. Black and Hispanic women have higher rates of abortion than non-Hispanic whites, the report states.

Other facts about U.S. abortions from the Guttmacher report:

· Six in 10 women who had abortions in 2002 were mothers. "Despite the common belief, women who have abortions and those who have children are not two separate groups," said Finer.

· A quarter of abortions occur among unmarried women who live with a male partner, putting this group at elevated risk of unintended pregnancy and abortion.

· The majority -- 56 percent -- of women who terminate their pregnancies are in their twenties. Teenagers between 15 and 19 make up 19 percent of abortions, although this percentage has dropped substantially in recent years.

This drop may be due to use of longer-acting hormonal contraceptives and lower rates of sexual activity
, said Joyce Abma, a social scientist at the National Center for Health Statistics at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

She added that there has been a decline in sexual activity reported by teenage males, which could be a contributing factor to lower pregnancy and abortion rates among teens.

· The incidence of abortion spans the economic spectrum, but low-income women are overrepresented among those having the procedure. Sixty percent of women who had abortions in 2000 had incomes of less than twice the poverty level --below $28,000 per year for a family of three, for example. This is in part because "low-income women have lower access to family planning services" such as contraception and counseling provided by health departments, independent clinics or Planned Parenthood, Finer said.

· Almost 90 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester -- during the first 12 weeks after the first day of the woman's last menstrual period -- with most performed before nine weeks. Because of newer surgical and medical techniques, the proportion of abortions performed at six weeks or earlier has almost doubled in the past decade.

Less than 1 percent of abortions are done after 24 weeks.

· The number of abortion providers declined by 11 percent between 1996 and 2000, to 1,800. In 2000, one-third of women aged 15 to 44 lived in a county that lacked an abortion provider.

About the Data

There are two main sources of national data on abortion: the Guttmacher Institute and the CDC. While both are regarded as dependable by major groups on both sides of the abortion issue, their numbers are different, and less precise than some other health statistics.

Not all states require reporting of abortions. The District, Maryland, New Hampshire and New Jersey do not mandate abortion reporting. California does not collect abortion data at all. Alaska and New Hampshire have not released statistics since 1998. This affects CDC's data, which is assembled every year from reports received from state health departments.

Due to differing reporting requirements and data-gathering procedures, abortion information for the District, Maryland and Virginia does not permit meaningful comparisons.

Guttmacher produces its reports by contacting abortion providers nationwide; its reports are considered more comprehensive than the CDC's. But the institute publishes the data only every four or five years. Neither group has published data for years beyond 2002.

Despite the inconsistencies of methods, the trends reported by CDC and Guttmacher correspond closely to each other. ·
Resources

For the complete Guttmacher report, visit http://www.agi-usa.org/sections/abortion.html , click on "An Overview of Abortions in the U.S."

For the CDC's complete report, visit http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/indss_2004.html , and click on "Abortion Surveillance -- United States 2001.

Or visit http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr52/nvsr52_23.pdf to download "Estimated Pregnancy Rates for the United States -- 1990-2000: An Update").
Hmm....less than 1% of abortions occur after 24 weeks of pregnancy. And how much money and time have been spent and wasted in the courts and in the houses of Congress fighting over that 1% (12,900 abortions in 2002)?

This just proves, imo, that abortion is used as a wedge issue by the radical right to push forward their distorted, ultra-conservative views. They are making Mt. Everest out of an ant hill. With so many more pressing issues facing this country, all of this partisan bickering is focusing on 12,900 women (and likely fewer now in 2005).

And, to those who want to place credit for lowered abortions on the Propagandist, think again. The numbers have been dropping all the way through the 90s (when Clinton was in office) and these only go thru 2002, when any long-term effects of any policy changes enacted by this administration scarcely had a chance to start taking effect.

It's looking more and more like better access to family planning and contraception have more of an effect as well as economic means than any sort of abstinence-only or faith-based programs.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Why do the abortionists make a big deal about protecting a barbaric procedure like PBA? The so called "radical right" couldn't play ball with this issue without someone to play ball with.

The libs make a big deal about a few people in Abu Ghraib.
 

irwincur

Golden Member
Jul 8, 2002
1,899
0
0
Just an idea, if you are poor, have ten kids already, and don't have a home - perhaps you should not be having sex. The problem with people today is that there are far too many idiots in the world who have no concept of consequences.

I am not a big pro-life supporter by any means, I am actually pro-choice in most cases. These numbers though are appaling. Not that there are so many abortions, but that there are so many people out there getting knocked up. It is really easy to prevent. However, I am sure most of them are just too stupid to care.
 

BDawg

Lifer
Oct 31, 2000
11,631
2
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Why do the doctors make a big deal about protecting a barbaric procedure like PBA? The so called "radical right" couldn't play ball with this issue without someone to play ball with.

The libs make a big deal about a few people in Abu Ghraib.

Fixed.

And, it's because in certain instances, D&X is the approprate procedure to ensure the safety of the patient.

And these abortion figures aren't good news for Dubby's base. They view all forms of birth control as murder. They'd rather people just pop babies out and then try to keep them from having any sort of state support.

Love the fetus, hate the baby.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
According to the US congress

Text

Rather than being an abortion procedure that is embraced by the medical community, particularly among physicians who routinely perform other abortion procedures, partial-birth abortion remains a disfavored procedure that is not only unnecessary to preserve the health of the mother, but in fact poses serious risks to the long-term health of women and in some circumstances, their lives.

However, the great weight of evidence presented at the Stenberg trial and other trials challenging partial-birth abortion bans, as well as at extensive Congressional hearings, demonstrates that a partial-birth abortionis never necessary to preserve 20 the health of a woman, poses significant health risks to a woman upon whom the procedure is performed, and is outside of the standard of medical care.

Thus, in Stenberg, the United States Supreme Court was required to accept the very questionable findings issued by the district court judge Ñ the effect of which was to render null and void the reasoned factual findings and policy determinations of the United States Congress and at least 27 State legislatures.

There exists substantial record evidence upon which Congress has reached its conclusion that a ban on partial-birth abortion is not required to contain a ÔÔhealth'' exception, because the facts indicate that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care. Congress was informed by extensive hearings held during the 104th, 105th, and 107th Congresses and passed a ban on partial-birth abortion in the 104th, 105th, and 106th Congresses. These findings reflect the very informed judgment of the Congress that a partial-birth abortion is never necessary to preserve the health of a woman, poses serious risks to a woman's health, and lies outside the standard of medical care, and should, therefore, be banned.

The physician credited with developing the partial-birth abortion procedure has testified that he has never encountered a situation where a partial-birth abortion was medically necessary to achieve the desired outcome and, thus, is never medically necessary to preserve the health of a woman.



There is much more there. A few abortionist judges unfortunately disagree with the above.

I actually hope they make the RU486 pill over the counter, better a pill than an abortion, as long as taxpayers never have to pay for it.
 

Scoobydo

Banned
Jul 19, 2005
5
0
0
How many of those 1.2 million abortions were paid for by the tax paying community? Is that in your data? You have the fact they are are poor in there. How much does the average abortion cost?

Those who get abortions can't afford the abortions, yet they continue to have sex and still continue to have the working class pay for their "mistake."

Why is it that some people just turn a blind eye to the real issue? Someones irresponsibile behavior (which is likely the reason they are in the poverty income level to begin with) can run around doing whatever they want without any consequences for their action. If someone continues to get abortions due to their behavior, they should be castrated. I, for one, am sick of paying the bill for someone elses irresponsible behavior. As your own facts indicate, 60% of all who have abortions are DIRT POOR. They are NOT paying for their abortions.

Society today looks at abortion is a "way out" for having to deal with the responsibilies of having sex. "I couldn't control my hormones. I was horny, I had to do it..." You know, thats the same thing as many date-rapists say, yet they are in jail. Why is it when it comes to destroying a fetus for the same reason, its ok?
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?
I suppose you'd rather everyone was neutered?


What ever happened to "compassionate conservatism"? All I've seen from the right so far is blaming people for taking part in a natural part of human nature. Now, *somewhere* along the line, costs will be involved. Would you rather insurance companies were all required to cover birth control or have it covered by clinics (medicaid) or would you rather pay for it on the back-end via abortions?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Scoobydo
How many of those 1.2 million abortions were paid for by the tax paying community? Is that in your data? You have the fact they are are poor in there. How much does the average abortion cost?

Those who get abortions can't afford the abortions, yet they continue to have sex and still continue to have the working class pay for their "mistake."

Why is it that some people just turn a blind eye to the real issue? Someones irresponsibile behavior (which is likely the reason they are in the poverty income level to begin with) can run around doing whatever they want without any consequences for their action. If someone continues to get abortions due to their behavior, they should be castrated. I, for one, am sick of paying the bill for someone elses irresponsible behavior. As your own facts indicate, 60% of all who have abortions are DIRT POOR. They are NOT paying for their abortions.

Society today looks at abortion is a "way out" for having to deal with the responsibilies of having sex. "I couldn't control my hormones. I was horny, I had to do it..." You know, thats the same thing as many date-rapists say, yet they are in jail. Why is it when it comes to destroying a fetus for the same reason, its ok?
Hmm...demean and generalize much, n00b?
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: zendari
Why do the abortionists make a big deal about protecting a barbaric procedure like PBA? The so called "radical right" couldn't play ball with this issue without someone to play ball with.

The libs make a big deal about a few people in Abu Ghraib.
And, right out of the gate we have someone focusing right back on that 1%. Trying to make this a wedge issue.

And, we have some bonus apologist diversion thrown in for no reason whatsoever.
 

Scoobydo

Banned
Jul 19, 2005
5
0
0
Are you going to respond to my question, Conjur? Or are you going to do what liberals do best by not responding when someone brings a bit of logic into the discussion?
 

Scoobydo

Banned
Jul 19, 2005
5
0
0
Holy crap, conjur has nearly 50,000 posts on this forum. Dude, go outside and see the real world for what it is. Apparently sitting in your parents basement sitting on the Anantech forum all day every day is skewing your perception of the "real" world.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
Originally posted by: Scoobydo
Are you going to respond to my question, Conjur? Or are you going to do what liberals do best by not responding when someone brings a bit of logic into the discussion?
Logic? What logic? I see no logic in your post, n00b. And, btw, what makes me a liberal? Posting an article about CDC data on abortion? :confused:


Who
Were
You
Before
You
Were
Banned?


Edit: Ah, nice. And now come the pointless ad hominem attacks
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
Originally posted by: conjur
Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?
I suppose you'd rather everyone was neutered?


What ever happened to "compassionate conservatism"? All I've seen from the right so far is blaming people for taking part in a natural part of human nature. Now, *somewhere* along the line, costs will be involved. Would you rather insurance companies were all required to cover birth control or have it covered by clinics (medicaid) or would you rather pay for it on the back-end via abortions?

"Compassionate conservatism" at the very most should = giving food, water, clothes, and shelter. Private insurace companies can pay for these things if they like, that is up for them to decide.

What do I want? People to take responsibility for their own sexual behaviors. Want an abortion? Pay for it.

The government would be much better off taking that money and putting it into dental care or something, AFAIK a lot of people have poor/no dental plans.

And, right out of the gate we have someone focusing right back on that 1%. Trying to make this a wedge issue.
Nice diversion. You completely failed to answer the question as to why the LEFT also focuses on that 1%.
 

conjur

No Lifer
Jun 7, 2001
58,686
3
0
The left focuses on that 1% because the right does, too. It's 50-50 in that game and it's a stupid game on both sides.

As for paying for an abortion, this goes to the mentality of many on the right that they care about that life up until it's born. After that, fvck it. Kid better pop out ready to enter the work force. Who's going to wind up paying for the medical costs for the birth if the baby is born to someone already skirting the poverty level? You and I. What's going to cost more: paying for the labor and later health care costs as the child grows or paying $20/mo. for a woman to have birth control? Yes, people should be more responsible and practice safe sex as much as possible but you can't dictate what people do in their bedrooms no matter how much you'd like to.
 

zendari

Banned
May 27, 2005
6,558
0
0
I'd rather pay more for a child that could someday become a productive human being than a worthless whore who continually spreads her legs without consequence because the government is nicely paying for it.

The government should also encourage adoptions, more than they do so now. But PBA would be a dead issue by now if not for the liberal courts.

BTW, I'm sure you realize that the Guttmacher Institute is a subsidiary of Planned Parenthood?
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,502
3,943
136
All abortions are not paid for by the goverment.

There is alot of asspumtions being made here.

The other problem is all the data that is gathered none of it will ever say how many of those goverment paid abortions will become welfare kids.

Would you rather pay now or pay later?

 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,502
3,943
136
Originally posted by: zendari
I'd rather pay more for a child that could someday become a productive human being than a worthless whore who continually spreads her legs without consequence because the government is nicely paying for it.
You are making alot of assumptions that the kids will be productive.

The problem with your logic is people are most likely to stay where they are comfortable ie how they spent their childhood. If the parents where a worthless whores then they are most likely to follow in their parents footsteps.
 

DealMonkey

Lifer
Nov 25, 2001
13,136
1
0
Crap . . . and I (foolishly) thought with Ripsnortin' perma-banned we wouldn't have to go through any pointless abortion debates. ;)
 

Scoobydo

Banned
Jul 19, 2005
5
0
0
Conjur, let me put it this way.

My sister had a few kids and sat around on welfare doing nothing. Until the welfare office told her it was going to end. At that time, she went to school, got a job, and is now making 3 times what she was. She also says she is much more happy with her life, and doesn't feel she is wasting her life. It took the welfare office to give her the spanking she needed and she is much better off now because of it. If they never did that, she would still be on welfare today, and probably bitching about how she doesn't "get enough" from the government. How did she get pregnant to begin with? She slept around to feel "loved." She knew she could go on welfare if she did get pregnant. That's why she didn't care if she did... I can tell you right now, if there was no welfare, she wouldn't have gotten pregnant to begin with.

Now take that and apply it with abortions... What if my sister decided to get abortions instead of having the kid and going on welfare? My point, taking away the freedom will cause people to start using their noggin and start to be more responsible. Right now its just the safety net for those who lack responsibility. It should not be a safety net. We should give these people a spanking and force them to lead a responsibile life! Its not the rich peoples problem, as your own data concludes.

 

Kerouactivist

Diamond Member
Jul 12, 2001
4,665
0
76
Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

I think someone might be a little worried that some of us might be having a little to much fun.....

Are you a 60 years or what?


The sexual activity is what it is really about..
 
Jun 27, 2005
19,216
1
61
1,290,000 abortions every year? Holy crap. That's twice the population of my state.

I had to look it up. That would be like killing everybody in San Diego every year. FYI, San Diego is the seventh largest city in the US. Unbelievable.
 

Scoobydo

Banned
Jul 19, 2005
5
0
0
Stats about funding and other things

This is just washington state.

47% of the resident abortions were repeat abortions.
25% of all pregnancies end in abortions.

$6.3 million dollars was funded by the state in year 2000.

50% of all women getting abortion said "they did not want to be a single parent."

Women who have no religious affiliation are 4 times more likely to get an abortion.

Its pretty alarming to me.
 

homercles337

Diamond Member
Dec 29, 2004
6,340
3
71
Originally posted by: zendari
A question for the libs: Why should we all have to pay for abortions, contraception, and birth control, subsidizing someone else's sexual activity?

People are going to have sex, youre too young to know but its actually enjoyable. Also if it wasnt subsidized there would be FAR more unwanted births. Since dumbya and the right are pushing abstinance only/contraceptives are evil agendas its absolutely necessary to keep unwanted births down.
 

nutxo

Diamond Member
May 20, 2001
6,825
504
126
Originally posted by: outriding
All abortions are not paid for by the goverment.



Would you rather pay now or pay later?

This is true. Look in the phone book. Many ads sport visa and mastercared logos. A few clinics even offer 90 days same as cash.