Ever since the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Roe v. Wade nearly a year ago, the debate over abortion has gotten that much more heated. Many on the pro abortion side of the aisle contended that banning something does not prevent that thing from occurring (many in that same "progressive" crowd don't seem to apply that logic to firearms purchases, but I digress).
That said, what are we to make of some of the early post-Roe data?
In the six months after the Supreme Court ruling that ended the federal right to an abortion, there were about 32,000 fewer abortions than expected in the United States, according to a new analysis.
There were about 5,000 fewer legal abortions each month, on average, than there were in the months before the ruling – a drop of about 6%.
In April and May, there were an average of about 82,000 abortions each month, according to the analysis. From July through December, that fell to an average of 77,000 abortions per month. The total number of abortions fluctuated month-to-month, but was always lower than it was in April.
The Society of Family Planning, a nonprofit focused on abortion and contraception, sponsored a research effort that collected data from abortion providers nationwide – including clinics, private medical offices, hospitals and virtual clinics. More than 80% of known providers responded. Self-managed abortions that occur outside of the formal health care system were not included in the analysis.
In the 13 states that enacted bans following the Supreme Court decision, abortions fell more than 95%, with just a few reported each month from July to December. But in the remaining set of states, the average number of abortions ticked up slightly. There were surges in some of those states, including Minnesota and Kansas, that suggest that individuals living in states with more restrictions may travel for care.
As we know, correlation does not necessarily imply causation. I'll be interested to see the numbers as we approach multiple years post-Roe.
In the aftermath of last year's SCOTUS decision, staunch pro life activists knew full well the fight wasn't over. If anything, it was merely the beginning of a more contentious battle. As soon as states could legitimately craft their own abortion legislation (many attempted to do so in previous years but were shot down in Federal courts when challenged), the battle for hearts and minds required a heightened sense of urgency. However, where we stand now is anti-abortion legislation with no exceptions is about as unpopular as abortion with no restrictions. So after decades of advocacy, is the pro life cause willing (or even able) to compromise?
Erick Erickson believes we may have reached a point where such concessions are necessary.
On abortion, I think the pro-life movement is going to have to decide if it wants to save the pro-life cause or see abortion on demand up until birth.
What I mean by that is that some states will go along with a six week ban. But a lot of states will not. If the GOP cannot accommodate the needs of voters in various states and make a cultural case to change the hearts of voters, it risks serious set back across the nation.
The upper Midwest is pretty supportive of expansionist abortion rights, even though those voters might accept a 15 or 20 week ban. But if you offer them six weeks or else, they are going with or else.
In the South, you can do a six week ban, but if you try an absolute ban, you might see voters revolt.
The reality of our times in our fallen world is we live in a hyper-individualistic, sexualized and licentious culture where people have been told for decades they can have sex without consequence. If you seek to change that legislatively without changing hearts and minds, you risk the voters changing the legislature.
I’d prefer zero abortions. I also know if I were to try to advance that in, say, Wisconsin, I’m getting Democrats elected.
Republicans moving rapidly to the abolitionist position may make them hold their head high and sleep well at night, but it is also risks Democrats elected in swing states that then enact abortion on demand until birth (we know that all too well in Minnesota - ed.).
Issues like this are the main reason I personally never aspired to run for elected office. There are a scant few items which I consider non-negotiable, and the life issue is at the top of the list. And the fact that the pro abortion crowd won't acquiesce to even tacit support of pregnancy resource centers tells me that reasoning with that lot is tantamount to urinating in a tornado.
If indeed Republicans do budge on the life issue and support a ban only after, say, 13 weeks (first trimester of pregnancy), will that cause some pro lifers to completely disengage from the electoral process? After all, the life crowd has been a loyal voting block for the GOP for decades, so it would take only a small percentage to abstain from voting in order to put a significant dent in the base. I'm not necessarily endorsing that as a rational position for pro life voters but it's a not a far-fetched scenario.
Regardless of how this debate shakes out, I (and many other pro lifers) can confidently state that there is no political prescription for resolving this dilemma in a dignified manner.
---------------------------------------------------------
