4. Is "lack of access" to abortion the reason for the decline in abortion numbers?
Most recently, pro-abortion advocates have sharpened the focus in their argument that it is a “lack of access” to abortion facilities across the country that is the key to dropping abortion numbers. Fewer clinics, we’re told, mean that fewer women have had access to them, and so numbers are going down.
Researchers, however, found that this wasn’t the case. In a 2014 national study of abortion laws and abortion availability, the writers found that “abortion restrictions were associated with a decrease in the number of abortion and non-specialized clinics, but fluctuations in clinic numbers – whether decreases or increases – were not clearly associated with abortion rates.”[1]
So they observe, “While Michigan had 33 percent fewer clinics in 2014 than in 2011, the state’s abortion rate increased slightly. Patterns among the 10 states with the largest proportionate increases in the number of clinics further demonstrated that changes in clinic numbers and abortion rates were not clearly related. The abortion rate declined in eight of these states and increased slightly (3–4 percent) in two.”
Finally, they say, “While the Northeast had more clinics providing abortion care in 2014 than in 2011, that region’s abortion rate declined 11 percent. These patterns demonstrate that the relationship between abortion access, as measured by numbers of clinics, and abortion rates is not straightforward.”
Put simply, we can say that more clinics did not equal more abortions; fewer clinics did not equal fewer abortions.
It is often assumed, rather than argued, that greater distances between abortion centers and their clients is the reason for the drop in abortion numbers. Pro-abortion researchers have shown that the difficulty of getting to an abortion center affects abortion numbers, but the effect is slight compared to the dropping ratios.
Also, like those other changes to the law, these reductions in “access” are relatively recent, and do not explain the long-term decline we noted previously. Pregnancy help, however, has increasingly reached women where they are, and made a demonstrable difference. Advertising, like that of Vision for Life, tells them where the centers are.
[1] Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman, “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2014,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the Guttmacher Institute, 2017.
Researchers, however, found that this wasn’t the case. In a 2014 national study of abortion laws and abortion availability, the writers found that “abortion restrictions were associated with a decrease in the number of abortion and non-specialized clinics, but fluctuations in clinic numbers – whether decreases or increases – were not clearly associated with abortion rates.”[1]
So they observe, “While Michigan had 33 percent fewer clinics in 2014 than in 2011, the state’s abortion rate increased slightly. Patterns among the 10 states with the largest proportionate increases in the number of clinics further demonstrated that changes in clinic numbers and abortion rates were not clearly related. The abortion rate declined in eight of these states and increased slightly (3–4 percent) in two.”
Finally, they say, “While the Northeast had more clinics providing abortion care in 2014 than in 2011, that region’s abortion rate declined 11 percent. These patterns demonstrate that the relationship between abortion access, as measured by numbers of clinics, and abortion rates is not straightforward.”
Put simply, we can say that more clinics did not equal more abortions; fewer clinics did not equal fewer abortions.
It is often assumed, rather than argued, that greater distances between abortion centers and their clients is the reason for the drop in abortion numbers. Pro-abortion researchers have shown that the difficulty of getting to an abortion center affects abortion numbers, but the effect is slight compared to the dropping ratios.
Also, like those other changes to the law, these reductions in “access” are relatively recent, and do not explain the long-term decline we noted previously. Pregnancy help, however, has increasingly reached women where they are, and made a demonstrable difference. Advertising, like that of Vision for Life, tells them where the centers are.
[1] Rachel K. Jones and Jenna Jerman, “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2014,” Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc., on behalf of the Guttmacher Institute, 2017.