No, it's not contraception or state restrictions
Those who promote abortion would have you believe that it is state restrictions that have reduced the number of abortion facilities, and in other ways make it hard for women to get abortions -- "lack of access," in their terminology.
A look at the abortion numbers in Pennsylvania over the years, and the timing of the increase in the number of pregnancy help centers, refutes this. It is clear that, as pregnancy help centers increased, abortion numbers went down. Nothing else explains the drop. There was no sudden increase in the use of contraceptives, or of the most effective "long-acting, reversible contraceptives" (LARC). Women's opinions on abortion didn't change. The number of abortion centers didn't suddenly decrease in those first eight years, when abortion numbers began to fall sharply. And state restrictions, which were finally implemented in May 1994, may have had a statistically significant effect in the first year or two, but it would have been a one-time effect on the numbers. The decline preceded that, and continued years after.
This confirms what we find when we look at the national numbers: as pregnancy help increased, abortion numbers fell, and nothing else explained it. (See my article.)
What's the practical significance of this? If we apportion our pro-life dollars according to effectiveness, we should be giving a large share to pregnancy help. And as Vision for Life demonstrates, we should putting a good part of that money towards advertising: it costs less to increase the "reach" of a center into its community by advertising, than by creating a new center in a community already served by one.
You can see our video, which makes the case for Pennsylvania, here.
One young woman's take on our ad
“This is awful.” So wrote a young woman who saw our ad for AlphaCare or The Hope Pregnancy Center in Philadelphia. The ad itself is one of our most daring, in terms of social media censorship, and, frankly, I was surprised that it was accepted by Facebook/Instagram for the four centers we advertise.
A young model asks a female photographer if she should have an abortion, and the photographer tells her that she herself had had an abortion, and that it was the worst decision of her life. You can see the ad here.
Why was the ad “awful”? Because it systematically refuted the claims of those on the pro-abortion side. At first, our photographer (actress Katie Breckenridge, whom we’ll call “Joan”) says she seemed fine, but then she began to have nightmares. This is in fact what some who have had abortions say: they have had horrible dreams afterwards, among other consequences.
How large is this number? We don’t know. The “Turnaway Study,” on which claims are made that the vast majority of women don’t regret their abortion, is flawed from the start by selection bias: 72% of women who had an abortion would not participate. The 38% who participated in the beginning were the least likely to have regrets. The fall-off of participants over the years was high, too, which leaves unanswered the question of long-term consequences. Stevie Nicks, of Fleetwood Mac fame, wrote not too long ago about her abortion, saying that if she hadn't had it, she would have been kept back from accomplishing all she did. She even named her deceased child, "Sara," and wrote a song about her. One wonders if there isn't some doubt in her mind that lead her to justify her abortion publicly.
There’s nothing new here. Marvin Olasky’s Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America presents many stories from women who regretted their abortions in the late-19th Century. An abortionist in New York said that about 10% of her clients have so adverse an immediate emotional/psychological reaction that she offers them mental health help. We know that about a third of abortion patients say they have feelings of regret or sadness a week after the abortion, along with feelings of happiness and relief. Relief fades. Regret? Not so much.
For those who like the science, here are the results of a 2010 Canadian study that looked at the mental health consequences of abortion (Can J Psychiatry. 2010;55(4):239–247):
"After adjusting for sociodemographics, abortion was associated with an increased likelihood of several mental disorders — mood disorders (adjusted odds ratio [AOR] ranging from 1.75 to 1.91), anxiety disorders (AOR ranging from 1.87 to 1.91), substance use disorders (AOR ranging from 3.14 to 4.99), as well as suicidal ideation and suicide attempts (AOR ranging from 1.97 to 2.18). Adjusting for violence weakened some of these associations. For all disorders examined, less than one-half of women reported that their mental disorder had begun after the first abortion. Population attributable fractions ranged from 5.8% (suicidal ideation) to 24.7% (drug abuse)."
A Swedish study published in 1996, looking at the medical history of suicide victims, found that “the suicide rate after an abortion was three times the general suicide rate and six times that associated with birth.”
You can read the stories of regret from women who aborted there children here.
So “Joan” is completely believable. I based her responses to her young friend on what I have read of post-abortion trauma. So Joan also says that she got irrationally angry when she saw moms with kids.
What is Joan’s advice? Talk to people, and not just those who “want to make money off of you” – Planned Parenthood and the like. Talk to “Matthias,” the girl’s boyfriend/husband. We know that involving the partner in the discussion will help a woman make a decision she won’t regret. The girl says that “Matthias” would probably want her to keep the baby. Joan says that this is good: for most guys, she says, “whatever you decide,” is enough. In fact, women need to know that they’re not alone, that the partner will step up, will offer not just neutrality, but support, no matter what. Men (and boys) need to be men, no matter the current social climate.
Taking up the idea of a recent college fad, Joan says, “You need a safe space.” “Where’s this?” she is asked. It’s a pregnancy medical center, she responds, and then lists all the services. “There’s no judgment and there’s no pressure.”
So what’s so “awful” about all this? It is the realism. Our ads are deliberately realistic and honest. Having a baby when you’re alone, or under pressure from your partner or your financial situation is hard, and our ads admit this. Planned Parenthood’s ads show happy, confident, self-assured young women. That’s the show; that’s how women want to see themselves. They also advertise and get something like 500,000 search results a month from women searching for “depression and pregnancy.” That’s the reality. We do ads that tell the truth, with no easy falsehoods. The truth is, doing the right thing may not be easy, but it is the right thing. Pregnancy medical centers help women learn the truth, and get the help they need to do what is right.
I looked up the Facebook page of the young woman who called our ad “awful.” I wasn’t surprised by what I saw.
One of the great things about what we do is that our adversaries can't complain that we're denying women a choice. That's why I occasionally suggest to anyone who will listen that we can appeal to "pro-choice" people on that ground: we help women to feel free to do what they really want. Not all women make the choice we would like, of course: about 15-20% leave the pregnancy medical center without saying that they will carry their babies to term. (That, too, is reality -- unfortunately.)
This young woman was "woke" beyond measure, it appeared. Her comment doesn't trouble me. My hope is that she will grow up, and that she will see how foolish it is to deny reality, to promote abortion as a solution. It may take time for minds like hers to change, but we have time: we are playing a long game. We want these young women and men to remember us, if and when they truly wake up, as the truth-tellers, the people who didn't lie to them to make them feel good.
The 2019 PA Abortion Report is out. Abortions to residents of Pennsylvania increased from 28,240 to 28,796, or about 2%. In Allegheny County, there were 386 more abortions performed than the year before, an increase of 6.3%.
Vision for Life advertises in Allegheny County on Facebook to residents of the County. (Some of the abortions performed in Allegheny County would be on non-residents – people coming from surrounding counties and nearby states. They would not see our Facebook ads.) We also want to measure the effect of our advertising on all pregnant women considering abortion, so we don’t look at raw numbers so much: pregnancy rates have been going down, and we want to see what proportion of all pregnant women chose life. So we look instead at the ratios of abortions to births for residents of Allegheny County. Abortions to this group were up 8.6%, from 3,007 to 3,265.
When we compare abortions to residents in Allegheny County to those to residents in Philadelphia County, where 40% of Pennsylvania’s abortions are performed, we see that both saw an uptick in abortion ratios.
What else do we learn from the report?
Abortion patients are getting older
It is common for people to think that the average abortion patient is a teenager who made a mistake. There are, of course, some teenagers in that category, but most abortions are to adult women. The PA Abortion Report tells us that “more than 87 percent (27,221) of the abortions performed in Pennsylvania in 2019 were to unmarried women. The largest age group having abortions was 25–29, accounting for 9,529 (29.9 percent) of all 2019 abortions.” In fact, the trend over the last many years has been for younger women as a group to have fewer abortions, and older ones to have more.
What may surprise some is the high rate of multiple abortions. More than 1 out of 10 abortions is the woman’s fourth abortion, or more. Is abortion being used as a method of birth control here? Are there psychological problems that lead women to abort repeatedly?
The percentages have been generated by Excel using data for first and previous abortions from the Department of Health. For some reason, the percentages do not total to 100.
From the time I (Chris Humphrey) became involved in pro-life work, back in the late 1970's, I have been concerned about making a difference, and not just a statement. We've had 46 years or so since Roe v. Wade to make a difference with our protests and education, and we've had very little success, if we're honest. It's true, we've seen great progress in state regulation of abortion, which frustrates some who want to see abortion banned outright. However, these state regulations have had, at most, a 5% effect on the ratios of abortions to live births.
What is amazing, however, has been the decline in abortion numbers -- rates and ratios to births, too -- since about 1984. There's little question, to my mind, that it's pregnancy help that has accomplished this. (See earlier articles.) The ratios are lower now than they were back in 1973. With first-time customers declining in number faster than "repeat customers," the abortion business is dying. Thank God.
The fact that our advertising has had a demonstrable effect on the abortion ratios in Allegheny County confirms that it is pregnancy help that has driven numbers lower everywhere. The pregnancy medical centers, and the women and men at Choices Pregnancy Services and Women's Choice Network, are the heroes of the story. Without the centers, we would have nothing to advertise. Just tell women not to have abortions? It's done all the time, but there's no reason to think that it changes many minds.
From the beginning of our work with Vision for Life, I have wanted to measure the effect of what we are doing. If we're making a difference, how do we know? Our best resources here are the State Health Department figures: the birth numbers and the abortion numbers.
What do we measure?
Of course, we measure abortions. But how do we measure the effects of what we are doing in Allegheny County from just after Christmas in 2010 to 2018, the last year for which we have abortion numbers?
If abortion numbers are going down everywhere, it's clear that we can't just point to declining numbers in Allegheny County and say that our work caused that. We have to compare numbers with numbers. Our first concern is that pregnancy numbers are going down everywhere: if fewer women are getting pregnant, then of course abortion numbers will go down if the ratio of abortions to births remains the same. So we want to measure the ratio of abortions to births: if they are lower in Allegheny County after we have done our work, then we know roughly how effective advertising is. The ratios of abortions to live births fell 26% from 2010 to 2018 in Allegheny County, compared to 15% in the rest of PA, and 13% in Philadelphia County (where 40% of PA's abortions are performed).
Translating predictions into Approximate numbers of lives Saved
We know that we are succeeding: many more young women are choosing life rather than abortion because we are advertising. We can quantify the effect, approximately. There is a certain abstract character to numbers of "abortions to live births," however. How do we keep before our eyes the fact that moms and babies are being delivered from abortion by our work? One way is to take an educated guess at how many lives have been saved.
To do this we again need numbers to compare: actual numbers, and predicted numbers. The predicted numbers are approximations, representing a possible mathematical center in a range of possibilities. There are two basic ways of making these comparisons, that I can see. One looks at past trends over the years (determined mathematically by Microsoft Excel), and extrapolates these into the period in which we were working, and then compares those numbers with the actual numbers. There is an assumption made, here: the period 2011 to 2019, and especially the period 2011-2013, when numbers fell sharply, was basically similar to the previous 25 years. There were no new developments in pro-life work, or changes in sexual mores, or availability of abortion, or of pregnancy help, and so forth. Another assumption is that the deviation from the norm of abortion numbers for the period will not be extreme. Here's what we get when we chart the numbers. As you can see, Excel predicts that by 2019 there were about 10,600 fewer abortions, based on the trend of the previous 25 years. By this point in 2021, we can be assume by the same analysis that there have been well over that.
But what if there were changes outside allegheny county?
The assumption of predictions of the future (even a "future" in the past, so to speak) based on past performance is that there have been no significant changes that would affect those predictions. We can't "control" for all the things happening around us, especially regarding an issue that is at once very personal, emotional, and controversial, with relational and socio-economic factors beyond our ken. Do women in one period view abortion more as a moral failure, and in another period more as a necessary wrong? Has a disillusionment with abortion affected recourse to it?
So perhaps a better gauge of the effect of advertising is to compare the rates of change in Allegheny County to those in all the other Pennsylvania counties. If there are social and cultural changes that affect abortion numbers generally, it is unreasonable to think that women in Allegheny County would be immune to them. So we can take the percentage change of abortion numbers in the rest of PA, and apply them to the numbers in Allegheny County, beginning with 2010 as the base year. Then we can subtract the actual numbers from these projections to get our number of saved lives. When we do, we find that there were about 9,600 fewer abortions in the 9 years from 2011 to 2019. That's over 1,000 fewer abortions every year. By the end of 2020, there would have been well over 10,000 fewer abortions.
The Numbers all point to the same conclusion
It is striking that the number of lives saved is not that far from the 10,600 that Excel predicted. It is fewer in this prediction, because Excel could not take into consideration that abortion numbers were falling elsewhere in PA. Without advertising, numbers in Allegheny County would have fallen, presumably, about the same as elsewhere. The abortion ratio numbers we have, however, point to the same conclusion: numbers and ratios were falling in Pennsylvania as a whole in 2011-2019, but they fell significantly faster in Allegheny County, and stayed lower overall, because of the advertising.
Birth Numbers point the same way, too
Another way to measure success is to look at birth numbers. If there are fewer abortions in Allegheny County, you would expect birth numbers to go up, or at least not to fall as fast. In fact, birth numbers rose after we began our work, and settled in 2019 a little bit higher than they were in 2010. If we apply the same technique of projecting past performance on the 2011-2019 period, we see a phenomenal difference between those projections and the actual birth numbers -- an amazing 11,259!
Again, however, this leaves unanswered the question, What's happening elsewhere in Pennsylvania? If birth rate are falling, are they continuing to fall as fast as before?
So we want to see what Allegheny County's birth numbers would have been if they had changed at the same rate as the rest of PA, and then compare that to the actual numbers. It's still impressive.
The 5,079 births is lower than the projected 9,600 fewer abortions. Why? Wouldn't one fewer abortion in the County mean one more birth?
No. About half of the 6,000 abortions a year in Allegheny County are to non-residents. So the women who would have had abortions in Allegheny County, but didn't, were not all residents of Allegheny County. Some came from surrounding counties. Many would have been students, and would have gone home or elsewhere to have their children. So this chart is the least helpful in knowing how many unborn children were saved from abortion. Births as a whole, too, are less reliable as an indicator. Yet both birth projections point to the same result: thousands of lives have been saved by advertising pregnancy medical centers in Pittsburgh.
Our calculations for abortion numbers do not take into consideration the proportion of early pregnancies that would end in miscarriage if abortion were declined. There are no sure numbers here, as most early miscarriages do not involve a trip to the doctor. I have heard that between 17% and 32% of pregnancies end in miscarriage. So the number of births would likely have been smaller than our predictions using the abortion numbers.
Miscarriage is a tragedy, felt to varying degrees as such, often depending on the age of the child in utero or on the temperament of the woman. It is still important that a woman who miscarried did not have an abortion instead, because she knows that at least she did not participate in the killing of her child.
What do we conclude?
a personal note . . .
I have three daughters and nineteen grandchildren. (Yes, when everybody's together, it can be like the Mad Hatter's Tea Party). I take great delight in my grandkids. They come to me to roughhouse (which at my age I can still do for short periods). I want many others to have the joy I have had in my kids and grandchildren. Children are challenges; I learned when I was raising them that the children make the father, too. Yet they are a tremendous blessing, one I hope that many others may have. If you can help us share this blessing with others through our work, please donate today.
Fewer Women Wanting Them, Not Less “Access,” Is Driving the Decline
Pro-choice advocates imply that state abortion restrictions are a main reason that abortion numbers have fallen across the country. Ohio is a good example: Elizabeth Nash of the Guttmacher Institute notes that “Ohio is a testing ground for abortion restrictions.” So in 2019, Ohio passed a law prohibiting abortion once the baby’s heartbeat could be detected, unless it were to save the mother’s life or a major bodily function were threatened. The human heart begins to beat about 16 days after conception, but the heartbeat is usually detectable only sometime between six and eight weeks of gestation. Planned Parenthood and others sued, and the heartbeat law is in legal limbo until the lawsuit is resolved. Other laws are in force, however, including informed consent (the woman has to be told in person what the medical procedure entails, at least 24 hours before the abortion); a 24-hour waiting period; parental consent in the case of minors; and the limiting of public funding to those whose lives are at risk, or who conceived as a result of rape or incest. These and similar restrictions, it is implied, explain why Ohio’s abortion numbers are down from 34,128 in 2005 to 20,425 in 2018, or 40%.
The Guttmacher Institute, formerly the research wing of Planned Parenthood, and its many fellow-travelers tell us that these state laws limit abortion “access,” that is, they make it more difficult for women to get the abortions they want. The chief reason for lack of access, we are to assume, is the decline in the number of clinics near women who need them. On the Institute’s web page for Ohio, it presents its information tellingly under the headings: “Abortion Incidence,” “Where Patients Obtain Abortions,” and “Restrictions on Abortion.” We are to note that, in 2017, 89% of U.S. counties had no abortion clinics, though 38% of America’s reproductive-age women lived there. As a result, women wanting abortions would have to travel to get them.
State Restrictions aren't driving the decline
One of the articles cited on the Ohio page changes the picture, however. “Abortion Incidence and Service Availability in the United States, 2017,” presents the same implicit argument – fewer abortion centers must mean hardship for women, and thus fewer abortions – but then admits that the number of centers is not a factor in declining abortion rates. “Although the number of state abortion restrictions continued to increase in the Midwest and South between 2014 and 2017, these restrictive policies do not appear to have been the primary driver of declining abortion rates. There was also no consistent relationship between increases or decreases in clinic numbers and changes in state abortion rates” (emphasis added). So Delaware, for example, had more abortion centers in 2017 than in 2014, but its abortion rate dropped 37% anyway. “States considered to be supportive of abortion rights in 2017 – including large states such as California and New York – accounted for 43% of all U.S. abortions in that year but 55% of the decline [in abortion rates] since 2014.” “Abortion rates declined in all 10 states that had more clinic facilities in 2017 than they did in 2014 . . . . Half of these states had not enacted any abortion restrictions during the study period.” It is to their credit that the authors of the study looked at the evidence and reported this observation, as inconsistent as it is with the mantra of reduced-access-means-fewer-women-get- abortions.
Many on the pro-life side would be inclined to discount the claim that the restrictions aren’t driving the drop: “See, the pro-abortion crowd just wants to discourage pro-life political activity, because it’s working.” Is it? Yes, the laws have their measurable effects on abortion numbers, as political scientist Michael New has shown repeatedly, though altogether these would be less than 5%. Moreover, the effect of a change in the law would be a one-time decrease in abortion numbers. There is no reason to think that, say, the new requirement of a 72-hour waiting period would have an increasing or cumulative effect on the ratios of abortions to live births in following years. As good as all these laws are, from the pro-life perspective, the Guttmacher researchers are right: the restrictive laws are not the primary driver of declining abortion rates and ratios.
Focusing on Supply; Ignoring DemanD
The problem with the “lack of access” claim is that the abortion-on-demand crowd are only looking at the supply side of the supply-and-demand relation: those state legislatures, they think, are dominated by men who want to dominate women, and are gradually cutting off the supply. (In reality, those legislatures usually have a share of women legislators, a large portion of whom are pro-life.) Ratios of abortions to live births have been dropping continuously for decades across the country – 49% from 1984 to 2016 – independently of changes to the law or the numbers of clinics. What if the decrease in clinic numbers and abortions reflects a decline in demand for abortion? What if the decline in the number of abortion clinics reflects market forces, and not government intervention? Jonah Goldberg makes a similar point about assumptions with the current coronavirus: to explain the less-than-catastrophic number of new cases and deaths, compared to earlier predictions, people either argue that the government overstated the likely cases and deaths, or that it was government action that “flattened the curve.” He argues for an alternative: when given accurate information in a timely way, people themselves act in a way that has better consequences for everybody.
contraception isn't the driver
What could be responsible for dropping demand? Guttmacher and its supporters would say that it is contraception. Fewer women need abortions because of better contraceptives (the long-acting kind), better contraceptive practices, or more widespread use of contraceptives. The evidence, however, doesn’t back this up. If it were so, better contraception would mean that fewer pregnancies would be unexpected or unintended. Researchers, however, found that “changes in contraceptive method choice and use have not decreased the overall proportion of pregnancies that are unintended between 1995 and 2008” (emphasis in the original). In fact, the proportion of these unexpected pregnancies went up 1%, from 48 to 49%. Here, the ratios of abortions to live births are a good measure of demand: while abortion rates (abortions per 1,000 women 15-44) would fall if pregnancy rates fell, the ratios tell us what proportion of pregnant women chose abortion rather than birth. According to the CDC reports, over the same thirteen-year period in the study described above, the ratios of abortions to live births dropped from 31.1 to 23.1 per 100 live births, or 26%. While there are other studies which seem to show a drop in unexpected pregnancies or births, or a certain volatility, so speak, there is no long-term trend in either that parallels the decrease in ratios of abortions to live births. While social-scientific surveys of women’s intentions and the statistics of abortions both have their problems, the latter, at least in terms of establishing a trend, are more trustworthy. Contraceptive use, then, is not driving down the numbers either.
So why is abortion dying in america?
So is there a candidate for the main driver of falling abortion ratios? Drum roll, please . . . . The increase in pregnancy help centers across America, now over 2,750, is the only candidate that lines up in terms of timing and trajectory. The number of centers increased sharply from 1982 to 1986, and continued upward to the present. In his horribly titled Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America, Marvin Olasky argued that it was mainly pregnancy help (in the form of maternity homes in that day) that reduced the very high abortion rates of the late-19th Century. We are seeing the same thing today.
The pro-choice side knows very well that pregnancy help centers are having an effect on abortion, and some activists have attempted to defame the centers as deceptive, oppressive of women in their religiosity, and unscientific in their information. (In fact, it is the representatives for abortionists who obscure the early development of the child in the womb with terms like “a clump of cells,” or “a blob of tissue.” For an answer to the pro-choice criticisms of the centers, see Heartbeat International’s pregnancycentertruth.com. I am on the Board of Heartbeat.) Abortion is big business, and business is down. The reality is that most women do not want abortions. This is what women who come to pregnancy help centers say themselves. (They come to the centers “abortion-vulnerable” or “abortion-determined,” in the centers’ terminology.) For many, abortion appears to be a necessary evil, to be gotten through numbly, with as little thought and reflection as possible. The centers help them do what they admit they really wanted: to bear their children. Pregnancy medical centers have very high customer-satisfaction ratings. Hundreds of thousands, are deeply grateful for the help they have received at these centers, and their endorsements are simply unanswerable. While technically it may not be true that “no one ever says ‘Thank You’ to an abortionist,” the number would be minuscule by comparison.
If these centers are the main driver for dropping abortion ratios, then advertising the centers should drive ratios even further down. This, in fact, is what we have found in Pittsburgh (Allegheny County). From 2010 to 2018, non-profit Vision for Life advertised two local pregnancy medical center organizations, with five centers and two mobile units between them. Abortion ratios for residents dropped sharply in the first two years, remained relatively stable for several years more, and then dropped again in 2018. The decline overall was 26%. The ratios are the lowest they’ve been since the State began recording them in 1995, and likely the lowest in a half-century. There is no reason to think that ratios would not fall further with more advertising.
How long till no demand for abortion?
Abortion is dying in America. The abortion industry is consolidating. Abortion is less available in many counties because the demand is just not great enough to sustain a business. In Pennsylvania, the numbers of “repeat” abortions (a woman’s second, third, or more, and about half of all abortions) have been decreasing for years, but first-time abortions have been falling faster. Without more first-time customers, a business is on the way out. The state is probably representative of the country here. The questions then becomes, How low can the U.S. numbers go? How soon will “abortion on demand” become “abortion: no demand”?
(While this article was written for The Word, the Antiochian Orthodox Christian magazine that I edit for Bishop JOHN Abdallah, and will appear in the June issue, readers from other church backgrounds may find it helpful.)
It is a commonplace among military historians that the Allied armies of the First and Second World Wars prepared in each case to fight the last war. The steady advance of troops towards the enemy made sense, before the First World War and the Maxim machine gun put an end to that. Trench warfare made sense, before the mechanized blitzkrieg, or “lightning war,” of the Second World War made lines of trenches useless.
If you want to depict a really wicked enemy, you make him a Nazi
The same is true when we think of great evils, of moral conflicts in which many, many lives are lost. If you want to depict a really wicked enemy in some piece of fiction, someone whom everyone knows they should hate, you make him a Nazi, a relic of the past. In the Twentieth Century, Nazism and Communism both offered alternative views of human beings and societies, and justified atrocious crimes against humanity on grounds of an over-arching theory (a master race in the first instance, or a “new man” created by dialectical materialism in the second). These were the only serious social-political contenders against the European Christian view of man and society. Nazism killed about six million Jews, as well as others, and the Communist system under Stalin killed somewhere between 20 and 40 million people, while the Chinese Communist government killed about 65 million of its own people in the last century, and continues, for example, to run concentration camps, and to murder prisoners of conscience for organ transplants today.
These great evils have been nationalist ideologies. What of today, however? Are there Nazis anymore? Is there a comparable, great moral evil, at least in scale?
The rejection of God has opened the door to a “cafeteria” paganism and individualist subjectivism
To look for popular, dehumanizing, nationalist ideologies today, however, is to try to fight the last war. Over the last fifty years, the contender for the minds and hearts of the developed world has not been a replacement political ideology, but secularism (an attempt to “disinfect” society of religion). Not surprisingly, the rejection of God and of a Christian view of humankind in public expression has opened the door to a “cafeteria” paganism and individualist subjectivism. So Supreme Court Justice Kennedy, in the 1992 Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision, wrote infamously that, “at the heart of liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe and of the mystery of human life.” Here is subjectivism in a nutshell.
More individual human beings have been killed in abortion
In casting off the “shackles of religion,” secularism leads not merely to nonsense, but to dehumanization. Where are the victims, comparable to those of Nazism and Communism? It may be a surprise to learn that more individual human beings have been killed in abortion than in any other way, in all of history, and most of that killing has taken place in the last 50 years. (The bulk of that killing has taken place in China and India. Together they are responsible for 24 to 25 million abortions a year.)
Abortion, like genocide and other crimes, has been around a long time. The modern novelty has been technology. Mass killing by the Nazis was made possible by the railroad and road transport, and followed the example of the earlier Armenian genocide. The atom bomb dropped on Japanese cities was a technological marvel. Suction machines were first used to destroy unborn children in utero in Communist Russia in 1922, and spread to the West. Currently in the U.S. there are about a million abortions a year. Entrepreneurial abortionists have been able for decades to perform a series of such suction abortions in rapid succession. Now chemical abortion promises to make the self-induced abortion common, and more difficult to trace.
Note that our “enemy” in the new moral “war” is not a particular religion or ideology. As Orthodox Christians, we celebrate the unique conception of Jesus Christ, “incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary,” at the Feast of the Annunciation, on March 25. We also celebrate the conception of the Most Holy Theotokos on December 9, and that of St. John the Baptist on September 23. We are predisposed by our faith to see things properly. We could make secular arguments, of course. We could argue that every individual human being began his or her existence in this world at his or her conception. Conception is the only neat point at which life can be said to begin. (Here we have not a potential life, but a new life with potential.) If our imaginations have a hard time recognizing the very early individual life, at the blastocyst stage, say, as a new member of the human family, that is a problem of our imagination, not in reality. (The human being is never just a depersonalized “clump of cells.”) We could mention that the human heart starts beating about sixteen days after conception, about the time when mom is beginning to suspect she’s pregnant. We could say all these things, and we would be right: here is another one of us.
"And who is my neighbor?"
Still, being right is usually not enough to overcome the secularist mindset, in which the defenseless victim is an embarrassment or an inconvenience. “And who is my neighbor?” our interlocutor asks. “I don’t want to think about this silent, little thing in ontological no-man’s-land. I see what I want to see, and my will rules.” This is less a problem of the head than of the heart. It is not surprising that since 1997 the General Social Survey has found that public support for abortion on demand has hovered at around 40 percent. If education about pregnancy and abortion were enough to convince people, that number would have dropped.
We cannot fight the last war – Nazism and Communism as ideologies are dead. We can, however, look at how courageous men (and women) have stood up to evil, and be encouraged to emulate them. During the Nazi occupation of Greece, the Orthodox Archbishop of Athens and All Greece, His Beatitude Damaskinos, signed a letter addressed to the Prime Minister, who was collaborating with the Nazis. The letter was a courageous defense of the Greek Jews who were being rounded up and deported to Poland to be exterminated. When the Germans continued with the deportations, His Beatitude called the Police Chief of Athens, Angelos Evert, to his office and told him, “I have taken up my cross. I spoke to the Lord, and made up my mind to save as many Jewish souls as possible.”
"Our prelates are hung, not shot. Please respect our traditions!"
When S.S. General Jürgen Stroop, police official for Greece, found out about the letter, he threatened to shoot His Beatitude. The Archbishop (with historical oppression by the Turks in mind) told the German officer that “according to the traditions of the Greek Orthodox Church, our prelates are hung and not shot. Please respect our traditions!” His Beatitude would not be stopped. Chief Evert issued false identification cards and Archbishop Damaskinos ordered the churches to issue false baptismal certificates to those threatened with deportation. In Athens and the port city of Piraeus, Christians hid Jews in their homes. The result of their work was the rescue of 66 percent of the Jews of Athens.
The courage of the past often looks simple to us: he saw what was right, and did it. That, however, is what happens when we look back from the present: we air-brush away the complications, the uncertainties, the betrayals, even the doubts. Did no one ask the Archbishop, “What will happen if they don’t shoot you, but take some priests off to Poland to die? What will you do then?” Did others say, “Why are we getting involved in politics? We should just keep our heads down and submit, as Christ did, to the authorities.” “His Kingdom is not of this world. This will all pass.” “Your business is our eternal souls, and the churches and the monasteries, not this trouble.” “Who cares about the Jews? In any case, they can take care of themselves.”
If we had been there, we would have known what to do,
We are tempted to think that it was easy for the heroes of the past to know what was right, and to do it. If we had been there, we would have known what to do, and have done it, just like them. The Lord Jesus implied just this dynamic when He said, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, saying, ‘If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’” In Jesus’ time, the dreadful irony was that those who admired their prophetic predecessors would have been among those who killed them, if they had lived in that day. Our challenge is to see things clearly in our day, to do what we can in the moral war of our day, as the people we admire would have, if they were here now.
“I . . . made up my mind to save as many . . . souls as possible.” We can do the same, in our day. With abortion, we are not only saving the lives of the babies: we are preventing a soul-destroying act by the woman. We are already seeing success in America. Pregnancy help centers are the chief reason that abortion numbers have been declining since 1984. At those centers that have ultrasound machines, they can show the pregnant woman the child in her womb. The sonographer shows the woman the flicker of her baby’s beating heart, or the outline of his or her head, or his or her thumb-sucking. There can be tears. This is often enough, with care and support, for women to change their minds – about 85 percent do so. Truth and love have power, and hearts are opened to life.
Zoe for Life! is one Orthodox organization that is saving as many souls as possible, in Parma, Ohio (near Cleveland), and in Ann Arbor, Michigan. New chapters are starting in Binghamton, New York, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. (Go to https://www.zoeforlife.org for more information on Zoe.) Zoe for Life! is endorsed by the Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops of the United States, and that is good.
We need to translate our good intentions into actions
But it is not enough. Like Archbishop Damaskinos, we need to translate our good intentions into action – time, energy, and money, devoted to saving the vulnerable. If there is no Orthodox organization in your area that is doing this, start one. If none is likely to start, work with other Christians to reach women in your community. Look up your local pregnancy medical centers. Meet their executive directors. Donate to the centers. Volunteer with them. Advertise them. (Vision for Life - Pittsburgh, of which I am the Executive Director, has seen a 26 percent drop in ratios of abortions to live births after we started advertising two local pregnancy medical center organizations. Thousands of babies have been born who would not have been, if we had not run our ads.)
Our hierarchs, too, could lead as did Archbishop Damaskinos, in practical, pro-life pregnancy help, at the very least with funding, and with the very public blessing of the centers. Our parish priests could put the names and phone numbers of the centers in their weekly bulletins, for, as the founders of Zoe were told, unmarried Orthodox women will seek an abortion rather than face embarrassment in their local parishes. A member of the Board of Zoe for Life! - Pittsburgh tells me that a priest’s daughter in another state became pregnant as a teen and was pressured by members of the parish to have an abortion, but she and her family were pro-life and decided to keep the baby. That baby is now grown up, married, and has a successful career.
Clergy and youth workers in every parish need to have the same open heart, the same courage and forthrightness, as had Archbishop Damaskinos when pressured by the Nazis. In terms of sheer numbers, we live in the Age of Abortion. As Orthodox Christians, clergy and lay, we can rise to the challenge and fight the right war. We can do something to “save as many souls as possible.”
Rescue those who are being taken away to death;
 Some claim that the new, genetically unique individual human being is not a person before implantation in the uterus, because he or she is not a yet “person in relation” to his or her mother. (Persons, we are told, must be in relation, as are the Persons of the Trinity.) This claim is specious. By this standard, would we say that St. Mary of Egypt ceased to be a person after years in the desert? Is the seriously mentally and physically handicapped person, incapable of communication, still a person? If it is true that “not one [sparrow] is forgotten before God,” every conceived human being, at whatever stage of life, is known to Him (Luke 12:6). What purpose could this pernicious depersonalization serve? Could it be used to justify the use of abortifacients like the IUD, which prevent implantation, or potential abortifacients, like the morning-after pill, which may stop ovulation, but can prevent implantation of the newly conceived person?
The Pennsylvania Department of Health’s 2018 Abortion Report gives us good news on abortion numbers, and ratios to live births, for Allegheny County, and two other “firsts” for Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania:
In 2018 we also saw the second lowest number of abortions performed in Allegheny County – 6,088.
Let’s start with the last piece of news first: abortions performed in the County were at their second lowest number – 6,088 – eight more than the number in 2016. From the graph below, it seems that we have hit something like a “floor”: to drive abortion numbers lower, we’re going to have to do more. In fact, we are doing more: we are using Google Ads to advertise Women’s Choice Network as well as Choices Pregnancy Services now, and our Facebook ads are now reaching 50,000 or so women each month, and targeting those we think are more likely to be facing unintended pregnancies. (From just January 1 to January 10, we have reached over 62,000 women and had 22 clicks on the “Call Now” button on our Facebook ads, connecting women to the Abortion Pill Rescue Network – advertising works!) We won’t see the result of our recent increased and focused ad work until early 2022, but we expect to make that floor of raw numbers a staircase going downwards.
Abortion ratios show the true picture
In fact, from another perspective, we have already gone below that floor. Abortions decline if pregnancy rates decline, but that doesn’t tell us anything about our success in reaching pregnant women. We want to know if more of the women who are pregnant are choosing life. So we look at the ratios of abortions to live births for residents of Allegheny County. There, the picture is better.
Here we see that abortion ratios are at their lowest ever. From 2010 to 2018, ratios declined 15 percent in the rest of PA. In Allegheny County, they declined 26 percent!
You expect higher abortion ratios in urban settings, but 2018’s number for Pittsburgh residents is actually less than the highest number for the rest of the State (241), which includes all those rural counties. That “floor” seems to have given way here, as the numbers have now fallen two years in a row, a drop of 7.1 percent!
We see the difference between Pittsburgh and the rest of PA in the birth statistics. (Ignore the proximity of the lines in the chart below; they are on two different scales: it’s the shape of the lines that matters.)
From 2010 to 2018, the State’s birth numbers declined 5.3 percent. In the same period, Allegheny County’s numbers were stable, after rising and declining again – a statistically insignificant difference, end to end, of .2 percent.
We’re Doing Something Right in Allegheny County
Some time ago we asked Dr. Albena Ivanova, Associate Professor of Management, Robert Morris University, if she would analyze our data from 2010 to 2016, to see if the change in abortion ratios was statistically significant. She kindly did so, and came to this conclusion: “Controlling for the time effect (year) and contingency factors (all other counties), the results provide evidence that [the advertising work of] Vision for Life has a strong negative correlation to the abortion ratios in Allegheny County; in particular, the average abortion ratio drops by 40 after Vision for Life started (b = - 40.90, p < 0.001).” We now have two more years of data, and they confirm this conclusion: advertising pro-life pregnancy medical centers has a demonstrable “negative correlation” to abortion ratios.
Abortions to Non-Residents Surpass Those to Residents
Something else that was new in 2018 was the surpassing of abortions to residents of the County by abortions to non-residents.
Who are these non-residents? Some would come from neighboring counties: the total of abortions to those residing in Armstrong, Beaver, Butler, Fayette, Washington, and Westmoreland counties in 2018 was 1,245. The others would be those coming from further afield, and students who are living temporarily in the Pittsburgh area.
Speculating about those numbers
Abortion numbers for non-residents dropped from 2010 to 2013, but then bounced up again in 2017 and 2018. The numbers of abortions to women residing in counties neighboring Allegheny have been going down, so it may be that these increased numbers are young women from elsewhere who are studying in colleges from the Pittsburgh area. Why would more of them seek an abortion? Could it be that the defamation campaign against pregnancy medical centers conducted by pro-choice activists may have had an effect? They claimed that the centers are “fake clinics,” not staffed by medical professionals, that the information the centers give out is false, and that they are simply fronts for religious proselytizing. In fact, of course, the centers give out medically accurate information vetted by the centers’ medical directors, have professional staff, including sonographers, that meet all certification requirements, and they are sensitive to the spiritual needs of the women they serve without imposing on them. (For Heartbeat International’s response to the defamation, see PregnancyCenterTruth.com.) Our Facebook advertising to women has recently addressed the “fake clinic” claim obliquely, and we will continue to do so.
The bottom line for Allegheny County: the news is very, very good! Thank God!
What Age Group Is Having the Most Abortions?
Now, what do we learn about abortion and Pennsylvania as a whole? The final “first” mentioned above is the surprising shift in the age cohort having most of the abortions. Before 2018, the largest group was that 20–24 years old; in 2018, the largest group became the 25–29-year-olds.
This shift to older ages is a long-term trend, as we can see in this column chart. (The year 2018 is indicated in the light blue bar on the right of each collection of bars.)
So we see that those under 25 are mostly responsible for the decline in abortion numbers. Concurrent with that, however, there has been a much smaller increase in abortions among those 25–39. (There has been a slight decline as well among those who are 40 and older.)
A Change in Number of Previous Live Births, Too
When people think about abortion, they most often think of a college student: young, and with few responsibilities to others. And this is correct, to a point: many abortion-seekers fit this description. They are surprised to learn, however, that a majority of women who have an abortion have already had one child or more.
Concurrent with the change in the age cohorts, however, the number of women who have had no child, or one child, before having an abortion in Pennsylvania has been declining. At the same time, the number for those with two or more children is stable over time.
It is likely that most women with two or more children already are afraid that they won’t be able to manage financially in the future with a third or more.
First Abortions Declining Faster than “Repeat Abortions”
Just under half of abortions performed in Pennsylvania in 2018 were “repeat” abortions – the woman’s second, third, fourth, or fifth or more.
Both first-time abortion and “repeat” abortion numbers in Pennsylvania have been going down, but the first-time numbers have been going down faster.
This is good news. It means that the abortion business is in terminal decline. If any business has declining repeat business, but even faster declining first-time customers, they have to find ways to capture more of the market. This is exactly what Planned Parenthood is doing: making abortion a bigger part of their business by taking customers away from other abortion businesses. With current trends, however, even Planned Parenthood will run out of customers.
The Trend for Pennsylvania
The number of abortions performed in Pennsylvania in 2018 was not encouraging in itself: the 28,240 total was six more than were performed in 2017. The trend, however, is downward for abortion numbers and ratios for the State as a whole. That trend line is not as sharply downward as we have seen it in Allegheny County, largely because pro-life pregnancy help centers are not advertising as much as they should, especially in the urban areas. The more we can advertise, the faster we will see abortion numbers and ratios of abortions to live births fall.
Please donate today, to help us make those numbers fall faster.
Advertising by Vision for Life is having an increasing impact on the number of contacts made by Allegheny County women considering abortion to pregnancy medical centers in Pittsburgh.
In 2017, 512 abortions were performed, on average, every month in Pittsburgh (Allegheny County). About half were performed on residents. That year we did advertising work that generated, on average, 242 calls or e-mails each month to pregnancy medical center organizations Choices Pregnancy Services and Women's Choice Network. (In earlier e-mails to supporters, I mistakenly over-stated the total number of contacts by about a fourth. It did not affect the trend as a whole, and this mistake has been corrected here.)
Fast forward to this year: from January to November, on average, our advertising work generated 363 contacts (calls, e-mails, texts, or web form submissions) each month. That’s an increase of 50%! As you can see from the chart above, from November 2017 to November 2019, our contact numbers doubled.
Our high point was reached so far in October 2019.
That's Board member Katie Breckenridge on the Hot Metal Bridge.
We don’t know what the relation is between abortion numbers and our contact numbers, and we’ll have to wait till January 2021 to find out what those abortion numbers are, but surely this 50% increase has had a significant impact on them.
In November we had 40 clicks on the "Call Now" button on our Abortion Pill Reversal ad
We have begun advertising to women who have taken the first abortion pill, but not the second. If they act quickly enough, and start the abortion pill reversal protocol, most can save their pregnancies. (So far, the “save rate” is 66%.) Though the other side is doing its best to denigrate abortion pill reversal as unproven, and so forth, the results are in: close to 1,000 healthy babies have been born.
We began advertising Heartbeat International’s Abortion Pill Reversal Network (APRN) with Facebook video ads in November. By the end of the month we had seen 40 clicks on the “Call Now” button to Heartbeat’s 24/7 helpline.
Heartbeat’s counselors connect the women to local physicians who prescribe progesterone pills, which she begins taking. (This replaces the progesterone in the woman’s body that the first abortion pill removed. Progesterone is regularly prescribed when women are at risk of miscarriage.) Women’s Choice Network is part of the APRN.
If we assume that about 500 abortions are performed every month in Pittsburgh currently, and know that about 40% are chemical abortions, we have about 200 chemical abortions a month here. Our 40 clicks would be about 20% of the number of chemical abortions. Of course, some of these calls will have been made just out of curiosity, but many will not.
Why do these numbers matter? Because they represent people just like us. We once were very small in our mothers’ wombs. Like the moms and dads, we have faced pressure from others, and from our own fears and desires, to do wrong. And every one of us matters.
One of our partners helps us see the lay of the land for many of these women and men: “Last week she shared that she thought she might be able to parent. After a sonogram, she was expressing more confidence .... She was just starting to accept that she's pregnant. This week, the father of her baby has started pressuring her more strongly to have an abortion, and she is now feeling confused and very uncertain again. Pray that the life-affirming voices in her life will be heard over his voice, for the preservation of her unborn child!”
We know how important it is for these young women and men, as it is for us, to choose wisely, to avoid a sin like this, to move towards God, and not away from Him. They need to know that they can do what's right, what is pleasing in the sight of God, what they will not regret.
Why do these people matter? Because these are our neighbors, whom we might pass on a downtown street, whom Jesus calls us to love.
We are seeing great success, thank God. But there's much more to be done. Please donate generously today.
The "Plunge-Raiser" -- January 1st, Mon Wharf, 9:30 a.m.
If you haven't given before, here's a simple way to get started. On January 1st, 2020, I will be joining a couple of hundred other people and jumping in the Mon River. While they get out as fast as they can, and hurry away to get warm, I swim back and forth in front of the Mon Wharf for as long as I can handle it. Pledge whatever amount you like for every minute I'm in the Mon. If it's a dollar and I last 15 minutes, you just paid for one of those clicks on our Facebook ad! You can pledge by e-mailing me at email@example.com, or make a donation on our website (click on the "Donate" tab in the Menu above).
This is a great time to be doing pro-life work! We are winning, because people like you care enough to do something. Thank you!
Chris Humphrey, Ph.D.
Will Abortion Numbers Never Stop Falling?
What is the future of abortion in the U.S.? The good news is that abortion numbers are continuing downwards, and so far they have not leveled out. About half of the abortions in Pennsylvania are “repeat” abortions; these are women who have had at least one abortion before. First-time abortions, however, have been falling faster than repeat abortions, which means that the abortion business is in a death-spiral: fewer first-time abortions means even fewer repeat abortions in the years ahead. There’s still much to be done in Pittsburgh, however: there were 6,140 abortions performed in Allegheny County in 2017, and 3,120 County residents had abortions.
More Reliance on Chemical Abortion
What will abortion look like in the years ahead? It seems that chemical abortion (so-called “medical” abortion) will replace most early abortions (up to 70 days after the last menstrual period). These are already almost 40 percent of abortions in Pennsylvania, and over 60 percent in Pittsburgh. There’s no sign that the proportions won’t increase. In a chemical abortion, a woman goes to the abortion center and is given a pill (mifepristone, RU486), which robs her unborn child of progesterone over the following few days. The removal of progesterone breaks down the connection between the placenta and the uterus, and the child dies. Forty-eight hours after the mifepristone pill, at home, she takes a second pill, misoprostol, which causes her to go into labor and deliver the amniotic sac and the dead child. Even Planned Parenthood admits that the process is painful. Oftentimes the woman is alone when she expels “the products of conception.”
The next stage, already being promoted by some, is what they call “self-managed” abortion: that is, the woman gets the abortion pill not at the abortion center, but by other means, perhaps by mail through a purchase on the Internet. (We subsidize advertising for Alpha-Omega Centers in Slippery Rock and New Castle, and the Executive Director, Sarah Bowen, has a great website for anyone thinking about an at-home abortion.) How will “self-managed” abortions fit in with changes to the laws? If we look ahead and see the fall of Roe v. Wade, we will then see most of the middle of the country and most of the South pass state laws that largely outlaw abortion, including abortion pills. The Northeast and the West Coast and some others (Illinois, for example) will keep abortion legal, and the fight to protect the unborn legally will become a state-to-state fight.
Abortion pill suppliers, however, will still be able to mail their product anywhere in the U.S. from other states or from outside the U.S. Even if advertising the pills becomes difficult, and the abortion “supply chain” complicated, it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to restrict the suppliers. Some women will not get abortions in states where the law is changed simply because it’s illegal, but many will. The current Governor of California has signed a bill mandating free access to abortion pills for students of public universities, which will go into effect in 2023. Pro-abortion states like New York will probably subsidize the cost of the pills for their residents, and for anyone else who comes looking for an abortion.
What this means in practice is that reaching pregnant women on the “demand” side of the equation will become even more important. We know that abortion can be hard on women emotionally, psychologically and spiritually: regret is common. (For a summary examination of the effects of abortion on mental health and the controversy about them, see David Reardon’s piece, “The abortion and mental health controversy: A comprehensive literature review of common ground agreements, disagreements, actionable recommendations, and research opportunities.”) This regret is instantaneous with some women who have taken the first pill: there are stories of women trying to force themselves to vomit up the pill, even in the car after leaving the abortion center. This points to the deep ambivalence many women have towards abortion, so that, a week after their abortions in one study, the vast majority could say that they were “happy” and “relieved,” while a third of the women (which must have included women who were “happy”) said that they had “feelings of regret.” That’s one week later.
What if someone invented a pill that a regretful woman could take, a pill that could reverse the mifepristone? Well, they have. In fact, it is simply progesterone, which doctors currently give women who are at risk of miscarrying. The progesterone reverses the effect of mifepristone, and in about 66 percent of the cases so far, the women deliver their babies, all perfectly healthy. (About 900 children have been born through abortion pill reversal.) Heartbeat International, an international network of pregnancy help, has taken over and expanded a national network of 700 physicians and pregnancy help centers that offer this “abortion pill reversal.” (I am on the Board of Heartbeat.) In November, the four centers of the Women’s Choice Network in Pittsburgh will become part of Heartbeat’s new Abortion Pill Rescue Network. Is abortion-reversal safe? Well, the actuaries of at least one insurance company think so: Women’s Choice Network’s medical insurance premium did not go up after they added their new abortion pill rescue procedure to the policy.
“Buyer’s Remorse,” Regret, and Advertising
There is a challenge advertising to women who have had abortions. Many of them, as the psychologists would say, have “unresolved anger issues.” Many are deeply angry with “pro-lifers,” partly because they think of us as self-righteous, judgmental and interfering, but partly because, as the pastoral theologian would say, anger can be one way the unrepentant mind and heart handle a serious sin. Strident pro-life people are a great target, and these public pro-lifers, as they say, “get to live rent-free in the heads” of our wounded neighbors. So any advertising we do has to take the half of abortion patients who have had repeat abortions into consideration, and the fact that some are hostile to what we are doing, while some have lasting regret.
The Abortion Pill Rescue Network gives us as advertisers a great opportunity. Ads directed to women who have taken the first pill could make the number of abortion pill reversals skyrocket. Not only that, but the ads would influence women seeking surgical abortions, as they reinforce doubts the women may already have. The key theme I have in mind is regret. We all know regrets, big and small, some instantaneous, some delayed. We want to say that we have an idea of what might be going through a woman’s mind as she thinks about a second abortion.
We currently have an ad running on Facebook that does this. (You can see it on Youtube at https://youtu.be/fTwSWh6x58g. Our actress is walking toward the camera, looking downwards, obviously deep in thought. The voice-over: “What was I thinking? I didn’t really want my last abortion, either. (Looks up at camera. Voice-over:) What did it do for me? Really?” Cut to the next scene: she is sitting, looking away, with a friend in the friend’s apartment. Friend: “You know, I’ve heard that you can reverse the abortion pill. . . .” Friend searches on her phone. “Yes: ‘It may not be too late to save your pregnancy.’” Woman (turning to friend, a note of hope in her voice): “Really?” Friend: “Your don't really want this [abortion], do you?” Our actress shakes her head. Cut to Abortion Pill Rescue Network screen. The voice-over: “Don’t wait. Call the Abortion Pill Rescue Network now.” Next screen: "Over 900 healthy babies have been born following abortion pill reversal." Final second-and-a-half: woman bringing her head up, then beaming into the camera lens. The button on the Facebook ad is set to “Call Now,” a clickable link to the Abortion Pill Rescue Network number, 877-558-0333.
If 60 percent of the 6,000 abortions in Allegheny County are chemical, that's 300 a month. From November 1st, when we started running the ad, to November 8 at 11 a.m., Facebook tells that we have had 8 calls on the Abortion Pill Rescue Network hotline. These may curiosity calls, but they may also be part of that 300, that is, women who have immediately regretted their action. Two women saved our ad on Facebook, perhaps to show somebody else. We are not advertising to the 300 alone, of course. Our ad is reaching women who know little about abortion, and hope they never have to know. If they are ever shocked that they became pregnant, they may recall that there were people out there ready to help them deal with their situations in a healthy way.
The key thing is that we advertise the possibility of reversing a chemical abortion. Locally, hundreds of women could be reached with the message, and their babies saved. Nationally, tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, could find that admitting their regrets to themselves, and/or acting on their “buyer’s remorse,” could be the start of their way back to wholeness.
The numbers of abortions are falling. They’ll fall faster if we advertise. Your support makes this possible. Now. In Pittsburgh. Please donate today!
What It looks like
We see political polarization around us all the time, and much of it has to do with the “social issues,” including abortion. If anyone thought that the prosecution of Gosnell, the abortionist and murderer who ran the “House of Horrors” in Philadelphia, would result in a widespread revulsion at late-term abortions and infanticide, he or she was woefully mistaken. Outright infanticide has been accepted effectively by Virginia’s Governor, Ralph Northam, who is also a physician. New York has passed a bill that permits abortion up to birth, and lets doctors deny treatment to a child who survives a late-term abortion. (This is one reason I am not particularly hopeful when one or another abortion atrocity is uncovered: people aren't paying attention. We've had 46 years since Roe v. Wade, and little has changed in the general public perception of abortion. We, however, are paying attention.)
What's Really Happening
Away from the public eye, however, we are winning. This can hardly be emphasized enough. Most public pro-life activity is focused on the supply side of the equation: cut abortion access off with laws, and we’ll solve the problem. That has had some success, but it doesn’t account for what we’ve seen with the numbers. It’s on the demand side that we are seeing gain after gain: pregnancy help has driven the numbers lower, year after year. The Alan Guttmacher Institute, at one time Planned Parenthood’s research arm, has just issued its report for 2017, and it confirms that abortion numbers are continuing to fall. Abortion rates (per thousand women 15-44) across the U.S. dropped 7% from 2014’s numbers to 13.5 (an estimated total of 862,320). Most interesting for us is what they say about state abortion laws and numbers of clinics: “Although the number of state abortion restrictions continued to increase in the Midwest and South between 2014 and 2017, these restrictive policies do not appear to have been the primary driver of declining abortion rates. There was also no consistent relationship between increases or decreases in clinic numbers and changes in state abortion rates” (“Key Points,” emphasis added).
I think Guttmacher can be trusted here: their researchers may be morally blind on abortion, but they’re dealing with things that can be checked: abortion laws, clinic numbers, and abortion numbers. At the risk of being repetitious – something else beside laws and clinic numbers is driving the drop in abortion ratios: the increase in pregnancy help.
Guttmacher is guessing
When the Guttmacher report goes on to say that “it is unlikely that the decline in abortion was due to an increase in unintended births” (emphasis added), we can be suspicious. It’s in their ideological self-interest to think so. How would we know that unintended births haven’t increased? Unintended births are measured by interviews of subjects, and so are not as cut-and-dried as numbers of births, or even as numbers of abortions; how members of groups answer interviewers’ questions may vary from year to year, or decade to decade. (In the “Turnaway Study” of women who had borne their children after being refused an abortion, 38% said in interviews after the births that they had never sought an abortion! Pregnancy and birth can be something like the Twilight Zone!) It’s true, a couple of studies showed unintended births declining in the past, and this might indicate that contraception, especially widespread use of the most effective contraception, is one reason. But then another, longer-term, study showed unintended births going up from 30.6 per 100 live births, to 37.1, an increase of 7%, from 1995 to 2010. All that time, abortion ratios were going down. So Guttmacher is going out on a limb when it says, without further study, that it is unlikely that unintended births did not increase.
Similarly, when they claim that “improvements in contraceptive use and increases in the number of individuals relying on self-managed abortions outside of a clinical setting” are among the “factors that may have contributed to the decline” (emphasis added), they are guessing. It is true that so-called “Long-Acting Reversible Contraception,” or “LARC,” is more effective at preventing pregnancy than the other forms, but the number of women who are using it is not great enough to explain the drop in abortion rates. There was a simultaneous decline in use of the more common forms of contraception, too, so there was probably no net gain in contraception. In any case, as used in real life, common contraceptives (condom, diaphragm, pill) do not reduce unintended pregnancy rates, but in fact increase those rates.
What about "self-managed" abortions?
What of an increase “in the number of individuals relying on self-managed abortions outside of a clinical setting”? This is a new problem, and one we'll consider in a future post. It makes statistical assessments difficult: who reports these, apart from hospitals that report incomplete abortions done elsewhere? And why would we think that they are not the reason for the decline? Again, we look at longer-term trends. In the graph of Pennsylvania’s first and repeat abortions, below, we see that first abortions have been decreasing faster since 2008 (the first year repeat abortions were reported) than repeat abortions, 25% to 20%. (Repeat abortions were 47% of all PA abortions in 2017). This trend, which likely is the same in many other states, pre-dates the appearance of chemical abortion pills (mifepristone, misoprostol) bought over the Internet, and would be unaffected by it. (This same argument could be mounted against the view that Plan B and similar, so-called emergency contraceptives (EC) reduced abortion ratios when they appeared on the scene: the downward trend in abortion ratios long pre-dates EC.)
What proportion of young women who seek a first abortion would resort to buying pills through the Internet? I submit that it would not be large. The Guttmacher report notes that “one national survey of U.S. adult women, conducted in 2017, found that only 1.4% reported ever having attempted to end a pregnancy on their own.” Women who have a second abortion, or a third or more, however, might come to view abortion pills as just another form of birth control. Yet again, the number of women who are having second, or third, or fourth abortions or more, has been decreasing for at least nine years in Pennsylvania. It is unlikely that “self-managed” abortions played a significant role in the decline in the U.S. abortion rate. The future, however, may be a different story.
As society is becoming politically polarized, so it is becoming polarized in its abortion practices: the number of all pregnant women having abortions in general is falling, but likely fewer U.S. women, and not just Pennsylvania women, are having first abortions. Randall K. O’Bannon of National Right to Life points out something else: “Most of the overall abortion decline happened at high volume abortion clinics performing between a thousand and 4,999 abortions a year. (It should be noted that the country’s nineteen mega-abortion mills – those performing 5,000 abortions or more a year – experienced an increase of about 8,000, or about 428 more abortions per abortion mill)” (Randall K. O’Bannon, “New Numbers from Guttmacher Show Continued Abortion Drop,” NRL News Today, September 18, 2019.) I would bet anything that most of the clients at those mega-abortion mills are having repeat abortions, and that for many abortion has become birth control for them.
The bottom line? Polarization in abortion practices or not, abortion ratios over the long-term continue their constant decrease, as the number of pregnancy help centers is increasing. In Pittsburgh, we’re showing that advertising makes the existing pregnancy medical centers even more effective in saving lives.
Chris Humphrey, Ph.D.
Chris Humphrey has been involved in pro-life activity of one kind or another since the late 1970s, when he first looked at the subject of abortion in seminary in Canada. He has an undergraduate degree in English (University of Toronto), and M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in religious studies (McGill). He has had a varied career as a pastor, chaplain in a psychiatric hospital, editor of academic and instructional publications, semi-professional photographer, and home renovator. He is a husband of over 40 years to Edith (a Professor of New Testament), father to three girls, and grandfather to seventeen grandchildren. He lives and works in the Stanton Heights neighborhood of Pittsburgh.