3. Are restrictive state laws the reason for falling abortion numbers?
Abortion has been seen by many chiefly as a conflict of rights: the woman’s right to control her body, and the right of the unborn child to live. But this has distorted our perception of the decline in the abortion numbers.
Note again the relatively smooth decline in the ratios of abortions to births, beginning about 1984.
One side says that changes to state laws over the past decades, such as waiting periods, informed consent, and parental notification, have played a big part in the decline of abortion numbers. The other side says that these restrictions have created a “lack of access” to abortion, an injustice that has driven the numbers down. Both sides, however, generally assume that the demand for abortion on the part of pregnant women is a constant, unaffected by the presence, and the offer, of pregnancy help in their communities.
These incremental, restrictive state laws have been shown to be effective, to one degree or another, and most likely they are contributing to the drop in abortion ratios. This is especially so with public subsidies: where abortion is paid for by Medicaid, the numbers are higher than they would be without that payment.
There are two reasons, however, to think that the chief cause of the decline in abortion numbers is not laws, as good as these laws may be for women and their children. First, the widespread adoption of restrictive state laws began around 2010, but the decline preceded that by more than two decades. Second, the adoption of a restrictive law (a waiting period, for example), would have a statistical effect on abortion numbers once, after it was adopted and implemented; there is no reason to think that it would have an increasing effect over time. For example, in my state, Pennsylvania, the Abortion Control Act was implemented in May 1994.
One side says that changes to state laws over the past decades, such as waiting periods, informed consent, and parental notification, have played a big part in the decline of abortion numbers. The other side says that these restrictions have created a “lack of access” to abortion, an injustice that has driven the numbers down. Both sides, however, generally assume that the demand for abortion on the part of pregnant women is a constant, unaffected by the presence, and the offer, of pregnancy help in their communities.
These incremental, restrictive state laws have been shown to be effective, to one degree or another, and most likely they are contributing to the drop in abortion ratios. This is especially so with public subsidies: where abortion is paid for by Medicaid, the numbers are higher than they would be without that payment.
There are two reasons, however, to think that the chief cause of the decline in abortion numbers is not laws, as good as these laws may be for women and their children. First, the widespread adoption of restrictive state laws began around 2010, but the decline preceded that by more than two decades. Second, the adoption of a restrictive law (a waiting period, for example), would have a statistical effect on abortion numbers once, after it was adopted and implemented; there is no reason to think that it would have an increasing effect over time. For example, in my state, Pennsylvania, the Abortion Control Act was implemented in May 1994.
It had no discernible effect on the existing decline in abortion numbers. In fact, that decline, which began in 1981, continued only until 1999 for some reason, and started again ten years after that. [See the Conclusion for the best explanation of the change in abortion numbers in Pennsylvania.]
Protecting unborn children in law is a worthy goal, and has measurable results. Is it the driver in the dropping abortion ratios? No. Pregnancy help, however, reaches women where they are, and has measurable effects on those ratios, as we shall see. Advertising that help, too, has measurable effects.
Protecting unborn children in law is a worthy goal, and has measurable results. Is it the driver in the dropping abortion ratios? No. Pregnancy help, however, reaches women where they are, and has measurable effects on those ratios, as we shall see. Advertising that help, too, has measurable effects.