I saw this. I was annoyed that it was reported like it was a triumph.

If abortions were down because comprehensive sex ed and easily accessed birth control meant there were fewer unwanted pregnancies, then I might be happy. But when they're down because clinics are closing, people are being duped by phony clinics, people don't have local access to abortions, and providers are being murdered. That's hardly something to tap-dance about.

Liza: This does definitely make me wonder. Is the number decreasing because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, or is it because women's access to reproductive choice is being limited by politicians and zealots.

Since I am still thinking about the comment from Sue Burmeister, I looked at the Georgia stats:
• In 2005, 92% of Georgia counties had no abortion provider. 62% of Georgia women lived in these counties. In the South census region, where Georgia is located, 21% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 10% traveled more than 100 miles.

In 2005, 33,180 women obtained abortions in Georgia, producing a rate of 16.3 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age.

With these two stats together, 3,318 women had to go more than 100 miles (at the very least a two hour drive) to obtain an abortion, and twice that had to go 50 miles. And Sue wants a 24 hour waiting period...

Liza: This does definitely make me wonder. Is the number decreasing because there are fewer unwanted pregnancies, or is it because women's access to reproductive choice is being limited by politicians and zealots.

Since I am still thinking about the comment from Sue Burmeister, I looked at the Georgia stats:
• In 2005, 92% of Georgia counties had no abortion provider. 62% of Georgia women lived in these counties. In the South census region, where Georgia is located, 21% of women having abortions traveled at least 50 miles, and 10% traveled more than 100 miles.

In 2005, 33,180 women obtained abortions in Georgia, producing a rate of 16.3 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age.

With these two stats together, 3,318 women had to go more than 100 miles (at the very least a two hour drive) to obtain an abortion, and twice that had to go 50 miles. And Sue wants a 24 hour waiting period...

I love the South:
• In 2005, there were 2 abortion providers in Mississippi. This represents a 50% decrease from 2000, when there were 4 abortion providers.

It's a good way to lower your state's abortion rates! Harass clinics with unfair legislation until they have to close! Yay women's rights!

oops! sorry about the double post. It said internal server error and misleading things.

As upsetting as these new statistics are, I am not surprised. I had to travel 50 miles just to find a pharmacist that would sell the morning after pill!

Dora: You're kidding me!! Where do you live? I would be all, lawsuits and stuff, err, this stuff just makes me angry.

Reading these statistics is a little. . .not depressing, but overwhelming? Bizarre? for me, since I had an abortion in 2005. It's weird to think about how I was one of those 6.3 million pregnant women, or the recipient of one of those 1.21 billion. I abortions. I fit right into a lot of the other conclusions--I was using another form of birth control that failed; I was below the poverty line; I was younger than 25.

FemiDancer, When I was in poli sci (I mentioned this in that other thread) and reported on the 24-hour law, the same article mentioned that only 4 cities in GA have abortion providers. They were Atlanta, Augusta, Columbus, and Savannah. Which (as I'm sure you know) are basically in the 4 corners of the state. And GA isn't exactly a small state. So if you're anywhere in the middle, you're out of luck.

Tennessee. I went to about ten differnt places and each one was conviently "out" or "did not carry it", including Wal Mart.

"in 2005, the U.S. abortion rate was the lowest it has been since 1974."

WOOHOO! Awesome news. Of course, the goal is ZERO abortions, because responsible behavior & effective birth control is the ideal. Who could possible see fewer babies being killed as bad news?

One of the more interesting things that I read from the study was that one of the most common reasons given for getting an abortion was concern for their living children. Many women who get abortions already have at least one child. Kinda takes the wind out of the argument that women are too emotional when they find out that they are pregnant to be able to make a decision. These women know exactly what it means to be pregnant, to give birth and to raise a child.

Anti-choicers will receive this news triumphantly.

I am deeply troubled. It is unlikely that the numbers are down due to increased contraceptive use. We all know that the ab-only studies show that people who got ab-only ed are much less likely to use condoms or another form of contraception when they eventually start having sex.

Additionally, it's unlikely that women are intentionally getting pregnant at a higher rate. Economically, this does not make much sense. All the economic indicators tell us that consumers are not in a good place right now. During an economic recession, people don't normally feel confident enough to have *this* many more babies on purpose.

Women's health centers are closing. Waiting periods have been established. It is more difficult to obtain Plan B and even the Pill.
And of course, anti-choicers continue to shame women and spread misinformation about abortion.

Dora: That is so ridiculous. I hate the way women's access to proper medical care and attention is blocked in so many ways. I grew up in East Tennessee and know the conservative atmosphere of the state and a majority of the people. It made growing up with an open mind extremely difficult, because someone was always there to try and tell you you were going to hell for thinking differently.

The quote I found interesting:

"The very small group of American women who are at risk of experiencing an unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives account for almost half of all abortions—46% in 2000."

So, while because BC is not 100% effective, it wouldn't eliminate 46% of abortions, comprehensive BC education and aid in obtaining BC would certainly put a huge dent in these numbers. Hello, McLifers, time to jump on the Comprehensive Sex Ed wagon. Woot Woot!

The quote I found interesting:

"The very small group of American women who are at risk of experiencing an unintended pregnancy but are not using contraceptives account for almost half of all abortions—46% in 2000."

So, while because BC is not 100% effective, it wouldn't eliminate 46% of abortions, comprehensive BC education and aid in obtaining BC would certainly put a huge dent in these numbers. Hello, McLifers, time to jump on the Comprehensive Sex Ed wagon. Woot Woot!

totally depressing that the numbers are likely down due to anti-choice roadblocks.

thank goodness california seems to rank highly for number of providers and for no bullshit restrictions, but i feel for women who aren't so lucky. wtf in the richest country in the world, which is supposed to be a bastion of modernity and freedom, i should NOT have to count myself lucky that i can manage the contents of uterus.

rileystclair: wtf in the richest country in the world, which is supposed to be a bastion of modernity and freedom

As much as the US rightly held the torch of liberty and lit the way for others in the past, I think it's time to ship the statue back.

rileystclair: wtf in the richest country in the world, which is supposed to be a bastion of modernity and freedom

As much as the US rightly held the torch of liberty and lit the way for others in the past, I think it's time to ship the statue back.

despis, seriously. we fail.

Abortions are down, but at what price? I noticed the study lacked any reference to illegal abortions (unless I missed it). I'm not sure, but those statistics could be pretty telling. Someone should also do a follow-up study reporting on the mental health and economic conditions of mothers and children in regions where access to abortion and contraception is severely restricted. The number of abortions only tells a very limited story.

I did not know my state had a 24-hour waiting period for abortion until just now. Or that they do not legally require health insurance to cover abortion unless it is done for the health of the woman. I'm so ashamed.

Abortions are down, but at what price? We need follow up studies on the rate of illegal abortions and the mental health/economic conditions of women and children in areas where access to abortion and contraception is severely limited. Then maybe we'd get the full story. I'm gonna bet it's pretty damning.

Abortions are down, but at what price? We need follow up studies on the rate of illegal abortions and the mental health/economic conditions of women and children in areas where access to abortion and contraception is severely limited. Then maybe we'd get the full story. I'm gonna bet it's pretty damning.

I recently moved to Canada, so I was interested in what the situation was around here. This one was one of the first links that came up when I searched: http://www.cbctrust.com/teens.php
It's a Q&A for pregnant teenagers.
It's pretty good, I think!

Abortion rates only tell half the story (probably less). We need follow up studies on the number of illegal abortions, as well as the mental/economic health of women and children in areas where abortion and contraception aren't available. I'm willing to bet that data would be pretty damning.

Abortion rates only tell half the story (probably less). We need follow up studies on the number of illegal abortions, as well as the mental/economic health of women and children in areas where abortion and contraception aren't available. I'm willing to bet that data would be pretty damning.

DAMN
Sorry about the ridiculous amount of posting. my computer is an asshole.

I wish there were a way to find out how many women would've had an abortion had it been affordable and accessible. That might fill in some of the gaps in this story that so many of us are pretty sure are there.

As to the number of illegal abortions, I feel like I read in the last couple of years that the number of self-induced abortions nationwide as gone up. Nothing to celebrate there.

Its a meaningless stat without a lot of other factors thrown in. There are many European countries with abortion essentially on demand with no taboos and still a much lower abortion rate than the US. In fact, the abortion rate in the US is amongst the highest in developed countries.

mathgoddess: its not your computer, its moveabletype. I hope someday feministing's affair with that abomination will end.

"As much as the US rightly held the torch of liberty and lit the way for others in the past, I think it's time to ship the statue back."

Win.

When my grandfather was visiting, we decided to visit Ellis Island (because he entered the country through it in 1935, not that that's relevant at all here), which is accessed via the same ferry as the Statue of Liberty. Let me tell you, the security is horrible. Not only do they search you in a thoroughly violating way, the workers are incredibly rude and stupid. You aren't allowed to keep your belongings with you before you send them through the X-ray. You are in line, and you put it in a bucket and it gets sent through for you, generally long before you get through the metal detector. As someone who always has my iPod in my purse, I was not thrilled about that. They didn't have any way to identify which bag belonged to whom. My grandfather almost lost his wallet, and when we complained the guard was like "you got the wallet back, what are you complaining about?" I could have handled being X-rayed and metal detected if they had handled it well, but I have no patience for rudeness and stupidity, and both were rampant.

I found it ironic that all of this happened on the way to the Statue of LIBERTY. I don't think the tourists got it.

I now refer to it as the Statue of Former Liberties.

Also, I enjoyed pointing out that the statue came from France, who were are now supposed to hate. I'm a big fan of irony.

I'm sure this isn't news to most people reading this blog, but when I read that in my home state of Louisiana: A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided. I was dumbfounded. Look, is abortion legal or not? I realize the attitudes in the state of Louisiana (and the rest of the South) skew antichoice, but it doesn't seem like state government should be able to forcibly try to shame women out of making a personal decision.

I believe all women should have access to abortion services, and that government should pay for it if they cannot afford it. Plus I'm for promotion of contraception and against abstinence-only education (that Joycelyn Elders aptly called "child abuse").

However, I also believe that abortion is a sad occurrence, and that there are way too many abortions even now. One in five pregnancies end in abortion, and this is a marked drop from where it was in the late '70s and 80s?!? Before I saw AGI statistics on this a couple years back, I would have guessed the percentage of pregnancies that were aborted were maybe one tenth this number (and I'd add that a lot of other pro-choice people I know are surprised to find that the percentage is anywhere near this high).

I guess you should mark me down for "safe, legal, and rare".

Alan

wow, so if I ever find myself unfortunate enough to need an abortion provider, I can look forward to a 24 hour wait and an attempted brain washing. those "counselors" better fucking watch what they say to me, I'll tell you that much.

new proposal:
If state laws restrict access to contraception and abortion, men have to undergo counseling and a 24-hr waiting period before having sex with a woman. Hey, it's in the best interest of the potential unborn!

Alan, why do you think abortion is a "sad occurrence?" In my world, it is unwanted pregnancy (a problem exacerbated by lack of sex education and affordable birth control, rape culture, and patriarchy in general) that is the sad part of the equation.

I found it interesting that the rates in my state, Maryland, seemed to increase by the same amount that the national rate has decreased. I think a lot of it is probably the added restrictions of neighboring states like VA and PA.

"However, I also believe that abortion is a sad occurrence, and that there are way too many abortions even now."

What I think is sad about it is that women and men are not given proper information regarding contraception. I think that it is sad when they don't have access to contraception and even sadder when they aren't able to see a doctor to have access to some of the more effective forms of birth control.

Can we all agree that this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/18/kan_abortion_foes_use_1887_law_against_clinics/?rss_id=Boston.com%20--%20National%20news

is terrifying?

Can we all agree that this:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/18/kan_abortion_foes_use_1887_law_against_clinics/?rss_id=Boston.com%20--%20National%20news

is terrifying?

This is deeply disturbing to me for some reason:

"• In Nebraska, no metropolitan area lacks an abortion provider."

There's only one metropolitan area, Omaha and the surrounding towns. There's only one abortion provider, and that's the clinic across the street from St. Mary's Catholic School and a CPC.

"A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided."

But, that's only if the protesters screaming outside every Sunday morning don't scare her off, of course.

This is deeply disturbing to me for some reason:

"• In Nebraska, no metropolitan area lacks an abortion provider."

There's only one metropolitan area, Omaha and the surrounding towns. There's only one abortion provider, and that's the clinic across the street from St. Mary's Catholic School and a CPC.

"A woman must receive state-directed counseling that includes information designed to discourage her from having an abortion and then wait 24 hours before the procedure is provided."

But, that's only if the protesters screaming outside every Sunday morning don't scare her off, of course.

I had an abortion in a state with a 24 hour waiting period, not too long after the law was passed. I was expecting something very stressful, but it was low-key, and very respectful. A doctor called me the day before I was scheduled, and she didn't say anything I didn't already know. I mean, she's clearly pro-choice and pro-woman; she's not oging to fill my head with lies about scrambling the brains of my precious, precious baby.

Of course, had it been a "counselor," it would be a different story altogether.

Derrp:

Alan, why do you think abortion is a "sad occurrence?" In my world, it is unwanted pregnancy (a problem exacerbated by lack of sex education and affordable birth control, rape culture, and patriarchy in general) that is the sad part of the equation.

Can't I believe both are sad? One leads to the other. I believe abortion is sad because while I don't believe the religious notion that embryos are "ensouled" at the moment of conception, I also do not believe babies (that is, foetuses) are just non-sentient portions of the mother's body until the moment of birth either.

Sassygirl:

What I think is sad about it is that women and men are not given proper information regarding contraception. I think that it is sad when they don't have access to contraception and even sadder when they aren't able to see a doctor to have access to some of the more effective forms of birth control.

Agreed. I would like to see aggressive public health measures to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce abortion. But I would also like our society to be more accepting of teen and single motherhood so that some of the young women who accidentally get pregnant can see keeping the baby as a realistic choice that won't destroy their lives.

Alan

Derrp:

Alan, why do you think abortion is a "sad occurrence?" In my world, it is unwanted pregnancy (a problem exacerbated by lack of sex education and affordable birth control, rape culture, and patriarchy in general) that is the sad part of the equation.

Can't I believe both are sad? One leads to the other. I believe abortion is sad because while I don't believe the religious notion that embryos are "ensouled" at the moment of conception, I also do not believe babies (that is, foetuses) are just non-sentient portions of the mother's body until the moment of birth either.

Sassygirl:

What I think is sad about it is that women and men are not given proper information regarding contraception. I think that it is sad when they don't have access to contraception and even sadder when they aren't able to see a doctor to have access to some of the more effective forms of birth control.

Agreed. I would like to see aggressive public health measures to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce abortion. But I would also like our society to be more accepting of teen and single motherhood so that some of the young women who accidentally get pregnant can see keeping the baby as a realistic choice that won't destroy their lives.

Alan

Derrp:

Alan, why do you think abortion is a "sad occurrence?" In my world, it is unwanted pregnancy (a problem exacerbated by lack of sex education and affordable birth control, rape culture, and patriarchy in general) that is the sad part of the equation.

Can't I believe both are sad? One leads to the other. I believe abortion is sad because while I don't believe the religious notion that embryos are "ensouled" at the moment of conception, I also do not believe babies (that is, foetuses) are just non-sentient portions of the mother's body until the moment of birth either.

Sassygirl:

What I think is sad about it is that women and men are not given proper information regarding contraception. I think that it is sad when they don't have access to contraception and even sadder when they aren't able to see a doctor to have access to some of the more effective forms of birth control.

Agreed. I would like to see aggressive public health measures to reduce the numbers of unwanted pregnancies and thus reduce abortion. But I would also like our society to be more accepting of teen and single motherhood so that some of the young women who accidentally get pregnant can see keeping the baby as a realistic choice that won't destroy their lives.

Alan

Ugh, I can't wait for the upgrade! I got error messages and even went back and checked between each of those attempts to post...nothing there.

Alan

those "counselors" better fucking watch what they say to me, I'll tell you that much.

Anyone who is giving the state-mandated 'counseling' at a clinic is one of the few saintly people who is willing to work in an abortion clinic and thus is probably on your side. They'll read you what they're required by law to read you and they also have to worry about anti-choice plants who are trying to get evidence that clinics pressure women to have abortions. The last thing clinic workers need is to get attitude from someone they're trying to help.

I'm not sure how anyone can say there are way too many abortions. Where do you draw the line? I didn't enjoy having my tonsils removed, but I'm not going to say there are 'way too many tonsillectomies' (and that procedure is more dangerous than an abortion). There should be as many as people need. Since I'm pretty sure there are a lot of women who would access abortion but can't, I'd count that as too few abortions.

pull_rank:

"I'm not sure how anyone can say there are way too many abortions. Where do you draw the line? I didn't enjoy having my tonsils removed, but I'm not going to say there are 'way too many tonsillectomies' (and that procedure is more dangerous than an abortion)."

There *are* too many tonsillectomies, and too many c-sections (even ACOG will admit that), too many birth interventions, etc. But tonsils and foetuses are hardly equivalent. As I said, it's ridiculous to call a fertilised egg a "baby"; but it's just as ridiculous to call a third trimester foetus just "part of a woman's body" (like tonsils). Somewhere on the continuum between that fertilisation and birth, the gestating entity in question becomes a human being--and there is no exact moment where it happens. So while I reject treating abortion (especially early term abortion) as a tragedy like the death of a child in a car accident or something, I also reject the idea that a foetus is worthy of no more consideration than someone's tonsils.

If it comes down to where a woman is pregnant and does not want to be pregnant any more, she should not be legally prevented from having an abortion, and every woman--no matter how poor--should have unfettered access to this option. But just because I believe a woman should have the legal right to this choice does not mean it is a choice I would ever recommend (just as I believe people should have the legal right to get on a soapbox and say things I would find morally untenable). I believe it is first of all a situation (unplanned pregnancy) to be assiduously avoided; and if it is not avoided the choice to abort should not be taken lightly by any means.

Alan

I doubt that many, if any, women take the choice to abort "lightly," but no one is in a position to tell a woman how she should go about making that decision.

You may think that "tonsils and foetuses are hardly equivalent," but that doesn't mean it's an objective truth. Every woman has to decide that for herself.

Derrp,

At what point do you believe the entity in question becomes something/someone deserving of more sympathy (and perhaps legal protection) than a set of tonsils? My sister recently had a c-section (scheduled this time because she didn't want to do a VBAC). The OB could have scheduled it a few days earlier or a few days later, depending on his schedule. Did he, with his appointment book, magically determine the point at which my niece stopped being inert tissue and became a human being?

I find that highly illogical (not to mention lacking in emotional resonancy); and I note that Roe does not protect the right of women to abort post-viability. But viability is a moving target as medical technology advances in its ability to keep preemies alive at earlier and earlier stages. Yet the issue that I feel is most important--sentience--is not affected by these technological advances. At some point, the "viability" threshold will cease to have medical meaning, which will mean either that abortion will be completely bannable again, or they'll have to go back to the drawing board again and determine when an embryo or foetus becomes a sentient human being--when "it" becomes "he or she", when potential human life becomes simply human life.

Alan

In my mind the issue has nothing to do with viability or "when 'it' becomes 'he or she'". Potential life is complete hogwash anyway -- it's all alive. What's the difference?

The issue is a woman's ability to decide what happens to her life and her body, drawing the line between a being inside her body, completely dependent on and taking sustenance from her, or outside of it. Period.

Pull_rank, you don't believe the sentience of the baby/foetus has any relevance? I think there's a big difference between an early term embryo that has the subjective mental experience of a slug, and a late term one that is mentally similar to a baby.

And do you really think the baby suddenly becomes an independent being when it exits the mother's body? Even if the baby is given formula, which is inadequate to properly nourish him or her, the baby is still dependent on constant care for survival (we are different from other mammals in that we have to deliver our infants "premature" because of our large craniums). You would probably say that someone other than the mother could then take over care, but is it then ethical to abort an infant post-viability, when a c-section could be performed that would preserve the infant's life?

Alan

Physical dependence (i.e. living off the body of another) is completely different than an infant that needs care.

Considering even a post-viability abortion (as extremely rare as they are) is a completely different surgical procedure with different risks and consequences than a c-section, I think ethically, it should be up to the person who has to deal with those. I don't find one choice more 'ethical' than the other.

"Physical dependence (i.e. living off the body of another) is completely different than an infant that needs care."

It's not different at all for breastfed infants, and to do other than to breastfeed involves all kinds of deficits in health and development.

"Considering even a post-viability abortion (as extremely rare as they are)"

My point was that they will become less and less rare as viability moves steadily earlier and earlier--I wouldn't be surprised if, another 35 years from now, it approaches the first trimester. And again, Roe v. Wade does not protect the legal right to abortion after viability.

Alan

Not true. Breast milk has many advantages, but if it isn't available babies can be properly nourished and raised on formula. It's a side road to the actual discussion, but if you're using it to further the 'babies are just as dependent' argument, it's false false false.

Pull_rank is right. Physical dependence is absolutely different than an infant that needs care.

Sgzax, you are flat wrong. The "advantages" terminology you use is what has been pushed by the corporate formula industry, but it is not supported by science. It is similar to saying that "drinking water that has no lead or arsenic in it has many advantages..." Yes, many babies survive being formula fed (though a not insignificant number do not: see this study http://newsnet.byu.edu/story.cfm/32233/ ) but only breastfed infants can truly thrive and reach their full potential as human beings.

Alan

Having known plenty of happy, healthy people who were formula fed (like, generations of people), I think your argument is b.s., but even if we accepted that, it still would be a completely different situation than the biological dependency of a fetus in the womb. Once again, it doesn't fall on a specific person -- a child could live off of any woman's breast milk, not just its mother's. A woman carrying a child cannot transfer the stain on her body to any other person. No one else can share the burden on her back and joints. No other person can contribute the nutrients that she's losing to the fetus. No other person can share the risk that she is facing. And let's be clear -- until birth is complete, pregnancy is a risk to the life of a woman. Many of us are willing to take that risk, but at every stage, that should our choice.