Dramatic Reduction in Abortion Rates, Numbers, Ratios Shows Ongoing Massive Pro-life Cultural Shift On Abortion

A report earlier this year from the pro-abortion Alan Guttmacher Institute indicates an ongoing, massive cultural shift in America in regards to abortion as dramatically decreasing abortion numbers reflect polling data showing that pro-life is the “new normal” on abortion.  Guttmacher reports a 13 percent decrease in the abortion rate from 2008-2013.  The abortion rate, the number of women per 1000 aborting between the ages of 16-44, has dropped 42 percent to 16.9 per 1000 after peaking at 29.3 in 1981.  The abortion rate is now the lowest since 1973, the year Roe v. Wade struck down abortion laws in all 50 states and made abortion legal throughout pregnancy. 

That’s not all.  The number of abortions keeps falling.  Guttmacher reports 1.05 million abortions for 2011 or 550,000 abortions a year fewer than 1990 when abortions peaked at 1.6 million per year.  This represents a more than one-third drop in the yearly number of abortions since 1990 while the American population has increased by 25 percent.  Minorities account for more than 60 percent of all abortions.
 

Then there’s the abortion ratio, the ratio of pregnancies ending in abortion compared to live births.  The CDC reported in 2008 that “The ratio peaked at 364 per 1,000 (36.4 percent) in 1984 and since then has demonstrated a generally steady decline.”  It’s now 21.2 percent. This number is important because it tells us that fewer and fewer pregnant women are choosing abortion instead of birth.
 

This Monday March 24^rd at 1 PM Nevada Right to Life will speak with Dr. Randall O’Bannon on 1550 AM KXTO in Reno on the Nevada Right to Life show about these numbers. Click here to listen.  Dr. O’Bannon is National Right to Life’s Director of Education & Research and a leading pro-life analyst.

The dramatic reduction of the number of abortions, the abortion rate and the abortion ratio fits with changing attitudes.  The most recent Gallup poll in May 2013 found that a plurality–48%–identified themselves as “pro-life.” 45% identified as “pro-choice.” But this question doesn’t tell the whole story as to what Americans think about abortion.
 

The same Gallup poll asked respondents: “Do you think abortion should be 1) illegal in all circumstances; 2) legal in only a few circumstances; 3) legal under most circumstances; or 4) legal under any circumstances.”  39% agree that abortion should be legal under any or most circumstances.  58% believe abortion should not be legal in any or just a few circumstances.
 

The dramatic abortion numbers and polling data indicate an ongoing massive cultural change on abortion that foreshadows the end of abortion on demand in the United States.  Join us this Monday on the Nevada Right to Life show for our conversation with Dr. Randall O’Bannon on these important numbers this Monday, March 24^th at 1 PM on KXTO 1550 AM in Reno and Saturday at 2 PM.
 

Resources:
 

National Right to Life: The State of Abortion in the United States (January 2014)
 

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.  Click here to listen on line.

 

Ending The Life Of Sufferers Not The Answer To Suffering

There's a sign and a phone box on the Foresthill Bridge which towers 730 feet over the North Fork of the American River just above Auburn.  The sign says “Crisis counseling.  There is hope.  Make the call. 1. Open the box. 2 Lift the handset. 3. Push the button.”  Why is that box there?  Because many people have jumped from the Foresthill bridge to their deaths.  It’s there because we believe that something immeasurably valuable would be lost to them and to us if they were to succeed in killing themselves.

Nevada Right to Life and the pro-life movement believe that every human life is worth living and that something precious and valuable is lost when people commit suicide.  That’s one reason Nevada Right to Life will be opposing a physician assisted suicide bill that NV Senator David Parks has announced he plans to introduce in the Nevada Legislature next year.  Parks says the bill “allows patients with a projected life expectancy of six months to request a prescription for self-ingested medication to end life.” Parks also says it is expected to be modeled after Oregon’s physician assisted suicide bill.

While there are massive efforts to prevent suicide and give suicidal people hope across America, there are many who believe the compassionate thing to do for people with certain conditions is to allow them to have the assistance of a physician to kill themselves.  Instead of trying to talk them out of killing themselves, when they hear people living with or suffering under certain conditions say they are considering suicide, they instead want to make sure that they are serious and know what they are doing.  But ending the life of the sufferer is not the answer to suffering.

This Monday March 17th at 1 PM Nevada Right to Life speaks with assisted suicide expert Brian Johnston on 1550 AM KXTO in Reno on the Nevada Right to Life show. Johnston is the Executive Director of the California Pro-Life Council and the author of “Death as a Salesman-What’s wrong with assisted suicide.”  Brian and the CA Pro-life Council have been coalition leaders to prevent assisted suicide from becoming law in CA three times.  We’ll talk with Johnston about what is wrong with assisted suicide and the dangers of the Oregon law Parks would model his legislation after.

At a recent public meeting, Nevada Right to Life President Melissa Clement and I noted that the disability community opposes assisted suicide.  That’s because it makes targets out of them.  When society agrees that certain conditions should allow certain people to kill themselves, it is not a long step to thinking that people with those conditions would be better off dead or extending their lives is not worthwhile.  Join us for our conversation with Brian Johnston Monday March 17^th 2 1PM on KXTO 1150 AM in Reno and on Saturday at 2 PM.

Resources:

National Right to Life: Why So-Called Safeguards Don’t Work: Physician Assisted Suicide
National Right to Life: What We Have Learned from Oregon

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.  Click here to listen on line.

80 Percent of Studies Dating to 1957 Show Abortion Breast Cancer Link. Dr. Joel Brind On NVRTL Show March 10

If someone had found a risk factor for breast cancer and also found that 80 percent of studies studying this risk factor dating back to 1957 showed an increased risk of developing breast cancer, we would expect that there would be huge headlines demanding more money for research and that there would be an effort to make that factor known to as many women as possible, especially if that were the most easily avoidable risk factor. 

That hasn’t happened because that risk factor is abortion.  Studies are coming in from all over the world that show a link between an induced abortion and an increase in a woman’s lifetime risk for developing breast cancer.  But abortion advocates and their megaphones in the media are not going to admit anytime soon that abortion can do any harm to women.  That would be catastrophic to the abortion movement.

This Monday we speak with Dr. Joel Brind about the abortion breast cancer link on the Nevada Right to Life show at 1 PM on 1550 AM in Reno.  Dr. Brind is Professor of biology and endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of NY.  Dr. Brind has written and lectured extensively on the connection between induced abortion and breast cancer. In 1996 he published a widely read meta-analysis of studies examining the link between abortion and breast cancer in the British Medical Association’s Journal of Epidemiology and community Health.  He is also the co-founder of The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute with breast cancer surgeon Dr. Angela Lanfranchi.

In her article “The Reasons Hormonal Contraceptives and Induced Abortion Increase Breast-Cancer Risk”, Dr. Lanfranchi notes that “By choosing abortion, a woman increases her risk in four ways: she creates in her breasts more places for cancers to start, which is the “independent effect”; she loses the protective effect that a full-term pregnancy would have afforded her; she increases the risk of premature delivery of future pregnancies; and she lengthens her susceptibility window.”  

Abortion poses higher risks for some.  All twelve women in Janet Daling’s 1995 landmark study who aborted their first pregnancy as teens and who had a history of breast cancer, developed breast cancer.

We will talk with Dr. Brind about this and the biological basis for the abortion-breast cancer link and why abortion elevates a woman’s lifetime risk of abortion.  We’ll also speak with Dr. Brind about the criticisms of the abortion breast cancer link, when breast cancer is discovered during pregnancy and we will talk about any link between spontaneous abortions, miscarriages and breast cancer. 

Note, when researchers say there is a link between breast cancer and abortion they do not mean that every woman who has an abortion will develop breast cancer.  It also does not mean that every woman who has had breast cancer has had an abortion.  It means that abortion has been associated with an increase to a woman’s life time risk of developing breast cancer. 

Please tune into our conversation with Dr. Joel Brind, Monday March 10th at 1 PM on the Nevada right to Life show on 1550 AM KXTO in Reno.  Click here to listen.

Additional Resources:

·        Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer: The ABC (Abortion Breast Cancer) Summary

·        The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute
·        Attorney John Kindley: The Fit Between the Elements for an Informed Consent Cause of Action and the Scientific Evidence Linking Induced Abortion with Increased Breast Cancer Risk,” Wisconsin Law Review, (1999)

Listen to the Nevada Right to Life Show 1550 AM KXTO Mondays at 1 PM and Saturdays at 2PM.

 

Obama Administration Violating Smith Amendment’s Abortion Prohibitions.

Allowing Congressional Staff To Purchase Abortion Covering Insurance With Federal Funds.

The Obama administration is breaking the law through a rule it has adopted to allow Congressional members and certain Congressional staff to purchase insurance coverage with federal funds that would provide abortion in violation of the Smith amendment. 

Obama Administration Violating Smith Amendment’s Abortion Prohibitions.

We condemn the Obama Administration’s attempt to violate federal law by adopting a rule allowing Members of Congress and certain congressional staff to purchase abortion covering insurance plans on health care exchanges with federal funds in clear violation of the Smith Amendment. 

The Smith amendment is a limitation amendment on the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) that explicitly prohibits the  Office of Personnel Management (OPM) from expending any funds for “administrative expenses in connection with any health plan… which provides any benefits or coverage of abortions...” [except] where the life of the mother would be endangered if the fetus were carried to term, or the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.”

With members of Congress and certain staff being required to choose an insurance plan on a health care exchange, OPM is erroneously asserting that the Smith Amendment prohibits OPM from using appropriated funds to “administer” Exchange plans by administering “the terms of the health benefits plans offered on an Exchange.”  Under this interpretation, since OPM does not administer such terms, the rule will allow Members of Congress and certain congressional staff to choose health plans on exchanges that cover abortion in instances other than rape or incest. 

But, this deceptive assertion ignores the plain wording of the Smith Amendment which explicitly prohibits the use of any appropriated federal funds “to pay for . . . the administrative expenses in connection with any health plan . . . which provides any benefits or coverage for abortions.” (emphasis added). It is undeniable that OPM will incur “administrative expenses in connection with” the purchase of Exchange health plans that cover abortion.

A letter from 86 members of Congress to the OPM makes this clear:

“The amendment is specifically drafted to refer to the “administrative expenses in connection with” any health plan that includes benefits or coverage for abortion, so that OPM administrative activities for Federal employees cannot include any activity related to a plan that includes elective abortion. Examples of OPM administrative expenses include collecting employer contributions from the various Federal agencies, collecting individual premium contributions from Federal employees, and making premium payments to insurance companies on behalf of Federal employees. As a result of the Smith amendment, none of the plans offered to Federal employees include abortion, except in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother.”

Under the proposed rule, OPM will carry out new administrative duties on behalf of
Congressional employees under the authority of its mandate to provide Federal employee health benefits. These duties will include collecting and disbursing premiums for plans sold in the various exchanges (or marketplaces) established by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The ACA explicitly allows exchange health insurance plans to include elective abortion in the package of benefits sold on the exchanges. [1]

Therefore, if a Congressional employee selects one of the plans that includes elective abortion, OPM will collect the employer and employee premium contributions and in turn disburse them to the abortion-covering plan. Such a scenario would result in administrative expenses being used in connection with a health plan that provides benefits or coverage for abortion—a clear violation of the Smith amendment. Moreover, a violation of a limitation amendment, such as the Smith Amendment, may constitute a violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

The OPM proposal clearly violates the Smith Act and would allow the government to purchase abortion-covering plans for Members of Congress and their staffs, which is something that no other federal employee is allowed to do.  

The Smith Amendment has been law for all but 2 years (1993-1995) in the last 30 years.  Americans, including many who consider themselves pro-choice on abortion, oppose federal funding of abortion.  The Constitution does not grant the President the authority to retroactively rewrite the laws.  OPM must change this rule or those involve must face penalties for violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act.

Pain Capable Bill Would Be First Federal Ban On Abortions Since Roe.

Ban after 20 weeks based on evidence unborn feels pain by 20 weeks. 

Senate Bill 1670 (S. 1670), The Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, S. 1670, an important federal bill to ban the first abortions since Roe v. Wade struck down abortion laws in all 50 states, has passed the House (228-196) and has been introduced into the United States Senate. 

Based on model legislation from National Right to Life, The Pain Capable Unborn Child Protection Act (S 1670) would ban abortions after 20 weeks based on the evidence that the unborn can feel pain by at least 20 weeks.  Whoever performs after 20 weeks, except in rare instances, “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both.” 

Ten states already have pain capable unborn child protection law on the books.  Texas became the tenth state this summer despite an obscene abortion supporting minority disrupting the proceedings and vote, threats to throw tampons and feminine pads at law makers and, chants of Hail Satan and “(bleep) the church.”  It’s not hard to imagine whose side these abortion supporters think God is on. 

This legislation is important.  Recently we spoke with Nebraska Right to Life’s Julie Albin on Nevada Right to Life’s radio show on Radio Vida 1550 AM about the effectiveness of pain capable unborn child protection laws.  Julie said that after Nebraska’s pain capable unborn child protection bill because law, the notorious abortionist Leroy Carhart quit doing late abortions in their state and now does them in Maryland instead.

These measures are effective in rooting out late term abortions after 20 weeks, humanizing the unborn, and exposing the inhumanity of abortion.  Highlighting the pain capability of the unborn at this point in their new lives also undermines the abortion regime by directly contradicting and exploding their lie that the unborn is nothing but a blob of tissue, mere contents of the uterus, products of conception or an unviable tissue mass.  It also illustrates the extremism and inhumanity of the abortion industry, their advocacy groups and politicians who call laws like this extremist-laws which protect unborn children from the excruciating pain of dismemberment.  64% of Americans support Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection laws prohibiting abortion after 20 weeks. Women support it by more than a 2-1 margin 63-31. 

Another reason this legislation is important is that it says the state has an interest in the unborn child and for this reason can protect him or her before the United State’s Supreme Court’s standard of “viability” -when the unborn can survive without dependence on their mothers.  While the law says it is not intended to replace the “viability” standard, if this stands, it opens the door wider to more and more reasons to ban abortion and until someday we will reach our goal that every unborn child will be protected in law and welcomed in life. 

All of this and more is why National Right to Life is calling this the most important pro-life legislation since the partial birth abortion ban.  Click here to go to National Right to Life’s Action Alert page to ask Nevada Senators Dean Heller and Harry Reid to support this important legislation.  Click here to read about the scientific evidence that unborn children experience pain by 20 weeks. 

Abortion Clinics Closing Across America.

47th Closes This Year

Abortion advocates are up in arms over the wave of abortion clinic closings across America.  They should be.  In 1991, there were 2,176 surgical abortion clinics in America.  Today there are less than 600 with 47 abortion clinics having already closed, or having been closed, this year.  That means that in the last 22 years, more than 70% of all surgical abortion clinics have closed for good!  Our efforts are paying off.

Abortion advocates realize the gravity of the situation.  Elizabeth Nash, state issues manager at the Alan Guttmacher Institute-the former research arm of Planned Parenthood says "This kind of change is incredibly dramatic….What we've been seeing since 1982 was a slow decline, but this kind of change ... [is] so different from what's happened in the past."

Abortion advocates fear that one day soon abortion on demand could be legal throughout pregnancy but there might not be anyone to provide one.  Abortion advocates are so alarmed that they have pushed through a bill in California that would allow some nurses and physicians’ assistants to do abortions.  For all of the abortion establishment’s talk about abortion safety, this is bizarre.  But considering that they oppose sensible regulations like abortion clinic standards to make sure that they are cleaner than a dog pound, have adequately trained staff, adequately sized facilities and adequate and functioning equipment etc. required of other outpatient surgical clinics, maybe we should expect it.

Abortion advocates are also pushing web cam abortions with abortion drug RU 486 in which the patient speaks with a doctor via web cam.  After consultation via webcam, a button is pushed and a drawer opens for the patient to take an RU 486 pill.  No examination, just a long distance web cam interview with no one from the clinic to care for them if the woman experiences one of the many RU 486 abortion pill complications. 

What’s causing the closings?

A September 3, 2013 Bloomberg News article puts it this way.

“A wave of regulations that makes it too expensive or logistically impossible for facilities to remain in business drove at least a third of the closings. Demographic changes, declining demand, industry consolidation, doctor retirements and crackdowns on unfit providers were also behind the drop. More clinics in Texas and Ohio are preparing to shut as soon as next month.”

Bloomberg adds, “legislatures are proving to be the most effective tool after Republicans made historic gains in the 2010 elections. Their success is creating one of the biggest shifts in reproductive health care since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision in 1973 legalized abortion in all 50 states.”

One pro-life leader notes that “People who don’t have power protest on the street…People who have influence work from within to enact change."

As Bloomberg notes, 2010 was a powerful year for pro-lifers.  Not only did we win big margins in the United States House of Representatives, pro-lifers won big in state legislatures.  Life News says that “this year, 48 states have considered approximately 360 measures related to abortion, most of which sought to protect women and their unborn children from a predatory abortion industry which, as the Kermit Gosnell case aptly demonstrates, places concerns for profit over women’s health and safety. Of those, 69 provisions were enacted. This continued a trend begun in 2011 when 70 life-affirming measures were enacted, and 2012, when 38 such measures were passed — a large number for an election year.”

Much of this effort is a direct result of National Right to Life and its 50 state affiliates and over 3000 chapters persistently advancing the pro-life message and electing candidates to office. 

Another reason for the wave of closings is that most abortionists are past retirement age and few doctors are willing to take their place.  That is why abortion advocates are relentlessly trying to undermine conscience protections that protect medical personnel, insurers and facilities from having to participate in, provide, or pay for abortions.  That is also why we’ve seen attempts to force medical residents to take abortion training to become certified or to be part of a medical program, or to force graduate programs to provide or make provision for abortion training to receive accreditation.  So much for choice.

Finally, there’s been a cultural change that has led to less demand.  In the last 22 years, abortions are down 25 percent though our population has increased 25 percent.  The rate of women aborting is down 33 percent and the ratio of abortions to live births is down over 20 percent.  While polls fluctuate on whether more people are pro-life or pro-choice, when asked specific questions about abortion, poll after poll (including another National Right to Life poll) show that a majority of Americans (53 percent in the NRLC poll) oppose almost all abortions.  A Marist Poll found that a vast majority support significant abortion restrictions.  Only 11 percent support Planned Parenthood’s position of abortion throughout pregnancy for any reason.

We have much more work to do, but the patient, persistent, hard work of the pro-life movement is having a huge and sustained impact.

Abortion Rates Fall to Their Lowest Points in Over 30 Years

Rate has dropped almost continuously since 1980

The CDC is reporting that the abortion rate dropped another 3 percent in 2010, the latest year for which we have statistics.  That follows a 5 percent drop in 2009.  Life News reports that "The new report shows the abortion rate has fallen to its lowest point in over 30 years. The new (CDC) report said: 'The abortion rate was the lowest recorded during the 1976–2009 period and has dropped almost continuously since 1980. The abortion rate in 2009 (18.5) was 32% lower than in 1990 (27.4). The 2009 abortion rate for teenagers (16.6 per 1,000) was less than one-half the rate in 1991 (37.4) and 1990 (40.3).'"

The number of standalone abortion clinics is way down with 47 abortion clinics having already closed this year.  More good news is that there are fewer and fewer doctors to take the place of the aging fleet of abortionists, a substantial number of whom are past the age of retirement.  This is news that everyone welcomes except, of course, radical abortion advocates who oppose almost every abortion limitation and safety measure and who didn’t lift a finger to stop the notorious abortionist Kermit Gosnell, who killed two women, aborted babies alive to kill them and operated in squalid conditions that would have forced closure of a dog pound.

The dramatically declining rate of abortion has led to a 25 percent reduction in abortions even as our population has increased by 25 percent since the number of abortions peaked in 1990 at 1.6 million abortions.  While 1.1 or 1.2 million yearly abortions of unborn baby boys and baby girls is unconscionable, if the abortion rate had stayed consistent with our population growth, there would be 2 million abortions every year, or 800,000 more.  Some believe that if the abortion rate had continued its post Roe rise that there might have been 3 million or more abortions a year.  1.2 million abortions is unconscionable, but millions of lives have been saved as the abortion rate has been lowered.

This is another piece of evidence to show that the pro-life cause is advancing and that our hard and patient work is paying off as we also work to elect pro-life presidents who will appoint justices with hearts of flesh to the Supreme Court, so we can one day overturn Roe.   

Thanks to all of you who have faithfully supported our efforts in Nevada.  In the last three legislative sessions in Nevada, we have stopped legislation to advance abortion through your support and efforts.  Please click here to read the rest of the good news from Life News founder and editor in chief, Steven Ertelt.