New York Times Editorial on Decline in Abortion Numbers

The New York Times editorial page ran an editorial today about the decline in the number of abortions. Using the numbers recently released by the Guttmacher Institute (which used to be the research arm of Planned Parenthood), the NYT argues that it's not pro-life educational programs or abstinence programs causing the decline. Instead, the Times argues, it's better access to contraception and better sex-education.

Well, that would mean fewer pregnancies in the first place.

However, the numbers Guttmacher released showed that the ratio of abortions is 22.4. This number represents the number of abortions for every 100 pregnancies that ended in abortion or live birth. The ratio has shown a significant decline consistent with the lower overall abortion numbers and the lower rate. Increased contraceptive use can't explain this away.

More and more women are rejecting abortion and it's not because they have better access to contraception. It's because they are listening to the message that their babies are alive and that abortion is not the answer to their problems. An increase in the number of crisis pregnancy centers and an increase in the use of ultrasound have greatly contributed. More and more states are enacting protective legislation as well.

We are finally seeing the results of years of hard work by pro-lifers.

Accept it NYT, the numbers can't lie.

Guttmacher Releases Abortion Numbers

Today, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, which is a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood, released the abortion numbers for 2005, the most recent year available.

Abortions have been steadily on the decrease-- down to just over 1.2 million-- which is great news. However, 1.2 million a year is still far too many.

Of course, pro-abortion groups are claiming that access to contraception has helped to curb that number. They also claim that the increased use of drug-induced abortions, such as RU-486 (13 percent of all abortions), have curbed the number of sidewalk counselors contacting women in need by putting abortions into doctor's offices instead of abortion clinics.

According to National Right to Life's Randall K. O'Bannon, Ph.D., the director of Education and Research for the group, "Today's numbers confirm what we have known for years, if women seeking abortion are fully informed about the risks surrounding abortion, the development of their unborn child, and public and private assistance available in their area, they are more likely to reject the idea of abortion. Women's Right to Know laws, parental involvement laws, bans on partial-birth abortion, all of which continue to be enacted by the states, not only help women facing crisis pregnancies, they also raise the public's awareness about abortion and the humanity of the unborn child."

I agree that the continuing education of Americans in general and specifically the help given to women in need have made a huge impact.