Challenging Obama on Abortion

I give the author credit for making an accurate prediction, but I have a couple questions about the points made in this commentary.

Can it be shown that the policies of either the Clinton or Bush Administration had anything to do with the abortion rate? There's seems to be a correlation, but as we know, one thing doesn't necessarily have to cause the other. There are a myriad of things that go into influencing a woman's choice on abortion. Couldn't there be other factors than public policy?

Also, I tried looking up budget numbers for the early 2000s for the programs Glenn lists. I was unsuccessful finding numbers for SCHIP or Pell Grants.

But I did find info on the other two:

According to this chart the benefits provided by the food stamp program have doubled between 2000 and 2008.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/SNAPsummary.htm

WIC expenditures have increased from $4.1 billion in 2000 to $6.3 billion in 2008 according to these documents.
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/fundingandprogramdata/

If anyone has budget numbers for the other two programs from the early 2000s they would be interesting to see, considering WIC and food stamps don't seem to have been cut. Perhaps I'm not looking at the right data though. Can someone enlighten me?

Not having read your articles I can only say that it's an interesting thesis, and the conclusions sound intuitive, but therein lies the problem.

Causality is extremely difficult to demonstrate. The assertion that bush's policies, or any president's policies, lead to an increase or a reduction in the number of abortions performed in the U.S. is easily challenged by anyone with a working knowledge of statistics and epidemiology.

I frequently get criticized for playing the devil's advocate on this blog, but I believe that if we want to make a case that supports or defends a particular policy or position, we need to do so based on demonstrable facts.

Whether our conclusions are true or not, we are easily discredited and dismissed when we base our arguments on intuitive reasoning, misrepresentation of facts, innuendo, or generalizations.

I usually read the annual CDCs Abortion Surveillance reports (Jesse may comment on the Guttmacher reports). The CDC is very cautious in speculating reasons for increases or declines in the number of abortions performed in the U.S.

The reported increase in the last surveillance report was in the ratio (not the number or rate) of abortions in girls under the age of 15.

I think most of us are very uncomfortable with the thought of a girl under the age of fifteen being pregnant, and horrified by the idea of a girl under 15 obtaining an abortion, but the increase in the ratio does not mean that there was an increase in the number of girls obtaining abortions

I guess I should withhold my credit to the author for making an accurate prediction. Thanks for providing some insight here Neuro.

Fully agree. I don't know Mr Stassen. Given his position, I would expect a bit more objective treatment of the data. I have no problem with an ethical and policy case being made for the selected policies he identifies. I have no problem with making a logic case for them. I have a problem with making the linkages he makes. What happens if the policies are implemented and the abortion rate goes up? Does that mean the policies are bad?

I want the number of abortions to go down.

To be a bit more precise--we might want to think about how many pregnancies result in live births versus abortions. This would indicate pregnancies were wanted. And that circumstances were values and choices were such that couples selected to give birth.

That number is the ratio -- not the total number of abortions.

The ratio of abortions to live births rose steadily from 1973 to a peak in 1987. Since 1987 they have been on a steady decline. This suggests long-term trends, quite immune from any sharp-turns in federal policy. To follow Mr. Stassen's logic, Ronald Reagen must have administered some policy change in 1987 (or leading up to 87) that created a turn in a trend that had been sustained through the presidencies of Ford, Carter and Reagan. And then the Reagan turn was sustained through Bush I, Clinton and Bush II. This just doesn't make sense.

There are irregularities from year to year in that some areas do not report. The ratio 1995 - 2005 for the 46 areas that consistently reported does show a change that supports Mr. Stassen. But not really.

In 1995, at the middle of the Clinton presidency the ration was 280 abortions for every 1000 live births. In the last year of Clinton this had declined to 249. YEA!!!!!!!!!!!

And as Mr. Stassen argues, the arrival of Bush reversed this. By 2003 it had climbed back to 258. BOO!!!!!!!!!!

And one year later, it had dropped below the lowest Clinton ratio. It was 241.

And in 2005, it had dropped further to 236. YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But wait a minute. That doesn't support the Stassen argument. So we shouldn't celebrate that.

I have a humble proposal.

What if we join hands and work honestly so males and females across the country more often make choices that dignify our bodies, each other, the lives we create, and our Creator. We have work to do on many fronts. One front is how abortion is treated by the law. One front is how a church comes around a girl with a pregnancy. One front is complex, systemic change in health systems. I think we all have plenty to do.

Exploring connections between Federal policies and abortion rates may have some value. Let's conduct the discussion with integrity.

Sorry - the denominator for the ratio of abortions in girls under the age of 15 years is "the population of adolescents aged 13--14 years," not, as I assumed, the total number of women obtaining abortions.

Nevertheless, a change in the ratio does not necessarily mean that there was a change in the number of abortions.

I've been in a conundrum about abortion for many years. Though I have strong opinions on other issues, I've been a "waffler" on this issue.

The problem is that there is no consensus on when life begins. Some (including the Catholic church, the Baptist church, and many other Christian denominations) state that life absolutely begins at conception. Others, including many Christian churches and denominations, are not so sure.

The over-riding question remains: does life begin at conception? Does it begin at birth? Or does it begin sometime between conception and birth? There is no consensus and as long as there is no consensus, there cannot be any "middle ground" on this issue.

Some of the "pro-choice" people state that -- because of the lack of consensus, the determination on when life begins should remain with the individual woman, man, and their health care providers. And not with the government. Most "pro-life" people state that, because life begins at conception, an embryo or a fetus constitutes a human life. And therefore abortion would (at the very least) be homicide. And thus, protecting human life is a legitimate role for government.

Right now, I would say that preventing unwanted pregnancies is an over-riding goal. And that would mean preventing the sort of sex between men and women (or between boys and girls) that could result in pregnancies.

Unfortunately, I see a few notes from organizations such as the American Family Association (I am on their email list) concerning sexual abstinence and preventing unwanted pregnancies. However, the majority of their messages concern Gay marriage or Gay rights. I gather that Gay rights/Gay marriage is a lot "hotter" an issue -- and raises more funds -- than preventiing unwanted pregnancies or promoting abstinence or at least promoting birth control.

Stopping what is not wanted usually depends a whole lot on what is wanted.

Do we want to stop disease or promote health?? Do we want to stop sin or advance righteousness? Do we want to stop injustice or establish justice?

Fighting against things usually drags us into the mudpit we fight against.

If a sixteen year old girl sees herself as having great dignity and possibility; sees the possibility of a creative love with a spouse, in which life can be recreated and nurtured; and sees the potential beauty in that arising out of a sexual unity that matches a spritual unity with spouse and God; and sees how life and culture and righteous blessings can flow from generation to generation -- the challenge is simply to support her desires and dreams.

In this regards, my pro-life brothers and sisters ought allow our pro-choice brothers and sisters to articulate the highest and most dignifying presentation of a righteous freedom. And my pro-choice brothers and sisters ought allow our pro-life friends to bring the most dignifying language possible to unborn life. Neither of these languages or arguments should be elevated to godlike status.

They must be expressed in humble submission to God and love for each other.

To me the debate does not represent irreconcilable differences. It represents a failure of our love for each other in humility before God. How do we fight for the dignity of women or the unborn while treating each other as an enemy to run over??

How would you eliminate it? What is your proposed solution?

Squeaky has it right, in large part because laws against abortion (which I support) can go only so far. In fact, when abortion laws were originally enacted they had the support of the nation; if abortion laws were enacted now they would quickly be overturned depending who was in office. And I don't mean at the executive level, either.

"If a sixteen year old girl sees herself as having great dignity and possibility

I'm addressing the nomenclature here, not the methodology. I find it troubling to see a mobilization to end (i.e. eliminate) poverty, but only a "dialogue" in order to minimize abortion.

On the commendable side, most of those in this camp advocate for wholesome families, responsibilities of fathers, and care for in need single mothers. Obviously in order to eliminate abortion (or come very close to it), these things must be in play. Lest you assume I think legislating it as illegal is the "solution," I assure you it is not.

"Causality is extremely difficult to demonstrate. The assertion that bush's policies, or any president's policies, lead to an increase or a reduction in the number of abortions performed in the U.S. is easily challenged by anyone with a working knowledge of statistics and epidemiology."

I agree. For fun and parody, did you notice that as soon as Obama got into office, the unemployment rate increased? Obviously that's an absurd example, but if you think about it, the subtle reasons why a cause-effect line is drawn are more dangerous because they are not quite as obvious to the naked eye. A jeweler can sell you a defective diamond if they never let you use a loupe, or if you're ignorant about that industry. Same thing goes with statistics.

Actually, what most legalized abortion opponents advocate for is for the federal government to decide, which was how to Constitution was arranged. Up until around 1865, the federal court system could be nullified or ignored by the states (in some states, federal law is ignored-daylight savings time is not practiced in Indiana). If we went back to the system of states getting to decide what laws are to be passed and how to treat the abortion issue, perhaps we would see the results of competing policies. Otherwise arguing to make it illegal as a "solution" is a theoretical argument. Likewise the pro-choice advocates will have their method of minimizing it, and they can prove themselves right or not.

Too many people look to the federal government for the answers, when in fact that was not how the United States was originally setup. Change was supposed to come as close to the people as possible, not some group of under 1,000 people to decide the fate of 300 million individuals. I'm not for a Constitutional amendment on gay marriage, abortion, etc. I know many pro-lifers tend to be, but their energy is in the wrong direction. It's mismanaged as well.

A recent survey by Gallup/Pew shows that for the first time in years, most Americans consider themselves "pro-life", or if you prefer, "anti-abortion'. Most want restrictions on the number of abortions performed. Which seems to run contrary to the new HHS secretary's support for late-term abortions. For the 'pro-choice' crowd (as if the unborn baby had one), one wonders where they would draw the line. Up to the date of delivery? Six months? One and a half month? Who knows?

A long time ago, the federal Supreme Court decided that a black person was not qualified as "human being" status. I suppose the debate back then was just as heated as the abortion debate today. But the parallel is striking. With Roe, unborn humans were denied status as "human beings," with no legal representation.

Not at all, given the racism that existed then; it's necessary to remember that it was only more open in the South. (Slavery was only a side issue during the Civil War, as more than a few Southerners who opposed slavery nevertheless fought for the South.)

If we went back to the system of states getting to decide what laws are to be passed and how to treat the abortion issue, perhaps we would see the results of competing policies.

That's just what I'm talking about -- laws can change like the wind. In my state we have a Democratic House and governor but a Republican Senate, and though even many Democrats are "pro-life" there still wouldn't be a groundswell of anti-abortion activity on the part of legislatures. Besides, a big problem, at least in Washington, is that the "pro-life" contingent was generally incompetent when it came to actual governing, which is why the GOP lost the last two national elections.

But that doesn't yet really say a whole lot. I seriously doubt, for example, that such people would vote only or primarily on the abortion issue; I would say that most do not.

So, what's your point? That it's all about politics?

Thing is, the two issues have always been treated differently. Very few people vote on poverty because it isn't terribly "sexy," for lack of a better term; however, entire political careers were built on hoping to end legal abortion. In fact, in the 1980s in evangelical churches it seemed that abortion was the only political issue worth pursuing. In this atmosphere, many people convinced themselves that the poor really want to be poor without talking with anyone who was.

Basically, yes. If abortion were actually made illegal the conservative movement would literally be out of business, because its primary way of raising money and outrage would be removed. It's no accident that culture warriors always reach back to the issues of abortion and gay rights to remain relevant. It's no accident that the Democratic Party recruited Bob Casey Jr. recruited to run against Rick Santorum here in Pennsylvania in 2006, and Casey won easily.

Not at all what?

I never said it would be easy, simple, or that the right things would occur anytime quickly. But why would we expect much activity at the state level when the federal government has usurped most of the authority the states rightfully have? Whatever state you live in would see some activity along the abortions legislation if indeed it were up to them to do something about it. The inactivity (or expectation of such inactivity) is due to federal law usurpation.

As for the GOP, your assessment is dead on. You and I tend to agree on the "right," but you still seem enamored by the left.

The problem with abortion at heart really isn't political. When abortion was banned in every state around the turn of the last century there was considerable outcry among the populace; that said, it was also connected to men's irresponsibility. Basically, the issue was addressed with a multi-pronged, consistently "pro-life" approach. That's a far cry from what we see today.

I mention the political right because in the late 1970s it deliberately split the abortion issue away from other "pro-life" issues because, as I said before, they really don't raise money or passion. Ironically, doing so made abortion actually harder to eliminate because of the polarization factor.