Debunking the Myth That Being Anti-Contraceptive Increases Abortions
The arguement that keeps getting pushed by Planned Parenthood etc, is that contraception lowers the number of abortions. It doesn't. Studies are starting to come out that prove absitnance based education is the only sure way to reduce abortions by teens. You can be sure that the pro-aborts will attack this & any future study as flawed no matter how well done, not because it is flawed. Instead it will be beacuse theses studies, like those on the emotional damage done by abortion that they always attack as well.
By Kathleen Gilbert
TUSCALOOSA, Alabama, April 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent attempt by pro-abortion law professor Andrew Koppelman to blame abortion rates on the conservative movement itself fails in all three of its arguments, according to Michael New, a University of Alabama political science professor and pro-life statistics expert.
Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University, sought to discredit the pro-life, anti-contraceptive, and pro-family ethos in an essay entitled "How the Religious Right Promotes Abortion." Following the thesis advanced in the book “Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture,” Koppelman's essay attempted to pit an anti-contraceptive "red-state, conservative ethic" - which he claimed is "in decay" - against a "new middle class ethic" of the blue states, which promotes the "careful" use of contraception "with abortion as the responsible fallback."
Because of a "toxic political equilibrium" created by the right's rejection of contraception and explicit sex education, Koppelman claimed, more unintended pregnancies result, and more abortions follow. "Somebody on the religious right ought to be reflecting on the now-obvious fact that the policies that they have been supporting are directly responsible for millions of abortions," he wrote.
But in a column for "Public Discourse," an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute, Professor Michael New argues that each of Koppelman's claims regarding the effect of contraception and the conservative movement on abortion were deeply flawed.
Michael New, who received both a Ph.D. in Political Science and a Masters Degree in Statistics from Stanford Univeristy, has written studies on the effects of pro-life legislation published by the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and in various peer reviewed journals.
"Unfortunately, Koppelman’s claims are based on rhetorical sleights of hand and a faulty analysis of data," wrote New. "What is unique about this essay is that all three of Koppelman’s arguments are incorrect.
"First, there is little evidence that more federal funding for contraceptives will reduce abortion rates. Second, there is some evidence that abstinence-only sex education is effective at reducing sexual activity among minors. Finally, red states actually have lower abortion rates, in part because they have placed more legal restrictions on abortion."
New points out that Koppelman's appeal to a rise in abortions during a Reagan-era cut in contraceptive funding failed to mention that "abortion rates were rising much faster during the 1970s," prior to the cut. "In fact between 1974 and 1980, the number of abortions performed in the United States nearly doubled at a time when, according to Koppelman, the federal government was funding contraception at historically high levels," wrote the professor. In addition, New cites an Alan Guttmacher institute study showing that the lack of access to contraceptives played a role in the abortions of only 12% of surveyed post-abortive women.
Against Koppelman's claim that "there is no evidence" abstinence education is effective, New pointed to a recent study published in The Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine in February that won wide recognition for showing a strong link between abstinence education and lower sexual activity among high-risk teens.
New pointed out that the study won broader attention than previous work because of its unique control mechanism, and that even the group “Advocates for Youth,” which normally opposes abstinence programs, praised the study as “quality research” and “good science.”
New says he found another weakness in Koppelman's reasoning in that he failed to take into account the undeniable reduction of abortion that conservative and Republican efforts have brought about through legal protections for the unborn, such as bans on public funding of abortion, parental notification laws, and informed consent laws.
A review by Guttmacher Institute last year, he notes, found overwhelming evidence that funding restrictions lowered abortion rates. Other state-specific case studies have shown "a marked decrease of abortions" where parental involvement and informed consent laws were put in place.
Simply by examining the abortion rates in red states versus blue states, New argued, one can conclude that Koppelman's arguments don't ultimately hold water.
"The five states where John McCain received the highest percentage of votes in 2008 had an average abortion rate of 6.9," said New. "The five states where Barack Obama received the highest percentage of votes in 2008 had an average abortion rate of 22.6."
"Overall, it should come as no surprise to pro-lifers that sexual restraint and greater legal protection for the unborn has been and will continue to be the best strategy for lowering abortion rates," he concluded.
"The pro-life movement would do well to stay the course."
TUSCALOOSA, Alabama, April 14, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A recent attempt by pro-abortion law professor Andrew Koppelman to blame abortion rates on the conservative movement itself fails in all three of its arguments, according to Michael New, a University of Alabama political science professor and pro-life statistics expert.
Koppelman, a professor of law and political science at Northwestern University, sought to discredit the pro-life, anti-contraceptive, and pro-family ethos in an essay entitled "How the Religious Right Promotes Abortion." Following the thesis advanced in the book “Red Families v. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture,” Koppelman's essay attempted to pit an anti-contraceptive "red-state, conservative ethic" - which he claimed is "in decay" - against a "new middle class ethic" of the blue states, which promotes the "careful" use of contraception "with abortion as the responsible fallback."
Because of a "toxic political equilibrium" created by the right's rejection of contraception and explicit sex education, Koppelman claimed, more unintended pregnancies result, and more abortions follow. "Somebody on the religious right ought to be reflecting on the now-obvious fact that the policies that they have been supporting are directly responsible for millions of abortions," he wrote.
But in a column for "Public Discourse," an online publication of the Witherspoon Institute, Professor Michael New argues that each of Koppelman's claims regarding the effect of contraception and the conservative movement on abortion were deeply flawed.
Michael New, who received both a Ph.D. in Political Science and a Masters Degree in Statistics from Stanford Univeristy, has written studies on the effects of pro-life legislation published by the Heritage Foundation, the Family Research Council, and in various peer reviewed journals.
"Unfortunately, Koppelman’s claims are based on rhetorical sleights of hand and a faulty analysis of data," wrote New. "What is unique about this essay is that all three of Koppelman’s arguments are incorrect.
"First, there is little evidence that more federal funding for contraceptives will reduce abortion rates. Second, there is some evidence that abstinence-only sex education is effective at reducing sexual activity among minors. Finally, red states actually have lower abortion rates, in part because they have placed more legal restrictions on abortion."
New points out that Koppelman's appeal to a rise in abortions during a Reagan-era cut in contraceptive funding failed to mention that "abortion rates were rising much faster during the 1970s," prior to the cut. "In fact between 1974 and 1980, the number of abortions performed in the United States nearly doubled at a time when, according to Koppelman, the federal government was funding contraception at historically high levels," wrote the professor. In addition, New cites an Alan Guttmacher institute study showing that the lack of access to contraceptives played a role in the abortions of only 12% of surveyed post-abortive women.
Against Koppelman's claim that "there is no evidence" abstinence education is effective, New pointed to a recent study published in The Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine in February that won wide recognition for showing a strong link between abstinence education and lower sexual activity among high-risk teens.
New pointed out that the study won broader attention than previous work because of its unique control mechanism, and that even the group “Advocates for Youth,” which normally opposes abstinence programs, praised the study as “quality research” and “good science.”
New says he found another weakness in Koppelman's reasoning in that he failed to take into account the undeniable reduction of abortion that conservative and Republican efforts have brought about through legal protections for the unborn, such as bans on public funding of abortion, parental notification laws, and informed consent laws.
A review by Guttmacher Institute last year, he notes, found overwhelming evidence that funding restrictions lowered abortion rates. Other state-specific case studies have shown "a marked decrease of abortions" where parental involvement and informed consent laws were put in place.
Simply by examining the abortion rates in red states versus blue states, New argued, one can conclude that Koppelman's arguments don't ultimately hold water.
"The five states where John McCain received the highest percentage of votes in 2008 had an average abortion rate of 6.9," said New. "The five states where Barack Obama received the highest percentage of votes in 2008 had an average abortion rate of 22.6."
"Overall, it should come as no surprise to pro-lifers that sexual restraint and greater legal protection for the unborn has been and will continue to be the best strategy for lowering abortion rates," he concluded.
"The pro-life movement would do well to stay the course."
posted by Al @ 4:24 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home