Matthew Yglesias (October 17, 2007) - Features and Bugs (Domestic Policy)

but they allow women determined to manage their pregnancies safely do so by terminating them.

Boy, that sure came out wrong.

Posted by Bill | October 17, 2007 10:24 AM

The most compelling statistics I've seen are the ones that show that when you give good good comprehensive sex education AND access to birth control, abortion rates go down. The genie is out of the bottle, and people (married, not married, teenagers, not teenagers) sometimes--often--want to be able to have sex without it resulting in pregnancy. Actually, I imagine that they always have, but we finally have the technology to do something about it. In the grand scheme of things, elective abortion (ie not for health reasons or birth defects etc) is sort of the middle stage, with the unwanted pregnancy being worst, and the prevented pregnancy being best. Why not move the line as far toward prevented pregnancy as possible?

Posted by JMS | October 17, 2007 10:27 AM

The trouble with these kinds of cross-national statistics, though, is that there are all kinds of correlating variables and there's no way for the kind of survey we're talking about to isolate the impact of legal change on abortion. In the United States, when abortion was legalized in the 1970s, the number of abortions went up.
...After all, if nothing else the very dangerous nature of the abortion procedure in the abortion-banning countries constitutes a sound consideration against getting an abortion in those places.

What's this? A man using logic and facts to qualify the assertions of Jessica Valenti! Get ready for a world of libtardsphere circle-jerk disavowals.

Posted by Moral Panicker | October 17, 2007 10:48 AM

Legal abortions not only allow women determined to terminate their pregnancies do so safely, but they allow women determined to manage their pregnancies safely do so by terminating them.

OK I've read that like five times and it still doesn't make any sense.

The larger point is worth making again and again though. More abortions = a good thing (given a stable pregnancy rate).

Posted by Jason C. | October 17, 2007 11:24 AM

But the correlating variables correlate for a reason! They are all to do with women's status and power over their own lives. Yes, even the economic ones. So you can expect that making abortion legal would have a positive impact on all the correlating variables. Isolating it wouldn't even make any sense.

Posted by kali | October 17, 2007 11:45 AM

In the United States, when abortion was legalized in the 1970s, the number of abortions went up

This statistic doesn't make any sense to me. How did people get reliable statistics on how many illegal abortions were taking place? I think it's likely that abortions did go up...but how could we really tell? I doubt many physicians logged how many illegal abortions they did in a year, much less the off-the-books butchers.

Posted by Persia | October 17, 2007 11:46 AM

"How did people get reliable statistics on how many illegal abortions were taking place?"

Wait. Are you talking about Yglesias' claim that abortions went up after legalization, or Valenti's claim that "abortion rates are similar in different countries whether the procedure is legal or not."?

Posted by Patrick | October 17, 2007 11:48 AM

Presumably one does a survey. It's not that hard.

Posted by lemuel pitkin | October 17, 2007 11:52 AM

Are you talking about Yglesias' claim that abortions went up after legalization, or Valenti's claim that "abortion rates are similar in different countries whether the procedure is legal or not."?

Both. I would guess there are some statistical tricks but I'd like to know what those are-- I'd also like to know if the tricks used today are the same as those used in the 70's, or if the 70's stats are considered unreliable.

Posted by Persia | October 17, 2007 11:55 AM

Presumably one does a survey.

How does that work? You run around asking random women: "Had any illegal abortions recently?"

Posted by novakant | October 17, 2007 11:58 AM

"In the United States, when abortion was legalized in the 1970s, the number of abortions went up."

???????????????????????????

"How does that work? You run around asking random women: "Had any illegal abortions recently?"

Novkant's got yer back, Matt.

Posted by Rihilism | October 17, 2007 12:11 PM

What's more, I'm not really sure why one would think that the case for reproductive freedom hinges crucially on the idea that making abortions safer, more affordable, and more convenient to obtain has no impact on the number of abortions people get. After all, if nothing else the very dangerous nature of the abortion procedure in the abortion-banning countries constitutes a sound consideration against getting an abortion in those places.

Matt, the point of it is to show that banning abortion doesn't stop abortion, it just kills women. See Jill's posts here and here for an explanation of how abortion bans kill women.

In any event, women who get abortions in countries where they're unsafe KNOW that they're unsafe. They just know that the risk of having a child is greater than the risk of terminating pregnancy.

Keep in mind, as well, that many of the countries where abortion is banned also have anti-contraceptive policies.

Posted by zuzu | October 17, 2007 1:09 PM

In the United States, when abortion was legalized in the 1970s, the number of abortions went up
This statistic doesn't make any sense to me. How did people get reliable statistics on how many illegal abortions were taking place? I think it's likely that abortions did go up...but how could we really tell? I doubt many physicians logged how many illegal abortions they did in a year, much less the off-the-books butchers.
Posted by Persia

The medical community and government are pretty good at establishing and tracking Vital Stats, Persia. As states established legal abortion, like clockwork, number of live births dropped in each state, number of recorded abortions went up. That is conclusive evidence. Census surveys of median family size showed a drop - that, outside women avoiding children for exciting careers and the Pill - tracked availability of abortion services.

It is good that MY sees through the ideological claims that availability of abortion has no effect of net abortions across countries.

Jessica Valenti was touting a questionable bit of statistics:
A new study by the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization shows that abortion rates are similar in different countries whether the procedure is legal or not.

Patently ridiculous in light of family sizes in countries that ban abortion vs. those where the ease of getting abortions and the moral opprobrium associated with them are similar to buying a bottle of vodka...
Consider family size in Russia - 3.2 and declining where keeping a baby is almost an exception, or China (3.6) where abortion is not only encouraged but mandated in many areas past 1st child - compared to 8.3 in Saudi Arabia (where harsh jail time awaits abortionists) and 6.1 in Mexico.
When Romania determined it was losing too much of it's population to abortion in the 70s, the government banned them in most cases where they were purely elective - triggering a baby boom.

Posted by Chris Ford | October 17, 2007 1:26 PM

Re: When Romania determined it was losing too much of it's population to abortion in the 70s, the government banned them in most cases where they were purely elective - triggering a baby boom.

The Romanian government also banned birth control and since it was a totalitarian dictatorship it was able to make its dictates count. The result was ghastly: hordes of abandonned children trapped in grim orphanges where they received less care and attention than animals at an American Humane Society shelter do. Is that what we should hope for?

Posted by Jonf | October 17, 2007 1:39 PM

The medical community and government are pretty good at establishing and tracking Vital Stats, Persia. As states established legal abortion, like clockwork, number of live births dropped in each state, number of recorded abortions went up. That is conclusive evidence. Census surveys of median family size showed a drop - that, outside women avoiding children for exciting careers and the Pill - tracked availability of abortion services.

And then abortion rates declined.

You know, women are still having babies. Even women who have abortions and take the pill and have exciting careers have babies. They just have them when they want them, and they have as many as they can handle.

Posted by zuzu | October 17, 2007 1:44 PM

I think Matt is also overestimating how much of a deterrent pain and suffering is to women who need an abortion.

I don't mean to be a jerk here, but men really underestimate how painful a lot of GYN issues--even minor ones are. We're very culturally conditioned to "you'll get over it" when it comes to GYN pain. Also, saying "it's gonna hurt like hell" isn't really such a deterrent to women who are ALREADY pregnant and facing childbirth. I've got to think this counts double in countries without a functioning healthcare system--if you've had aunts or friends die in childbirth, the threat of dying in an abortion is less frightening. Proverbial rock and hard place.

It's not actually all that clear to me whether a back alley abortion is inherently more dangerous to one's health than being fired, disinherited, ostracized, and then having a poorly attended or unattended birth and another human being to care for. Which is the choice in many parts of the world. And if you're lucky enough to have an underground with decent abortion providers--or believed you had access to such--it's easy to see how the math would flip even in the absence of legality.

I just think you're overestimating the deterrent force of pain and potential death here.It's a classic situation of guaranteed massive downside vs. a high risk, high reward option. If you stay pregnant, you have a guaranteed massive drop in social status and earning power, plus having to be responsible for someone for at least 18 years, plus the pain of pregnancy and childbirth's agony. If you have an abortion, there's a certainty you will have none of the above things, plus a possibility of pain and death. Humans suck at the odds in these situations, and once you hear someone saying "don't worry, I know a good person, he did mine and it hurt for a week, but now I'm totally fine," all bets are off.

Posted by anonymous | October 17, 2007 1:50 PM

Matt, the question is not what "one would think." The question is what the data show. The whole world does not take place inside your head. The data show that abortion rates are similar for countries with legal abortion and those without, regardless of what your preconceived ideas may be.

Posted by Bloix | October 17, 2007 2:02 PM

I think one thing people are missing here is that women who choose abortion where abortion is illegal probably aren't just facing, as anonymous puts it, a "massive drop in social status and earning power...plus having to be respopnsible for someone for at least 18 years, plus the pain of pregnancy and childbith's agony..." In the kinds of societies that forbid abortion a woman who is pregnant who doesn't want to go through with the birth may also be facing homelessness, abuse, and even death for shaming her family--she may be facing continuing in an abusive family situation that she can't escape once she has a baby, she may be facing honor killing. And as the cases in whichever south american country just illegalized all abortions are demonstrating women can seek illegal abortions because they know they will surely die of ectopic pregnancy, pre-ecclampsia, or other common illnesses of pregnancy.

I don't know why it is so hard to understand: abortions are not really "elective" in the sense that cosmetic surgery is elective, or a round of golf is elective. Abortions reflect very complex social issues which, in the absence of legal abortions, simply become more complex for women. And as any student of european history can tell you when safe and legal abortion is unavailable illegal abortions, home abortions, abandonment and infanticide take its place. You can't make a woman's unsafe life safe by forcing her to carry a pregnancy to term; you can't make a precarious financial situation less precarious by making safe abortions impossible, and you can't make a child more wanted by forcing a pregnancy on a woman who doesn't want one.

aimai

Posted by aimai | October 17, 2007 2:03 PM

Matt's point reminds me of a similar thing we hear all the time about Prohibition, i.e., that it didn't reduce alcohol consumption.

Of course it did! Making something illegal tends to reduce its incidence.

Now, Prohibition did not eliminate alcohol consumption-- far from it-- and it turned a lot of ordinary Americans who wanted a drink into lawbreakers. It also made drinking less safe because some people went to moonshiners, and it empowered organized crime. Those are the arguments against Prohibition.

Similarly, prohibiting abortion will almost certainly cause some women to carry pregnancies to term that they would have aborted. It will also likely cause some couples to take additional precautions or even to become abstinent. And many will get illegal abortions, which will be less safe. And the laws will make criminals of doctors, if not their patients. So you will have a somewhat lower number of less safe abortions, plus a lot of anxiety among women, plus denial of the ability of some women to have healthy sex lives, plus a lot of people whose lives are derailed in various ways by unplanned pregnancies.

But it isn't sensical to assume that restrictive abortion laws don't deter anyone from getting an abortion. Of course they do.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 17, 2007 2:17 PM

Matt, please provide a reference for your claim that abortions increased in the 1970s. It's obvious that _legal_ abortions increased after 1973 as a result of Roe v. Wade making abortion legal, but that's almost tautological.

The clear conclusion from the Guttmacher/WHO and other related work is that (1) access to contraception and sex education is the strongest correlate to a low abortion rate, and (2) legality of abortion is a much weaker correlate. The anti-choice faction will scream and cry about this conclusion, because they're generally also anti-contraception and like to promote fantasy-based sex education.

Posted by me2i81 | October 17, 2007 2:46 PM

RE: legal abortion helps promote relatively more permissive attitudes about sex, fewer people refraining from sex out of fear of pregnancy = good thing

That might be the view of Americans for why birth control should be legal and more widely available, but it's not at all clear to me that it's their view on abortion and why it should be legal.

Posted by bob | October 17, 2007 2:50 PM

After all, if nothing else the very dangerous nature of the abortion procedure in the abortion-banning countries constitutes a sound consideration against getting an abortion in those places.

This is only true if the abortion procedure represents a more dangerous option than carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a child. It rarely does.

Posted by chalky | October 17, 2007 4:35 PM

"But it isn't sensical to assume that restrictive abortion laws don't deter anyone from getting an abortion. Of course they do."

Dilan, who is assuming? This is a study of numbers that say that restrictive abortion laws DON'T deter women from getting abortions. Do you think you simply say "this doesn't make sense" and make it so?

Posted by Emily | October 17, 2007 6:08 PM

Matt, not following why "one would think" refutes or weakens the Guttmacher study. Could you please disagree with it substantively?

Posted by mythago | October 17, 2007 6:12 PM

Dilan Esper- yes, some women will be deterred. But many women who would not have become pregnant if contraception were available do become pregnant in countries where abortion is illegal, because those countries have legal and social restrictions on contraception.

So you may be correct that the percentage of women with unwanted pregnancies who have abortions is lower in countries where abortion is illegal. But the number of unwanted pregnancies is likely to be higher in those countries.

Now, there could there be a country in which (a) abortion is illegal and (b) contraception and family planning education are legal, widely available, and not condemned as immoral by government and the church. In some alternative universe, such a country might be possible. But in the world we live in, there is no such place.

Posted by Bloix | October 17, 2007 6:40 PM

I don't know where Chris Ford gets his statistic on Mexican population size, but it's incorrect. Mexican women today typically have 2.4 children each, which works out to an average family size of 4.4, not 6.1. Fertility rates today are in fact quite low throughout Latin America (higher in Central America than in South America). The era of Latin American women having many children is largely a thing of the past. Brazil, the largest LA country, now has a replacement level fertility rate of 2.2, I think South America has a TFR of 2.7 and Central America a little over 3. (This is in spite of the fact that South America, unlike most regions of the world, still has a relatively low population density and room to expand somewhat.)

Notwithstanding the Catholic prohibition of most contraception (other than NFP which actually does work decently well) the only major regions of the world with fast growing populations today are Africa, and (with some exceptions like Iran) the Muslim world.

Interestingly, Bolivia and Venezuela, two of the furthest left governments in LA, are currently pursuing natalist policies and encouraging women to have more children.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 17, 2007 7:10 PM

Aimai's statement is also largely not applicable to Latin America. Out of wedlock births are actually very common in Latin America- typically the mother's family, and perhaps her boyfriend, help to raise the child. Out of wedlock birthrates are also very common in Africa. El Salvador, which is the country which recently outlawed therapeutic abortions, has one of the highest out of wedlock birthrate in the world, around 73 percent. At least as far as Latin American countries go, legal restrictions on abortion do not correlate with social intolerance of single mothers. 'Honor killings' thankfully are not something that characterizes Latin America.

The strict sexually conservative morality that people sometimes associate with LA was always more a thing of the middle class (to the extent it existed at all) and now probably does not even characterize the middle class. There are historical factors explaining this which I won't go into here. My impression of sexual morality in Latin America is that it's somewhere intermediate between that of US liberals and US conservatives. Which on the face of it, makes a lot of sense.

Posted by Hector Dauphin-Gloire | October 17, 2007 7:18 PM

"But it isn't sensical to assume that restrictive abortion laws don't deter anyone from getting an abortion. Of course they do."

Dilan, who is assuming? This is a study of numbers that say that restrictive abortion laws DON'T deter women from getting abortions. Do you think you simply say "this doesn't make sense" and make it so?

Emily, I don't know what the problem with the study is, but I can tell from a mile away that there is a problem. (I might add that the Guttmacher Institute, which I respect a lot, nonetheless is not ideologically neutral on these issues.)

Simply put, the idea that no women would consider the legality of abortion when deciding whether to have one is clearly wrong. Further, there has been quite a bit of firsthand reporting from countries where abortion is prohibited (e.g., El Salvador) detailing how, indeed, women are being forced to have children that they would have aborted.

We also have evidence in this country, with rspect to parental consent and notification laws. Girls who don't want to tell their parents have given birth in toilets, in garbage dumpsters, and other such places. Those are girls would would definitely get abortions but for the legal restrictions.

As a great philosopher (OK, not such a great philosopher) once said, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 17, 2007 9:06 PM

Now, there could there be a country in which (a) abortion is illegal and (b) contraception and family planning education are legal, widely available, and not condemned as immoral by government and the church. In some alternative universe, such a country might be possible. But in the world we live in, there is no such place.

Well, if the Supreme Court overturned Roe and reaffirmed Griswold and Eisenstadt, the US could become such a place, couldn't it?

Look, if the point is simply that very conservative countries cancel out the reduction in abortions through restrictive contraceptive policies, that's quite possible. But that's different than saying that banning abortions won't reduce their incidence.

This is not really ground that we want to be arguing on anyway. The real point is that any reduction of abortions as a result of prhhibition would be accompanied by very bad consequences for women.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 17, 2007 9:11 PM

My head is absolutely spinning with this post.

DO YOU WANT TO FORCE WOMEN TO TAKE TO TERM UNWANTED PREGNANCIES?

Only someone who doesnt have the capacity to do so would think pregnancy is a walk in the part. The worse kind of slavery is the reproductive one ---and it is one of the most dangerous as well.

I've had an abortion and I have 2 sons. What I had to go through in order to have my son's ... pregnancy wreaks havoc not only on your body but for women like me who have problems with hormones the worst part of pregnancy is post-partum depression.

I was lucky to have the medical and family support I had during both my pregnancies and afterwards. A lot of women don't.

Labor is a harrowing and traumatic experience even for women like me who would do it all over again for another child. Can you imagine what it does to women who have been forced to go through it?

Is it any wonder that a teenage girls who hides her pregnancies because abortion wasn't an option may end up committing neonaticied?

Labor can fuck a woman up emotionally and psychologically. Whomever thinks forced pregnancies are the answer to abortion are just sick.

Liza Sabater, Publisher
culturekitchen.com

Posted by Liza Sabater | October 17, 2007 10:37 PM

Ha ha, your feminist buddies say you're a douchebag.

They will call you a douchebag and say you are privileged whenever you go against the party line.

Ha ha, you're a politically correct politically policed fucktard.

Posted by feh | October 17, 2007 11:46 PM

What I’m interested in right now is the privilege on display — Matt, who will never have to face the question of whether to have an abortion, dismisses the Guttmacher study as “questionable.” And why? Because, gosh, it just doesn’t make any sense that women would seek abortions where they’re illegal and dangerous!

Here's zuzu now. If you even dare to suggest an element of the canon is questionable, then you're a privileged male fucktard.

MATT IS A PRIVILEGED MALE FUCKTARD!!!!!

Why? Because you dared to say something as mild as a study was questionable.

And Matt, these are your fuckbuddies.

So fuck off.

Posted by feh | October 17, 2007 11:49 PM

Matt, it's not too late to embrace free speech and decry political correctness.

Ya privileged male fucktard douchebag!

Posted by feh | October 17, 2007 11:50 PM

How does that work? You run around asking random women: "Had any illegal abortions recently?"

What do you think of the drug laws in your state?
Have you used illegal drugs in the past:
2 years
5 years
10 years

Posted by feh | October 17, 2007 11:56 PM

Oh, god, I read Liza Sabater, and I have to pick myself up off the floor from laughing so hard.

Matt, do you get it yet? Just saying that a study is questionable means you want to force women to carry their pregnancies to term. YOU WANT TO FORCE THEM! Even if you said legal abortions help them to manage their pregnancies.

It doesn't matter Matt, the Thought Police are on to you, AND YOU WILL REPENT!!!!

Jebus Liza, got anything funnier to say?

Posted by feh | October 18, 2007 12:02 AM

"Scott Lemieux went even stronger to say that "the only thing that criminalizing abortion accomplishes is to ensure that some number of women will be maimed or killed.""

Maybe he said that because, you know, he bothered to read the study. For example:

In Africa, where abortion is highly restricted by law in nearly all countries, there are 650 deaths for every 100 000 procedures, compared with fewer than 10 per 100 000 procedures in developed regions.

and

Legalisation of abortion can have a substantial effect on the safety of the procedure: in South Africa, the incidence of infection from abortion decreased by 52% after a more liberal abortion law went into effect in 1997.

"...there's no way for the kind of survey we're talking about to isolate the impact of legal change on abortion."

The authors of the study disagree with your assertion:

We define safe and unsafe abortion and indicate how these definitions intersect with abortion laws and regulations.

...

Almost half of all abortions in 2003 were unsafe (41.6 millions total; 21.9 safe and 19.7 unsafe).

...

Unsafe and safe abortions correspond in large part with illegal and legal abortions, respectively (panel 1). The findings presented here indicate that...highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with low abortion incidence.

Dilan Esper,

I think you're confused. This study is not a series of case reports. Also the examples you offer are not supporting evidence. For example, unless you know the number of girls in similar circumstances who, say, use misoprostol to induce a termination, you cannot draw any conclusions about the effect of parental notification laws on the incidence of abortion in that patient population.

Posted by ema | October 18, 2007 12:36 AM

Diane: Simply put, the idea that no women would consider the legality of abortion when deciding whether to have one is clearly wrong.

In what way is it "clearly wrong"? Fairly clearly, a woman who needs an abortion will have an abortion, whether or not it is legal. This is almost 'well, duh!' research - if you're pregnant and don't want to be, you need an abortion, never mind whether or not it's legal to have one!

Posted by Jesurgislac | October 18, 2007 6:29 AM

Sorry, my above comment was meant for Dilan - I apologize for getting your handle wrong.

Dilan: Matt's point reminds me of a similar thing we hear all the time about Prohibition, i.e., that it didn't reduce alcohol consumption.

Of course it did! Making something illegal tends to reduce its incidence.

When it's something you only want, yes, that's true. For most people, drinking alcohol was something they wanted, but could do without if it was illegal/inconvenient. Those people drank less or no alcohol during Prohibition.

But banning abortion isn't like Prohibition, because needing to have an abortion isn't like needing to have a drink. It's like needing to have a grumbling appendix removed before it bursts. It's like needing to eat. You cannot reduce the incidence of something people really need by making it illegal: you can only make it more dangerous to obtain, and thus ensure more people die of getting it.

Posted by Jesurgislac | October 18, 2007 6:35 AM

Emily, I don't know what the problem with the study is, but I can tell from a mile away that there is a problem. (I might add that the Guttmacher Institute, which I respect a lot, nonetheless is not ideologically neutral on these issues.)

Simply put, the idea that no women would consider the legality of abortion when deciding whether to have one is clearly wrong. Further, there has been quite a bit of firsthand reporting from countries where abortion is prohibited (e.g., El Salvador) detailing how, indeed, women are being forced to have children that they would have aborted.

Dilan, nobody's claiming that NO women would consider the legality of abortion. What people are saying -- and what the study bears out -- is that illegality makes no real difference in the rates of abortion. That women who are desperate enough to have an abortion even though it's illegal and unsafe will find a way to do so. There may be a spike in abortions after it's legalized and made safe, as the women who were deterred by the fact that it was unsafe will take advantage of legal and safe abortions.

What criminalizing abortion does is make it unsafe. Which results in the maiming and death of women. You also have a situation in places like El Salvador and Nicaragua where doctors won't even perform abortions to save the mother's life, such as in the case of ectopic pregnancy. There's no chance of saving the pregnancy, none. Early intervention could save the mother's fertility as well as her life. But because the state considers that abortion and will throw doctors in jail for that, women die.

Posted by zuzu | October 18, 2007 10:10 AM

Isn't it pretty clear that the following two assertions are not really inconsistent?

Where abortion is illegal,

1. Women utilize abortion in fewer cases (the illegality is a deterrent enough in less desperate circumstances, such as in stable marriages).
2. Many women will get abortions nonetheless (because they are truly in desperate circumstances), and will be subjected to the great risks of illegal abortions.

Why on earth must one argue that 1. must be false for 2. to have any impact or relevance?

Posted by frankly0 | October 18, 2007 11:10 AM

frankly0: Women utilize abortion in fewer cases (the illegality is a deterrent enough in less desperate circumstances, such as in stable marriages).

But there is no actual evidence that this is the case. Not in any significant numbers, at least. There was no spike in the abortion rate after abortion became legal in the US. This new study shows that in countries where abortion is illegal, there is no perceptible difference in the abortion rate, though a considerable difference in the maternal morbidity rate and the maternal death rate. (I think people sometimes confuse these two. "Maternal morbidity" is damage to a woman's health because of pregnancy, whether temporary, long-term, or permanent: it also includes the maternal death rate.)

Obviously, the women and girls who were forced through pregnancy by the threat of prosecution stand out in anecdotal information, because their circumstances are peculiarly horrific. But it's now clear from the data that they're the exception, not the rule. Most women who need abortions have abortions, whether or not they're safe and legal or unsafe/illegal.

Posted by Jesurgislac | October 18, 2007 1:12 PM

Dilan, nobody's claiming that NO women would consider the legality of abortion. What people are saying -- and what the study bears out -- is that illegality makes no real difference in the rates of abortion. That women who are desperate enough to have an abortion even though it's illegal and unsafe will find a way to do so.

Zuzu, I agree that women who are desparate enough will get illegal abortions. But that's not the same thing as saying there will be no reduction in the abortion rate. Some women will not be "desparate enough". There are certainly women who are ambivalent about having a child, for instance, because of a timing issue (they want children but just not right now) who will have an abortion if it is legal but not if it is illegal, more expensive, less safe, and more difficult to get.

Someone else posted that what is really going on is a simple correlation between restrictive abortion laws and unavailability of contraception. In other words, people who succeed in restricting abortions also succeed in restricting contraception, which cancels out any reduction in the abortion rate. That's quite plausible, but if that is all there is, it has limited relevance to the American abortion debate, as nobody's going to overturn Griswold and Eisenstadt, and efforts to restrict contraception seem to be on the margins.

In any event, my broader point is, this is a really weak argument to be making when there are much stronger arguments in favor of the pro-choice position. Abortion should be legal even if the rate would go sky high with legalized abortion and slow to a trickle with prohibition.

Posted by Dilan Esper | October 18, 2007 2:53 PM

dilan: But that's not the same thing as saying there will be no reduction in the abortion rate.

Agreed. But I'm not seeing you acknowledge that the evidence is all saying that there will be no reduction in the abortion rate. Arguments that "obviously" it will have an effect are all based on personal feelings, not on data.

In any event, my broader point is, this is a really weak argument to be making when there are much stronger arguments in favor of the pro-choice position.

I don't think it's a weak argument at all. The usual argument for the forced-pregnancy/anti-choice side is that making abortion illegal will make women not have abortions. Pointing out that making abortion illegal has no discernable effect whatsoever on women having abortions, completely takes away the only claim forced-pregnancy/anti-choice people have for being literally "pro-life".

Posted by Jesurgislac | October 18, 2007 6:01 PM

Dilan, I'm still not seeing any actual criticism of the study itself. If it's wrong, fine, but please demonstrate its flaws. "Matt Yglesias thinks otherwise!" is not compelling to anyone except Matt.

Posted by mythago | October 18, 2007 6:01 PM

I take it no one realizes Matt is expressing an opinion. If anything, those who take exception seem to give Matt a relative importance and expertise on the issue of abortion that Matt doesn't have. He's not an expert, it's just an opinion.

I don't agree with his opinion. It's my choice. He has an opinion, it's his choice. People, please live with the fact that not everybody has to think like everybody else.

And btw, I think otherwise is a strong signal of an opinion. Who cares if he thinks otherwise? Is this somehow earth-shattering in a way I'm not understanding?

Posted by Shayne Carmichael | October 18, 2007 9:59 PM

There was no spike in the abortion rate after abortion became legal in the US.

Wrong. The legal abortion rate in 1980 in the U.S. was much higher than in 1974.

Posted by Joseph Hertzlinger | October 23, 2007 12:59 PM

Features and Bugs

Comments (46)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories