Why are there 25% more abortions under Bush than under Clinton?

[kentuck]

Perhaps some freeper can answer that for us? But if they are the so-called "pro-life" Party, why are there more abortions when they are in power? Maybe they need to take a look in the mirror? Do they want less abortions or do they just want to talk about it? I would like to hear a logical explanation for this. (I heard Governor Dean mention this statistic this AM on MTP with Russert)

[kaygore]

1. The economy, stupid!

Didn't mean that you are stupid. I was just doing a play on the old campaign slogan...which happens to apply here.

[converted_democrat]

2. Because it's scary to start a family when you don't have a job, or decent

prospects for one. Who wants to bring a baby into the world, if you can't feed it? By the way, I am pro-choice, but I'm not pro-abortion.

[kentuck]

5. By extension....

then the Repubs are really the "pro-death" Party because their policies cause more abortions than do Democrats, contrary to what they preach?

[beam me up scottie]

6. Who is pro-abortion?

Actually, what does pro-abortion mean?

[MountainLaurel]

13. Not to mention

The lack of paid family leave in this country, the lack of affordable quality child care, a public school system designed for indoctrination and not education.

As a DUer put it a couple weeks ago, the United States is about as family friendly as a room full of swinging knives.

[Straight Shooter]

3. Because who wants to bring a child into THIS world?

Wasn't that the refrain in the '70s, why so many chose not to have children because they didn't like the state of the world?

That attitude changed with Clinton at the helm. But now, life in the U.S. is rapidly turning to crap in this climate of fear and restriction. I sure as hell wouldn't want to have a child in these times, and I marvel at those who make the decision to take that risk. I hope those children can bring about a better world, that that is why they are being born at this time. God help them.

[no_hypocrisy]

4. Let me guess --- the Silver Ring Thing? Just Say No ('til Marriage)?

[BlueEyedSon]

7. Because of the lack of Sex Ed supporting condom (and other BC) use

and the emphasis on abstinence (which NEVER works).

on edit: "never" may be overstating the case, but you get the idea....

[melv]

9. where did he get this info?

I want to know. I have been searching high and low for figures such as this!

[BlueEyedSon]

11. Are you serious? It's all over.

This new abortion number is further proof. Sorry no time to dig up references just now, hopefully another resourceful DUer will oblige.

[melv]

18. absolutely

to say it without checking my facts would make me a republican!

[sonicx]

12. Here's some info...

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/editorial/outlook/2851283

I think the number is lower than 25%.

[Sparkly]

8. Because "just say no" doesn't work, nor do any of BushCo's policies.

Education and available birth control work.

Economic empowerment of women works.

Investment in urban communities works.

Healthcare, including for mental illness, drug addiction and alcoholism, works.

Vocational training works.

Crime prevention, including spousal abuse, works.

Those are just guesses off the top of my head. All the opposite are policies of the BushCo administration (which prefers preaching about gangs, abstinence, marriage, religion and "the culture of life"). Instead they lead to desperation, lack of autonomy and control of one's life, lack of options, vulnerability to poverty, abuse, etc.

I'll go one step further: if BushCo really wanted to reduce the number of abortions, they'd fund birth control clinics, education, counseling, etc... But abortion is their great crusade. It's a big part of the "religion & values" lever they use to propel their real agenda (corporate greed, 1-party rule, oligarchy, imperialism, etc.).

This is a fight they want, because of votes. They could care less about "innocent unborn life" OR the lives of women OR the health of women OR the lives & health of children. They want to keep abortion on the table so they can keep using it. Same with gay marriage. Same with religion. It gets them votes -- nothing more, nothing less.

Just my 2 cents.

[leftofthedial]

10. nobody wants to bring kids into this fascist shit state

it's the economy

plus hypocrisy and lies are now "good" to go along with Reagan's greed.

All the christians are just practicing what their leaders have taught them.

[UTUSN]

14. Because Shrub LIKES Abortions? and PAYS for Them????? n/t

[havocmom]

15. Best guess: ecomony for some, dumb ass refusal for decent sex ed

for the younger set.

[justgamma]

16. Would you want to come home

and tell your fundie parents you were pg? They make it harder to get birth control. Lie about condoms and wonder why abortion rates are up.

[Deja Q]

17. The economy, a refusal to bring a child into THIS world, and other reasons

The one 'refusing to bring a child into his world' seems most apropos.

[Radical Activist]

19. Less birth control, less pre-natal care, less welfare, less sex education.

Republicans oppose anything and everything that would reduce abortions.

[bluestateguy]

20. When you improve the economy, you reduce abortions

In fact, that remedy works far better than prohibitive and unenforceable laws.

[TlalocW]

21. I think

All the good stuff that came out of the Clinton years can be traced back to a good economy. You have a good economy, there are more options - kids who wouldn't normally be able to go to college have more opportunity; there are more jobs; there were social programs like Midnight Basketball, which wasn't just about playing b-ball but about job training and resume writing, etc. Given more opportunity, younger people might actually be willing to forgo their hormones so that they don't screw things up by getting pregnant or getting someone else pregnant (teen pregnancy went down as well). Then for the people who do have kids, they had better jobs and better job security, and they felt it was a good time to have kids.

Now the economy is in the tank. Much like the Reagan 80s, people with degrees are fighting to get jobs at McDonalds. What other entertainment do young people have other than screwing, and what middle-class or lower family actually believes this is a good time to bring a child into the world - and can they even afford it?

TlalocW

[ronzo]

22. (A freeper answer...)

... It's Clinton's fault. A result of the pro-promiscuity degenerate leftwing legacy of the 90s. That's why we have to rely on fearless leader to bring God back into our government. If teens fear God, they won't have sex. Repent!!!

(how's that?)

[DearAbby]

23. I sure as hell would not wish to give birth and raise and love that child

for him to be taken away from me to fight a war of profit. I would not wish to bring a child into the world where it is doubtful, he could grow to manhood to decide his own fate.

[kaygore]

24. This is a good statistical article that explains why the increase

Pro-Life and Undecided? By His Deeds Ye Shall Know Him
By Gary Krane, PhD and Religious community, or from Congress, and ideally a pro-life Democrat
(796 wds including title, but without author blurbs)

With at least 45% of undecided voters being Pro-Life, isn’t it about time we examined George W Bush’s record. After all, should not a person be judged by his deeds, rather than his words? We were struck by what Dr. Glen Stassen, co-author of Christianity Today’s Book of the Year in theology and ethics, Kingdom Ethics, found when he analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. Since federal reports go only to 2000, he had to go state by state. Though many states do not yet make post 2000 data available, he found enough data to identify and substantiate a shocking trend.

Abortion was decreasing throughout the Clinton years. In the decade before George W. Bush became president, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1,610,000 to 1,330,000. That is a decline of 17.4% over the decade of the 1990s, an average decrease of 1.7% per year. (Allan Guttmacher Institute (AGI))

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge, given his and the GOP “anti-abortion” promises. Instead, the opposite happened.

Four states have posted several years of recent statistics from approximately 2000 through 2003: Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado. Here’s what happened to their abortion rates: Kentucky's increased by 3.2%, Pennsylvania’s increased by 1.9% from 1999 to 2002 (2003 not yet available). Michigan’s increased by 11.3% , and Colorado’s rates skyrocketed 111% .

He found twelve other states that reported statistics allowing comparison of abortion rates in 2001 and 2002. Here’s what happened: Seven states saw an increase in their abortion rates: Arizona (+26.4%), Idaho (+13.9%), Illinois (+0.9%), Missouri (+2.5%), South Dakota (+2.1%), Texas (+3.0%), and Wisconsin (+0.6%). Five states saw a decrease: Alabama (-9.8%), Florida (-0.7%), Minnesota (-4.4%), Ohio (-4.4%), and Washington (-2.1%).

In total numbers, at least 7,869 more abortions were performed in these sixteen states during George W. Bush's second year in office than previously. If this trend reflects our nation, 24,000 more abortions were performed during George W. Bush’s second year in office than the year before. Had the previous trends continued, 28,000 fewer abortions should have occurred each year of the Bush era. In other words, at least 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 alone than should have been the case had the 90s record of abortion decrease continued. And the figure is likely two to three times that for the entire period 2000-2003. In other words, George W Bush made no progress whatsoever in lowering the abortion rate compared to his Democratic predecessor, and has in fact increased abortions numbers substantially.

For anyone familiar with why most women have abortions, this should be no surprise:

1) Two thirds of women who have abortions cite “inability to afford a child” as their primary reason (AGI). With record job losses under this Presidency (the worst since Herbert Hoover), and a decrease in average real incomes, women have a harder time affording a child, and so do their male partners or husbands.

2) Since 5.2 million more people lost their health insurance – with women of childbearing age over-represented in those 5.2 million-- during this Presidency, abortion increases, because this means many more prospective mothers can not afford a hospital for giving birth or for caring for their babies and children if they get sick. Mothers think of such things when they decide whether to have an abortion.
What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without healthcare, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and health insurance and support for prospective mothers, and that is why I will be supporting a Catholic, Pro Choice Democrat who is serious about achieving healthcare as a right of every American despite his or her income, and which is why 35% of Democrats are pro-life, and more Pro-lifers are supporting that party each day.

Gary Krane is an independent investigative journalist who resides in Philadelphia
151 Tulpehocken, Philadelphia 19144
215 248 5985 or 1 888 667 3969cell

Note: Prof Glen Harold Stassen has published statistical analysis articles, one of which was reprinted as a model for pol itical science research. His PhD is in Christian Ethics. and he is a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary