Have prolife regulations decreased abortion?
Prolifers are celebrating a recent report published by the Guttmacher Institute claiming that abortion numbers are the lowest they have been since Roe vs. Wade in 1973. Though I have no desire to “rain on the parade” and I have a deep and sincere desire to see abortion abolished, I am also familiar with how the mainstream prolife movement will use misleading statistics to claim victories that are in reality hollow and unproven. Have prolife regulations truly decreased abortion?
Before I get too deep into the weeds, I should begin by clearly stating where all Christians should begin. All human beings are valuable and should be protected and loved from their very beginning of life. It is the historical Christian and biological position that life begins at fertilization and that the comparable level of development of in utero humans does not play a part in how valuable they are or whether or not they bear the Image of God. Any view we have on the statistical facts on abortion should begin here. Before any discussion of numbers and speculations, we must acknowledge first that there is no neutrality on this issue and that statistics do not exist on an ethically neutral island divorced from ethical and theological presuppositions.
Further, though I am a dedicated immediatist, this topic goes beyond the immediatist/incrementalist debate. The topic of this discussion primarily revolves around the question of the beginning of life. This subject is something we should agree on, though sadly, I believe there already has been a show of vested interest in celebrating the Prolife Movement despite much evidence.
Over the last several years as an outspoken abolitionist of abortion, it has been common to see charts tracking the decline of specific categories of abortion. For example, groups such as Students For Life have shared charts showing a decrease in surgical abortions to claim that their methods have been successful while not showing the data on other forms of abortion. This type of statistic manipulation or incomplete reporting is commonplace in the world of special interest activism. Although many mainstream prolife groups have an appearance of being immune to the dirty tactics of lobbying groups and politics, they are far from innocent and play those games right alongside the worst of them. As the saying goes, there’s lies, damn lies, and statistics.
The Guttmacher 2019 report in question claims that abortions have reached the lowest point since abortion became federally legal.
There are many factors to take into account before believing this headline. Some of these factors include problems with the philosophical presuppositions of the Guttmacher Institute and the potential for high numbers of abortions caused by methods not included in the study (especially hormonal birth control methods.)
First, because it is crucial to understand the worldview presuppositions of the reports we are endorsing, it should be understood that Planned Parenthood created the Guttmacher Institute for the express purpose of creating statistical documentation in defense of Planned Parenthood. They are a pro-abortion activist organization. This does not mean everything they report is a lie, but it is foolish to accept their definitions and findings uncritically.
Second, how does The Guttmacher Institute define pregnancy? According to a 2005 policy paper published on their website, they consider pregnancy to be “when a fertilized egg has implanted in the wall of her uterus.” In all of their research and statistics, this is the standard they use. This foundational belief is a pro-abortion and contra-Biblical standard and should be kept in mind while reading their information.
The beginning of pregnancy will significantly affect how we view the legitimacy of this report. Some medical resources, contradicting Guttmacher, will cite fertilization as the beginning of pregnancy, while others will agree with Guttmacher’s view. It should be noted that the controversy over the beginning of pregnancy goes hand in hand with the abortion debate. This is not a coincidence. Before abortion gained common acceptability, the notorious Margaret Sanger, while defending her forms contraceptives, stated that anything that destroys a life after fertilization would be considered an abortion.
“Some ill-informed persons have the notion that when we speak of birth control we include abortion as a method. We certainly do not. Abortion destroys the already fertilized ovum or the embryo; contraception, as I have carefully explained, prevents the fertilizing of the ovum by keeping the male cells away. Thus it prevents the beginning of life.”
As the Guttmacher Institute itself states in its own policy paper,
“many in the antiabortion movement clearly understand the modes of action for contraceptive methods, especially the hormonal methods. Understanding that, they have to know that the end result of enforcing a definition that pregnancy begins at fertilization would implicate not just some hormonal methods, but all of them.”
The pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute is very clear that the definition of pregnancy significantly affects the legality of hormonal birth control methods. The implications are clear.
Further, in official FDA paperwork for the “Plan B” emergency contraceptive and cited by the Guttmacher Institute, the FDA states that,
“Plan B works like other birth control pills to prevent pregnancy. Plan B acts primarily by stopping the release of an egg from the ovary (ovulation). It may prevent the union of sperm and egg (fertilization). If fertilization does occur, Plan B may prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb (implantation).”
Notice that the FDA not only implicates Plan B but also, as they say, “other birth control pills.”
Some far-left publications have published articles citing studies that challenge, and more often ignore, the position of former American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) president Ryan, The Guttmacher Institute, and the FDA. The pro-abortion claim is that these studies vindicate hormonal birth control methods of the potential for abortion. Some articles, such as this one from Rewire believes these studies are a slam dunk.
In a 1999 study from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), they attempt to clear hormonal methods of all scrutiny. However, this study, like so many like it, is filled with inconsistencies and speculations. The 1999 study states,
“All of these methods, directly or indirectly, have effects on the endometrium [the lining of the uterus] that might prevent implantation of a fertilized ovum . . . So far, no scientific evidence has been published supporting this possibility. There’s just no evidence that any birth control method prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the womb, even though that’s the basis for the pro-life claims.”
In this study, ACOG says that hormonal methods “might” prevent implantation, and then quickly goes on to say that there is no “possibility.” Which is it? Why does every pro-abortion study admit that hormonal methods may cause abortion while at the same time trying to deny it? At most, the pro-aborts have uncertainty, not a slam dunk.
The 1999 report is interesting considering that earlier George Ryan, then president of ACOG, testified before Congress that,
“I believe that it is realistic to assume that the IUD and the low-dose oral contraceptive pills could be considered as abortifacients and therefore declared illegal.”
These progressive publications also boast that some “pro-life” studies have agreed with their pro-abortifacient positions. However, after some investigating, the views are varied. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists has members who believe that hormonal birth control can be abortifacient, while others believe that these methods are not abortifacient. As has become the pattern, even these studies admit there is a possibility hormonal methods are abortifacient.
It is worth noting that during the Obama administration, the FDA and other bureaucracies have quietly removed references to restricting implantation after fertilization. Scientific studies should change the publicly stated views of these groups, but no breakthrough has been made warranting this radical shift in rhetoric. However, the politics and public opinion has shifted. No reports I have been able to dig up have offered anything other than the same old acceptance that restricting implantation is a possibility. At the same time, there is little observable certainty due to the natural limitations of science. Again, to be overly charitable to the pro-aborts, at most we have uncertainty.
After looking at many different articles and studies, it is difficult to come to any conclusion that does not, at the very least, view hormonal birth control as potentially abortifacient. This is due to both the testimony of pro-abortion activists and their own studies, not pro-life activists. Though there is plenty of evidence to suggest that hormonal methods are likely to cause an abortion with at least some women, even if we are to believe the most radical pro-choice studies, there is still a possibility. At best, and I want to stress that this is the most conservative conclusion, hormonal birth control methods are a game of Russian Roulette. We should be crystal clear that we are taking a huge risk when using or endorsing these methods. These methods might not cause an abortion in every situation, but it is gross negligence to take this kind of risk. Pro-lifers that declare that all hormonal methods are guaranteed to cause abortion do not have the science on their side, but at the same time, those who claim that these methods do not cause abortion are speculating and playing with fire. Should the Church play the speculation game when lives are at risk? Should playing Russian Roulette with life be considered a legitimate option in light of any reasonable degree of uncertainty?
When considering these various factors, we are left with a much more sobering situation. All that can be proven is a decrease in types of abortion, while it remains complicated and challenging to prove anything else. Though we can’t accurately track many types of abortion, we can track the growing acceptance of abortion in our nation as well as other highly relevant factors.
From an economic theory point of view, it is nonsensical to suggest that abortion approval is increasing while abortion in practice is decreasing. Simply put, the supply is meeting the demand. What has been happening over the last twenty years is a kind of “market diversification” that can be observed in other markets wherein demand is steady or increasing. The United States is demanding abortion and pharmaceutical companies and abortion providers (but I repeat myself) are busy with research and development to provide more cost-effective and efficient means to kill children. Instead of the vast majority of abortions happening in dedicated surgical abortions clinics, now they can get an abortion with a quick and easy prescription and sometimes even online. This is a transformation and modernization of a market, not the disappearing of a market. What we see here is Blockbuster closing, but Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, and Disney + taking over. Don’t celebrate because a few brick and motor abortion centers have closed.
Amazingly, The Guttmacher Institute released findings based on the the same report that is the focus of this article also makes a strong case for the irrelevancy of pro-life abortion regulations to the abortion rate.
“While there appears to be a clear link in many states between abortion restrictions—and TRAP laws in particular—and clinic closures, there is no clear pattern linking abortion restrictions to changes in the abortion rate. While 32 states enacted 394 restrictions between 2011 and 2017, nearly every state had a lower abortion rate in 2017 than in 2011, regardless of whether it had restricted abortion access. Several states with new restrictions actually had abortion rate increases.”
The same pro-life defenders sharing articles citing this report, conveniently, do not mention this. Though they believe this report to be an objective claim of victory for the regulationism, the data does not seem to support those conclusions. Even if abortion was decreasing, it is far from likely due to pro-life regulations. To be frank, I find it highly likely that these individuals have only skimmed the Huffpost and Buzzfeed articles and not the study itself.
From a spiritual point of view, I want to offer a word of admonition, consider how sin too often works. Men used to sneak into the areas of town with a terrible reputation, attempt to hide their identity and visit dangerous and brothels, pick up prostitutes, go to strip clubs, or buy x-rated videotapes. The physical, legal, and reputation dangers were very real and very significant. Now any man with an iPhone can have an illicit affair on Snapchat that is kept hidden away with a quick swipe and passcode. Do not be fooled, Christians, sin will always try to hide in the dark when it becomes difficult to flourish in the light.
While gory forms of abortion decrease, techniques that appear to be far more sanitary are increasing. Some Christians use images of aborted late-term babies. The emotional shock that those hard images cause is a helpful tool in exposing abortion. But when an abortion can look like a little bit of spotting or look like hardly anything at all, that is not a victory. The same act, abortion, is being hidden away and sanitized. It is becoming easier to hide and more comfortable to justify because it is harder to empathize with a preimplantation human being. The older child looks more like me, so I feel more when I see the results of his or her death. But does my heart ache as much when the child is too small to see clearly or at all? Christian, is the Image of God dependant on a level of biological development, and if it isn’t, are we acting like it is?
In closing, until the Church rises up and begins teaching consistently on issues related to life and justice, I do not believe we will see dramatic and substantial shifts in the abortion status quo. The statistics regularly posted by pro-lifers celebrating their victories are designed by pro-abortion activists with pro-abortion presuppositions. The statistics we have on hormonal birth control show numbers in the millions and millions. Again, we cannot know exact numbers, but the clear potential for a great deal of additional uncounted abortions is there for all to see. The ideologically driven change of medical terminology is well documented. Can I say that abortions are definitely increasing? No, not with any level of certainty. But based on the same data, I cannot in good conscious claim that abortion numbers are decreasing. The factors in question amount to numbers in the millions, and simply cannot be shrugged off. To do so would be reckless, dishonest, and playing into the narrative and presuppositions put forth by Planned Parenthood and their subsidiaries. We cannot place our faith in the “victories” of the Pro-Life Movement and allow ourselves to grow complacent. The regulationism of the mainstream Pro-Life Movement is ineffective. Though we are not called to be pragmatists, no statistical data can show that the hundreds and hundreds of pro-life regulations have done anything to affect abortion rates. Not only is incremental regulationism an injustice, it is also a failure. Christian friends, nothing but calling on the total and immediate abolition of abortion will be either effective or honoring to God. Be mindful, brothers and sisters.