The abortion ratio — which remained relatively constant 1997-2001 — defined as the number of abortions per 1,000 live births, was 246 in 2001, compared with 245 reported for 2000. The abortion rate was 16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for 2001, the same as for 2000.
The highest percentages of reported abortions were for women who were unmarried (82%), white (55%) and under 25 years of age (52%). Of all abortions for which gestational age was reported, 59% were performed at earlier than 8 weeks gestation, and 88% at earlier than 13 weeks. From 1992 through 2001, steady increases have occurred in the percentage of abortions performed at less than 6 weeks gestation.
In other words, after the steam was released following Roe, abortion has decreased steadily if slowly over the last two decades, and those that are being performed are occurring earlier in pregnancies - exactly the trends a responsible but realistic populace would want to see.
As a result, the availability of legal abortion in the U.S. is a boat that will not be rocked, despite the blowing hot winds of rhetoric.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Jon Sobel
Interesting statistics, and I wish more people on both "sides" would adopt the sober point of view hinted at in your last paragraph. It would be nice, however, to see the figures broken down by state or region - there are well-documented regional variations in the availability of abortions, and as long as this is the case, it will be impossible to make too much headway in de-politicizing the issue.
2 - Eric Olsen
thanks Jon, just click on the link to the report for all kinds of charts and breakdowns, including by state.
3 - RJ
"59% were performed at earlier than 8 weeks gestation, and 88% at earlier than 13 weeks."
Good news? Sorta.
It's a damn shame that 12% of abortions still occur in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
If 100% of abortions took place during the 1st trimester, I would not be so much opposed to abortion. I mean, an undifferentiated clump of cells can be killed without too much moral/ethical hand-wringing. (For the non-religious, at least.)
But when you start sucking the brains out of unborn babies who could conceivably survive outside the womb, and when "pro-choice" groups strongly support such practices, I gag.
Offering the "morning-after pill" OTC could reduce the number of ALL abortions. Which is why I support that measure. Unfortunately, many on the "pro-life" side oppose it...
4 - bhw
It's a damn shame that 12% of abortions still occur in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
And you don't know the reasons why those abortions occur in those trimesters. Could very well be that the majority are for medical reasons.
5 - bhw
I would have to say that the pee-stick pregnancy detectors have obviously had an effect on the rate of early first-trimester abortions. You can find out if you're pregnant on the day you're supposed to get your period, a mere two weeks after conceiving. Amazing.
6 - BB
"good news"???
Now that is "rhetoric".
7 - Claire
Eric, being one of those deceptive but clever Republicans, I have to applaud your blog. It is true from the first word to the last. As a Republican who believes in pro-choice (as a matter of law), and is against it (as a matter of personal preference), I know that NO party will ever be able to strike down a woman's right to choose (much less a Presidenet). I think your blog was beautifully documented, exceptionally well written, and true. The republicans can go to pro-life rhetoric and family values, a marriage amendment and even prayer in schools (for those who believe it should be there) which appeals to the majority of its supporters, and then blame the Democrats, when none of them materialize on a federal level. They are safe to espouse their values, without impacting the laws already in place. The perfect scenario, a white hat and an empty gun :D
Claire
8 - Eric Olsen
thanks Claire, and very well put
RJ, I and most Americans agree that the earlier the better for abortion and that preventing conception in the first place, or the "morning after" as it were, is the ideal. Both sides speak in hyperbole but the great majority are in the middle, wishing as Clinton said for it to be "legal, safe and rare."
BB, it is very hard to argue with the no exception pro-life stance because either you buy that it is completely immoral or you don't.
A key angle I didn't really address here tha Claire brought up is that it is a perfectly reasonable position to take to be personally opposed on moral/religious grounds, but to also see that it is overreach for the law to dictate what women may or may not do, within reasonable bounds, with their own reproductive systems.
9 - Scoota Rey
So, how many people are pro-life? How many are pro-choice?
I'm pro-life, a-thank you.
Oh yeah, since abortion is legal and I'm pro-life, that means I'm still a liberal, right?
10 - Claire
Scoota...in answer to your query...LOLOL..or your five queries...no that doesn't mean you are a liberal. It means you are pro-life. I am personally pro-life (although I support a woman's right to choose [at the earliest possible date, preferably during the act, but the morning after as EO mentioned] as a matter of law), and I consider myself a conservative. I am a staunch republican (eeekkkk!, scary isn't it...:D)
Claire
11 - jadester
my udnerstanding of the term "pro-life" in this context is that it means you're anti-abortion...if that's the case, then how can you be both pro-life AND pro-choice?
*confused*
12 - Claire
Jadestar...it is very easy. I am a strict constitutionalist. I can have a personal preference for something, and still support a law which is legally in place and has been tested time and again. I am not going to have an abortion (my personal choice). I support those who are pro-choice judiciously because it is the law. Give to Caesar....etc.
I also wish non-demoninational devotionals in schools were a regular practice, and that it was acceptable because it was the law. But once again, being a strict constitutionalist, it cannot be allowed. No deity can be brought within 15 miles of any federally funded institution (schools, courts, federal buildings, etc), because it would color them with a Judeo-Christian mindset (which, while that doesn't bother me in the least), is clearly in conflict with the constitution. Now as to the guns....:D The 2nd amendment has been grossly misconstrued by the courts, and by those who think they have a right to an arsenal....I'll go that round. :D
Claire
There are many reasons for these things. And it is a hard pill to swallow for a conservative who appreciates the presence of a deity and that which a deity would smile upon. But our constitution has worked for 200 plus years, and it is what distinguishes us from anarchy and despots who would impose their own values on our way of life.
13 - Dizzy
I think abortions should remain legal. I believe that a parent should not be able to force a teen (say 16&up) to abort, or force a teen to carry to term, either.
What most "compassionate" Christians who are staunchly pro-life to the point of ridiculousness do not understand is that 1: We have an overpopulation problem as it is, 2: just because an embryo or fetus has the potential for sentience does not mean that it is in itself sentient, and 3: that in a country there parents cannot abort unwanted children, within a few generations, the society would crumble underfoot because of all the resent and hate generated by those unwanted childrens' presence.
14 - Eric Olsen
Dizzy, that's the practical side of it and that counts too.
15 - RJ
"We have an overpopulation problem as it is"
Not in the West. In fact, the "problem" is just the opposite...
16 - Aaman
I would like to draw your attention to a post on this issue that I found touching.
Overpopulation can never be a defense for abortion rights - that is a dangerous road to travel down. Alternative solutions like female education work far better. India, for example, educated the women and empowered them, in effect, to refuse sex - as I shall post in a detailed article sometime - thereby bringing the birthrate down considerably. This was much more effective than the forced sterilization programs of the 1970s
17 - Phillip Winn
I normally stay away from topics like this, but I just spurted water out of my nose laughing when I read this: "in a country there parents cannot abort unwanted children, within a few generations, the society would crumble underfoot because of all the resent and hate generated by those unwanted childrens' presence."
Like, oh, the United States of America for the first 200 years of its existence?
Surely you can do better than that, right?
/me wipes tears from eyes
18 - JR
"We have an overpopulation problem as it is"
RJ: Not in the West. In fact, the "problem" is just the opposite...
The hell it is. The West is getting way too crowded. And I'm all for abortion if that prevents things from getting worse.
19 - bhw
Overpopulation can never be a defense for abortion rights - that is a dangerous road to travel down.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Alternative solutions like female education work far better.
At some point in history, will we ever make MEN share equal responsibility in the unwanted pregnancy rate?
20 - JR
Overpopulation can never be a defense for abortion rights - that is a dangerous road to travel down.
I might agree if only because it's problematical to tie "rights" to practicality.
That said, overpopulation is itself a dangerous road to travel down. You will see a lot of "rights" disappear as the world gets more crowded and resources become scarce. And as any economist can tell you, nothing devalues life more than an overabundance of it.
21 - RJ
"RJ: Not in the West. In fact, the "problem" is just the opposite..."
"The hell it is. The West is getting way too crowded. And I'm all for abortion if that prevents things from getting worse."
Check the birth rates, JR. The West is not even reproducing at a rate to maintain its current population.
The only way Western nations increase in population in thru immigration.
And your comment "I'm all for abortion if that prevents (overpopulation) from getting worse" is akin to what the NAZIs believed.
Of course, I'm not calling you a NAZI. Just saying that your position is similar to what someone who loves eugenics might say...
22 - Steve S
Check the birth rates, JR. The West is not even reproducing at a rate to maintain its current population.
Doing a quick google search on the U.S. birth rate, turns up a lot of right wing sites that speak of the 'death of the west', however, if you skip over these sites that are known for misinformation and go straight to the CIA's government site, you can see that the birth rate of the U.S. is 14.13 births per 1,000 of the population. The death rate is 8.34 per 1,000. This indicates that the U.S. population is growing, although some of that number would be immigrants who give birth here, making their children legitimate U.S. citizens, however they wouldn't be white, which would explain why the right wing websites are all atwitter with misinformation and fear.
And your comment "I'm all for abortion if that prevents (overpopulation) from getting worse" is akin to what the NAZIs believed.
It's my understanding that he is not advocating forced abortion to eradicate an entire race of people. However, by making abortion legal and available, women who cannot support children would have an abortion and then a consequence of it would be a lower population. A consequence, not an intent.
The best way to curb abortion rates is for the Right to quit trying to force women who cannot support children, to bear children, and to be more forceful in requiring the man to fulfill his obligations. Make the term 'deadbeat dad' obsolete and there won't be many needs for abortion.
Also, support same-sex marriage. We will never abort our children because we don't have them by mistake.
23 - Phillip Winn
People are concerned about the birth rate, but AFAIK, fears about underpopulation are based on extrapolation of current trends. That is, based on the way things have gone over the last X years, in Y more years, more people will die than be born. Even then, the first country to face that, IIRC, will be France, not America. We're doing "okay," neither overpopulating nor underpopulating in any significant way.
I'm curious about the best way to handle "deadbeat dad" situations. I'd be all in favor of hard prison time for non-support, except that those men would still not be supporting the children.
24 - Steve S
I'd be all in favor of hard prison time for non-support, except that those men would still not be supporting the children.
I would be willing to bet that the number of men who commit this moral crime would decrease significantly, although not altogether. Personally, I favor social programs to help women who are struggling single parents, and with harsher laws for deadbeat fathers, the number of women who would need this support would significantly decrease as well, saving taxpayers millions as we do our moral duty to help those in poverty.
However, these much needed social programs are another target of the right, who want to squelch them without doing anything to make the men more accountable.
25 - bhw
However, by making abortion legal and available, women who cannot support children would have an abortion and then a consequence of it would be a lower population. A consequence, not an intent.
Lower than what? The result of an abortion is no different than the result of effective birth control, from a population standpoint.
As a pro-choice feminist, I have to say that I literally recoil when I hear abortion and overpopulation mentioned in the same breath. They are not related. The decision to end a pregnancy is a personal choice that a woman makes, sometimes with the counsel of others, sometimes not.
Population/Overpopulation is an entirely different matter and has nothing to do with abortion rights. As soon as abortion becomes a "tool" for anything at the societal level, it ceases to be a decision each woman has control over. So hearing that argument is no less frightening than hearing arguments that all abortion rights should be abolished. Abortion is a personal thing, not a societal thing.
No offense, but why doesn't it surprise me that men are discussing the "use" of abortion this way?