More on Economics and Abortion
A post on this topic was one of the first I wrote for Vox Nova, back during our innocent early days! Let’s have a quick look at the statistics pertaining to abortion in the United States. Since 1980, the pattern of abortion has been trending downwards, with the abortion rate falling by about 10 percentage points between 1980 and 2005. Although the trend was more or less continuous, the steepest decline occurred during the 1990s. Matching rates of decline to presidential terms is enlightening. Under the Republican administrations of the period (Reagan, Bush I, Bush 2), the abortion rate fell by an average 0.3 percentage points a year. During Democratic administrations (Clinton), it fell by 0.5 percentage points a year. A steep rate of decline during the Clinton years was somewhat arrested under his successor. It is no coincidence that the Clinton years coincided with declining poverty rates, rising employment rates, and– for the first time since the early 1980s– a boost in productivity that was broadly shared among all income groups.
Looking at who has abortions shows clearly the link to socio-economic circumstances. The abortion rate among women living below the federal poverty level ($9,570 for a single woman with no children) is more than four times that of women above 300% of the poverty level (44 vs. 10 abortions per 1,000 women). And when asked to provide reasons, three-quarters of women cited economic hardship, saying they could not afford a child, and the same percentage claimed that a having a baby would “interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents.”
I’ve looked before at a simple comparison of abortion and poverty rates. And now a new study has come out, using far more sophisticated methodology to examine the links between economic policies aimed at supporting low-income families affect the abortion rate across US states. The results are interesting. I’ll summarize briefly. First, states that spent $1,350 more per person living in poverty showed a 20% decrease in abortion. Second, a family cap for families receiving government assistance increases the number of abortions, and getting rid of it would decrease abortions by 15 percent. Third, states with more generous grants to women, infants and children under the age of five have a 37 percent lower abortion rate. Fourth, higher male employment in the 1990s was associated with a 29 percent reduction in the abortion rate.
Being honestly pro-life, being genuinely concerned about abortion, meanings addressing these critical socio-economic issues, fighting for real “family values”. Otherwise it is mere posturing.
Being honestly pro-life, being genuinely concerned about abortion, meanings addressing these critical socio-economic issues, fighting for real “family values”. Otherwise it is mere posturing.
First of all, I think I’m in agreement with this conclusion, unless you mean something other than I think you do, MM. :-)
I do have two caveats, though… first, I just want to clarify that you needn’t actually be “addressing” these issues in order to be considered pro-life. Second — and this is far more important — the disagreement isn’t about whether or not these issues need addressing, but rather what is the best way to do so. Almost inevitably, parties involved in a disagreement go beyond this to the point of denying that the other parties share the same goal. And the fact of the matter is, in many cases (and I’d like to think that in *every* case here at VN), that’s not the case… the goals are the same, it’s the means to achieving them where the differences lay.
I think that according to this study welfare reform is one of the issues that increases the number of abortion (because it made it possible to cap the number of children receiving benefits) but abortion rates still dropped in the second half of the Clinton administration. I’d be interested to learn which states instituted these caps and when; if many states did so around 2000, that could explain the decelerating decline in abortion rate during the early Bush II administration.
I have no disagreement about the link between abortion rates and the economy, particularly social policies that help women and children.
That said, however, many other factors make it difficult to draw good conclusions. For example, Casey v. Planned Parenthood (1992) opened the door for legislatures to enact numerous new restrictions on abortion, which some studies have shown to lead to decreases. Also, was during the 1990s a large increase in the number of crisis pregnancy centers in the country.
General public sentiment against abortion is also a factor. Most surveys showed a significant bump in opposition to abortion following the public debate over partial-birth abortion, which also occurred during the 90s.
As to the family caps, most states that implemented those did so in 1996 and 1997. I am interested in following up on the article in the post, since most studies so far have been inconclusive as to whether a state family cap leads to an increase in abortions. (With regards to the cap itself, a correlation is not needed to make it insidious. Denying a child support merely because of the circumstances of his or her conception is simply wrong.)
A final note when discussing abortion rates — Abortion rate is usually measured by the ratio of abortions to fertile women. A better measure of how policies impact abortion is the ratio of abortions to actual pregnancies.
Let us assume a direct, causal relationship between statist / corporatist economic policies and a decline in the rate of abortion.
It is still right and necessary and vital to fight for the legal protections and a complete end to federal funding. And on this score, Obama and every single Democratic nominee since the mid-70s have been, at the very least, extremely disappointing. Remember the low-end estimate is 40 million children killed since Roe stopped the state legislatures from setting abortion policy.
Ctd: good point on “general public sentiment”. Look at the death penalty. A decade ago, this country was wedded to it, and opponents floated around the far left of the debate. Then many Catholics began to follow the example of Pope John Paul and speak out forefully against the death penalty. And now the tide is turning against it. Changing the culture is paramount, and that can only happen if we are seen to be pro-life in a holistic and all-encompassing sense, which means far far more than choosing Republican judges.
Interesting, except that pursuing economic “justice” will never stop abortion. No matter how much money you give people, they will still choose to kill babies, perhaps to use the money to buy a new cell phone or some designer jeans. Giving people money is not the answer. The only proven way to stop crime is to arrest, prosecute, and keep criminals in jail. The can ask for forgiveness from their cell.
complete end to federal funding…
WHAT federal funding? Other than Bush’s A-76 initiative, there has been no federal funding of elective abortions this century.
ctd,
A final note when discussing abortion rates — Abortion rate is usually measured by the ratio of abortions to fertile women. A better measure of how policies impact abortion is the ratio of abortions to actual pregnancies.
That’s a good point. However, MM prefers the abortion rate to the abortion ratio because the rate fell faster under Clinton, while the ratio fell faster under Bush.
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2008/03/poverty-and-abortion-new-analysis.html
The percentage of women getting pregnant each year (pregnancy rate) fell rapidly under Clinton but leveled off under Bush.
Compare two societies:
1. 50 out of 1,000 women get pregnant every year. Every last one of them aborts. Abortion rate: 50 per 1,000. Abortion ratio: 50 abortions per zero live births. A ratio of infinity.
2. 200 out of 1,000 women get pregnant every year. 70 of them abort. Abortion rate: 70 per 1,000. Abortion ratio: 35%.
The number of abortions is higher in Society 2, but what’s important is that out of all the women who could have chosen abortion, Society 2 is much more likely to have women who choose life instead.
Interesting, except that pursuing economic “justice” will never stop abortion. No matter how much money you give people, they will still choose to kill babies, perhaps to use the money to buy a new cell phone or some designer jeans.
I think TeutonicTim is onto something. People, particularly poor people, just love killing babies. The only way to stop abortion is to take all the fun out of it, But like so many intrinsic evils, abortion is intrinsically pleasurable. Many women have told me in confidence that there’s nothing more exhilarating than the sound of a suction machine, unless it’s . . . well, what’s the point of going into that, since now it’s illegal.
So the only solution is deterrence by threat of punishment. There were some crazy ideas (sounds like socialism to me!) in the Declaration on Procured Abortion about it being the task of law to pursue a reform of society and of conditions of life in all milieux, starting with the most deprived, so that always and everywhere it may be possible to give every child coming into this world a welcome worthy of a person. Help for families and for unmarried mothers, assured grants for children, a statute for illegitimate children and reasonable arrangements for adoption – a whole positive policy must be put into force so that there will always be a concrete, honorable and possible alternative to abortion. With all due respect, Magesterium, bunk!
In repsonse to Darwin:
(1) Actually, the abortion ratio fell by the same amount (0.4 percentage points a year under Clinton and Bush).
(2) The link beteen poverty and the abortion ratio is even stronger than for the abortion rate.
(3) The study quoted claims that the results are the same for the abortion rate and the abortion ratio.
Nice quote, David, I had forgotten that. It gets echoes in the documents of the USCCB and other bishops conferences– and is convenietly ignored by groups like the NRLC.
The following propositions are logically inconsistent:
1) Poverty decreased under Clinton but worsened under Bush.
2) Abortion rates are driven by poverty, and abortion ratios even more so.
3) Even so, the abortion ratio fell by the same amount (0.4 percentage points a year under Clinton and Bush).
That is, they are logically inconsistent unless you come up with some other reason why abortion ratios would have been driven downward under Bush despite the upward pressure of poverty. Go to it, MM. Defend the Bush years on this point. Or else drop one of the above assertions.
(1) Actually, the abortion ratio fell by the same amount (0.4 percentage points a year under Clinton and Bush).
The average declines in abortion ratio per year by president are as follows:
Reagan 0.18%
H.W. Bush 0.28%
Clinton 0.38%
W. Bush 0.42%
(2) The link beteen poverty and the abortion ratio is even stronger than for the abortion rate.
I suppose it depends how you’re looking at them. I’m seeing very low differences in the correlation between either. But if the correlation is supposed to be better with ratio, and poverty increased under Bush while it decreased under Clinton, your correlation can’t be too strong as the ratio decreased faster under Bush than Clinton, and certainly didn’t go up.
(3) The study quoted claims that the results are the same for the abortion rate and the abortion ratio.
I’m still working through the study. I’ll try to put up a post on it later.
On the face of it, their impact claims strike me as rather unlikely, but I haven’t got through all the data yet.
Also very curious whether they’ve normalized for regional population/age differences in regards to their claims on family caps.
Oh, I see. Your analysis is based on 1980 to 2003, while my tables I’ve got here run from 1973 to 2005. No wonder we’re seeing different correlations.
And it’s probably fair to trim to 1980 to get rid of the huge jump after Roe.
(Though I suppose in a world where legality didn’t matter, but only economics, we wouldn’t expect to see that 50% increase in abortions from ’73-’80.)
Yeah, no wonder someone gets a different correlation when he excludes the most troublesome data for his theory. Same goes for the “study” to which MM links, given that they look at abortion data only starting in 1982 (thus avoiding any need to account for the drastic rise in abortion post-Roe).
The big hole in the theory is that child-birth has declined even faster. Fewer women are getting pregnant. Most experts, not including MM, attribute that to increased use of birth control. So let’s all thank Clinton and the Democrats for lowering the abortion rate by making birth control more readily available.
MM summarizes: “First, states that spent $1,350 more per person living in poverty showed a 20% decrease in abortion.”
The $1350 in the survey was actually AFDC-TANF payments, which include family planning services — and sometimes even mandatory family planning education for recipients. That is hardly what faithful Catholics would call poverty reduction.
Perhaps it was the contraceptive services provided that reduced the measured abortion rate, and the modest amounts of money provided actually didn’t really do anything significant to it? That’s a reasonable possibility, but the survey simply fails to address the issue at all, by choosing to use a measure that lumps together genuine poverty reduction with family planning.
Maybe I’m not seeing all the data, and maybe I’m just lazy, but I’m curious what the drops in abortion rate and ratio look like when comparing the party that controls congress. It looks like in those graphs that there’s a larger drop when Republicans control Congress than when Democrats do or when it is split, and that it may be a better corrolation than the presidential party correlation. But I haven’t actually run the numbers …
Why all the interest in breaking statistics up by presidential term? If anyone thinks the mere fact of who is president when has a direct causal effect on the number, rate, or ratio of abortions performed in the U.S. that year, I’d love to hear their explanation.
If what they’re trying to get at is that some particular policy or plan of a president affected abortion rates, let them argue from the data on that particular policy or plan.
Very simple, SB: the variation in both the abortion ration and the poverty rate was far higher pre-Clinton than post Clinton. And if you want to argue this, take a cue from Darwin– he actually knows what he is talking about,
Your response about variations PRE-Clinton is interesting, but seems to be completely irrelevant. How does a pre-Clinton variation have anything to do with the fact that if abortion ratios are really driven by poverty as much as you say, and if poverty conditions really were worse under Bush than under Clinton, then it doesn’t make sense for the abortion ratio to fall by the “same amount” under Clinton and Bush?
That’s very simple? Try again.
If Darwin knows what he is talking about, then he is presumably making a good point here (and it’s pretty much the same point that I am making):
But if the correlation is supposed to be better with ratio, and poverty increased under Bush while it decreased under Clinton, your correlation can’t be too strong as the ratio decreased faster under Bush than Clinton, and certainly didn’t go up.
Tony is right as well. If you want to argue policy, argue policy. Looking only at presidential party is a lazy and stupid way to figure out how policy affects the abortion rate.
I think TeutonicTim is onto something. People, particularly poor people, just love killing babies.
I can’t speak for Tim, but perhaps he was referring to someone like Amy Richards, who upon discovering she was carrying triplets, decided to thin the herd:
“I looked at Peter and asked the doctor: ‘Is it possible to get rid of one of them? Or two of them?’… When I found out about the triplets, I felt like: I’ll have to move to Staten Island…start shopping only at Costco and buying big jars of mayonnaise.”
Granted, perhaps Amy is, like Obamessiah worship, merely a right-wing fabrication, but on the off chance she is real, I wonder who she intends to vote for?
“If you want to argue policy, argue policy. Looking only at presidential party is a lazy and stupid way to figure out how policy affects the abortion rate.”
I think all the regular readers know that MM doesn’t want to argue policy, just politics.
Since the survey that MM quotes mixes up economic aid and family planning aid to disadvantaged families when comparing abortion rates, it is of not much use in deciding by how much purely economic aid might reduce the abortion rate (though that’s an essential component for the reasoning by which that MM claims a vote for Obama might be permissible).
This mixing up of economic aid and family planning aid means that even comparing the poverty rate and the abortion rate (as MM did in an older post) doesn’t provide any clear information. That’s because if prior Democratic administrations did improve economic aid to the poor, they would also strongly tend to add in family planning aid.
If the reduced abortion rate is actually achieved because of increased contraceptive aid, then Catholics could not support that, since it achieves a good end by evil means.
Is there any information about what purely economic aid might do to the abortion rate?