In an opinion piece published today on the Huffington Post, author Christina Page asserts that it is the “Pro-choice” movement which “takes responsibility for finding effective solutions” to the problems of unintended pregnancy and abortion.

Ms. Page claims that it’s an unacknowledged fact that “pro-choice policies that result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion” and that the “pro-choice movement is the only side working on prevention of unintended pregnancy.”

I’m not sure what planet she lives on, but it doesn’t sound like this one. “Pro-choice” policies have not resulted in dramatic declines in abortion – either Ms. Page hasn’t done her homework, or she is ignoring decades worth of data.

The impact of “pro-choice” policies can bee seen by examining historical data. The data reflects the influence of “pro-choice” policies and court cases which resulted in the liberalization of contraception and abortion laws:

During the 1970s, the percentage of women aged 15-19 who ever engaged in premarital sex rose from 30.4% in 1971 to 43.4% in 1976, and rose again to 49.8% in 1979. Not only did the number of those who had sex before marriage increase, but the pregnancy rates of both married and unmarried women in this age group increased as well: 95.1 in 1972, 101.1 in 1976, and 109.4 in 1979. [2] Abortion also increased - for this same group, the abortion rate rose from 19.1 in 1972 to 34.3 in 1976, and rose again to 42.4 in 1979. [3] Despite increasing access to more effective methods of contraception, the abortion rate for this group continued to climb, peaking at 43.5 in 1988.

In light of the data which shows increases instead of decreases, her argument that “pro-choice” policies “result in dramatic declines in the need for abortion” is simply not credible.

If it wasn’t pro-choice policies which led to dramatic declines in abortion, than what did?

Contrary to her accusations that “Study after study suggests the right to life approach is actually the root of the problem: leading to more abortions and later ones too,” pro-life efforts have lead to measurable reductions in abortions.

In “Analyzing the effect of state legislation on the incidence of abortion among minors”, Professor Michael New of the University of Alabama demonstrates that the declines in abortion are the results of pro-life efforts: Parental involvement laws, Medicaid funding restrictions, and informed consent laws – efforts that that the “pro-choice” movement has repeatedly fought against tooth and nail.

Furthermore, the increase in delay of first sex among younger teens helped to lower abortion rates as well, and when combined with abortion and Medicaid restrictions, it’s clear that “pro-choice” policies and efforts do not deserve the credit Ms. Page attributes to them. It’s also clear that a “pro-choice” presidential candidate will seek to eliminate these restrictions and policies which have led to measurable reductions.

Ms. Page may wish that these pro-life efforts and the decline in abortion were coincidental, or that President Clinton is somehow responsible for the declines, but this simply isn’t the case. To credit contraception or the pro-choice movement with these declines is political spin at its best.

Not only does Ms. Page claim that “pro-choice” movement is responsible for the declines; she actually claims that it is the only side working on the prevention of untended pregnancy – a claim which is blatantly false.

The pro-life movement works to prevent unintended pregnancies by promoting the only foolproof way of preventing them - sexual abstinence. Abstinence, unlike contraception, does not have a failure rate. In fact, abstinence never fails – people do. Ceasing to abstain from sex is abandonment of, and not failure of, abstinence.

Ms. Page tries to make a case that abstinence programs are associated with higher rates of HIV/AIDS, STDs, and teen births, yet these problems are not associated with abstinence. Rather, they are associated with a lack of abstinence from all sexual activity. The problems she blames on abstinence are fruits of “pro-choice” philosophy, policy, and lifestyle.

Finally, Ms. Page points out that some young women may indeed wait a few months or weeks until to obtain an abortion without parental consent, but if she and the pro-choice movement were really concerned about late term abortion, they would be pushing for bans alongside the pro-life movement instead of opposing them.

In closing, it’s true, as she claims, that the electorate has been bamboozled and is hungry for truth – but what she doesn’t acknowledge is that it’s the pro-choice movement that has been doing the bamboozling all along with half truths and myths. The electorate is indeed hungry for the truth, and as it comes to light, they move further and further away from the “pro-choice” camp.

Endnotes

[1] Hofferth, S., Kahn, J., & Baldwin, W. (1987). Premarital sexual activity among U.S. teenage women over the past three decades, Family Planning Perspectives, p. 46, 19, 46-53.
[2] Guttmacher Institute, (2006). U.S. Teenage Pregnancy Statistics National and State Trends and Trends by Race and Ethnicity , Table 2.1 Rates of birth, abortion and pregnancy and numbers of births, abortions, miscarriages, pregnancies and population all among women aged 15–19, by year, 1972–2003, Page 5, Retrieved November 19, 2006 from http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2006/09/12/USTPstats.pdf (pdf required).
[3] Ibid.