Althouse: "The number and rate of U.S. abortions increased from 2017 to 2020 after a long decline...."

June 15, 2022

"The number and rate of U.S. abortions increased from 2017 to 2020 after a long decline...."

"The report from the Guttmacher Institute, a research group that supports abortion rights, counted more than 930,000 abortions in the U.S. in 2020. That’s up from about 862,000 abortions in 2017.... About one in five pregnancies ended in abortion in 2020, according to the report, which comes as the Supreme Court appears ready to overturn that decision. The number of women obtaining abortions illustrates a need and 'underscores just how devastating a Supreme Court decision is going to be for access to an absolutely vital service,' said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor."

AP reports.

96 comments:

chickelit said...: How many of those are in states that would likely ban abortion? The article is written to imply that all 900,000+ would be outlawed.; 6/15/22, 8:38 AM
Rocketeer said...: Interesting. I’m pretty sure it demonstrates the opposite.; 6/15/22, 8:38 AM
Lars Porsena said...: I'm staggered by the numbers. I can't understand the need when there is an arsenal of birth control options out there. Too damn lazy to take a pill?; 6/15/22, 8:43 AM
Dear corrupt left, go F yourselves said...: "safe legal and rare"; 6/15/22, 8:44 AM
typingtalker said...: The number of women obtaining abortions illustrates a need ...

Some, but not all, abortions are needed for medical/health reasons.; 6/15/22, 8:46 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: Those state legislators are going to have to do their jobs.

No one wants that!; 6/15/22, 8:47 AM
Amadeus 48 said...: I think Covid-19 and the attendant hysteria had something to do with those 2020 numbers.; 6/15/22, 8:50 AM
WK said...: Similar to people buying guns/ammo before 2A is repealed.; 6/15/22, 8:51 AM
rhhardin said...: There will be a transition period while Republican state legislatures are voted out of office and then back to normal.; 6/15/22, 8:51 AM
Buckwheathikes said...: "'underscores just how devastating a Supreme Court decision is going to be for access"

This underscores the need for abortion supporters to convince the public that killing 20% of the children conceived every year is a good idea for a free society.

I say that it is not a good idea.

You must convince me that it is. Then maybe I too will support it. But I'm not supportive of the Supreme Court legislating from the bench. That day is over in this country.; 6/15/22, 8:51 AM
Jamie said...: How utterly horrible.

In high school, I knew girls who - because of where we lived and the fact that it was 1984 - didn't have access to the Pill. They did have access to condoms; however, they wouldn't make their boyfriends use them because, oh, you know why. Taking a shower with a raincoat, that thing, and God forbid he break up with them over it. I also knew of painfully young couples who got married because the girl got pregnant and wouldn't or at any rate didn't get an abortion, and I remember wondering whether those former boyfriends, now husbands, were rethinking their aversion to raincoats.

What's everyone's excuse now?; 6/15/22, 8:52 AM
Amy said...: "The number of women obtaining abortions illustrates a need" - I do not draw the same conclusion about what the need is as the article does.; 6/15/22, 8:52 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: In the other, now most important orthodox icons, climate change, it has been determined that behavior is the most determinant factor when it comes to saving our planet from man made catastrophe.

Why isn’t behavior/prevention part of the discussion when it comes to abortion?; 6/15/22, 8:54 AM
Virgil Hilts said...: If you track 1000 american women through their fertility years collectively they will have about 400 abortions. That does not mean that approximately 40% of women are having abortions. There are some women having 5-6 abortions. Call me a monster, but I would prefer the women on that extreme end never reproduce and would happily pay for their abortions (I would probably be OK with forced sterilization as well); 6/15/22, 9:02 AM
Jamie said...: Some, but not all, abortions are needed for medical/health reasons.

Because being pregnant or carrying a child to term is too dangerous for the woman? (I mean, for the pregnant person?) Then use birth control. Because the fetus shows an abnormality? Ugh. Welcome to Iceland. What percentage? And if a high percentage, how did the human race manage to avoid being overrun with children with disabilities for all those millennia when we couldn't possibly know in advance?

I suppose some percentage of such pregnancies would have resulted in miscarriage or stillbirth back then and still would today if left to progress, with attendant danger to the mother in at least some cases. And of course children with serious and obvious disabilities were frequently killed in our past, and it's to our credit that we no longer do that after birth, at any rate.

But I'm going to have to see data on the numbers before I can be convinced that the great majority of abortions aren't being carried out for convenience alone.; 6/15/22, 9:03 AM
Temujin said...: Or...maybe we'd better spend a bit more time talking to young people about how a condom or birth control pill actually works. I mean, we're approaching the issue of a giant increase in abortions as a reason to make it easier to have more abortions.

If we have an increase in crime, do we decide to remove police and let more criminals out of jail? Oh, wait. We did that.

Well...If the energy supply lines are crushed, do we cease all energy exploration, cancel coal, eliminate pipelines, and use ESG to halt loans for further production and exploration? Well...yes, apparently, we do.

How about this: if a small number of people want everyone to acknowledge they're transitioning from a man to a woman, do we make everyone in the country, including mandated governmental and corporate employees, have to start using made up multiple pronouns for every person they talk to or about? Well...yes. Apparently we do.

If our economy is sinking, do we then decide it's a good time to spend another 3-4 trillion on a Party approved spending spree? Again- it goes against sanity, but yes, it seems to be what's on the agenda.

This IS your Democratic Party in a nutshell. You get what you vote for, people.; 6/15/22, 9:05 AM
Spiros said...: According to the Guttmacher Institute 25% of women will have an abortion during their lifetimes. The typical patient is unmarried, poor, in her late 20s, is already a mother and is very early in pregnancy.; 6/15/22, 9:05 AM
chickelit said...: Lem said...Why isn’t behavior/prevention part of the discussion when it comes to abortion?

That is strange because abortion is a man made disaster like climate change.; 6/15/22, 9:08 AM
Roger Sweeny said...: I keep seeing these statements which seem to think that overturning Roe will make abortion illegal. It will just take the Supreme Court out of that decision. California and New York and lots of other states will immediately affirm that most all abortions are legal there. Many will put on their statute books the present Supreme Court time limits.; 6/15/22, 9:11 AM
Humperdink said...: Mysteriously, the abortion tally for pregnancies from rape and incest are nowhere to be found in the article. Inexplicably the left is not demanding a recount.; 6/15/22, 9:19 AM
LilyBart said...: Its strange to me how contraception isn't really a part of these discussions. We have some really effective methods these days (condoms are not one of the better ones btw). Our society encourages people to be careful about so many things (using plastic, using water, littering, carbon footprints, not 'hurting feelings'), but taking care not to create babies you're just going to kill - doesn't merit a mention? What does that say about us?; 6/15/22, 9:22 AM
dbp said...: How devastating a Supreme Court decision is going to be for access remains to be seen. Most states will keep their existing laws in place, most of the rest will tighten the regulations to something like the first trimester. A tiny number might completely outlaw the practice but will be unable to prevent abortion pills from being sent to women in these states. Such pills can be used at up to something like 11 weeks.

I think the word "trivial" is infinitely more apt than the word "devastating".; 6/15/22, 9:25 AM
Beasts of England said...: …access to an absolutely vital service…

Interesting use of ‘vital’ in that clause.; 6/15/22, 9:25 AM
Mattman26 said...: So if the number of armed robberies goes up, I suppose that "illustrates the need" for them.; 6/15/22, 9:27 AM
Achilles said...: The number of women obtaining abortions illustrates a need and 'underscores just how devastating a Supreme Court decision is going to be for access to an absolutely vital service,' said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor."

The only effect the Mississippi law would have on these abortions is forcing women to make the choice before 15 weeks.

Every reasonable person understands what is really at stake here. The supporters of Roe v Wade are either ignorant tools or dangerous radicals who want to destroy our constitution as written.

That is why the supporters of Roe have to be dishonest about what happens when the Supreme Court finally does what it was meant to do and hand this off to the States as intended.; 6/15/22, 9:36 AM
LilyBart said...: This always should have been a matter for legislatures (state's preferably). The idea that SCOTUS should just make up a 'right' because they think the people need it isn't how our system works. Unfortunately, our legislatures are gutless.

So, if ROE is struck down, or meaningfully changed, the states will pass laws, some more liberal, some more restrictive, but most will likely shake out to where the avg person's view is: Abortion fully available earlier in the pregnancy, more restrictive later in the pregnancy with the viable 'fetus'.; 6/15/22, 9:38 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Thanks Pollo. Call me bitter clinger.; 6/15/22, 9:47 AM
natatomic said...: Genuine question because I don’t know the answer - do these numbers include what the medical field calls “spontaneous abortions” (I.e. miscarriages)? I’ve had three miscarriages in my child bearing years so far (and also one full term stillbirth), but I know they are labeled as abortions despite me very much wanting those children.
So anyway, are these numbers conflated with miscarriages or are these ONLY the numbers of actual sought-after, purposeful abortions?; 6/15/22, 9:49 AM
Iman said...: Gee… there must’ve been a shortage of birth control…; 6/15/22, 9:55 AM
ColoComment said...: With abject apologies to J. Swift & others:

If we were feeling really snarky this morning, we might consider state-level legislation of legal / illegal abortion laws as a [loosely compared] "Baptist & Bootlegger" type of economic opportunity.

States (CA, MA, NY?) could legalize abortions at any time, for any reason, and levy taxes on the procedure. The "Baptist" side consists of the abortion activists who get their wish for unfettered abortion opportunities; the "Bootlegger" side is represented by the public coffers that are filled with the revenues paid by those enjoying that "privilege."

You might even get "abortion travel" planners to assist those who are so unfortunate as to live in a non- or limited-abortion state. Heck, a whole industry could arise! Abortion transportation (planes, trains, automobiles!) Abortion hotels. Abortion spas. Abortion restaurants....

Final thought: if abortion is legalized in a state, can that state then legalize as well the sale of the "by products" of abortion? Fetal parts? Stem cells? Etc.?

My word, just think of the potential boost to the state economies!; 6/15/22, 9:56 AM
AlbertAnonymous said...: WK said “ Similar to people buying guns/ammo before 2A is repealed.”

This study/count is from 2020, so I’m not sure your analogy holds. But it made me laugh. Thanks.; 6/15/22, 10:06 AM
walter said...: The newfound ability of men to get pregnant caught some by surprise.; 6/15/22, 10:07 AM
Owen said...: Many very good comments here, people. Temujin, you rock. Natatomic, I am sorry for your troubles.; 6/15/22, 10:07 AM
Howard said...: It's part of the Trump legacy. TDS among prime birthing age progressive women was off the charts. No doubt their diminished mental health capacity caused more of these fragile snowflakes to figure it wasn't the kind of world to bring a child into.; 6/15/22, 10:12 AM
M said...: Do they really think telling normal, everyday people that America allows the killing of almost a million human beings every year is a GOOD argument for abortion? Most people who are lukewarm on abortion are like Reagan when he was a governor, he really thought legal abortions would be rare. When he found out how prevalent they were when legalized he was shocked and horrified.

People who aren’t 100% pro baby killing will be shocked and horrified by these numbers. They won’t have their spines stiffed to jump in the fight. They may turn against it all together.; 6/15/22, 10:15 AM
Tom said...: Exchange the word fetus for Jew and see if you see these words strike you the same way.; 6/15/22, 10:18 AM
Deirdre Mundy said...: At one point I dug into the 1/3 women has had an abortion stat that was being bandied about in the 1990s to early 2000s because it didn't fit my experience.

The ACTUAL stat was 1/3 of American women have had a D&C.

This is a HUGE difference, because a D&C isn't just a kind of abortion. It's used for removing polyps, for excessive bleeding, and for miscarriage.

However, if you get a D&C for medical reasons, you're informed that it's a uterine surgery, you can only have so many in a lifetime or you risk rupture, and it can impact future fertility.

For some reason, if it's for a living fetus instead of a dead child, polyps, or other tissue weirdness, the D&C suddenly LOSES all its risks and side effects. It's truly amazing.

But also, any stat counting D&Cs is useless for abortion arguments because it's deliberately inflating the numbers.; 6/15/22, 10:19 AM
hombre said...: If crack cocaine use increased 100% from 2000 to 2001, it "illustrates a need" and "underscores just how devastating [increased enforcement] is going to be for access to an absolutely vital [commodity]."

Because on the left "want" equates with "vital need." Just ask a professor.; 6/15/22, 10:20 AM
Maynard said...: Are they including the morning after pill abortions in their data?; 6/15/22, 10:37 AM
Jersey Fled said...: "The typical patient is unmarried, poor, in her late 20s, is already a mother and is very early in pregnancy."

Your use of the word "and" in the above makes this statement statistically incorrect and a little misleading. Each of the cohorts is independent. For example, a woman can be poor, but not in her late 20's. Guttmacher lists each cohort correctly (i.e. independently) on their website.

In a second 2017 study Guttmacher notes that roughly half have had at least one prior abortion. A 2014 study by another group found that 40% had had 2 or more.; 6/15/22, 10:41 AM
MadisonMan said...: and 'underscores just how devastating a Supreme Court decision is going to be for access to an absolutely vital service,'
Is this a News Article or an Opinion Piece, or the former masquerading as the latter? Because I think "underscores" should be followed by to me.; 6/15/22, 10:50 AM
Kevin said...: Then why doesn’t the number of mass shootings demonstrate the need for the Second Amendment?; 6/15/22, 11:00 AM
PM said...: It's been argued that if each state controls its own abortion laws, those who want abortions will again have to travel to Mexico to get one. But more than 10 million Mexican nationals have migrated here - making access much more convenient.; 6/15/22, 11:12 AM
Pianoman said...: I can't tell if people like this are being deliberately stupid, or whether they believe their own bullshit.

States will make their own policies after RvW is overturned. With the possible exception of Alabama and Texas, all states will continue to allow abortions with restrictions. There will be a number of states that will allow abortions with NO restrictions (like Colorado). And since Planned Parenthood provides them for free, women who want to abort just need to GET THERE.

For poor women who can't afford an Uber and who don't own a car, there will be Left-funded organizations that will provide transportation to states that provide unlimited abortion access. Sort of like an "underground railroad". And the states that try to criminalize abortion (Alabama?) will be powerless to stop them.

Are there really people that believe "back alley abortions with rusty coat hangers" will be a thing?; 6/15/22, 11:12 AM
Kate said...: @natatomic I'm so sorry for your loss.

My daughter recently accompanied her friend to PP. Apparently (we, the parents, are told this afterward -- ghost face) the young woman was worried her abortion wasn't healing. After sitting in the waiting room for 3 hrs she learned that she was fine.

Now this young woman has moved in with her boyfriend. They're serious, yet she chose an abortion. My heart breaks. We like my daughter's friend and wish her well. I'm afraid her abortion choice has sabotaged her romantic relationship, when she probably only meant to preserve it.; 6/15/22, 11:19 AM
Michael K said...: There are some women having 5-6 abortions. Call me a monster, but I would prefer the women on that extreme end never reproduce and would happily pay for their abortions (I would probably be OK with forced sterilization as well)

I remember seeing one young woman of about 27. I don't remember her medical issue but she told me she had had 7 abortions. She was in graduate school and on MediCal, the California medical welfare program. I wondered what she didn't like about birth control pills but didn't ask her.; 6/15/22, 11:29 AM
Narr said...: I'm with Virgil Hilts, only I would try to bribe the likely offenders to sterilize or neuter voluntarily. Financial reward and social recognition in early life could nip a lot of problems in the bud, in demographics where those things--especially easily gained--are most highly prized.; 6/15/22, 11:30 AM
MikeR said...: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_statistics_in_the_United_States
CDC has way lower numbers, more like 600,000.; 6/15/22, 11:35 AM
Critter said...: Why do abortionists lie and mislead on facts about abortion? If they represent the hearts and minds of Americans, why lie? Their deception has totally destroyed their credibility and exposed that their objective is to promote more abortions. Disgusting.

How many of the women who had abortions also had access to unbiased family planning counseling? We know that near zero Planned Parenthood offices provide counseling beyond processing and planning abortions. Planned Parenthood is the industry leader in the abortion industry, and just like in other industries they want to increase revenues and profits. Counseling on family planning is not nearly as profitable as performing abortions. And where do their profits go? Democrat politicians, the new ghouls of a soulless party.; 6/15/22, 11:37 AM
Narayanan said...: do we have data about when during pregnancy is aborted?; 6/15/22, 11:53 AM
wendybar said...: Because it is the Progressive religion. They want people to SHOUT their abortions, and women are celebrating it. Progressivism is a mental disease. NOTHING is as disgusting as this..... “I also had my first abortion here at the Seattle Planned Parenthood!” she exclaims, followed by a long, loud, “Yaaayyyyyyyy.” The crowd and host erupted in raucous applause. Plimpton continues: “Notice I said first. And I don’t want you guys to feel insecure. It was my best one. Heads and tails above the rest. If I could ‘Yelp’ review it I totally would.” Plimpton goes on to thank the doctor who performed the abortion, as if she had received a gift from a total stranger."

https://thefederalist.com/2017/09/15/abortion-celebration-now-thats-insanely-wrong/; 6/15/22, 11:54 AM
wendybar said...: They should have STERILIZED Martha Plimpton. People who use abortion as birth control are monsters. She doesn't deserve to EVER bring a child into the world.; 6/15/22, 11:55 AM
wendybar said...: Howard said...
It's part of the Trump legacy. TDS among prime birthing age progressive women was off the charts. No doubt their diminished mental health capacity caused more of these fragile snowflakes to figure it wasn't the kind of world to bring a child into.

6/15/22, 10:12 AM

So now you are blaming Trump for women who kill their babies?? Sick Howard. YOU really need to get help for your extreme case.; 6/15/22, 11:58 AM
n.n said...: There is certainly a demand to terminate human life, but is there a need?

A woman, and man, have four choices: abstention, prevention (e.g. in depth), adoption (i.e. shared/shifted responsibility), and compassion (i.e. personal responsibility), and an equal right to self-defense (e.g. abortion) through reconciliation. Every other choice is elective and a wicked solution, rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes.; 6/15/22, 12:06 PM
Jim Howard said...: I hope that however this current Supreme Court rules, liberals will realize that making the courts into supreme policy dictators has the real chance of politically blowing up in their faces.

Pro abortion Democrats have had solid control of the federal government many times since Roe was decided.

Why have they never passed actual laws legalizing unrestricted abortion when they had the chance?; 6/15/22, 12:06 PM
n.n said...: There is no mystery in sex and conception. The Pro-Choice "ethical" religion denies women and men's dignity and agency, and reduces human life to negotiable commodities. Deja vu.; 6/15/22, 12:08 PM
Freder Frederson said...: Because the fetus shows an abnormality? Ugh. Welcome to Iceland. What percentage? And if a high percentage, how did the human race manage to avoid being overrun with children with disabilities for all those millennia when we couldn't possibly know in advance?

And yet you answer your question in the very next paragraph. You do realize that death in childbirth, and babies surviving just a few days, was very common before the advent of modern medicine? Visit any cemetery that has a significant number of pre-1900 burials and count how many infants and women of child-bearing age are buried there.; 6/15/22, 12:13 PM
realestateacct said...: But 93% of them were earlier than the 15 weeks limit in the case at hand.; 6/15/22, 12:15 PM
farmgirl said...: My son &daughter-in-law lost a 12week pregnancy. It may not seem like very old in the grand scheme of things, but this child was the grand scheme of things. A yr later and we’re expecting, again . Same time frame. It was almost lost early on(lots of bleeding)- and my sweet d-in-law is staying a little in denial(I don’t feel pregnant)- we’re at 20weeks.

It is never a sure thing- parenting.

I said in another thread that our innate nature is denied. I should have said individual intrinsic human value. But, being male or female is also innate. So, I wasn’t lying. We named our last baby and had a private memorial service, a reading from the Good Book, a prayer by a grieving granddad-to-be. A small flower garden.

To intentionally uproot a growing baby in utero?
A colossal loss to the world.

In other news:

https://www.kktv.com/2022/06/14/woman-charged-with-felony-after-spitting-corpse-casket-funeral-home-records-show/?outputType=amp; 6/15/22, 12:22 PM
Mark said...: After years of downplaying the number of abortions - and many states refusing to report the numbers - expect the pro-abortion forces to suddenly jack up their supposed numbers in order to claim that there is some great demand.

And if the numbers have gone up, that just puts the lie to the pro-abortion hysteria that states are oppressing women/girls with draconian abortion laws.; 6/15/22, 12:23 PM
Real American said...: if abortion is such a vital service, then its proponents should have no trouble convincing their fellow citizens and lawmakers to make it accessible in their respective states.; 6/15/22, 12:35 PM
Quaestor said...: To the wokerati, abortion is a rite of passage, hence the increase.; 6/15/22, 12:37 PM
Jamie said...: You do realize that death in childbirth, and babies surviving just a few days, was very common before the advent of modern medicine?

You do realize that we're no longer living in the era before the advent of modern medicine?

I brought up the (high, compared to today) incidence of miscarriage and stillbirth, and the dangers of giving birth, in the past, as a means of explaining some present abortions: a woman whose fetus has unsurvivable abnormalities or who would be risking her life by giving birth can often now find out these things before birth and may choose abortion rather than letting nature take its dreadful course. BUT.

What percentage of present abortions result from a decision this grave? Because the rest (barring the ever-trotted-out "rape and incest" exception that never seems to get its own statistical line) are for convenience, in one form or another. (And of course, like almost every part of second wave feminism and the execrable Sexual Revolution, the convenience of the man involved is a huge part.)

We do a lot of things for convenience: microwave pizza, go through drive-thrus, wear hats on bad hair days. Ending what is unquestionably at least a potential human life would seem to require some agonizing, in my opinion - not celebration. The very poor woman in her late 20s who already had one or more children who is the abortion archetype in the comment above (and thanks for pointing out the incorrect conflation of these characteristics, whoever you were, after that comment) had a choice before conceiving the at-least-potential human life that she's now ending - birth control is so easy, cheap, and reliable these days that the woman who gets pregnant can pretty reasonably be assumed not to have been using it, or to have been using it improperly - which is her choice and constitutes a bad decision that she's now going to compound. But society has to share her moral responsibility because, as Gahrie often says, we women can never be allowed to feel bad about our choices, ever.; 6/15/22, 12:53 PM
Jamie said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 6/15/22, 12:53 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: The overturn of Roe is a self-correcting problem. A large majority of those who get abortions are Democrats. If Democrats can no longer get abortions, they will become more numerous in each generation, until they can replace Roe with equivalent legislation. There will, of course, be some unpleasantness along the way.; 6/15/22, 1:12 PM
Jamie said...: natatomic, I wish you all the best. It sounds as if you've been through a terrible wringer.; 6/15/22, 1:14 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: "The number of women obtaining abortions illustrates a need and 'underscores just how devastating a Supreme Court decision is going to be for access to an absolutely vital service,' said Sara Rosenbaum, a George Washington University health law and policy professor."

It's time for another round of "what kind of liar is she"?

ALL the Dobbs decision will do, at most, is push abortion back to the State political process

So is Sara pretending that "repealing Roe / Casey" is the same thing as "passing a nationwide abortion ban"? If so, what a sleazy liar

Or is it that she believes that, once people get to vote on it, the democratic process will lead to abortion being outlawed everywhere?

If so, she's a moronic liar, because CA, NY, and several other States will clearly become "abortion uber allies" States.

But if it were true, that would be a strong argument that > 50% of the population does NOT believe that killing babies is an "absolutely vital service". Which makes her a liar to claim otherwise; 6/15/22, 1:22 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: rhhardin said...
There will be a transition period while Republican state legislatures are voted out of office and then back to normal.

Roughly 2/3 of Americans consistently say in polls that they think that abortion should be "mostly illegal" or always illegal starting in the 2nd Trimester, which is to say at 14 weeks.

GOP State Legislatures are going to be a lot more in tune with normal voters than will Democrat (abortion past crowning!) State Legislatures

IOW: dream on; 6/15/22, 1:24 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Howard said...
It's part of the Trump legacy. TDS among prime birthing age progressive women was off the charts. No doubt their diminished mental health capacity caused more of these fragile snowflakes to figure it wasn't the kind of world to bring a child into.

That's the best argument I've read yet for supporting Trump in 2024: sewing leftists snowflakes having kids; 6/15/22, 1:32 PM
Robert Cook said...: "I'm staggered by the numbers. I can't understand the need when there is an arsenal of birth control options out there. Too damn lazy to take a pill?"

Too lazy, too drunk, forced to have sex, boy friend or husband left so the mother decides against having the baby, ran out of pills or condoms, used birth control but it failed, etc.; 6/15/22, 1:40 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Why isn’t behavior/prevention part of the discussion when it comes to abortion?"

Maybe in many homes and/or schools there is no discussion about sex or behavior/prevention with children or adolescents.; 6/15/22, 1:43 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...how did the human race manage to avoid being overrun with children with disabilities for all those millennia when we couldn't possibly know in advance?"

They killed them or let them die after birth.; 6/15/22, 1:46 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: To the wokerati, abortion is a rite of passage, hence the increase.

“Lived experience” 😳; 6/15/22, 1:52 PM
farmgirl said...: Natatomic:
Prayers<3; 6/15/22, 2:56 PM
Readering said...: Meanwhile, a 39 (married) actress getting slammed on social media for revealing that she had twins through a surrogate.; 6/15/22, 3:10 PM
Achilles said...: Freder Frederson said...

And yet you answer your question in the very next paragraph. You do realize that death in childbirth, and babies surviving just a few days, was very common before the advent of modern medicine? Visit any cemetery that has a significant number of pre-1900 burials and count how many infants and women of child-bearing age are buried there.

So this makes it ok to murder babies in the birth canal and let Planned Parenthood chop them up and sell the baby parts?

It is 2022 Freder. Disgusting amoral radical ghouls like you are losing the argument. You can't lie your way out anymore.

We are going to turn this issue over to legislatures where you will have to defend your disgusting policies in the open.; 6/15/22, 3:10 PM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...

"...how did the human race manage to avoid being overrun with children with disabilities for all those millennia when we couldn't possibly know in advance?"

They killed them or let them die after birth.

The leftists want you to know that we have always been killing babies so we might as well keep doing it.

Our society has the capacity to care for these kids now because we have modern medicine and enough wealth to subsidize people who are born with less.

But Cook and the other ghouls would rather have planned parenthood chop these kids up and sell the parts.

That is apparently way better than wastefully tossing them off a cliff.; 6/15/22, 3:15 PM
Narr said...: "They killed them or let them die after birth."

Often. As has been said, a society has at best the kind of health care it can afford. Like it or not there is a cost/ben analysis to be made as we become a poorer country and the underclasses become more of a drain on the rest of us.

An ounce of prevention, and all that.; 6/15/22, 3:29 PM
n.n said...: the other ghouls would rather have planned parenthood chop these kids up and sell the parts

Planned Parenthood and the progressive path and grade to planned parent/hood as we recently observed in several Democrat districts.

There is mystery in sex and conception. It would be cruel and unusual to deny rites performed for social, redistributive, clinical, and fair weather causes. That said, keep women, and our little girls, too, affordable, available, and taxable.

Ruth sent us a wicked solution, but may have had a late-trimester epiphany about her choice and, to her credit, clinged to viability in order to deny Barack "burden" Obama his Choice.; 6/15/22, 3:32 PM
Narayanan said...: They should have STERILIZED Martha Plimpton. People who use abortion as birth control are monsters.
==========
suppose such procedure results in ;sterility; for some [accidentionally] >>> would it be mal-practicable? suably?; 6/15/22, 3:46 PM
farmgirl said...: Coexist:

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/06/far-left-pro-abortion-group-janes-revenge-issues-terroristic-threat-pro-life-pregnancy-centers-ag-garland-silent/; 6/15/22, 5:02 PM
Jamie said...: Too lazy, too drunk, forced to have sex, boy friend or husband left so the mother decides against having the baby, ran out of pills or condoms, used birth control but it failed, etc.

That's a pretty harsh rundown, Robert Cook - harsh but probably pretty accurate. And "forced to have sex" (so, rape) is the only one that the woman has no responsibility for. Maybe you can make a case for being pregnant and then the guy leaves, and deciding not to go through with the pregnancy, but considering that she had apparently already decided to have the baby in that scenario, therefore acknowledging it as a baby, how painful would it be for her to kill that baby?

Are we women adults with brains and at least as much impulse control as men, or aren't we? A woman who can think ahead sufficiently not to run out of, say, shampoo or soda ought in my opinion to be able to think ahead to what could happen if you have unprotected sex. Especially since - I'm speculating here but I think I'm on solid ground - in the environments in which women are having multiple abortions, they probably also know other women who are having multiple abortions. How much hand-holding do we need?; 6/15/22, 5:31 PM
Jamie said...: "...how did the human race manage to avoid being overrun with children with disabilities for all those millennia when we couldn't possibly know in advance?"

They killed them or let them die after birth.

Which I said in the very next part of my comment. But note the word "overrun" - it's still the case that even in the bad old days, most babies were born alive and normal, and most women lived through the ordeal of pregnancy. My point was that some abortions now basically anticipate the course of nature, but most - unless I can be shown some convincing statistics saying otherwise, which I doubt because they haven't been forthcoming in all the decades since Roe - must be chalked up to someone's convenience.; 6/15/22, 5:36 PM
Robert Cook said...: "...how did the human race manage to avoid being overrun with children with disabilities for all those millennia when we couldn't possibly know in advance?"

'They killed them or let them die after birth.'

"Which I said in the very next part of my comment."

Yes, you did. So why even ask the question? That is the blunt answer.

"My point was that some abortions now basically anticipate the course of nature, but most...must be chalked up to someone's convenience."

And so it is today. There is nothing new under the sun, as the good book has it.; 6/15/22, 6:26 PM
JK Brown said...: Well, let's say your are a woman faced with an unplanned pregnancy while the media is filled with the doom and gloom of a global pandemic. Might you not lean toward abortion given the government health bureaucrats are actively working to quash all hope?

So the numbers for 2020 are likely a spike, not a trend. Hardly something you'd want to base policy on.; 6/15/22, 6:27 PM
Josephbleau said...: "Similar to people buying guns/ammo before 2A is repealed."

That is funny, I don't care who you are. Like having elective surgery the week before you retire and go on Medicare.; 6/15/22, 6:29 PM
Robert Cook said...: "Are we women adults with brains and at least as much impulse control as men, or aren't we?"

Who says men are particularly good about impulse control?

"A woman who can think ahead sufficiently not to run out of, say, shampoo or soda ought in my opinion to be able to think ahead to what could happen if you have unprotected sex."

Well, we must assume women who would not ensure they had birth control available are also not so good about ensuring they have shampoo or soda in the house.; 6/15/22, 6:29 PM
Achilles said...: Robert Cook said...

Too lazy, too drunk, forced to have sex, boy friend or husband left so the mother decides against having the baby, ran out of pills or condoms, used birth control but it failed, etc.

And the Mississippi bill does NOTHING to stop a woman in this situation from having an abortion.

Unless she is too lazy/drunk to get off the bed for 15 weeks.

But you dishonest losers cannot discuss this in good faith.; 6/15/22, 6:37 PM
Josephbleau said...: The Freakonomics guy said that high abortion rates reduce crime, I guess correlating crime and abortion level since 2017 has broken his conjecture. But... But, crime might be even worse due to Soros Prosecutors and Democratic policies, if there were no abortion!; 6/15/22, 6:38 PM
Josephbleau said...: "To the wokerati, abortion is a rite of passage, hence the increase. "

Just an addition to the event log. Have abortion, have starter marriage to bad boy, get divorced, marry the CPA you met while you were both at Northwestern.; 6/15/22, 6:54 PM
natatomic said...: Thank you for your kind words everyone. I have two living children, and am currently 30 weeks pregnant with what will hopefully be my 3rd living child. I don’t want anyone to think I’ve experienced ONLY tragedy, so there’s the full picture of my 7 pregnancies so far. Lots of pain, but also lots of blessings.; 6/15/22, 8:18 PM
farmgirl said...: I’m looking for the little heart that makes the popping sound when applied to a text.
Alas, imagination will have to do the trick!; 6/15/22, 9:26 PM
The Godfather said...: If Roe v. Wade is overruled, then each State would be free to decide, through its politucal processes, to permit, regulate, restrict, prohibit, or promote abortion. For the hysterics to be correct about the "awful" consequences of overuling Roe would require that the people of all or virtually all States support banning abortion under most if not all circumstances. But that's not going to happen. Probably not even in Texas, but certainly not in California and New York. Can't we trust democracy, in lieu of threatening or murdering Supreme Court Justices who oppose Roe?; 6/15/22, 9:28 PM
Robert Cook said...: "And the Mississippi bill does NOTHING to stop a woman in this situation from having an abortion.

"Unless she is too lazy/drunk to get off the bed for 15 weeks."

If we deem it appropriate to permit abortions to women who take every precaution but become pregnant anyway, we must also allow the irresponsible to have abortions, to guarantee the service is there for anyone. Just as, (ahem), if we are to permit assault weapons to be sold to "responsible" gun-owners and users, there's not a lot that can be done to prevent the irresponsible and crazy of obtaining those weapons. In a sense, gun nuts who oppose the manufacture of assault weapons or prohibition of their sale to the public can be considered to be supporters of random, unasked for post-birth abortions.

On the other hand, if you oppose abortion even for those who are responsible and have taken every precaution but became pregnant anyone, then you're just posturing, using the irresponsible as a tool to deprive anyone of access to legal abortion. Which is fine, if you oppose it for all, but don't scapegoat the irresponsible.; 6/15/22, 9:55 PM
Jamie said...: "My point was that some abortions now basically anticipate the course of nature, but most...must be chalked up to someone's convenience."

And so it is today. There is nothing new under the sun, as the good book has it.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that if abortion had been readily available in the past, it would mostly have been carried out for someone's convenience? I might agree, if so - but we are in a different position from those of the past, in that we have ready access not only to abortion, but also to contraception and to amazing screening tools - and we, as a society, have mostly (barring Iceland and its ilk) decided to take a morally difficult but more humane stance by supporting and trying to create the best possible lives for children with disabilities. So ready abortion for convenience represents a step backward into the darker moral landscape from which we now have the ability, in very large part, to escape.

As for the rest: Yeah, there are irresponsible women - and irresponsible men who influence or force women to have abortions for their convenience. But pretending there's no moral cost to their irresponsibility doesn't change the fact (if I can use that word about such a slippery subject) that there is a moral cost.; 6/15/22, 10:27 PM
Greg The Class Traitor said...: Robert Cook said...
On the other hand, if you oppose abortion even for those who are responsible and have taken every precaution but became pregnant anyone, then you're just posturing

Exactly how are we supposed to know that someone was actually "responsible" and "took every precaution"?

Because they tell us so?

Of course, they'd never lie, right?

Was the sarcasm clear here?

You say you correctly took your birth control for 6 months, then got pregnant? And we know you never screwed up taking it because ...?; 6/16/22, 3:58 PM