Lois Cunningham

by Lois Cunningham

In a recent Nashville Tennessean op-ed, Dr. Frank Boehm noted that abortion rates are falling nationally. That is perhaps true.

Dr. Boehm further believes that this drop is due primarily to the growing availability and use of contraceptives.

Not so fast.

Dr. Boehm notes that abortion rates are at their lowest in decades “due to a host of factors,” but then he ignores all factors but one.  He claims that “The reason abortion numbers are at the lowest level in years is relatively easy to explain: more women have been able to obtain and use reliable contraception.”

He gives no source for the contraception claim.  Let’s consider some of “the host of factors” for the decline in abortion numbers:

1. Women are being educated about the violence of abortion and its numerous risks to women, thanks to the efforts of numerous pro-life organizations (www.abortionNo.org).
2. Women now have access to free services and alternatives to abortion at several thousand pregnancy resource centers in all 50 states.
3. Women who have had prior abortions are speaking out in greater numbers about the deep regret they have felt after aborting their preborn children.
4. The law restrains abortion numbers.  According to Dr. Michael New, “A growing body of peer-reviewed research shows that public-funding restrictions, parental-involvement laws, and properly designed informed-consent laws all reduce abortion rates.” (Casey at 25: Pro-Life Progress Despite a Judicial Setback) Dr. Boehm gave no citation for his claim to the contrary.

Abortion numbers are not completely reliable.  The CDC reports that only 33 out of 52 reporting areas (50 states plus New York City and Washington, D.C.) include medical (i.e., chemical drug) abortion in their reports.  For the areas that do report, statistics from 2004 to 2013 demonstrate that medical abortion increased 110% to account for 22.3% of all abortions by 2013 (Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2013).  The reality is that an unknown number of medical abortions are executed through abortion clinics and at private doctors’ offices; they are never reported to the CDC.

Dr. Boehm advocates for “long acting reversible contraception” without mentioning the potential harm done to women’s reproductive systems.  These hazards include (1) perforation of the uterus which can damage surrounding organs, (2) intracranial hypertension, which can lead to loss of vision, (3) dizziness, (4) mood alteration, and (5) abnormal uterine bleeding. (Drug-Watch: Mirena; Abnormal Uterine Bleeding Associated with Hormonal Contraception)

I recently participated in a “Dialogue and Difference”  event at George Mason University.  This is a regular program designed to stimulate discussion on the issues of the day, sponsored by the GMU School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution.  Coming on the heals of the Sandra Fluke controversy, this event would focus on “Reproductive Rights.”

I must have done OK, because one of the attendees told GMU Students for Life President Anna Maher, “At first I thought, ‘How dare they get a man to talk about reproductive rights?’  But then I found myself agreeing with everything he said.”

After an opening statement by me and the other member of the panel, we were asked all the standard abortion questions.  It was a thoughtful crowed, not given to fits of rage.  This event has a rule against visual aids, so I was unable to show abortion video in my opening remarks.  No worries on that point, because we would be doing GAP at GMU a week later!  My opening remarks follow:

Opening Statement

Introduction.  Thank you for your interest in this topic, and for the opportunity to speak with you now and answer your questions later this hour. We often talk about being on “sides” in the ongoing debate about abortion, and we do have different perspectives. But I’d like to hope that we are all on the same side; all of us here tonight want to live justly with respect to our fellow man. We disagree about who constitutes our fellow man and who does not.

Let me start out by encouraging you never to believe anything I tell you. You can’t know if either of us has his facts straight or not, unless you check it out for yourself. You can’t know if I’ve left out important facts. My conclusions might be flawed. Even if I have plausible arguments, perhaps the other “side” has decisive ones. You must do your own research and ask hard questions of both sides.

Pro-Choice?  First, let’s talk about the word “choice.”  The debate about abortion is often framed as a debate over “choice.” Some on the other side even call us “anti-choice.” That’s very clever, because, speaking for myself, I am generally more pro-choice than most abortion advocates.

For example, I believe you should have the choice whether to use contraception or not.  My employer does not take a position on the morality of contraceptives, but I don’t know any pro-lifer who endorses legal restrictions on access to contraception, as long as it does not kill another human being. And, if you want to buy contraceptives for your neighbor, you should certainly have that right. But unlike most on the extreme left, I believe Big Government shouldn’t force you to buy contraceptives (or abortions) for your neighbors if you don’t want to.

Many on the far left believe that if you are in medical school or nursing school, you should be forced to participate in abortions as a condition of getting your medical degree. Your should have no conscience protections. How is that “pro-choice”?

Unlike many on the left, I think you should be able to choose what kind of medical insurance you buy and sell. Unlike the current Administration, I believe Big Government should not decide whether you can buy the blue pill or the red pill. (Or, for that matter, what kind of light bulb you can buy.) How is any of that “pro-choice”?

Limiting choice.  But all choices have limits. The way I learned it down on the farm, your right to swing your fist ends where somebody else’s nose begins. When your choices involve the death, harm, or risk of harm to another human being, then that is one circumstance in which Government, acting on behalf of civilized society, should step in to protect the weaker from the stronger. That’s why we have laws against murder, rape, fraud, speeding, dumping toxic waste, etc.

And if anybody can prove that the preborn child is not a living human being, but something less than human, then I’m more pro-choice than anybody here.

Who is the preborn child?  There is no justification for restricting access to abortions … and a lot of what I will say tonight will make no sense at all … if the preborn child is anything less than a living human being. If anybody can prove that the preborn child is not a living human being, then I’ll happily withdraw.

But in fact, the humanity of the preborn child is not a matter of claim. Scientists, respected medical textbooks, and even abortion advocates like Peter Singer acknowledge that an individual human life begins at conception.

Current controversy not about contraception, but about abortion and who will pay for it.  Another tactic that you should be aware of is that of talking about access to contraception, as if that were in jeopardy, when the real goal is to secure government funding for abortion. This is really about abortion, who will pay for it, and what kind of profits can be made.

Nobody, that I know of, has advanced a policy proposal that would make contraception illegal, except for those methods that are not really contraceptives at all, but are, in fact, abortifacients.

Yes, there are some whose personal religious views preclude the use of contraception. There are others who simply think it’s not a good idea to use them. Others believe it is good to use them, but are concerned about creating a society with too few children. Many cultures in Europe are literally dying.  But contraception is a matter of personal morality that is best left to the discretion of the individual citizen.  [Note: CBR takes no position on contraception because it is a theological matter, as opposed to abortion, which is a matter of social justice because it kills an innocent human being. CBR opposes the use of contraceptives that can act as abortifacients.]

Your money means windfall profits for the abortion industry.  Make no mistake. When you hear the word “contraception” in the current debate, it really means “abortion”. Contraception is already cheap and easily available in the free market, as little as $10 per month. That’s not worth a fight. The fight is over abortion. If access to government funding for “contraception” can be enshrined in law, then the abortion industry needs only to find a sympathetic judge to declare that abortion is simply another form of “contraception”, equally eligible for Government funding.

Many on the Left are simply ideologically committed to the notion that Big Government should take money from the rest of us to pay for abortions. Their motivations are political and personal. But for others, the motivation is greed. As soon as Big Government is paying for abortions, you can count on the price to increase dramatically. On my blog, I’ve shown how the passage of ObamaCare could increase Planned Parenthood’s abortion revenues from around $137 million to about $1.7 billion (with a b), and ultimately could easily reach more than 3.5 billion. The profit motive is strong, to say the least.

We have the power, so  you pay.  For decades, the Left has said, “You don’t like abortions? Don’t have one.” Clever, but now we know it was disingenuous as well, because now that they wield the power of Big Government, they say, “You don’t like abortions? No matter, you will pay for them, whether you like it or not.”

Seeing is understand.  To understand what I mean when I say the word abortion, you need to see it. I can’t show it to you now, but I would encourage you to go to www.AbortionNo.org and watch the video on the home page. That’s AbortionNo.org. AbortionNo.org. You won’t like what you see.

Americans United for Life (AUL) has launched this educational campaign to help people understand the manipulative and deceptive policies in the pending healthcare law that are forcing both an abortion mandate and an abortion-inducing drug mandate on all Americans — regardless of their personal beliefs.  In a public relations bait-and-switch tactic, the administration pretends that this is about contraception.  But that’s a con—this issue is about mandating abortion-causing drugs.  Be sure to click here to sign up for updates on this issue from AUL.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_QZFHHUmms

A commenter has brought it to my attention that the article I referenced in a previous posting has been retracted.  Here is the retraction:

Author’s Note: I made a serious error in reporting this column that undermines the conclusion I drew. I compared statistics on contraceptive use from a January 2011 Guttmacher Institute fact sheet to a year 2000 study on the same issue.  However, I did not realize that the 2011 fact sheet derived its statistics from the year 2000 numbers, so my argument was not supported by the data. I am deeply sorry for the error, which invalidates my piece.

First of all, thank you to the commenter for letting us all know of the error.  We always want to get the facts right.  We can’t make rational decisions based on myths and errors.  As Daniel Patrick Moynhan is quoted as saying, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”

I must point out,  however, that some of the statements in the article itself are not without merit.  For example, the statement that 54 percent of women who had abortions had used a contraceptive method in the month they got pregnant came directly from a Planned Parenthood information sheet.  It’s still a sobering number for those who claim that handing out condoms to teenagers will make abortion “rare.”  Yes, the statement is based on data gathered in 2000, but Planned Parenthood is still quoting this number today, so we have no reason to doubt that much has changed.  I referenced this in my previous posting on the relationship between contraception use and abortion.

We already knew this, but now we have their own data to prove it.  Next time a pro-abort suggests that I hand out condoms instead of exposing truth, I will simply say, “Most abortion mothers say they used contraception during the month they got pregnant, but they got pregnant anyway.  They had contraceptives in their possession, and they either chose not to use them consistently or the method failed to work.  So how will it help stop abortions for me to give someone another condom if they won’t use the ones they already possess?

The student will scoff at the notion that aborting mothers were using contraceptions, because in their minds, contraceptives are 100% effective.  I will give them more rope by asking, “Are you really sure you want to challenge that?  Do you really want to say that I made it up?”  In a debate, you always want to use the data already reported by your opposition; they have no choice but to accept its authenticity.

Then I”ll whip out a copy of the Guttmacher fact sheet and say, “I ask again, why should I waste my time giving out birth control that people won’t use or won’t work effectively?”