Wednesday, February 07, 2007

What's behind the drop in abortions among minors?

Analyzing the Effect of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors

A few interesting points:
* Between 1990 and 1999, reported legal abortions fell 18.4%
* By 2000, informed consent laws were in effect in 27 states.
* Between 1985 and 1999, the abortion rate for minors fell over 50%, from 13.5 abortions per 1,000 girls to 6.5 abortions per 1,000 girls.
* Studies found an increase in the 1990s of teens delaying or abstaining from sex.
* Parental involvement laws reduced the abortion rate among minors by about 1.67 abortions per 1,000 girls.
* The number of states with parental involvement laws grew from 20 in 1992 to 32 in 2000.
* Medicaid funding restrictions reduced abortions among minors by an average of 2.34 abortions per 1,000 girls.

The author looks at changes in abortion rates overall compared to changes in abortion rates among minors for the various laws, as summarized on this chart.

He also examines if a values shift prompted both the legislation and the fall in abortion rates, by comparing abortion rate changes in states where the laws were actually enacted versus states where the laws were enjoined by the courts -- where, in effect, judges prevented the public from putting their shifting values into law. The results of enacted versus nullified parental involvement laws are on this chart.

23 comments:

Tlaloc said...

I find it telling that you applaud laws designed to let parents badger and abuse their daughters to prevent them getting an abortion. Girls who don't want to tell their parents about their pregnancy usually have a damn good reason: because they can't trust their parents.

After all your complaining about the pro-choice movment not caring about abused women here you are shoving these girls back into the arms of the parents who may very well be beating them. Into the arms of the very fathers who may have raped them in the first place. But because it results in fewer abortions you just don't care.

GrannyGrump said...

We've been over this ground before. You love abortion. I love people. We're not going to see eye to eye on this.

Tlaloc said...

"I love people."

How is pushing girls back to their abusive families loving people?

Please.

You hate abortion. That's the motivation here. Not love of people.

GrannyGrump said...

Of course I hate abortion. Abortion kills people.

Tlaloc said...

"Of course I hate abortion. Abortion kills people."

Even assuming that's true (which of course I dsipute) abortion *also* saves people.

GrannyGrump said...

On occasion, shooting somebody saves people. If some maniac is going crazy with a machete, it may well save lives if somebody shoots the maniac. But that doesn't justify a sweeping "Shooting people saves lives" statement.

On very rare occasions, there can be an obstetrical emergency where it is necessary to end the pregnancy before the fetus is viable. That's a case where prematurely ending the pregnancy -- go ahead and call a spade a spade and say it's an abortion -- is also saving somebody. But that hardly makes abortion some inherently palliative thing.

Like shooting somebody, it ought to be a desperate, last-ditch action, not a default response.

Anonymous said...

How is pushing girls back to their abusive families loving people?

You are all for pushing girls back to their abusive families. If a girl is being abused, your thought is not, "How do we get this girl away from that?" but "How can we kill her baby?" -- when the girl might even want to let her baby live.

GrannyGrump said...

I've always wondered how scraping her out and returning her to her abuser helped anybody. Spring Adams was sent to stay with her abusers while people arranged a secret, out-of-state abortion, and he shot her dead in her bed.

Why is it that some people act as if abortion somehow cures the abuse?

Tlaloc said...

"But that doesn't justify a sweeping "Shooting people saves lives" statement."

Are you going to work to prevent cops and soldiers from having guns?



"But that hardly makes abortion some inherently palliative thing."

yeah actually it does. That makes abortion something just like a bypass surgery, a dialysis, or any other life saving medical practice.

Tlaloc said...

"You are all for pushing girls back to their abusive families. If a girl is being abused, your thought is not, "How do we get this girl away from that?" but "How can we kill her baby?" -- when the girl might even want to let her baby live."

Have I ever advocated forced abortion on someone who is mentally competent? No I have not. So what you've done here is lie.

If a girl in an abusive situation, or any situation wants to carry a pregnancy to term then good luck to her. I'll even happily ask the government to buy one less bomber and put the money into providing cheap daycare and WIC like programs.

But if she can't or won't carry the pregnancy and she can't trust her parents then I do want her to be able to get an abortion from a professional facility. She shouldn't die from sepsis just because her parents are vile. Nor should she be forced to give birth.

Now if afterwards the kid wants to get away from her cruddy parents I'm supportive of that too. By all means lets develop better CSD programs and make them really fair and effective.

What I won't do is take a scared and hopeless little girl who has been molested by her father and push her back into his care and then turn my back. You apparently will. I won't. Feel free to rationalize that however you like.

GrannyGrump said...

Tlaloc, people don't self-diagnose and self-refer for bypasses or dialysis.

Tlaloc said...

"I've always wondered how scraping her out and returning her to her abuser helped anybody."

Please eplain to me the logic here, Christina. Returning her to her parents after an abortion is bad, right/ Well what is your solution? returning her to her parents *without* the abortion. Great so you skip the part where we solve one problem and you get straight to the bad stuff.



"Why is it that some people act as if abortion somehow cures the abuse?"

Why do you act as if not getting one will?

Aortion does not cure the abuse but it prevents another child from being abused, and it may minimize the abuse. Your system does nothing at all for the girl except let the abusers know her little secret.

Tlaloc said...

"Tlaloc, people don't self-diagnose and self-refer for bypasses or dialysis."

And they shouldn't for abortion. But heart problems don't have an over the counter test. And Diabetics do certainly do a great deal of the self regulation themselves.

GrannyGrump said...

They do self-diagnose and self-refer for abortions. The clinic may (should) confirm the pregnancy, and will (should) determine how far advanced the pregnancy is, but "pregnant" doesn't equal "medically requires an abortion".

GrannyGrump said...

Well what is your solution? returning her to her parents *without* the abortion.

Either removing the girl from the abusive home, or removing (and jailing) the abuser. Depending on the situation, maybe both. Seems like a no-brainer to me. Returning her for more abuse? That may be S.O.P., but it doesn't make it helpful or right.

An underage girl showing up at an abortion clinic -- or a birth control facility of any kind -- ought not to be treated like an adult. She's not. She's a child. We have certain responsibilities toward her as a society and the fact that she walks into a birth prevention facility ought not to negate that.

Tlaloc said...

"They do self-diagnose and self-refer for abortions."

And as I've said many times I think that's idiotic. Abortion, like any other even minor surgery should only be done after consulting with your personal physician.



"The clinic may (should) confirm the pregnancy, and will (should) determine how far advanced the pregnancy is, but "pregnant" doesn't equal "medically requires an abortion"."

No it doesn't. But I'm not claiming every abortion is medically needed. However if ANY are then the procedure is obviously one that can be life saving. It is one we should accept as having a benefit and as being merely another tool in the doctor's black bag.

What we finally accept using it for is a different question.

Tlaloc said...

"Either removing the girl from the abusive home, or removing (and jailing) the abuser. Depending on the situation, maybe both. Seems like a no-brainer to me."

But you;re changing the rules now Christina. The question was specifically about abortion, and what you do. Of course you;d like to remove the kid from the abusive situation, so would the pro-choicers. But if you are going to call my side "scraping her out and sending her back" then you side is JUST "sending her back." Period.

You have to play fair. If you want to pretend that my side can;t get CSD involved then neither can your side.

In which case we come back to it: which is better getting her the abortion and sending her back or NOT getting her the abortion and sendin her back, oh and letting the parents know she wanted the abortion while throwing her in their car?

That's a "no brainer" obvious the former is better. By far.



"An underage girl showing up at an abortion clinic -- or a birth control facility of any kind -- ought not to be treated like an adult. She's not. She's a child. We have certain responsibilities toward her as a society and the fact that she walks into a birth prevention facility ought not to negate that."

She ought to be treated as a PATIENT. Patients get confidentiality. She absolutely should get that.

GrannyGrump said...

Underage girls don't get confidentiality unless they're in a situation where they're likely to be being abused. Then suddenly it's all secrecy. Isn't that odd? Why is it the very fact that somebody's having sex with her when she's under the age of consent that suddenly it's "Don't tell her parents!" As soon as there's solid evidence that she's a victim of statutory rape, that very evidence becomes justification for "confidentiality." Who does it serve? Her abuser.

Jason said...

"Underage girls don't get confidentiality unless they're in a situation where they're likely to be being abused. Then suddenly it's all secrecy. Isn't that odd?"

Yes it is, they should have confidentiality from a doctor, lawyer, or priest in all cases.



"Why is it the very fact that somebody's having sex with her when she's under the age of consent that suddenly it's "Don't tell her parents!""

It isn't. Regardless of why she wants the abortion or who is sleeping with her the parents should not be told by the abortion provider. If she can tell her parents she should, but she's really the only one who knows.

You seem to be saying that parental consent laws are only fought in cases of statutory rape. I assure you that isn't the case. They are fought in all cases. We just voted one down here in Oregon in november that was in no way specific to statutory rape.

GrannyGrump said...

Yeah, Jason, God forbid some child abuser get caught and put in prison. Let's make sure that his privacy is protected by law.

Tlaloc said...

"Yeah, Jason, God forbid some child abuser get caught and put in prison. Let's make sure that his privacy is protected by law."

It isn't about HIS privacy. It is about hers.

Look if a kid goes into a confessional and tells her priest that she was molested should the priets be required to tell her parents? Even if her parents were the ones molesting her?

Of course not.

Should a lawyer? Of course not.

Should a doctor? Same answer.

But you see it differently. You want the doctor, or more correctly one particular type of doctor to have to throw her to the wolves.

It makes no sense.

GrannyGrump said...

I'd want ANYBODY who knows a child is being abused to report it.

And how is getting the girl out of an abusive situation "throwing her to the wolves"? Since when is stopping child abuse an act of cruelty to the child who is being abused?

Tlaloc said...

"I'd want ANYBODY who knows a child is being abused to report it."

Are you saying, as a catholic, that a priest should be rquired to break the holy santity of the confession?



"And how is getting the girl out of an abusive situation "throwing her to the wolves"?"

The law doens;t get her out of an abusive relationship. THE LAW ONLY REQUIRE THAT THE PARENTS BE NOTIFIED. "Parental Notification Law."

Now in the vast vast majority of child abuse cases who is the abuser? A family member or close friend of the family. What are parents? Family members.

So do you see how a law that requires you to let ONE OF YOUR PRIME SUSPECTS know that the kid in question was trying to get outside help is in fact throwing her to the wolves?

Might as well require the govenment to notify the maffia when someone goes into the witness relocation program. Same effect.

The laws offer absolutely no portection (none, zero, zip, nada) to the minor in question and drastically increase their risks of further abuse.