But Lane Florsheim suggests that’s a measure of its success:
Though the rate of passage for restrictive laws has slowed down this year, in certain states, this is because much of the damage has already been done. In these states, it seems, the pro-life movement is winning. Reproductive rights were one of many issues for which the 2010 midterms served as a turning point, thanks to the wave of newly elected conservative state legislators taking office around the country. “We’ve seen 226 abortion restrictions enacted over the past four years,” Elizabeth Nash, State Issues Manager at Guttmacher, told me. “That speaks to some states enacting multiple restrictions, and perhaps the urgency in some of those states to adopt further restrictions is just not there.”
Meanwhile, Amanda Marcotte notes that the abortion rate in Texas – where new regulations have forced more than half of the state’s providers to stop offering the procedure – has not fallen as much as many expected:
New regulations requiring Texas abortion providers to have hospital admitting privileges forced more than half of the clinics in that state to stop offering abortion services. This was expected, by both pro- and anti-choicers, to cause a significant drop in the abortion rate in the state. But as Amelia Thomson-DeVeaux reports at The Week, the drop was much less significant than expected. Research by the Texas Policy Evaluation Project at the University of Texas at Austin found a 13 percent drop in legal abortions over the previous year, which is significant, but not nearly as big a drop as you’d expect when half the clinics in the state shut down. “In some ways, we were expecting a bigger decline,” study author Daniel Grossman told the Texas Tribune. Abortion rates have been falling on their own nationwide for decades, likely due to improved contraception use. That suggests that while most of this drop is due to the law, some of it might just be part of the larger national trend.
The findings demonstrate a fairly serious flaw behind the push for more and more restrictions on abortion laws. “If more clinics close, one might reasonably assume, the demand for abortion will also decline, either because wait times at the existing facilities are too long or because women will decide that an abortion isn’t worth the hassle or expense,” Thomson-DeVeaux writes. However, this thinking relies on the false belief that women enter into the abortion decision lightly, and that a few obstacles will deter them. Avoiding the expense and hassle of having a child when you don’t want one remains extremely motivating, more than many health care experts realized.
On that note, let’s revisit last week’s rousing reader debate over abortion regulations:
As I’m about to send this, I see you’ve posted more dissents, and you comment, “Who is making abortion impossible?” Come on. Really? Please look up how many clinics around the country have closed in the past three years due to these obstructive “standards,” check out how far women might need to travel, and tell me that’s not putting safe, legal abortion out of reach for many, many women. You also describe these laws as “a way to provide some sort of speed bump before human life is taken.” OK, if by “speed bump” you mean requirement after requirement, with new ones continually added.
Another continues:
To say that a “speed bump” is needed before choosing to have an abortion assumes that women have abortions as a lark, without prior discussions with partners, friends, family members, health care providers or clergy. Or maybe a woman doesn’t discuss her decision but just, you know, takes the time to think about it on her own. Do you think the federal or state government should put up “speed bumps” just in case a woman didn’t think about her decision long enough, or not long enough to suit you? This attitude also ignores the other “speed bumps” that already exist: getting the money, taking time off work or finding day care (most women who have abortions already have children), traveling the possible hundreds of miles to an abortion provider, much more likely now with with these disingenuous “safety” restrictions on clinics.
In fact, you bemoan later-term abortions, but there are already so many “speed bumps” in place that by the time a woman takes the time to make a decision and deal with the practical issues I listed, and then has to possibly put up with a government-imposed waiting period, more time has elapsed in her pregnancy. Wouldn’t you prefer that a woman who knows she wants to have an abortion have it as early as possible and not be forced to delay because of these “speed bumps”?
Another adds, “For most women, the speed bump doesn’t change their minds; it just pisses them off.” Another reader:
In your latest exchange with dissenters you end by saying, “I do not apologize for my belief that that there is a genuine moral issue with abortion – the fate of human life – that a fair argument would acknowledge rather than dismiss as self-evidently untrue.”
That is only one of the moral issues with the abortion issue, and I will concede that often those who fall into the pro-choice camp want to avoid talking about that. But the anti-abortion camp is equally (if not, more so) averse to acknowledging the moral implications of their position. Specifically, what are the moral implications of forcing a woman to take an unwanted pregnancy to term? What are the moral implications of bringing more unwanted children into this world, especially considering the fact that most unplanned and unwanted pregnancies occur in low-income populations? What are the moral implications of the anti-abortion camp’s objections to contraception coverage, which has been clearly demonstrated to be the most effective way to reduce unwanted pregnancies?
One more:
With regards to the abortion questions at hand, perhaps it is best to meet in the middle.
Laws requiring counseling and wait periods might be okay, but those requiring admitting privileges are not. While I disagree with both and firmly believe that abortion should be freely available, I can understand the moral concerns. The issue with adding “medical” requirements on abortion clinics, however, is not about encouraging thoughtful decision making. It is about closing clinics by way of overbearing regulation. As a conservative, I would think you would be against such tactics. Fewer clinics farther away providing more costly procedures leads to unsafe abortions which is equally morally questionable.
If people want to make abortion illegal because of their moral or religious beliefs, fine. Say that. But over regulating a business in order to kill it under the auspices of making it safer is not conservative. It’s lying.
The Dish 