3/7/06, by Christina Page, author of How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America,
and signer to the World Can’t Wait Call
South Dakota is not the state we, as a nation, look
to for cutting-edge ideas. And yet, lawmakers in South Dakota are
setting out to transform our nation. By banning abortion in their
state, South Dakota has produced a direct challenge the Roe v. Wade
decision which prohibits states from obstructing women’s right to legal
abortion.
Pro-life activists are itchy to directly challenge Roe, so itchy
they’re not even waiting for a pro-life majority on Supreme Court. The
day after Samuel Alito was confirmed as a justice to the Supreme Court,
pro-life legislators in five states moved to ban abortion. (No doubt
they are counting on Alito’s pro-life instincts to tip the balance
against Roe.) But, the strategy to criminalize abortion is misplaced if
one’s goal is to end abortion. History teaches one undeniable lesson,
outlawing abortion doesn’t end abortion. In the 1920s, abortion was
illegal in the United States. Yet authoritative estimates show that two
million women had an abortion each year during that decade —
considerably more than do now and the U.S. population was then
one-fourth its current size. Even today abortion thrives even when the
law prohibits it. Abortion is completely illegal throughout Latin
America, but occurs at high rates in almost every country; in Peru,
Chile and the Dominican Republic the abortion rate is twice the U.S.
rate; in Brazil and Colombia, the rate is significantly higher as well.
While outlawing abortion has not reduced abortions,
it does something else: it makes abortions more dangerous and more
frightening for the women having them, which ought to trouble anyone
intent on protecting lives. The maternal mortality rate from illegal
abortions in Latin America is six to twenty times greater than that in
the United States. Plus, making abortion illegal inevitably leads to
more late term abortions, which pro-lifers vehemently denounce. (One of
the only effective solutions to late term abortion has been the
legalization of abortion. Legalization reduced this nationâEUR(tm)s
second trimester abortion rate by half.)
What, then, are the policies that lead to fewer
abortions? This is no mystery. While pro-lifers have a moral dislike
for abortion, the countries with the lowest abortion rates take no
moral stand on abortion. In the countries where abortion is rarest, it
is legal, and, at times, cost-free (under national health insurance
systems). Countries with the world’s lowest abortion rates, including
the Netherlands, Belgium, Finland and Italy have worked, first and
foremost, to prevent unintended pregnancies. There are two proven ways
to do this. Make contraception widely available and provide
comprehensive sex education (as opposed to courses that promote
abstinence) in the schools. Sadly the pro-life movement has generally
opposed these measures, fearful that they may promote promiscuity. And
so, ironically, the policies that have led to lower abortion rates in
other countries are those advocated not by the pro-life, but by the
pro-choice community in this country.
Given this, it should not be surprising that the
United States experienced a steep decline in abortion rates during one
period, the administration of our first pro-choice president, Bill
Clinton. After pro-life presidents Ronald Reagan and George Herbert
Walker Bush, Clinton inherited one of highest abortion rates our
country has known. By partnering with pro-choice groups, and,
specifically, by making contraception more readily available than ever
before, as well as introducing comprehensive sex education campaigns,
Clinton succeeded in bringing abortion rates to the lowest in recorded
U.S. history.
The lesson of the Clinton success, like the lessons
of countries that have successfully reduced the abortion rate — a goal
shared by pro-lifers and pro-choicers — is that the best way to reduce
abortions is not to restrict or criminalize them, but to prevent them.
If people use birth control the chance of an abortion is reduced by
85%. On this point, the statistics are eloquent. Of 42 million sexually
active women in the United States, only 5% do not use contraceptive
during sex. But from this 5% comes half of the nation’s abortions.
Given this fact, it is particularly unfortunate that not one pro-life
group in the United States is on the record in support of
contraceptives. (It is interesting to note, that the very same South
Dakota lawmakers are also considering a bill that would make it a crime
for schools to offer condoms to sexually active teenagers.) Today,
pro-choice groups must battle for the widespread use of contraception.
And it is an increasingly pitched battle. Across this country, many
pro-life groups fight the spread of contraception, and in the process,
needlessly create more abortions. In state after state, the pro-life
side has aggressively moved to block access to contraception, falsely
insisting that most pregnancy prevention methods (like the morning
after pill) are abortions. Even the lowly condom has not escaped the
ire of pro-life groups, which, in an effort to promote abstinence,
suggests that the condom may increase the incidence of such deadly
diseases as AIDS.
One of the great ironies of the abortion wars is that
we know from experience (ours and others’) what works in reducing the
numbers of abortions. Unfortunately, in the current climate, one which
the South Dakota legislature (and Judge Alito) will help shape, it is
impossible to apply the proven abortion reduction methods. This is
sadly due to the opposition of the very people who most fervently
oppose abortion. In this regard, it’s worth noting that the countries
where abortion is rare have one more lesson to impart to us. None has a
powerful pro-life movement.
To fight the pro-lie movement, join The World Can’t Wait – Drive Out the Bush Regime campaign, www.worldcantwait.org
Click here to buy Christina’s book, How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America.