« Oldest Hebrew Text Discovered | Main | Free Relativism Discussion Guide »

October 30, 2008

Comments

I think New makes a number of good points, but here are three things to keep in mind...

From New: "The authors also find that parental-involvement laws have little effect, but they overstate their findings here. Their study analyzes overall abortion rates, not minor abortion rates. Since parental-involvement laws would only have a direct effect on the behavior of minors, it is unsurprising they only have a marginal effect on the overall abortion rate."

It seems to me that what the above suggests is that parental-involvement laws are a splash in the bucket, but they're still a significant splash because they save real lives. So, CACG is right that involvement laws have only a marginal effect on the overall problem of abortion, but a marginal effect is still significant and worth pursuing (in conjunction with other policies that may have larger effects on the overall problem).

From New: "Also, the authors should have excluded data from Kansas. During the 1990s, over 40 percent of the abortions in Kansas were performed on out-of-state residents — by far the highest percentage in the country. Moreover, the abortion rate in Kansas increased by a whopping 69 percent between 1991 and 1999. This increase cannot be attributed to changes in demographics, economics, or legislation. As such, excluding data from Kansas seems appropriate."

I don't understand how New knows that the increase in Kansas "cannot be attributed to changes in demographics, economics, or legislation." It has to be attributed to something. Maybe I'm misinterpreting New here, though.

Finally, I couldn't find out for sure what the "additional variables" are that New includes in his study. But the methodology of one of his studies on this subject available at http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/cda06-01.cfm includes a "fertility" variable that is based on the number of births occurring in women of child-bearing age. The problem with using that variable is that it may be prejudicial to the benefits of welfare spending. IF welfare spending results in a reduction in pregnancies among its female recipients, it will probably result in a reduction of both births and abortions. In such a case, welfare spending would be effective in lowering the abortion rate, but New's methodology wouldn't give that spending the credit for the reduction that it would deserve.

See also http://www.lifenews.com/nat4461.html

I am definitely for changing the laws in regard to abortion, it is still possible that we would suffer a huge number of abortions the same way our country still suffers from the murder of adults, the law will help the situation but will not solve it.
Welfare programs help but they are often done in a way that often increase people's reliance on the government which is dangerous for our entire country.

The ultimate solution for abortion is for the church to step up to the plate and increase funding to crisis pregnancy centers, which help mothers that would otherwise abort, and to help change the court of public opinion. When individuals truly start believing that abortion is murder the abortion rates will drop no matter what the laws say.
I have written several letters to the editor of my local paper about abortion using many of the tactics I have learned from STR, and several of them have been published. Thank you STR I could not have done it without you!

The comments to this entry are closed.