While the overall abortion rate has declined dramatically over the past 30 years, a new study shows, the rates fell more among white women and teenagers than among black, Hispanic, old and poor women.
A report released Tuesday by the Guttmacher Institute, a research organization associated with Planned Parenthood Federation of America, examined abortion rates in the U.S. between 1974 – the year after Roe v. Wade – and 2004.
"There's been a shift in the population of women obtaining abortions relative to 30 years ago," said Rachel Jones, a senior research associate at the institute, according to HealthDay. "They are older, they are more likely to be unmarried, more likely to be mothers, and they are more likely to be women of color."
The study found the rate of abortions is at its lowest point since 1974, dropping 33 percent from a peak of 29 abortions per 1,000 women, ages 15 to 44, in 1980 to 20 per 1,000 in 2004.
In the past two decades, the total number of abortions dropped from 1.6 million in 1984 to 1.2 million in 2004.
From 1974 to 2004, the rate of abortion fell among teenagers, declining 33 to 17 percent among women younger than 20, and 15 to 6 percent among those younger than 18.
But the rate of abortion increased among women in their 20s and 30s. Women who chose abortion are more likely to have children already and 47 percent who had an abortion said they had undergone the procedure before. Also, more women obtaining abortions are poor or low-income, according to the study.
The report showed a decline in abortion rates across racial and ethnic groups. However, Hispanic and black women were more likely to have an abortion, at rates three to five times the rate of white women.
"We know from other research that having lower income makes a woman more likely to get an abortion. Women of color tend to be lower-income, and so in turn when confronted with an unintended pregnancy are more likely to have an abortion," said Jones, according to The Washington Post.
Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, attributed the disparity to Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider.
“Planned Parenthood has preyed on minorities since its founder advocated negative eugenics! If Congress truly wants across-the-board reductions in abortion, our leaders will have to stop funding its biggest provider,” said Perkins.
Michael J. New, an assistant professor of political science at the University of Alabama who works with the Family Research Council, told the Post that pro-life legislation makes a difference in abortion rates.
"The states with the most active pro-life laws have seen the biggest abortion declines," he said, noting that increased contraceptive use, more teenagers delaying sex and state laws requiring parental consent have all played a role in reducing teen pregnancies.
The Guttmacher Institute was originally founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development and constituted as a semiautonomous division of Planned Parenthood. The early development of the Institute was nurtured by Alan F. Guttmacher, who served as PPFA's president for more than a decade, according to the Guttmacher Institute website. The institute later became an independent, not-for-profit corporation in 1977 and remains a "special affiliate" of PPFA.
RSS
Did Obama support the murder of Christians in Kenya? Aparently he raised $1 million dollars to his uncle who did.
"Planned Parenthood has preyed on minorities since its founder advocated negative eugenics" Why do minorities
turn a blind eye to this part of History?
yes, I had no formal sex education in school, but I still knew how to properly use a condom as did my son who only received abstinence only education. They do come with instructions.
I fully support the right of parents to pull their children out of class for sex education. That is a far better, and more widely productive, solution than changing the curriculum to be fully in line with any religion's specific teaching. After all, the US allows the Amish to remove their kids from public school after a certain age. That being said there are repercussions from depriving your children of a full education regarding sex ed, that you as parents have to prepared to live with. As an illustration, as parents, which of the following scenarios would you prefer:
1) Your child, against your will, is subjected to sex education beyond abstinence only. Several years later your child succumbs to sin and engages in premarital sex. Because of the sex ed your child knows to use a condom and employ other precautions. As a result your child is unabashedly a sinner in your eyes but is not a parent or infected with an STD.
2) Your child, in accordance with your wishes, is exempted from sex ed and never learns anything about safe sex or stds. Again, years later your child ends up having sex; however, this time, because all he or she has ever known is (premarital) sex is bad and dangerous and should not be done, no precautions are taken. As a result you end up as a grandparent and your child ends up as a parent with HIV.
Sure, I know the obvious response is, "But with abstinence that would never happen." The issue is that no form of education is perfect and there's no guarantee that kids won't do stupid things without thinking them through. Would you rather have a child who has engaged in sin safely or one who sinned nonetheless and either became pregnant outside of wedlock or contracted a potentially deadly disease.
I still think that if you can't get through to your own children about what matters most then you're doing something wrong as parents. Perhaps it's just a cultural difference but this whole mishigas about games and books indoctrinating kids to "worldly values" seems absurd, especially when you're talking about kids over the age of 4 or 5. Harry Potter and "Magic" Cards do not draw kids into the black arts. If they do either the kids are developmentally challenged or the parents have really dropped the ball.
"It is the manner in which those values and norms are instilled by the parents and the community that will determine how easily shaken they are by contrary ideas."
The problem with this is that the media and educational system teach a morality that is diametrically opposed to the word of God. When the educational system does not allow parents to opt out of sex education, they remove the parents' ability to decide what is best for their children. When children spend so much time at school and doing homework (both of which indoctrinate the worldly values) and watching TV (which indoctrinates worldly values), and then playing games (which often indoctrinate worldly values) or with their friends (who are also indoctrinated to worldly values), there is little time left for the instilling of what God values. This did not used ot be much of a problem when the teachers and editors and authors producers mostly shared Godly values (or at least were prevented from teaching values contrary to God). However, this is no longer the case. Is it any wonder that youth leave the church as young adult when they have spent the majority of their life being taught by school and TV and movies and games that God does not exist and/or what He said is unimportant and/or inapplicable?
yes, I do hear what your saying about what is being taught in public school systems and I agree that it is a decision that should be made by a school board, but I personally do believe many churches are dropping the ball by not taking time to teach their children and youth sex education from a biblical perspective and I would also support any groups who are trying to introduce abstinence only education into their local school districts, but at the same time I would respect the decision of the local school board as long as they allow all sides to be equally and fairly heard in this very important matter.
Believer, I respect your position and your moral dedication; however, there are some issues that must be addressed. First of all, we're talking about programs in public schools, not parochial ones. There's no compelling reason why Christian, or any religion's, ideals should be afforded the final say in how public school students are taught regarding the safe sex/abstinence debate. The public school system exists for the benefit of all student, regardless of color, creed or religious affiliation. For that reason, it seems to me that it would be most beneficial to take as many approaches to the situation as possible. Certainly we would all like to wish for a perfect world where children always behaved and exercised good judgment but they often don't. I've always been the sort to hope for the best but plan for the worst, just in case. Here I see it as bordering on reckless to deprive children (who are of an appropriate age) of a general sex ed involving the use of contraceptives. There is more risk of unmarried pregnancy and infection with an STD where children are left to fend for themselves and "teach" themselves about sex, a subject where there there is often no trial and error.
I think the basic misunderstanding is that one can't maintain ideals and values when there is awareness that a world exists outside of those proscribed norms. Just because students might be educated in safe sex practices doesn't mean that they are a lost cause for abstinence. It is the manner in which those values and norms are instilled by the parents and the community that will determine how easily shaken they are by contrary ideas. Just as I couldn't pull out a book about Hinduism and by reading it to you shake you from your faith, a child raised in a Christian household, instilled with the values you hold dear, will not necessarily abandon abstinence as soon as he or she learns about condoms. Give your children and your parenting abilities a little more credit than that.
yes, here is the bottomline for a Christian, do I encourage young people to violate God's standard for sexual purity by teaching them so-called safe-sex practices or do I teach them not only abstinence only but also why God desires them to abstain from sex until marriage and the positive consequences of abstinence? Do I disobey God because we are being led to believe they're going to do it anyways or do I stay true to God and obey Him?
Believer, I'm sure that you're correct that there are some STDs that can be passed along even if using condoms, which I will further concede are not 100% reliable. Nonetheless, even in the absence of perfect effectiveness and/or protection there is still utility to the availability of and education related to condoms and other prophylactics. I can sleep easy at night knowing that Christian children would never engage in premarital sex, obviating any need for safe sex practices; however, there are a quite a few non-Christians out there who will not practice abstinence. So wouldn't it make sense to make such protections available and understood?
A bulletproof vest on a cop is not 100% effective in saving his life. He could get shot in the head or with armor piercing rounds. The only way to be 100% certain of avoiding death by gunshot, in the line of duty, for a cop is to never leave home. Drawing the parallel, just because condoms may not always work they do work most of the time and have some value.
ifeelfine, with regards to Sarah Palin and her daughter, you make an assumption that they only received abstinence only education. It is possible that they could have received so-called safe sex education or in the case of Sarah Palin no sex education at all. So to say abstinence only education doesn't worked based on Sarah Palin and her daughter is weak at best. But if young people are only receiving abstinence only education from one source and receiving so-called safe sex education messages along with being encouraged to go ahead and have premarital sex messages from the media and their peers then it would make it appear that abstinence only education is not working. An add to it Christians like yourself who are saying that it doesn't make sense to even promote abstinence only then there is a real good chance it will not be effective.
yes, what about those STDs that can't be prevented from so-called safe sex practices such as using a condom? The only true safe sex is following God's plan for sex which is between one man and one woman married to one another.
ifeelfine, so you condone drunk driving as long as the drunk wears their seatbelt, as I said if abstinence only sex education keeps one teen from having pre-marital sex then it is not only worth it, it is a success.
"doesn't sound like a very Biblical litmus test to me."
You must have a different Bible than I do.... There are Biblical absolutes. These are things that are true no matter if we believe them or not. One is die to self and live for Christ or spend eternity in hell. There are many truths in the Bible. I went to the Obama website to look at his education ideas. He would bankrupt the country trying to pay for all that. The problem isn't more school (starting at age 3). The problem is making K-12 work. Why add two more grades to a failing system? It's been failing for quite some time.
Clinton clarified with the IDEA '97 revisions that a special needs child could be arrested even if the school failed to provide the required behavioral services. In other words, children were given enough rope to hang themselves and the schools got off the hook.
Lots of good talk from the Dems but the proof is in the children I work with. "Liberal compassion" isn't very compassionate when it comes to the children.
Third, and this is leveled mostly at Believer, it's not an issue of "saving" just one student from the stain of sin. It's about a broader goal of lessening social endemics, such as STDs and unplanned pregnancies which either lead to abortions or neglected children. I would rather see a dozen youths "suffer" from the sin of premarital sex than see one youth consigned to death as a result of AIDS or see a young mother abandon her child in a garbage can rather than care for it. For a community that seeks to eradicate the need for (or dare I go one step further and say the right to obtain) abortions it would seem that allowing those who are not Christian to learn effective safe sex practices would be in line with the ultimate goals sought.
On a side note, it would be a refreshing thing to see people on this board recognizing that others' religious ideals and tenets are worthy of respect. It's alarming to see comments like "G-d will deal with [non-believers]." Mutual respect is the only way to bridge the gap between "believers and nonbelievers." I may often disagree with the viewpoints expressed here, but I'll never begrudge others the right to have them. It's a matter of understanding where people are coming from rather than picturing the world in staunch black and white terms, in with us or against us sense. At least that's what I think.
On the whole abstinence only sex education issue:
There are a couple of points to be made.
First of all, is it really necessary to throw a ton of government money, culled from taxes paid by Christians and Non-Christians alike, at sex education when all you're saying is, "Don't have sex before marriage"? Seriously, it doesn't matter if you say it once or dozens of time. The kids will either get the message or they won't and it's not particularly nuanced or complicated. It's a advised blanket prohibition. So no reason to waste good money repeating the obvious refrain.
Second, considering that it's not just Christians paying into the taxes that fund the schools and their sex ed programs, there's no reason that the entire programs should cater to that particular slant on the issue. There is still much to be gained from exposing those students who will no doubt, in their unregenerate states, sin and have premarital sex to the basics of safe sex. If parents object to their children learning about such things in school then the schools can allow those students to be excused from that portion of the lesson plan. There is no reason that a high school student who chooses to have sex should be at risk of an unplanned pregnancy or worse an HIV infection simply because parents of other students felt it was inappropriate for their children to learn safe sex. Remember, the public schools exist for all colors, creeds and religions and thus if you want a staunch christian education opt for a private school or just engage in old fashioned parenting as a supplement to public school.