I recently added to a facebook discussion with someone we know about abortion and Planned Parenthood. During that discussion, this person argued that while they thought abortion was a poor choice of birth control, closing down places like Planned Parenthood greatly increases abortion rates. This person explained that Planned Parenthood and education steer people away from using abortion as birth control, and that countries with pro-life/anti-abortion laws have higher abortion rates.
The statements and arguments made during this discussion greatly perplexed me. They seemed illogical and counter intuitive. I don't know of any other issue that works the way this person was arguing that abortions work. Can a country lower murder rates by legalizing the killing of others? Robberies are certainly not decreased by making safe holds easier to access and legalizing robbery. I am also quite sure that the number of rapes isn't going to go down if rape is decriminalized. Even during Prohibition, which is not something that I think was a good idea, the amount of drinking did decrease.
My perplexity drove me to look into the topic a little further myself. While I doubt what I have found or what I write here will greatly change anyone's opinion, I still
wanted to lay out my findings and thoughts on the matter as I processed
this information.
During my search, I discovered was that the vast majority of outlets reporting that abortion rates go down with ready access to abortion pulled these findings from studies done by the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). These studies have not been without criticism. For example,
as explained in this article from the National Review, the AGI study fails to note decreased teen sexual activity as a reason for decreased teen abortions.
Another study conducted in Mexico by researchers from the West Virginia University-Charleston in 2012 showed that AGI overestimated the number of induced abortions in the Federal District of Mexico by 1000%. (Some of the findings of this study are
summarized here for those who don't want to look through the whole study.) This same study brings up problems with how AGI calculates maternal death rates from abortions and estimates of the number of abortions performed in places where abortion is illegal.
At the same time, other articles and studies available would indicate that contrary to AGI's findings, pro-life measures are inconsequential in reducing abortion rates and other problems that stem from abortion issues. For example,
this study from 2014 titled "Abortion legislation, maternal healthcare, fertility, female literacy, sanitation, violence against women and maternal deaths: a natural experiment in 32 Mexican states" found that there were no benefits or negative consequences to the maternal mortality rates that came from laws protecting unborn children. This study instead found that maternal mortality outcomes are largely explained "by a combination of variables related to maternal health-care, fertility, female literacy, intimate-partner violence against women and sanitation."
Interestingly enough, abortion rates are down all over in the United States. According to
an article from the AP written in June of this year, "Several of the states that have been most aggressive in passing
anti-abortion laws — including Indiana, Missouri, Ohio, and Oklahoma —
have seen their abortion numbers drop by more than 15 percent since
2010. But more liberal states such as New York, Washington and Oregon
also had declines of that magnitude, even as they maintained
unrestricted access to abortion." The reason for the decrease in abortions is unknown and has been widely debated.
Some credit pro-life laws and technologies such as
ultrasounds that increase awareness of the human life for those who may be considering abortion. After all, it is a lot harder to brush off unborn children as mere unwanted "tissue" when ultrasounds clearly show expectant women have tiny heads, limbs, and torsos with little heartbeats inside their wombs.
Others insist that
easy access to contraceptives and sex education are responsible for abortion decreases. Yet even that is
up for debate. As explained
in this article from LifeNews.com, "Contraceptive use has been rising since the 1960s, but increased use of contraceptives did not reduce the incidence of abortions in either the 1970s or the 1980s. More important, the unintended-pregnancy rate has been fairly stable over the long term and has increased slightly since the mid-1990s. Again, greater use of contraceptives has not reduced the unintended-pregnancy rate." Additionally, this article explains that ready access to contraception is not necessarily going to greatly reduce abortion rates by citing a 2002 AGI survey of "10,000 sexually active women who were not using contraception. Only 12
percent of the women cited cost or availability as a reason why they
were not using contraceptives. More common reasons included a
willingness to run the risk of getting pregnant and wanting to
demonstrate trust in a partner."
Overall though, it would seem that at least statistically speaking, pro-life laws and accessibility to abortion clinics are rather inconclusive factors in and of themselves when in comes to the abortion rate. I personally find it a bit dubious that much of the research done supporting ready access to abortion comes from AGI, a research institute that
started out
being housed by Planned Parenthood
and has had financial support from Planned Parenthood in the past. They
therefore don't appear to come from a remotely neutral standpoint when
it comes the issues they study. Of course, I hardly think that articles from many other sources referenced here, such as LifeNews.com, are neutral on the subject either. It seems difficult to find much unbiased information on the topic. After all, it is a very controversial and emotionally charged subject, and most people simply are not neutral on the matter.
I would agree with those that argue for education to reduce abortion rates. However, the sort of education that I would argue for differs some from many of those advocating for readily accessible abortion. I am very much opposed to much of the "education" Planned Parenthood offers, as I have read numerous examples of how Planned Parenthood ultimately promotes promiscuity and encourages risky behaviors. For example,
their answer to the question, "Is promiscuity a bad thing?" hardly encourages restraint. In fact, part of their response states, "Since the number of sexual partners you’ve had doesn’t say anything
about your character, your morals, or your personality – or about
anything at all really– there’s nothing bad or unhealthy about having a
big number of sexual partners." Additionally, Planned Parenthood has a guide called "
Healthy, Happy, and Hot: A Young Person's Guide to Their Rights, Sexuality, and Living with HIV," wherein Planned Parenthood states, "Sharing your HIV status is called disclosure. Your decision about whether to disclose may change with different people and situations. You have the right to decide if, when, and how to disclose your HIV status." Telling people that there is
nothing wrong with having
as many sexual partners as they want, and telling them they don't have to disclose the fact they have HIV to their partners hardly helps people stay healthy and prevent problems. Instead, it teaches people to be self-centered and irresponsible. It steers them to moral relativism while encouraging unhealthy and even dangerous behaviors, as explained in
this Town Hall article.
Planned Parenthood has been surrounded by controversy since it was founded by Margaret Sanger. It started in 1921 as the American Birth Control League and was changed to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America in 1942. Margaret Sanger was a member of the
American Eugenics Society and was also associated with the
National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia, as were many others involved in the American Birth Control League and Planned Parenthood. Sanger also started The Negro Project in 1939, which is frequently thought to be a way of further implementing
her racist and eugenic ideas by reducing the black population, while others argue that her involvement in these endeavors was minimal and
innocent enough. While many attribute her efforts to provide birth control to blacks and the poorest in society as a charitable endeavor, I find her motives in the matter questionable given her involvement in the
eugenics movement that had aims of curtailing and even eliminating these populations. Furthermore,
Margaret Sanger and other prominent Planned Parenthood members have said and
written countless unsavory things - far too many to include much of them in this text. While Planned Parenthood has
tried to justify some of those things, I again find it difficult to believe that Sanger was a particularly upright and heroic figure considering her advocacy for eugenics, her other objectionable involvements, and the associations she kept. Such associations combined with
her own words and those of others at Planned Parenthood paint an overall deplorable picture of her and many of her organization's agendas.
If any previous evidence of their moral depravity was yet lacking, we can now see
videos of the cold and calloused manner in which Planned Parenthood officials discuss
cutting up and selling baby parts. We have been told of the
morbid jokes made at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, and we have also been told that aborted babies are sometimes collected
without permission from the mothers. I cannot and will not voice any support for such an organization in which it is acceptable for a fully intact baby with a beating heart
to have its head cut open so that its brain may be harvested.
Many argue
that Planned Parenthood serves to meet many other health needs that are
not related to abortion. Regardless of the
other services they
provide though, the truth remains that
a large proportion of their work is in
performing abortions or providing other services related to abortions. In the end, I believe that the evils of Planned Parenthood greatly outweigh the positives, especially when there are
many other places that people
could go to get these and other healthcare services that do not also
perform abortions
. For me, the idea of supporting and funding Planned Parenthood for the good they do even as they continue to
kill millions of babies through abortion is about as ridiculous as praising Hitler for the
Volkswagen or the
Autobahn while sidestepping the fact that he was also behind the Holocaust. Both
China and the
USSR made progress in modernizing and industrializing their countries under Mao and Stalin, but praising them for these things while ignoring the millions upon millions that were killed under them would also be ludicrous.
I believe in the sanctity of life, and because of that I stand against abortion in nearly all cases. With all the information available concerning the abhorrent abortion practices of Planned Parenthood, I believe it is reprehensible that we as a country
continue to offer them funding.
There is one thing though it would seem that I do agree upon with the person I originally had this facebook discussion with: the the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the gospel truths found there
provide a clear answer for those with unplanned or unwanted pregnancies, and teaching
these principles will help people in such dilemmas. In fact, I can't think of a better place to turn to for an education on such matters.
