Candidates clash on abortion law

I too thought that this exchange during the debates was very revealing about BuSh's (and Kerry's) core character. I'm glad to see someone actually document an analysis of it.
 
I read the article and my eyebrows always rise when I read things like Bush "does not actually understand" or "cannot comprehend." Then that article leaves out Bush's answer to the lady that posed the question. Here's what Bush said after the "I'm trying to decipher that" statement:

"My answer is, we're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion.

This is an issue that divides America, but certainly reasonable people can agree on how to reduce abortions in America."


I agree with those two statements.
 
Abortion rates were declining through the late 90's and have been rising since Shrub took office. Sounds like another failure to add to the list.
 
97silverlsc said:
Abortion rates were declining through the late 90's and have been rising since Shrub took office. Sounds like another failure to add to the list.
Do you have any comprehensive data that supports this?
 
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 13, 2004

Media Contact: Deryl Davis, Sojourners
202.328.8842 x214; ddavis@sojo.net
Study Finds Abortion Rising Under Bush, Linked to Economic Policies

WASHINGTON, D.C. - October 12, 2004 - An independent study by an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary who is also trained in statistical analysis finds that, contrary to popular assumption, abortion has risen in the U.S. during George W. Bush's presidency and that the increase is linked to economic policy.

"Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," said Glen Stassen, Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, a leading evangelical divinity school. Citing connections to rising unemployment and soaring healthcare costs, Stassen noted that "economic policy and abortion are not separate issues. They form one moral imperative."

Using data from the Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life, the Guttmacher Institute, and reporting by individual states, Stassen found that U.S. abortion rates declined 17.4% in the 1990s to a 24-year low when Bush took office. Many expected that downward trend to continue under the conservative president, but Stassen found the opposite: 52,000 more abortions occurred in 2002 than would have been expected under the pre-2000 conditions, and abortion has risen significantly in those states reporting multi-year abortion statistics.

Responding to Stassen's study, Sojourners magazine editor Jim Wallis stated, "We have seen once again in this campaign the issue of abortion used as a partisan wedge rather than having a serious discussion on how to act to reduce the number of abortions."

Stassen's study found credible linkages between economic hardship and abortion. Two-thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child; half of women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate and co-breadwinner; and women of childbearing age are overrepresented in the 5.2 million additional persons without health coverage since 2000.

"If we are to be truly pro-life, we must focus on real people and the conditions that lead women to seek abortions," said Wallis. "Jobs, healthcare, and a living income must be part of a pro-life agenda."

>>Read Professor Stassen's column "Pro-Life? Look at the Fruits" in Sojourners' weekly email-zine, SojoMail.

About Sojourners

Sojourners is a voice and vision for social change and publisher of award-winning Sojourners magazine, SojoMail e-zine, and www.sojo.net Web site. Founded in 1971 asa faith-based organization, Sojourners provides an alternative perspective on faith, politics, and culture through its monthly magazine, e-mail services, Web site, media commentaries, and public events. Ecumenical and progressive, Sojourners lifts up the biblical connection between social justice and spiritual renewal and nurtures community by bringing together people from the various traditions and streams of the church. Sojourners also hosts an annual program of voluntary service now in its twenty-first year.
 
Just as I thought. The answer to my question is a "no." I found a couple of articles like this, but most of the comprehensive data out ends in 2000. Where's the supporting data? That article is suspect at best.
 
Figured that would be your response. If it's something negative about Shrub, well then it's got to have 14 independent studies or reports to back it up, if it doesn't, can't be true. But your next door neighbor heard something bad about Kerry, then by golly it must be the gospel truth.
 
97silverlsc said:
Figured that would be your response. If it's something negative about Shrub, well then it's got to have 14 independent studies or reports to back it up, if it doesn't, can't be true. But your next door neighbor heard something bad about Kerry, then by golly it must be the gospel truth.
Please don't get personal with me. I don't respect you in the least since you continue to spread falsehoods about me. It may be true that abortion is rising as a whole here in the U.S., but I haven't seen anything to prove this conclusively. My point is that these articles leap to a conclusion in order to make the president look bad. That is just bad journalism.

EDIT: p.s. My next door neighbor is voting for Kerry.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pro-life? Look at the fruits
By Glen Harold Stassen
Special to The Courier-Journal

I am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world.

I look at the fruits of political policies more than words. I analyzed the data on abortion during the George W. Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information, but I found enough data to identify trends. My findings are disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. In the decade before Bush became President, the number of abortions in the United States fell from 1,610,000 to 1,330,000. That is a decline of 17.4 percent over the 1990s, an average decrease of 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life.)

Enter Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its course downward. Instead, the opposite happened.

Three states have posted several years of recent statistics through 2003: Kentucky, Michigan and Pennsylvania. Here's what happened to their abortion rates: Kentucky's increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9 percent from 1999 to 2002.

I found 13 other states that reported statistics allowing comparison of abortion rates in 2001 and 2002. Here's what happened: Eight states saw an increase in their abortion rates: Arizona (+26.4 percent), Colorado (+67.4 percent), Idaho (+13.9 percent), Illinois (+0.9 percent), Missouri (+2.5 percent), South Dakota (+2.1 percent), Texas (+3.0 percent), and Wisconsin (+0.6 percent). Five states saw a decrease: Alabama (-9.8 percent), Florida (-0.7 percent), Minnesota (-4.4 percent), Ohio (-4.4 percent), and Washington (-2.1 percent).

In total numbers, 7,869 more abortions were performed in these 16 states during Bush's second year in office than previously. If this trend reflects our nation, 24,000 more abortions were performed during Bush's second year in office than the year before (or three years before in the first three states). Had the previous trends continued, 28,000 fewer abortions should have occurred each year of the Bush era. All in all, probably 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than expected from the earlier trends.

How could this be? I see three contributing factors:

Two thirds of women who abort say they cannot afford a child (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Web site). In the past three years, unemployment rates increased half again. Average real incomes decreased, and the minimum wage has not been raised to keep up with inflation for seven years. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). Men who are jobless usually do not marry. Only three of my 16 states had more marriages in 2002 than in 2001; in those states abortion rates decreased. In the 16 states overall, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions.

Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency abortion increases.

My wife and I know ? as does David ? that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as several schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons, and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, every father, and every child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, health insurance, jobs, childcare, and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs and insurance and support for prospective mothers.

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, Calif. He formerly lived and taught in Louisville.


^^ Back to top
 
This last article is yet another example of my previous claim. They take a few states and make an assumption on the entire country that is not validated, yet proclaim it as fact and then state their reasons why this is so. Like so many other articles, this is just horrible journalism. And we wonder why America is so divided when the spin occurs under the auspices of "news" on election eve. This is from the article (note the key word in bold):

"All in all, probably 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than expected from the earlier trends."

I'll wait until all the #'s are in, thanks, so spare me the predictions masquerading as truth.
 
Anyone with a brain knows that the whole abortion issue is just something to bring out at election time. There'll never be a law against abortion. The Democrats enjoy a majority on the issue and the Republicans would never want to alienate such a large percentage of the population by pushing the issue.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top