On the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, new data showing that the abortion rate in America had dipped to a 30-year low had anti-abortion advocates cheering that their strategies were working. Of course, it also had pro-abortion advocates cheering that their strategies were working.
Wait, what?
It’s rare for one piece of news to get love from both sides of an issue, especially one as divisive as abortion. But all sides of the debate took the abortion decrease and ran with it, muddling things even more.
Really, the fact that abortion rate had dropped by 9 percent in five years, down to 1.2 million in 2005 (the last year data was available) is good news for everyone; isn’t it just better that there are fewer abortions going on? It’s like filling a cavity — you’re probably in favor of cavity fillings, but you’d still rather not see so many of them in the first place. However, the divide comes back as soon as you ask why the abortion rate has dipped.
Some say it was recently tightened restrictions. As some states consider enacting outright abortion bans, others have tinkered with parental consent laws and other restrictions on the procedure. Last year, the Supreme Court upheld a ban on a late-term abortion procedure. Anti-abortion camps are pointing to the low rates as a sign that their work in the legal system is succeeding, following the simple logical leap that having fewer channels to abortion means fewer abortions.
On the other side, though, pro-abortion advocates are saying that it’s actually the unwanted pregnancies that are decreasing, thanks to improved sex education and contraceptive distribution. A 2006 study found that teens were having less sex and using protection more often, thereby reducing the teen pregnancy rate. Likewise, more women who become pregnant are going through with it. This side sums up their argument with a similarly simple thesis: fewer reasons for abortions is going to mean fewer abortions.
Both sides’ percieved success in the debate is mixing up the abortion issue even more. With bans making the rounds in state legislatures, it’s only a matter of time before one is presented to the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade Redux. The Court has already shown that the decision won’t be easy, with a slim 5-4 vote approving last year’s case. The presidential candidates aren’t making things any easier; Mitt Romney can’t even figure out where he stands on the issue. Of the others, it’s largely split across party lines, although Rudy Giuliani breaks ranks with the Republicans in his support of abortion.
Even Hollywood is mucking up the debate. Two of this year’s comedy hits, “Juno” and “Knocked Up” took decidedly anti-abortion stances, with two completely unqualified couples deciding to carry through with a pregnancy (seriously, if Seth Rogen or Michael Cera was your father, you probably wouldn’t have made it past kindergarten). Outside of one scene in Juno, the movies didn’t make the abortion debate a major part of the movie, since that obviously would have derailed the plot. Still, their existence and popularity of these films does play into the conversation.
The outcome of this round of the abortion debate likely won’t be clear until we’ve elected a new president, and possibly not even then. Will abortion restrictions continue to tighten, or will sex education and safe sex reign supreme? Either way, if the abortion rate continues its drop, the discussion will only get cloudier. Meanwhile, the statistics will continue to fuel the passions of both sides, even hereoncampus.
But for economist Steven Levitt of Freakonomics fame, the might have one additional outcome: less crime in the future.