With the upcoming March for Life (which should be titled, "March for Our Rights to Control Your Life"), anti-choice activists are likely privately gloating over the latest statistics showing a decline in the abortion rate.
"See?" folks like David Frum and National Review crow (though the good folks at the National Review still think that kids need a mommy and daddy). "Young women know that abortion is Teh Ebil! They're all choosing life!"
Sorry guys (and gals), it's more in spite of you than because of you.
And you might want to throw in a "Thanks, Obama!" while you're at it.
More below the twisted Cheeto...
Last year, the folks at the Guttmacher Institute took a look at the abortion rate declines and came up with this possibility:
The Guttmacher study released earlier this year reports that both the rate and the number of U.S. abortions had declined by 13% between 2008 and 2011, and that the abortion rate had reached its lowest level since 1973 (see chart).1 Although the study was not designed to pinpoint reasons behind the 2008–2011 drop in abortion, it examined a number of possible factors and ultimately built a strong circumstantial case that changes in contraceptive use—rather than state restrictions—most likely had played a key role.
[emphasis mine]
They based their findings on the fact that the birth rate hasn't taken a corresponding spike. See, if it was all the fact that pregnant women were deciding "I'm gonna keep my baby", we should be seeing a lot more baby strollers out on the streets, and bigger crowds at Babies R Us. But that's not happening. In fact, as Guttmacher points out, "the decline in abortion between 2008 and 2011 coincided with a steep national drop in the birthrate (9%)." Where are all those babies hiding -- Canada? (You send us your hockey teams, we send you our babies, deal?)
So why aren't there more babies if there are fewer abortions?
Contraception.
Specifically, long-acting contraception that you don't have to think about every day or every time you hop in the sack with a willing male partner. Things like the IUD and the implant, which anti-choice advocates are now targeting as being "abortifacients", or just the same as the Ebil Abortion, because after the sperm and the egg shake hands they can't find a place to crash for the next 9 months. And everyone knows that once the sperm and egg shake hands, you might as well start painting the nursery and break out the maternity pants. This despite medical research that shows these methods actually work to both inhibit ovulation (meaning the sperm can't find a dance partner) or thickens the lining of the egg so if the sperm meets up with the egg, he's more likely to get a "Talk to the hand, fool" rather than admittance to the Secret Sanctum.
As Guttmacher summarizes,
Finally, the pregnancy, birth and abortion rates among teens all dropped to record lows between 2008 and 2010,9 similar to the broader trend observed among all women. Here, too, improved contraceptive use and greater reliance on LARC [long-acting, reversible contraception] methods appear to have been the main drivers, especially among older teens (those aged 18–19), who experienced fewer pregnancies, births and abortions, even as an increasing proportion of them reported having sex.
We can probably expect a continued decrease in the abortion rate. And what does this have to do with Obama?
Well, specifically it's the evil Obamacare.
See, when women, particularly young women, can get contraception coverage in the health package they get from their employer, or from their parents' health plan until they're 26, or from whatever package they purchase on the Exchanges, they're more likely to use it. When you pay out of pocket, those costs tend to get pushed off to the side by fripperies such as rent and food and commute costs and all the other little things that eat into a paycheck. Getting contraception covered like pretty much any other prescription medication (whether it's blood pressure medication or ointment for a bad fungal infection) means you don't have to think about "can I get my meds this month or do I prefer keeping the lights on?"
Women are going to keep having sex (for which men should be happy) -- they just don't feel like they should have to pray every 28 days that they're not pregnant, no matter what the folks at Hobby Lobby or the Pope or the moralists say. As Amanda Marcotte writes in Slate:
So while Anderson and Torre might decry the "sexual revolution that decoupled sex from marriage," that revolution and the way it reduced stigma about contraception use is giving us a lower abortion rate. You're welcome, anti-choicers.
Thanks, Obama!