BREAKING! Laws don't stop abortions.

To quote Gomer Pyle, "Surprise, surprise, surprise!"

Women are just as likely to get an abortion in countries where it is outlawed as they are in countries where it is legal, according to research published Friday.

This according to a story by Maria Cheng, AP Medical Writer.

In a study examining abortion trends from 1995 to 2003, experts also found that abortion rates are virtually equal in rich and poor countries, and that half of all abortions worldwide are unsafe.

The study was done by Gilda Sedgh of the Guttmacher Institute in the United States and colleagues from the World Health Organization. It was published in an edition of The Lancet medical journal devoted to maternal health.

More after the flip...

It's what pro-choice activists have been saying for decades. The only way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the need for abortions.

But here's the kicker:

In related papers published in The Lancet this week, experts said there has been little improvement in helping women survive pregnancy and childbirth in the last two decades, particularly in the world's poorest countries.

Simply unbelievable. It boggles the mind. So we have a new question to add to my line-up for so-called "pro-life" moralizing gasbags. In addition to:

1. How many children have you fostered or adopted?

2. How many pregnant women for whom abortion is not a moral option have you supported and/or taken into your home?

3. What punishment do you propose for women who have abortions when it's illegal?

We can now add:

4. What have you done to improve pregnancy survival in the developing world?

Please read this story.

Final pull:

Abortion accounts for 13 percent of maternal mortality worldwide. About 70,000 women die every year from unsafe abortions. An additional 5 million women suffer permanent or temporary injury.
...
The number of worldwide abortions has dipped from about 46 million in 1995 to just under 42 million in 2003. But there was no change in the rate of unsafe abortions; nearly half the procedures are still performed illegally in potentially dangerous conditions.

I know this is what we've known for decades. But it still makes me angry.  

•  Tip jar.

  by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:32:29 PM PDT

  •  Lovely sig line, that. n/t

    by aggieric on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:52:49 PM PDT

    •  Cinematic version...

      Extinguishing the eternal flame on his gravesite.

      Heh.

      (Wish I had the CGI capabilities to mock that up. LOL)

      by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:10:10 PM PDT

•  Whaaaat?

  I swear to God, part of the Highway Beautification Act of 1965 once prevented a condom from breaking.

  Snark aside, great diary. You're right. Laws don't stop abortions. But they can sure do things that help increase them.

  by kath25 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:37:03 PM PDT

  •  Is that your nightly Texas trivia?

    ;-)

    by andgarden on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:37:47 PM PDT

    •  Oh, that Lady Bird.

      You know how she loved her wildflowers!

      by kath25 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:39:12 PM PDT

      •  She was the first person

        who came to mind.

        by andgarden on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:40:07 PM PDT

      •  Now she's a national hero.

        They laughed at her in the '60s--"there's Lady Bird playing with her flowers."

        Now her wildflower center outside Austin is a national center for wildflowers and wild grasses. Many of the prairie states are coming there for help replenishing native grasses that are becoming scarce.

        Cheers to Lady Bird.

        by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:42:01 PM PDT

        •  Incredibly brave too

          Can you imagine stumping for LBJ in the South like she did?

          by andgarden on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:44:10 PM PDT

  •  Goddess bless Lady Bird.

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:39:02 PM PDT

    •  HAHAHA!!

      That was nearly synchronous. Heh heh.

      by kath25 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:39:32 PM PDT

•  And if it was illegal?

  That's the question asked to these abortion protesters.  Their dumbstruck looks and incoherent answers tell you how deeply they have thought about the consequences.

  http://www.youtube.com/...

  I would embed the video, but there's an odd note in the embed code area...?  

  by mem from somerville on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:37:17 PM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    I forgot that one. It's really the coup de grace for the 'wingers.

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:39:46 PM PDT

•  And this is why you

  never hear about abortion rates in what "right wingers" believe to be "Godless Europe"...in western Europe, the rates are much lower than ours because there is less need.  There's better access to contraception and attitudes regarding its use are healthier.  There are also better services available for mothers and infants.  

  Women will always have abortions...but there are factors that certainly increase the numbers.  Religious right wingers seldom care about this part of the equation.

  by tjb22 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:41:48 PM PDT

  •  Don't confuse the issue with "facts".

    Aaaaaggghhhhh!!!

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:42:50 PM PDT

    •  shhh, this is Daily Kos

      by andgarden on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:43:30 PM PDT

  •  Apparently

    In many Western European countries it isn't unusual for young women to go on the pill between ages 16-18 or so. It's just the norm. One of my friends in high school used to play on an international Field Hockey team, and she said that all of the European girls were on the pill, and that it was perfectly normal in their culture.  

    That would help prevent a LOT of pregnancies.

    by kath25 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:49:42 PM PDT

    •  Pretty normal in my social circle, too

      by andgarden on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:56:27 PM PDT

    •  Dear God! Put all of our teen girls on

      the pill and they'll start screwing like rabbits!  What are you saying!?!

      ;-)w

      by aggieric on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:55:16 PM PDT

      •  OMFG!!!

        You want our children...OUR children to have...premarital sex?!!!

        Not...OUR...chldren!  <gasp>

        Our children DO. NOT. HAVE. SEX. (tm)

        Maybe "other people's children" have sex. And when "other people's children" have abortions it's wrong/evil/satanic/immoral/icky. But not our innocent, misguided lambs.

        What was your point again?

        by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:00:01 PM PDT

        •  And if they are going to get

          birth control pills, they gotta pay for them.  Full price.  Its the American capitalist way.  Can't have them start thinking about getting free healthcare...

          by tjb22 on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:09:46 PM PDT

          •  Or free nookie.

            Nope. Any pleasure has to have consequences. Just like God and John Calvin intended.

            by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:29:59 PM PDT

            •  John Calvin's mother

              should ahve been ont he Pill. Too bad it weasn'tinvented until 5 centuries alter. The world wouldahve been betrer off if that gloomy Frenchm,an had never been born.

              by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:38:31 PM PDT

      •  ANd if theyhave sex, all that birth control

        willlead to mroe abortions (don't try to make that sound rational; it isn't, but I have seen it on anti-chocie sites).

        by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:37:28 PM PDT

        •  Contraception causes AIDS and abortion.

          Everyone knows this. The pope said so. Hell, Jesus said so. (Doesn't matter if you can't find it in your concordance--we all know he meant to say it and that's the same thing.)

          Remember--Facts are the tool of the devil!

          by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:42:26 PM PDT

          •  Actually, the sites I found it on

            were msotly fundy Prot.  Catholcis in AMerican almsot all use brith control--and it ain't NFP

            by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:57:53 PM PDT

•  Abortion for any reason

  is illegal in Nicaragua and Human Rights watch just published a heart breaking report about the deaths

  Angela Heimburger, Americas researcher at Human Rights Watch's Women's Rights Division, said some women interviewed for the report, none of whom were identified by name, were even refused treatment after miscarriages.

  Arguello said 82 women have died from treatable pregnancy complications between Jan. 1 and Sept. 15. He said six of those cases required a therapeutic abortion — including one involving an ectopic pregnancy, in which a fetus forms outside the uterus.

  http://www.iht.com/...

  by mariachi mama on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:44:10 PM PDT

  •  Thanks.

    And it's only going to get worse.

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:45:50 PM PDT

•  interesting little tidbit about illegal abortion

  as practiced during the Communist dictatorship in Romania in the sixties.

  In that year, with no warning, Ceausescu issued Decree No. 770 prohibiting abortion. He did nothing to make contraceptives more available. He was not motivated by concern for families or unborn children; he wanted a larger labor force.

  In 1967 the Romanian birth rate doubled. Then it started dropping. Within ten years it was nearly as low as it had been before, though there had been no change in policy.
  {snip}
  But I was determined to learn how Romanian women were controlling their birth rate, when every means of control had been denied them.

  Finally, at a crowded party, with my official spies momentarily out of hearing range, I had an opportunity to find out. I was talking to the head of obstetrics at a major Bucharest hospital. I told him I wondered how the birth rate had fallen, and then I asked, "What has happened to your maternal mortality rate?"

  He looked straight at me. He got my drift. "It has become very, very high," he said with great sadness. In nearly every country women who die of complications from abortion, legal or illegal, are listed in health statistics as maternal mortalities. Later I saw some actual figures. As the birth rate came down in Romania after Decree 770, the maternal mortality rate tripled.

  Ceausescu's policy to increase the Romanian population failed to achieve its goal. It imposed pain, injury, and death on Romanian women.

  interesting article

  Even with harsh penalties and strict enforcement by a dictator, much as the theocrats on the right would like, it still did no good to ban abortion. None.

  by dougymi on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:49:57 PM PDT

  •  Great citation.

    There are numerous consequences from such ill-conceived policies.

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 06:52:50 PM PDT

  •  Thanks, that was very interesting nt

    by mariachi mama on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:00:52 PM PDT

•  I think your net conclusion

  is absolutely right, although I suspect there are some women who, were abortion unavailable legally, would forego the alternative.

  Which is another way of saying I suspect they have increased in the US since 1973, the problem being that good hard data on years prior to that is hard to come by.  

  But the idea that anyone would die like Geri Santoro is pretty horrifying.  

  However, since you've hit on a hot button topic of mine, this question

  How many children have you fostered or adopted?

  although it looks like it should be connected, is not.  For a host of reasons, not the least of which is that any good adoption service provider will avoid like the plague any prospective parent who comes saying he/she wants to save a child from abortion.

  Also, having worked in the field for a number of years, on literally thousands of cases, I can assure you there is no religious or political profile for adoptive families - including adoptive families of non-matching, older or special needs kids.

  by marykk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:37:33 PM PDT

  •  Point taken--

    You've said this before and you're absolutely right. It's one of those situations where I'm using that question as shorthand for the larger question of "what have you done to help living children including those who have been born instead of aborted".

    I totally agree with you and understand the importance of what you are saying. There is a huge danger in people adopting or fostering for the wrong reasons--the reports of abuse are astounding and heartbreaking. It's bad enough when people adopt animals for the wrong reasons (easter bunnies and chicks, anyone?), but with kids it's immeasurably worse. I have a close friend whose sister adopted in middle age because her quack shrink told her it would help with her depression. And it's a living nightmare.

    But I stand by my question in that circumstance. I would not hesitate to confront such a person with that question. On the other hand, I would not actually promote the practice you are alluding to.

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:46:09 PM PDT

    •  Fair enough

      The question about supporting preggies is probably more realistic.  

      by marykk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:48:16 PM PDT

      •  Well, I'm not sure how to phrase it.

        I completely agree with your point. But I don't know how to make it concise to fit the purpose. "How many children have you adopted or fostered?" is easy to get across. It hits them between the eyes, rhetorically speaking.

        It's like Dr. Joycelynn Elders saying that the right wing "has to get over their love affair with the fetus" (I still remember that quote verbatim 15 years later, along with Dr. Koop saying "My job is Surgeon General of the United States, not chaplain to the conservatives.")

        Seriously, I don't want to encourage unsuitable people to try to take in kids, or for the wrong reasons. But am I really clouding the issue that much? Obviously, you are familiar with this and it strikes a deep chord.

        by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:55:55 PM PDT

        •  Are you clouding the issue?

          hard to say, as I probably have such a specific set of tinted lenses that you need a better judge than me.  But it's always nice to be heard, hg.

          by marykk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:57:50 PM PDT

          •  But you're part of the solution.

            You speak to policies that have real-live problem-solving capabilities.

            Being pro-choice includes supporting women in all their life-affirming choices. That includes preventing the need for abortion and supporting women with unplanned pregnancies for whom abortion is not a moral option. Any effort to reduce/prevent abortion that does not demonize or criminalize women or healthcare providers is a good thing. That's "safe, legal, and rare".

            I have no problem with people who are truly pro-life. My problem is that the vast majority of people who use that term...aren't.

            Remember, I'm passionately anti-abortion and militantly pro-choice. I would like it just fine if no woman ever needed an abortion.

            by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:04:57 PM PDT

            •  I share your outlook

              and I sometimes fear that pro-choice rhetoric often tends to diminish those who do not find abortion an acceptable option.  For example, when we fostered pregnant teens, my experience was that they had been, without exception, pressured to terminate their pregnancies.  In fact, that was usually why they needed foster care - their pregnancies made their previous living situations untenable.

              When adoption gets mentioned here, it often ends up sounding like something from Dickens.  There are, to be sure, unhappy adoptions, and birthparents who wish they had made other plans, but that is by no means universal.  Recent trends which encourage birthparents to take an active role in the selection of a home for their child seem to contribute to increased satisfaction in the long run.  There are still things that can be improved, but it is not something to be dismissed out of hand as a presumptively inhumane solution.

              by marykk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:13:04 PM PDT

              •  The problem is...

                It's not people who choose not to terminate a pregnancy. It's the ones who insist on imposing that choice on others and who are unwilling to do anything that has a chance in hell of preventing unwanted pregnancies.

                But I need to caution you here. I understand what you are saying about "pro-choice rhetoric". Keep in mind who is trying to control whom. I'm not questioning your experience. Nobody should try to coerce a pregnant woman to terminate a pregnancy. But where is the larger scale of infraction? Who is using more coercion and deception? I would submit that the anti-choice movement and their heinous "Crisis Pregnancy Centers" are a much bigger problem. Now granted, that doesn't excuse anyone trying to coerce women to abort. But it is a systematic, large-scale effort to demonize, infantilize, and control women.

                I think I understand how heartfelt your point of view is. But I worry sometimes that you may come off sounding more like anti-choice people than you really are. I know I find it hard to express how fervently I want to see the abortion rate go down, while eschewing all of the anti-woman, anti-reality positions and rhetoric of the anti-choice crowd.

                My point is that I don't need to believe that life begins at conception to have respect for an embryo that contains "the promise of life and/or personhood" and want to prevent wasting them. My belief is that I can respect what I don't know, unlike the so-called pro-life crowd who have the arrogance to believe that they have all the answers.

                < / soapbox >

                by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:28:07 PM PDT

                •  You'll find no disagreement from me. n/t

                  by marykk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:00:27 PM PDT

              •  I have no problem with thsoe who find abortion

                an unacceptable solution FOR THEMSELVES --so long as they don't force other women to live by their religious and moral beliefs. I wouldn't force my belief on MRs. Dugger who  has umpteen kids even though I believe she is committing a sin against an overpopulated planet and should have quite with number two. I own't force MYbeleifs on her--I jsut wish she'd reciprocate.

                by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:36:02 PM PDT

                •  Mrs. Duggar

                  has to live with her choices too, and, the happy public face notwithstanding, you couldn't pay me to trade places with her.  I always figured that if you were lucky enough to get a boy and a girl, that was a divine signal that you could quit!

                  by marykk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:38:33 PM PDT

                  •  Well, you are an intelligent liberal Catholic.

                    SHE isneither liberal, nor Catholic. ANd I ssupect she looks with nausea at any woman (liek Moi) who chsoe not tohave kdisa t all--as "unnatrual" and "unwoman;Y and probably damned for notbeing fruitful and multip[lying.

                    by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:42:47 PM PDT

  •  Unfortuantely a lot of adoption services in the

    Bible Belt are run by fundies who woudl regard thsoe parents as PERFECT cnadidates, guaranteed tobrianwash their kids intomodel fundies who will vote Republican.

    by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:33:13 PM PDT

    •  No doubt some

      take that position.  But it's not good social work, and certainly not the majority position.  

      by marykk on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:36:36 PM PDT

      •  DOn't count on it in GA

        They do LOTS of damned stupid things here.

        by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:43:25 PM PDT

•  Amen

  Thanks and right on. Attention all you wingnuts.You can pass ten thousand laws against abortion and women will still seek abortions. The idea is to make them rare, safe and legal.

  by cagernant on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 07:48:21 PM PDT

•  Abortions have always been around...

  they will always be done.

  The issue isn't:  

  "Are abortions going to be performed?

  The issue is:

  "Are abortions going to be performed safe and legally?

  The anti-abortion wingnuts are living in a world where they want abortion to be illegal for everyone else, but not for them if they need one.

  by annrose on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:27:02 PM PDT

  •  Absolutely.

    There have been a couple of really good diaries about that.

    My fave was the girl who was president of her college pro-life group and asked the clinic staff if they were going to tell anyone because this was really important to her. Talk about disconnect.

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 08:31:55 PM PDT

•  Laws don't end abortions.

  They DO end women's lives.

  But who cares about all those slutty sinners dying and going te hell where they belong?

  by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:31:52 PM PDT

  •  Ain't it the (sad and awful) truth.

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:37:21 PM PDT

  •  Hey Irish, sweetie--

    Are you aware that you TR'd my tip jar?

    Somehow I don't think you intended to drop that little present in the punchbowl. LOL

    by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:49:47 PM PDT

    •  No. Will fix.

      by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 09:58:27 PM PDT

      •  Thank you, darling.

        Mind you, I was OK keeping it as a souvenir. ;-)

        (But you got my attention!)

        by homogenius on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:00:13 PM PDT

        •  Fixed.

          by irishwitch on Thu Oct 11, 2007 at 10:07:28 PM PDT