Access to Abortion: Red State, Blue State, Interstate


It’s a small study, but one with big implications for how we understand the relationship between policy, culture, and reproductive rights: a study performed by two doctors in a Chicago children’s hospital found that people in areas with more restrictive abortion policies search for the word “abortion” more than in more liberal areas.  The researchers assumed women in these areas are more likely to look to the Internet for help in finding abortion providers because they feared asking their primary care doctors.  I’d add that anti-abortion policies tend to coincide—because anti-choicers are in this because of a mix of misogyny and sex panic—with general cultural and legal obstacles to contraception access.  This raises the unintended pregnancy rate, thus the more frequent searching for abortion services.

It also disproves the contention made by Ross Douthat that the main reason that red states have higher divorce rates, as well as rates of teenage childbirth and other problems that point to a general inability to live up to the “family values” ideal, is that the noble salt-of-the-earth red-state ladies endure unwanted pregnancies as the punishment coming to them for the sin of fornication. They sin, he argues, but they’re morally superior to blue state sisters because they take their childbirth medicine instead of using abortion.  Douthat imagined that red state ladies think of themselves in the same lowly terms he imagines them, more as sinful creatures deserving of punishment than human beings deserving of rights and social investment.

Noble women who grimly take their punishment of unwanted pregnancy and shotgun marriages for the fleeting pleasures of fornication—perhaps with hair shirt maternity clothes as an added bonus?—appears to be a fantasy of sexist male New York Times columnists safely ensconced in the Sodom of New York City.  Having grown up in Texas, I can’t say I’m surprised.  Red state women aren’t especially more likely than blue state women to think they owe the world a baby because someone didn’t pull out when he said he would. They’re just more likely to find that it’s hard to find an abortion provider when a fleet of moral scolds and gleefully misogynist blowhards have convinced legislators to pass laws making abortion harder to get.

Not that Douthat will likely admit it, but the lower abortion rates in more conservative areas are far more likely to be the result of lack of access than they are an unwillingness on the part of women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.  If you don’t have a doctor in your county performing abortions, the abortion rate in your county is probably zero.  But if you drive to the next county to get an abortion, their abortion rate goes up.  We know that women will often travel across many states in order to avoid bearing unwanted children.  (In Texas, women will often travel into Mexico, often just to avoid being seen in the local abortion clinics.)  Claiming a low abortion rate indicates a lack of desire for abortion services is like claiming teenagers love “Beowulf” because they’re assigned to read it in high school.

What then should we learn from this study?  Mostly what pro-choicers have said for a long time, which is that many women are drastically underserved in the reproductive health department.  It’s not just that they don’t have decent access to abortion when they want or need it, and therefore have to go through hell and high water to obtain this simple procedure.  It’s also that they don’t have adequate access to the means to prevent those unwanted pregnancies and abortions in the first place.  Places where the moral scolds and misogynists make it hard for you to get abortions are places where moral scolds and misogynists make it hard for you to buy condoms or get a birth control prescription.  Needless to say, when moral scolds and misogynists have a lot of power in a community, young people are given less access to sex education that teaches them how to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

The question is, how to best improve this access?  On a recent episode of “Reality Cast”, Emily Bazelon suggested that the pro-choice movement might consider if it’s a better use of resources to try to bring women who want abortions to the providers rather than try to increase the number of providers in areas where they face endless amount of grief from protesters and legislators.  It’s a tempting idea, and certainly a stopgap measure already in place through organizations that provide information, funding, and housing to needy women seeking abortion.  But it doesn’t do much for the larger problem, which is that women with poor access to abortion services also face poorer access to contraception services that could prevent the need for abortion in the first place.  We’ve all been tempted to simply give up and create a system of free states and anti-choice states, but such a system would almost surely increase the rate of unwanted pregnancy.

The other thing we can learn from this is that women who have poor access to abortion services are turning to the Internet, so the Internet is where the information they need should be.  Websites that connect women to abortion services already exist, and they need to be optimized so they come up quickly on searches.  Efforts to connect remote patients with doctors who can assist them through the internet with non-surgical abortion options should continue, with more effort invested in making sure women who would want this option have access to it.  We must resist anti-choicers who work tirelessly to make sure anti-abortion propaganda is the first thing a woman seeking an abortion sees when she searches for abortion services online.  The Internet can be a great place to find information and services, but sadly it’s also a place where emboldened right wing demagogues can spread lies and misinformation. 

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

Follow Amanda Marcotte on Twitter: @amandamarcotte

To schedule an interview with Amanda Marcotte please contact Communications Director Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

  • forced-birth-rape

    The christians, pro lifers want all women, and all little girls pregnant, at all times, at all costs.

     

    If women, and little girls, have Sex Education, they will know how not to get pregnant. Ignorance is a form of control, if women and little girls dont have Sex Education, they will be more likely to get pregnant, less likely to go to college, or get good jobs, more likely to have more kids, be dependent on a wife beating, child raping man. This makes christian America, happy, happy.

    Forced pregnancy, forced birth, forced motherhood, is a form of subjugation, women need to be subjugated, never independent, independent women  is a big christian, no, no.

     

    My father was a deacon,  at my preacher grandfathers, southern baptist church, my father who was also a Sunday school teacher, told me a thirteen year old, my little eleven year old sister, and my twenty two year old cousin, that women belong bare foot and pregnant! He told us this at church. This is in 1992!

    The catholic church has even proved, they want raped nine, and ten year old girls pregnant.   Prolifers are sadomasochistic perverts!

  • chelley

    Everything she said…….!!!!!!!!!!!

  • invalid-0

    Prolifers are sadomasochistic perverts!

    Look here, Rape,

    Those of us ‘trolls’ here do take enlightenment out of visiting this web site.  I am a pro-lifer, but I also enjoy and support the work of certain writers here.  In particular, I applaud the outreach work to pregnant prisoners.  I can’t say my viewpoints have changed a great deal since I’ve visited, but I do truly enjoy, in some respects, getting the pro-choice viewpoint on today’s common issues.  

     

    You, on the other hand, seem to have nothing to offer but hate and name calling.  That makes me not want to visit this site or, at best, ignore you.  And I will.  I humbly suggest you quit it with the childish name calling.  We’re both very passionate about our beliefs.  I get that.  I at least make the attempt to avoid regressing to my childhood and calling you names, like “murderers” or “heartless baby haters” because I know that’s not fair to you.  I just ask for the same respect.

  • bornin1984

    ^

  • bornin1984

    I would like to know how you go from people in conservative areas looking up abortion more to people in conservative areas looking up abortion more because they are looking for abortion services. That seems like quite a logical stretch, and a bad one at that. Especially when you consider that typing in the word abortion in Google will net you a ton of hits of the non-abortion service kind.

    At any rate, it stands to reason that conservative areas tend to look up abortion more because they are more interested in it than their liberal counterparts. I, myself, look up abortion a few times a day. I cannot say I am looking for how to obtain an abortion, though.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Yes I do hate people who think they can hurt my vagina, against my will, you people work to force my vagina to do what you want it to do! That makes you a sadomasochistic pervert, this is a site about womens rights, not the us talibans rights to own and controle womens vaginas. You are hateful, to force women, little girls, and rape victims to give birth against their will.  You are just shocked some one will call you what you are, vaginal pain mongers, on women, and little girls against their will! You just want to visit this site to bully scared pregnant women, and scared little girls. I am standing up to you bullies and you cant handle it.  You dont deserve respect, you want to force my genitals to do something extremely painful, that I dont want them to do, which makes you a rapist.

  • rebellious-grrl

    arex, she is entitled to her opinion.

    She sounds frustrated with anti-choicers like you. I completely understand her frustration and anger. It’s gets really tiring listing to anti-choice men go on and on about how women that have abortions are sinners and murders. Frankly I’m glad “Forced birth is RAPE” has voiced her opinion. Sorry if they don’t meet your level of respectfulness but anti-choicers are anything but respectful when they cram their beliefs down our throats.

  • prochoiceferret

    She sounds frustrated with anti-choicers like you. I completely understand her frustration and anger. It’s gets really tiring listing to anti-choice men go on and on about how women that have abortions are sinners and murders.

     

    Indeed.

     

    For my part, I believe that orgasms—particularly of the big, fat, multiply-occurring variety—are by far the more preferable vaginal sensation, and don’t hold in terribly high regard those who disagree.

  • rebellious-grrl

    For my part, I believe that orgasms—particularly of the big, fat, multiply-occurring variety—are by far the more preferable vaginal sensation, and don’t hold in terribly high regard those who disagree.

     

    PCF, hell yes!

  • bornin1984

    And if a pro-lifer was to start spouting stuff about baby killers, whores, sluts and murderers, that person would be unceremoniously attacked. All this talk about not meeting your level of respectfulness would go out the window (much like someone here tried to tell me that it is okay to attack a pro-lifer, so long as they do not get hurt). The irony there is amazing. It is quite funny how quick people are to defend the actions of others when they agree with those people, yet dismiss similar actions of others when they do not.

  • forced-birth-rape

    We are women, who are in a fight for ownership of our own vaginas, why would we take up for you, a man, who is fighting us for ownership of our vaginas, against our will? Pro life men are embarrassing, just like the Afghanistan taliban!

  • saltyc

    Arex or forcedBirthIsRape? hmmmmm OK it’s not a contest, give me FBIR!

    Why? Because she’s coming from the heart, she is honest and more importantly, sincere. All she wants is what we all deserve: self-determination of our own lives, whereas the anti-choice busbodies trouble themselves with controlling other people’s lives, THAT’s the difference. And I would first try and debunk her charge before saying it’s just name-calling. Because from what I’ve seen it’s not far of the mark.

  • prochoiceferret

    And if a pro-lifer was to start spouting stuff about baby killers, whores, sluts and murderers, that person would be unceremoniously attacked. All this talk about not meeting your level of respectfulness would go out the window (much like someone here tried to tell me that it is okay to attack a pro-lifer, so long as they do not get hurt).

     

    Yes, I suppose we don’t have all that much respect for people who have suffered the terrible, terrible injustice of knowing that other people are having abortions.

  • bornin1984

    We are women, who are in a fight for ownership of our own vaginas, why would we take up for you, a man, who is fighting us for ownership of our vaginas, against our will? Pro life men are embarrassing, just like the Afghanistan taliban!

    Far fewer women are pro-choice than are ones who are not. Far more women believe abortions should be restricted than those who do not. Women who take the pro-life position are far more ardent in their beliefs then are men. It seems to me that you are in a fight with other women moreso than you are men. But, I suppose, it is far easier to go on and on about Taliban this and forced rape that than it is to acknowledge such a small fact.

  • bornin1984

    Yes, I suppose we don\’t have all that much respect for people who have suffered the terrible, terrible injustice of knowing that other people are having abortions.

    Anyone who does not conform to whatever ideology you want them to conform to.

  • ahunt

    Hey…Born…heard the latest? While you have been boring the less patient among us into eyeclawing ennui, Black Market chemical abortifacients have been staking territory here in the US.

    Hey…you keep waxing eloquent, I’ll keep scrolling, and meanwhile, abortion will truly become a matter between a woman and her dealer…just as predicted right here…many moons ago.

    Uncharacteristically, you couldn’t respond then, BornBei…care to now?

  • bornin1984

    Since you are itching for a response, no it will not. I really do not know what you are talking about, but the only people who somehow think that the reason for making something illegal is to drive its instance down to zero are pro-choicers, when the reason for making something illegal is to drive the instance of it down. Predicting that if you make abortions illegal that the incidence of illegal abortions will go up while the total incidence of abortions will go down is akin to predicting that the sun will rise in the east and set in the west.

  • ahunt

    but the only people who somehow think that the reason for making something illegal is to drive its instance down to zero are pro-choicers, when the reason for making something illegal is to drive the instance of it down.

    Because it works So Well….

    Get a clue. “Total instance?” With easily accessible, “bathtub” drugs right around the corner…your “total instance” will consist of those women lacking “access”…the very young and the very uninformed.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Not respectful to call someone’s ideas inane. Before you blame look at yourself.

  • bornin1984

    To call someone a sadomasochistic pervert? Okay. I like how you selectively apply what you deem disrespectful and do not based on who is saying what.

  • bornin1984

    When abortion is made illegal, the total number of abortions go down and the number of births go up. When it is made legal, the total number of abortions go up and the number of births go up. Eastern Europe is a very good example of this. For example, see what happened in Romania when abortion was made legal versus illegal and vice versa. If you do not know, when abortions are made illegal, fewer women become pregnant, more pregnancies in birth than they did when abortion was illegal, and the incidence of illegal abortion will go up, on account of it being illegal now versus legal than, but the total number of abortions will decrease.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Sure, and Romanian orphanages where such a great thing. (Yes, loads of sarcasm).

    Born you are seriously clueless. 

    Under Nicolae Ceauşescu, both abortion and contraception were forbidden, leading to a rise in birth rates.[1
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_orphans

     

    In 1966 Nicolae Ceauşescu, Secretary General of Romania’s Communist Party, passed a decree to ban abortion and birth control in order to increase the very low birth and fertility rates and increase the population in Romania.  The decree stated that abortion was only allowed to women over 45, women who already had 4 children, the pregnancy endangered the life of the woman or was a result of rape or incest.  Due to this drastic decrease in abortions the number of live births rose 92.8% from 273,687 to 527,764 in 1967 (“Demographic Policy”).  Without birth control or abortion to keep them from having children, the amount of children abandoned to the government rose dramatically, landing hundreds of thousands of children in ill-equipped orphanages (Romanian Orphans).

    http://annikagudjonsson.blogspot.com/

     

    Let’s talk about a loss of freedom.

     

    All women were forced to go for a gynaecological control every month, this

    monthly health control representing the requirement for receiving medical care8. The pregnancies detected were monitored until term. In this way, the possibilities to provoke an empirical abortion were almost totally annihilated. The law was extremely severe, numerous gynaecologists as well as women who resorted to this method paying with years of prison their trial to avoid it.

    http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/010623_paper25.pdf

  • rebellious-grrl

    I am selective. You are trying to take away my right to my bodily autonomy. She is not.

  • ahunt

    Yah…because I would compare Ceausescu’s Romania to the US today. No really.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Inane ramblings, oh you are so a Christian man!

    My body, my vagina, and my life is very significant to me.

    I do not know one pro-life woman. Muslim women collaborate with muslim men to hurt women, and girls, all the time, like in christian America, famous christian woman Phyllis Schlafly said if a man rapes his wife, it is not rape. Sarah Palin said she would force raped 14-year-old girls to give birth; these two women can be considered part of the American christian taliban. Other christian women tell married women who are being abused by their husbands, that they can not divorce their husbands for beating them, says the bible. These christian women and preachers tell the abused woman, it is her fault, for not being submissive enough. When the abused wife divorces her husband for beating her, she is shunned by the christian women.

    Tell me christian man, who is trying to cause you unwanted, extreme, genital pain, against your will?

    I have cried at the thought, of all of you prolifers out there, trying to force my vagina to do something, extremely painful, I do not want it to do. I did not like growing up after being sexually abused as a child, to find out there is a whole other group of people out there, that wants to force my vagina into doing something extremely painful, I do not want it to do. Who are these people? Christians, and prolifers they are all for a second rape! How does it feel to terrorize someone who was sexually abused as a child, it is a christian sport, yes. You are all gross, and heartless to women, little girls, and rape victims.

  • forced-birth-rape

    Warning girls, and women of the world!

     

    The christians, catholics, prolifers, and BornIn1984 want control, and dictatorship of every vagina on the planet. I feel very sorry for Romanian women, that BornIn1984, and his prolife people, have gathered the statistics of their poor vaginas.   

    I will say this again, prolifers are perverts!

  • prochoiceferret

    All women were forced to go for a gynaecological control every month, this monthly health control representing the requirement for receiving medical care8. The pregnancies detected were monitored until term. In this way, the possibilities to provoke an empirical abortion were almost totally annihilated. The law was extremely severe, numerous gynaecologists as well as women who resorted to this method paying with years of prison their trial to avoid it.

     

    So, in a nutshell, it was “a culture of life.”

  • colleen

    a sadomasochistic pervert

    I think you should wear it.

    Although I think we all appreciate that, despite your neglected toddler like need for constant attention you haven’t spammed the blog with 300+ repeats of the same stupid post once today.

  • ahunt

    In 1957, the procedure was officially legalized in Romania, following which 80% of pregnancies ended in abortion, mainly due to the lack of effective contraception. In 1966 abortion was criminalized (except in exceptional cases) again, by Decree 770[5] under the rule of Nicolae Ceauşescu. The natalist policy was completed with mandatory gynecological revisions and penalizations for single women over 25 and married couples without children.[5]

    The sudden effect of this policy was a transition from a birth rate of 14.3‰ in 1966 to 27.4‰ in 1967. Between 1972 and 1985, further degrees altered the minimum age for legal abortion.[5] The children born in this period, especially between 1966 and 1972, are nicknamed the decreţei (singular decreţel). They had to put up with crowded public services as the state was not ready for the sudden increase. The word decreţei has a negative nuance for the perceived mental and physical damage due to the risky pregnancies and failed illegal abortions.[6]

    This policy was reversed in 1989, after the Romanian Revolution, and, since that time, abortion has been legal in Romania.

    Snerk…that pesky dictatorship, indeed.

  • ahunt

     OOOOPS

     

    Essentially Born…Romania 45 years ago is NOT where you wanna go!

  • forced-birth-rape

    This is why the government should have no say in abortion; women’s vaginas are not a water faucet, you can turn on, and off. A vagina is attached to a woman, or little girl, with physical, and emotional feelings. The government could just say I want more soldiers, I am going to stop abortion, and but women’s bodies, and vaginas to work for me, giving me the soldiers I want, or child-sex-toys for my catholic church. Oh yes, fox news and the people who watch it, are already saying give us more white babies.

  • colleen

    So, in a nutshell, it was “a culture of life.”

    Precisely, it was a pro-life paradise. Not a hint of ‘contraception mentality’ in the country. The (inevitable) orphanages still are infamous for their neglect and abuse.

  • prochoiceferret

    This is why the government should have no say in abortion; women’s vaginas are not a water faucet, you can turn on, and off.

     

    There may be some people out there with the ability to turn on a (willing) woman’s vagina like a water faucet, but I doubt that any of them are anti-choice.

  • ahunt
  • bornin1984

    I am selective. You are trying to take away my right to my bodily autonomy. She is not.

    So as long as you agree with someone, they get a free pass and can type as they wish? That is nothing I did not already know, but it is nice to see you admit as much. Nothing is better than a nice, big dosage of hypocrisy in the morning, noon and night.

  • bornin1984

    Sure, and Romanian orphanages where such a great thing. (Yes, loads of sarcasm).

    They are a much better thing than being dead, that is for sure.

    But, no, I really am not clueless, considering the fact that I already know all of this, henceforth my original comment about Eastern Europe. Which, for the record, no one has really bothered to dispute. Not that there is anything to dispute.

    Bans on abortion equal higher birth rates and lower instances of all abortions.

  • prochoiceferret

    They are a much better thing than being dead, that is for sure.

     

    I see. So, Romania under Ceauşescu is better, in “pro-life” terms, than (for example) the present-day Netherlands, where abortion-on-demand is legal up to the 21st week?

  • bornin1984

    I see. So, Romania under Ceauşescu is better, in \”pro-life\” terms, than (for example) the present-day Netherlands, where abortion-on-demand is legal up to the 21st week?

    No idea. I did not know we were talking about which country is better to live in.

  • princess-rot

    Hey…Born…heard the latest? While you have been boring the less patient among us into eyeclawing ennui, Black Market chemical abortifacients have been staking territory here in the US.

    Hey…you keep waxing eloquent, I’ll keep scrolling, and meanwhile, abortion will truly become a matter between a woman and her dealer…just as predicted right here…many moons ago.

     

    Why isn’t there a “Like” button on this site, ala Facebook? I really have no idea how one person can be so morally and wilfully ignorant as to effectively stick their fingers in their ears and say “Lalala… there’s no systemic devalution of the lives of women and girls in the name of potentials… there’s no such thing as rape culture or sexual double standards! Post-feminist world! Lalalalala I can’t hear you!”

  • rebellious-grrl

    Born, a big spoonful of honey will help with that dosage.

  • rebellious-grrl

    my original comment about Eastern Europe. Which, for the record, no one has really bothered to dispute. Not that there is anything to dispute.

    Are you just reading your posts? Hello, we’ve disputed this. In case you didn’t read it here’s some more “disputing.”

     

    Eastern Europe is a very good example of this.

    Is it?

    Is this the direction anti-choicers want the U.S. to go? Communism? Forced birth, no sex education, no contraception? Secret police to enforce a woman’s fertility .

    2. Decree no.  770/1966 concerning prohibition of abortion
    Taking into account the State’s need of labour force in order to realise the
    extensive industrialisation program, the Communist Party decided to increase the population from 23 to 30 millions of inhabitants. Therefore in 1967 it was adopted the Decree 770 by which the abortion and using of contraceptive means were prohibited. This pro-natalist law had a constrictive character, violating the woman right to decide her family dimension. The harshness and the brutal way of applying this law had negative consequences on long term for Romania. Some specialists consider that methods used by Ceausescu’s pro-natalist policy were those specific for animal breeding. According to the Decree adopted in 1967 every woman under 45 years old had the patriotic duty to give to the homeland at least 5 children. In order to fulfil this objective the political power created a strong apparatus for controlling the whole system. Securitatea (the Secret Political Policy) founded in maternity-hospitals a specialised service for controlling the activity of gynaecologists and nurses.
    ……………..
    On the other hand, the sexual education was almost non-existent. In the official
    discourses on this topic, the accent was focused on the happiness of being mother, on the satisfactions of being a “heroic mother” who gives many and healthy children to the homeland.

    3. Consequences of the Decree no.  770/1966 concerning prohibition of abortion
    However, on long run the consequences of applying this law were not at all
    favourable to Romania.

    In this sense, Vladimir Trebici shows also that only between 1982 and 1988
    (years for which there are available statistical data) 3,360 women died, leaving 6 880 orphans children; it means an average of two children per every demised mother. In numerous cases these orphan children remained in residential care till they reached the age of 18 years.

    Another consequence of this law was a high increasing of the infant mortality rate.  Between 1967–1989 there were born almost 10 millions children. 340,000 of them died before reaching the age of 1 year.

    http://www.demogr.mpg.de/Papers/workshops/010623_paper25.pdf

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    Eastern Europe is a very good example of this.

    Born you brought up that Eastern Europe was such a wonderful panacea of childbirth. We are just showing you examples. So please hold back on the crabbiness of your response.

  • saltyc

    Far fewer women are pro-choice than are ones who are not. Far more women believe abortions should be restricted than those who do not. Women who take the pro-life position are far more ardent in their beliefs then are men.

    So effing what? Just being anti-choice doesn’t mean they won’t need or have abortions. You know that don’t you? But the men never will. People are really bad at predicting what their own needs will be, and if you look at the issue, it’s absolutely about women’s legitimate right to determine their own destinies, whereas the rights of others to determine said destinies are not real. It is women’s bodies we’re talking about, and it’s men making the laws to restrict them. Opinion polls are not a basis for human rights in a democracy, thank goodness. You know that, right?

    Yes-or-no answers to polls have a limited meaning, and certainly doesn’t mean what you say. Sure someone can answer “yes” to are you pro-life, that doesn’t mean it’s terribly important to them, and it doesn’t mean they want women to go straight to jail while recovering from an abortion, and it doesn’t even mean they are members of any anti-choice organization. It just means they answered yes.

     

    Now what percentage of women are dues-paying members of an anti-choice organization? What percentage would try and stop their neighbor’s daughter from getting one? What percentage even list it in the top 5 reasons they would vote for someone?

  • colleen

    You’re probably aware of this but the it simply isn’t true that “far fewer women are pro-choice than pro-life”. A considerable majority of men and women don’t wish to see Roe overturned or abortion criminalized. Women might say that they’re ‘pro-life’ for themselves but nowhere near a majority would force this position on other women. Likewise while women say they’re ‘pro-life’ when confronted with a judgemental asshole asking personal questions the fact of the matter is that when confronted with an unwanted pregnancy many nominally ‘pro-life’ women have an abortion.
    When it comes to effective contraception, support for the ‘pro-life’ position is in the single digits. These losers best suck it up and adapt to the ‘contraceptive mentality’.

  • ahunt

    Indeed….and all it takes is horrific oppression… stripping women of their humanity- under a vile dictator, or a woman-hating church…

     

    You are a misogynist to the bone, Born.

     

    Tell us…how far will you go? What policies will you institute to protect the preshus BZEF?

  • invalid-0

    “sadomasochistic perverts”

     

    from what I’ve seen it’s not far of the mark.

     

    What the hell have you seen, Salty?

  • forced-birth-rape

    Look here arex, I dont want my little sister havig her vagina cut open, ripped open, or her dying while giving birth aginst her will. If my little sister says I want to risk these things, and go through extreme vaginal pain, then pregnancy, and cildbirth is a lot sweeter, by far. Forced birth is SADOMASOCHISTIC! It is perverted, and abusive, to force women, little girls, and rape victims, to do something painful, with their vaginas, they do not want to do!

  • carolyninthecity

    Why do you look up abortion a few times a day? Just to see what’s up with abortion today? 

     

    I think it’s more then logical to assume that a person who is in need of an abortion, who happens to live in a state with strict anti-choice laws, would turn to the anonymity of the internet. How does that not make sense? It’s weird how anti-choicers insist that there’s only one kind of woman who will ever have an abortion. That self-identifying as “pro-life” has any bearing on weather you would choose to have an abortion if you were faced with that decision. 1 in 3, Born. That’s how many women will have at least one abortion in her life. Do you honestly think that doesn’t include the staunch Christians of the red states? 

     

     

  • bornin1984

    Born you brought up that Eastern Europe was such a wonderful panacea of childbirth. We are just showing you examples. So please hold back on the crabbiness of your response.

    No, I brought it up to show what happens when you make abortion illegal after it has been legal and vice versa. I do believe you might want to go back and re-read what I typed out and what I was responding to.

  • bornin1984

    Are you just reading your posts? Hello, we\’ve disputed this. In case you didn\’t read it here\’s some more \”disputing.\”

    I could only shake my head in shame. Here is what I said verbatim:

    When abortion is made illegal, the total number of abortions go down and the number of births go up. When it is made legal, the total number of abortions go up and the number of births go [down]. Eastern Europe is a very good example of this.

    I would ask you where you have disputed this, but you have not, quite possibly because there is nothing to dispute, as this is simply a fact. So instead you have started posting facts about Romania which I already know, instead of trying to actually dispute what it is I wrote out. Ehhh, it happens so much, that I am quite used to it by now.

  • bornin1984

    So basically you think that most people are hypocrites and they do not mean what they say. When they say that abortion should be restricted to certain cases, they do not really mean that, or they just mean for others. When they call themselves pro-life, they mean for themselves, not for others (which we have already been over this already). I understand. Whatever makes it easier for you to digest, I suppose.

    Even though I have a mind to, I am not going to even ask what controlling ones own destiny means as it relates to being allowed to kill someone else, or even how abortion can be a human right, because I do not think that you even believe what you type out. Certainly, most people do not. You see, here is the fact of the matter. You can only discredit the opinion of those people who hold a different view than what you want them to hold, not because they are irrelevant, but because they are not want you want them to hold. How else can you explain this site posting articles of people who laud polls when they perceive them to strengthening their position, while simultaneously dismissing those which do not? That would be a classic case of cherry picking.

  • ahunt

    Asperger’s Syndrome much, Born?

     

     

  • ahunt

    Snerk…you bring up Romania as evidence of your contention…get slammed for ignoring both the context and ramifications of your assertion, and then whine because you didn’t write anything about the context and ramifications of outlawing abortion in Romania.

     

    How far are YOU willing to go, Born? Until you can answer this question, yer jus’ blowin’ smoke.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Forced birth is SADOMASOCHISTIC! I second that.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Born, your point is?

    When abortion is made illegal, the total number of abortions go down and the number of births go up. When it is made legal, the total number of abortions go up and the number of births go [down]. Eastern Europe is a very good example of this.

     

    What’s your source on the number of abortions and/or births?  If abortion is illegal than how do you know the numbers of abortions? 

     

    I would ask you where you have disputed this, but you have not, quite possibly because there is nothing to dispute, as this is simply a fact. So instead you have started posting facts about Romania which I already know, instead of trying to actually dispute what it is I wrote out. Ehhh, it happens so much, that I am quite used to it by now.

     

    I brought up facts about a country where abortion was illegal. Why should you have a problem with that. Don’t you want abortion to be illegal?

     

  • rebellious-grrl

    carolyninthecity, thanks for bringing us back to the article. Which is another stellar article from the ever-great Amanda Marcotte. (She is one of my favorite writers)

     

    1 in 3, Born. That’s how many women will have at least one abortion in her life. Do you honestly think that doesn’t include the staunch Christians of the red states?

  • bornin1984

    What\’s your source on the number of abortions and/or births?

    http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-romania.html

    (Yes, it is sourced.)

    If abortion is illegal than how do you know the numbers of abortions?

    The exact same way Guttmacher gets the number of abortions in countries it is illegal in order to state that abortions rates are similar between countries where it is legal and illegal.

    I brought up facts about a country where abortion was illegal. Why should you have a problem with that. Don\’t you want abortion to be illegal?

    And, as I said, I already know what policies were instituted. You are somehow operating under the assumption that I do not, even though I was the one who initially mentioned Romania to begin with.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Born, having a hard time following your logic.

    The exact same way Guttmacher gets the number of abortions in countries it is illegal in order to state that abortions rates are similar between countries where it is legal and illegal.

    So abortion rates remain constant in countries where it’s legal or illegal?

     

    So instead you have started posting facts about Romania

     

    And, as I said, I already know what policies were instituted. You are somehow operating under the assumption that I do not, even though I was the one who initially mentioned Romania to begin with.

     

    Born, I have no idea what you do or do not know. Why would I? You mentioned Romania and then bitch at me for posting facts about Romania? Are you kidding me? Talking to you is serious waste of my time.

     

     

  • northeast-elizabeth

    I think it’s more then logical to assume that a person who is in need of an abortion, who happens to live in a state with strict anti-choice laws, would turn to the anonymity of the internet.

     

    That’s exactly what the researchers DID assume.  And that’s why their study wasn’t science, but simply partisan advocacy.   The assumption wasn’t based on the actual data, just the political point the researchers wished to make.

     

    The researchers didn’t know the sex of the Googlers.  The researchers didn’t know the age of the Googlers.  The researchers didn’t know the political or religious views of the Googlers.  The researchers didn’t know anything at all about the Googlers.  

     

    It would also be “more logical to assume” that a person bent on the disruption of or violence against an abortion facility would be more likely to seek the anonymity of the internet.  NARAL could use the IDENTICAL findings to buttress a report that such dangerous people are pumping up the Google stats for “abortion” searches in conservative area.   But “women seeking an abortion” and “anti-choicers looking for a target abortion clinic” are very, very different groups.  So the study proves precisely this:  Nothing.

     

    Personally, I think it’s more likely to assume that conservatives are much more passionate about the abortion issue and that’s why you find more Googling of the word in anti-abortion states.  But the results of this worthless report don’t meaningfully confirm or rebut that hypothesis.  We just don’t know the identity of the people doing the Googling.

     

    Finally, assuming the researchers’ conclusion is true: so what?   I’m sure that abortion-seeking women in conservative states turn to Google to find a clinic more than those in liberal states, because in liberal states the women know they can just walk into the local Planned Parenthood.  Wow!  But again, even this fact wouldn’t necessarily show that increase in “abortion” Googling in conservative areas was attributable to abortion-seeking.  They might constitute only a small fraction of the people actually Googling that word.

     

    So it’s not “science,” but the Left is not really interested in that any way.


  • bornin1984

    Why do you look up abortion a few times a day? Just to see what\\\’s up with abortion today?

    To keep up with the news, as people do. Or just to look things up, as people do.

    I think it\\\’s more then logical to assume that a person who is in need of an abortion, who happens to live in a state with strict anti-choice laws, would turn to the anonymity of the internet. How does that not make sense? It\\\’s weird how anti-choicers insist that there\\\’s only one kind of woman who will ever have an abortion. That self-identifying as \\\”pro-life\\\” has any bearing on weather you would choose to have an abortion if you were faced with that decision. 1 in 3, Born. That\\\’s how many women will have at least one abortion in her life. Do you honestly think that doesn\\\’t include the staunch Christians of the red states?

    To repeat myself, just go to Google and type in abortion and see what comes up. I am not sure if results come up differently based on area, but looking at the front page, out of about twelve or thirteen results, only three give information on access to abortion (Planned Parenthood, abortion.com and emedicine). One result is a Wikipedia article on abortion, two are pro-life websites, one result is a link to Google news, two are articles detailing the abortion debate, one is the definition of abortion and the other is a link to abortion polls. If you scroll onto the next page, you get inundated with a bunch of pro-life websites, with a small sprinkling of pro-choice websites, and YT videos. I do not need to go on because I think you get the point. The internet is chock full of non-how-to-find-an-abortion related websites. Not everyone who looks up abortion is not trying to have an abortion anymore than someone who looks up guns is trying to buy a gun or someone who looks up immigration is trying to immigrate into the country (or help someone immigrate into the country). It even makes sense when you consider the fact that conservatives would look up abortion more than their liberal counterparts, since conservatives care more about abortion than do their liberal counterparts and are more apt to look things up (which, ugh, I would believe based on the propensity of people around here to not look things up). To somehow state that people who look up abortion do so because they are looking to obtain an abortion is folly. It is even more folly to assume that everyone looking up abortion is a woman.

    At any rate, to point this out as I have about a gajillion times, those staunch Christians, especially Protestants, of red states have abortions at a far, far, far less rate than their non-Christian (or even Christian) counterparts. It really is not even that close.

  • bornin1984

    So abortion rates remain constant in countries where it\’s legal or illegal?

    It was tongue in cheek. I mean you have to estimate the numbers based on available data.

    Born, I have no idea what you do or do not know. Why would I? You mentioned Romania and then bitch at me for posting facts about Romania? Are you kidding me? Talking to you is serious waste of my time.

    I did not, as you think, bitch at you for posting facts on Romania, but somehow posting facts on Romania and then claiming to have refuted my original point, which is that making abortion illegal drives the number of abortions down and the number of births up, while making it legal does the opposite.

  • rebellious-grrl

    It was tongue in cheek. I mean you have to estimate the numbers based on available data.

     

    Can we ban the troll now?

  • bornin1984

    Can we ban the troll now?

    Why would I be banned for stating something Guttmacher themselves have published themselves?

  • mechashiva

    I agree with everything you said except the last sentence. I’m pretty damn far to the left, and these are my exact complaints with the “study.” Junk is junk, no matter where you stand in the debate.

  • colleen

    Can we ban the troll now?

    If we stop talking to this moron he/she will go away eventually. It only posts here because it’s a troll with a toddler’s need for constant stimulation and attention.

  • rebellious-grrl

    This study was published as a peer-reviewed research article at BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com. I would agree more research should be done. Even the authors of the study said, “the method needs more validation before any firm conclusions can be drawn.”

    The research does bring up a very interesting point. Although gender was not indicated in the search, the results are still interesting and something to ponder. (Maybe the google searchers are anti-choice men, like Born.)

    The researchers analyzed one year’s worth of summary search statistics for the 50 U.S. states and 37 countries, representing millions of anonymous searches. They found that states and countries with lower abortion rates and less permissive abortion policies had higher search volumes for the single word “abortion.” Conversely, states and countries with higher abortion rates and more permissive abortion policies had lower “abortion” search volumes…………….”One would have expected that ‘the more abortions, the more searches for abortion,’” said Ben Reis PhD, of the Children’s Hospital Boston Informatics Program and assistant professor of pediatrics at Harvard Medical School. “Instead, these turn out to be inversely related.”
    The paper, published online August 25 in the open access journal BMC Public Health (http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcpublichealth/), discusses the potential value of augmenting standard data collection with tools like Google…………Abortion search volume was significantly higher in states where fewer than 10 percent of counties had providers, and in those with a mandatory waiting period, mandatory counseling, mandatory parental notification for minors, or mandatory parental consent for minors………..
    “One possible explanation for these inverse relationships is that people with limited access to local abortion services are using the Internet to find providers outside their health system or outside their region, while people with more access are able to go through standard local healthcare channels to find an abortion provider,” Brownstein said.
    “This exploratory analysis highlights the emerging potential of search data to benefit public policy debates,” said Reis, director of the Predictive Medicine Group at Children’s, adding that the method needs more validation before any firm conclusions can be drawn.
    The team chose abortion as their test case for proof of concept because of widespread public interest and varied regulations among U.S. states and between countries.

  • mechashiva

    My main issue is that the study is being used to validate the author’s (and some commentors’) political ideology when the data doesn’t actually support (or refute) it. This is a common problem… too common, and I’m pretty irritated when I see people on my side of the debate make this kind of error. Honestly, every time it makes me want to yell, “Shut up, n00b! Stop making us look bad!”

  • wendy-banks

    Here, here! I agree with you and Forced birth is rape.

  • rebellious-grrl

    My original response was to Northeast Elizabeth, who said, “So it’s not “science,” but the Left is not really interested in that any way.” Which prompted my response that no it is a study because as a “lefty progressive” I’m interested in science.

    I based my response on what Amanda said,

    “The other thing we can learn from this is that women who have poor access to abortion services are turning to the Internet, so the Internet is where the information they need should be.  Websites that connect women to abortion services already exist, and they need to be optimized so they come up quickly on searches.”

     

    I disagree with you that you think I’m making us look bad. Not all progressives/prochoice/lefties are of one mindset. We do disagree occasionally and I don’t think it makes us look bad.

  • rebellious-grrl

    double post – mods please delete

  • mechashiva

    It isn’t a matter of disagreement, it’s a matter of improperly extrapolating conclusions from evidence that doesn’t actually provide any information about who is doing “abortion” googling or what their motivations are. Amanda Marcotte’s main “points” in the article are drawn from pure speculation, and this is problematic because she presents these hypotheses as proven facts. It’s a silly, amateurish mistake at best and dishonest at worst.