3) All of the decline in crime from 1985-1997 experienced by high abortion states relative to low abortion states is concentrated among the age groups born after Roe v. Wade. For people born before abortion legalization, there is no difference in the crime patterns for high abortion and low abortion states, just as the Donohue-Levitt theory predicts.
4) When we compare arrest rates of people born in the same state, just before and just after abortion legalization, we once again see the identical pattern of lower arrest rates for those born after legalization than before.
The conclusion that abortion increases mental health risks is reasonable and scientifically accurate, rendering it misleading to suggest to women that abortion has no significant mental health risks, much less is "psychologically safer" than carrying to term. Women facing an unwanted pregnancy often feel desperate and alone, fearing loss of their personal autonomy, destruction of their plans for the future, loss of others' esteem, and altered relationships in addition to viewing a baby as a responsibility that they are ill-prepared to assume. What women typically fail to see is how their decision to abort may significantly compromise the quality of their own lives and those closest to them for many years beyond the decision. They also frequently fail to see the many life enhancing aspects of having a child.
I have 3 statistical questions regarding the Abortion Regression.(1) You say in the book that preganancies rose 30% post Roe v. Wade, but births declined 6%. Implying that Abortion is replacing other forms of Birth Control to a large extent. So states with High v. Low abortion rates may not be relevant. A state with a 36% abortion rate could be roughly equivalent to a state with a 6% abortion rate if they did not see the +30% increase. Should you look at (normalized) birth rates not abortions?(2) How are you measuring Crack in the regression? You say in the book that it isn't users it is dealers who commit the crimes. Therfore the relevant measure should not be useage but marginal gain for marginal turf gain. The crash in price is relevant not the level of use.(3) The logic of your paper argues that unwantedness leads to crime. The proxy for this in the bast is children in poverty and single-parent households. I would suggest using a variable for births into poverty and births to unmarried mothers as variables in your regression, so that you can isolate the degree of unwantedness attributeable to abortions. One of Sailer's key criticisms is that post roe v wade abortions possibly led to higher rates of "illegitimacy". So why not include that as a variable? Thanks,Jeff
Three Missouri clinics have stopped offering abortions in the past decade, and the number performed in the state has declined by one-third to a little over 5,400 last year.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion."
“When you encourage women to use contraception, you give them the sense that they can control their fertility…Our data shows women cannot control their fertility through contraception alone, even when they are using some of the most effective methods. Family planning is contraception and abortion. Abortion is birth control that women need when their regular method lets them down.”
Ann Furedi, BPAS Chief Executive, also noted this false sense of security in her comments on the report, though she said that this was an argument for keeping abortion as a back-up method of birth control.
As the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops notes about contraception and abortion rates, several studies show that increased contraception use generally does not lower abortion rates for two reasons: contraception failure, and risk compensation.
Abby Johnson is a former Planned Parenthood director who now runs “And Then There Were None,” an organization dedicated to helping abortion workers leave their jobs.
While one of the more popular arguments for the use of contraceptives is that they may decrease abortion rates, these statistics appear to support arguments of pro-life activists who have said that contraception drives the need for abortion by creating a false sense that pregnancy is no longer a possible consequence of sexual intercourse.
Typically, methods of abortion such as the IUD which is touted as being as high as 98-99 percent effective. However, this is with so-called “perfect use” and doesn’t account for human error, such as imperfect implantation methods.
The BPAS report notes that 51.2 percent of women who sought abortions in 2016 were using at least one form of contraception, and that a quarter of these women were using methods considered to be the “most effective” forms, such as hormonal birth control pills and long-acting methods such as implants or IUDs.
Some people have said that Levitt's abortion/crime rate theory is racist, but I fail to see how this is. People of other races, ethnic groups, etc, commit crimes as well. If anything it is biased against the lower socieconomic classes, but I will not get into that. I don't recall who said something along the lines of "ending poverty will end crime". This is not true for human nature will always tempt people to cheat or steal to better themselves or those they love. I agree that there are many factors that influence crime besides abortion. Perhaps, ensuring that all children get good educations and have activities to get or keep them off the streets than they will be less likely to engage in crime. People who have hope don't join gangs.