"Bans do not cut abortion rate" (Oct.2009)
"Restricting the availability of legal abortion does not appear to reduce the number of women trying to end unwanted pregnancies, a major report suggests.
The Guttmacher Institute's survey found abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is legal and regions where it is highly restricted.
It did note that improved access to contraception had cut the overall abortion rate ov
More..er the last decade.
But unsafe abortions, primarily illegal, have remained almost static.
The survey of 197 countries carried out by the Guttmacher Institute - a pro-choice reproductive think tank - found there were 41.6m abortions in 2003, compared with 45.5 in 1995 - a drop which occurred despite population increases.
Nineteen countries had liberalised their abortion laws over the 10 years studied, compared with tighter restrictions in just three.
But despite the general trend towards liberalisation, some 40% of the world's women live amid tight restrictions.
On some continents this is particularly pronounced: well over 90% of women in South America and Africa live in areas with strict abortion laws, proportions which have barely shifted in a decade.
Researchers also noted that while liberalisation was a key element in improving women's access to safer terminations, it was far from the only factor.
Even in countries where abortion is legal, lack of availability and cost may prove major obstacles. In India for example, where terminations are legally allowed for a variety of reasons, some 6m take place outside the health service.
The costs of unsafe abortions, which can include inserting pouches containing arsenic to back street surgery, can be high: the healthcare bill to deal with conditions from sepsis to organ failure can be four times what it costs to provide family planning services.
Every year, an estimated 70,000 women die as a result of unsafe abortions - leaving nearly a quarter of a million children without a mother - and 5m develop complications.
In the developed world, legal restrictions did not stop abortion but just meant it was "exported", with Irish women for instance simply travelling to other parts of Europe, according to Guttmacher's director, Dr Sharon Camp. In the developing world, it meant lives were put at risk.
"Too many women are maimed or killed each year because they lack legal abortion access," she said.
"The gains we've seen are modest in relation to what we can achieve. Investing in family planning is essential - far too many women lack access to contraception, putting them at risk."
Double Dutch
Western Europe is held up as an example of what access to contraceptive services can achieve, and the Netherlands - with just 10 abortions per 1,000 women compared to the world's 29 per 1,000 - is held up as the gold standard.
Here, young people report using two forms of contraception as standard.
Even the UK, which has a relatively high rate, fares well in comparison to the US, where the number of abortions is among the highest in the developed world. The institute says this rate is in part explained by inconsistencies in insurance coverage of contraceptive supplies.
In much of eastern Europe, where abortion was treated as a form of birth control, abortion rates have dropped by 50% in the past decade as contraceptives have become more widely available.
And globally, the number of married women of childbearing age with access to contraception has increased from 54% in 1990 to 63% in 2003, with gains also seen among single, sexually active women.
But there were still significant unmet contraception needs, and a lack of interest among pharmaceutical companies in developing new forms of birth control that provide top protection on demand, the institute said.
Josephine Quintavalle of the anti-abortion Comment on Reproductive Ethics said stopping women falling pregnant in the first place was an area where minds could meet.
"Abortion - back street or front street - is not the answer. Ensuring women have the means to end their pregnancies is not liberating them - they should be able to make real choices before they fall pregnant in the first place," she said.
"But that shouldn't necessarily mean taking pills every day. There will always be problems with access and cost, particularly in countries where people struggle just to buy food.
"What we need is to better understand our fertility - if there are just 24 fertile hours in a month, we need to work out a cheap, effective way for women to know when they can fall pregnant. That would be freedom, and that's what we should aim for.""
(BBC News, Oct.13, 2009)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8305217.stm
***
RELATED:
source of BBC News' international statistics on abortion:
Guttmacher Institute: Advancing Sexual and Reproductive Health Worldwide
http://www.guttmacher.org/ Less..
Note: This item contains 4 connected files and 1 connected link (see top right)
Added: Oct 14 2009 In: news_politics,education
Recorded on: Oct 13 2009
By: lasrever Premium 
- Views: 718 |
- Votes: 1 |
- Recommendations: 0 |
- Comments: 80
Comments - sort by newest to oldest
Duh, anyone with a brain knows that
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "ReligionistScheisse" (R)
"Even the UK, which has a relatively high rate, fares well in comparison to the US, where the number of abortions is among the highest in the developed world."
This is the stupid, illogical thought process that causes people to come to the conclusion they did in that article. You can't compare countries with different demographics and claim that the law is the only thing causing a difference.
The US has a far higher minority rate than the UK. These minorities in the US are several times more likely to have abortions than whites:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5511a1.htm
The US has a high abortion rate not because of our laws, but because we have the highest rate of minorities in the industrialized world.
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "Metapotent" (R)
If a woman chooses to have an abortion within the defined time then it is NONE of anyone else's business.
This planet is already overpopulated anyway.
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "DolbyKid" (R)
This planet is already overpopulated anyway.
spot on
also if you cannot bring a child into a stable environment then you should do it instead of bringing them into over populated, povety and with no financial support.
3 months is my cut off point anything more is wrong
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "Getzlaf15" (R)
I must say that I'm dead-set against abortion. If it were my own, or one in my family, I would do all I could to convince them not to do it. As it is, I have no right to tell someone outside my family how to live their life.
And let's face it. Some people should have to take some kind of test before having a child. Bringing a kid into a bad environment does far more harm than good.
Where are you? France... Netherlands?
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "bardville" (R)
This planet is already overpopulated anyway.
spot on
also if you cannot bring a child into a stable environment then you should do it instead of bringing them into over populated, povety and with no financial support.
3 months is my cut off point anything more is wrong
Agreed - more than 3 months is too cruel for both mother and baby, and adoption services would have to step in.
What gets me is all the retarded Christian fundamentalists who attack the abortion clinics and who protest against the freedom of choice for women.
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "DolbyKid" (R)
What needs to happen here is to determine at exactly what point a fetus becomes a human being.
See right now, a human being is or is not a human being based on the decision of another human being.
And don't we all have the choice of having sex or not? (sry, just had to! ;))
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "Shady-Cadence" (R)
Good post Las.
Most Americans are oblivious to the hundreds of thousands of horrible back alley abortions taking place every year before it was legalized.
Thousands of young woman were killed from unsanitary, dangerous procedures and many more permanantly unable to have children for life.
It was a dark time in our history and many good people went to jail just for performing what has been demanded of since people have been having sex.
Keep it safe and legal. You really want your sister or mother to have to go underground and possibly die?
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "EXCONservative" (R)
And let's face it. Some people should have to take some kind of test before having a child. Bringing a kid into a bad environment does far more harm than good.
Where are you? France... Netherlands?
As an alternative, we could just plant our unwanted babies in the rice paddies, like they did in China. That's why abortion should be illegal: infanticide is so much better.
sarcasm
Now thank you bardville for recognizing other people's right to choose for themselves, even if you don't like abortion. I wish the pro-life people could get it through their thick ******* skulls that NOTHING they do can or will stop the rest of us from exercising our natural right to make these kinds of decisions. Same goes for end of life care and suicide.
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "exploderator" (R)
But they said prohibition would work.
"Those Who Forget History Are Doomed to Repeat It"
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "zindo" (R)
Outlawing abortion would just fill up the emergency wards with desperate young women dying of sepsis from botched coat hanger abortion and fill up the streets with verminous little brats robbing and beating everyone in sight. Unwanted babies grow up to be unwanted adults. And, sure, there's a few exceptions out there that make sweet tales for the Lifetime network, but typically, an unwanted child will grow up to be a miserable person with a lot of problems and likely a criminal or a welfare case. Keep abortion safe and legal.
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "AvgDude2" (R)
Yet its perfectly acceptable to earn your living jamming bags of saline into pychologically impaired women...
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "steveaustin1971" (R)
Most Americans are oblivious to the hundreds of thousands of horrible back alley abortions taking place every year before it was legalized.
Thousands of young woman were killed from unsanitary, dangerous procedures and many more permanantly unable to have children for life.
It was a dark time in our history and many good people went to jail just for performing what has been demanded of since people have been having sex.
Keep it safe and legal. You really want your sister or mother to have to go underground and possibly die?
and what about the babies they choose to kill.....what i see you saying is that her life is more important than the babies life she just had killed.....you know all these women that have abortions just be cause they are pregnant could have not had to worry about it if they would have used protection in the first place.....then people like me could be more understanding about abortion that the women that really need to have it done....you know the ones that was raped, their life is in danger, or something is wrong with the baby.......the bad part is that is only a small precent of the abortions nowdays.....
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "keithgeorge1" (R)
The people and groups that are against abortion always will be so the people that are for it will need to understand that. In Britian it is a law but in the United States are useless Supreme Court somehow found in the Constitution that women have a right to it. I am a believer in choice though, at the time you are having sex at that time decide whether your going to have a baby or not. If people were more responsible abortions could be less.
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "dthillsr" (R)
And let's face it. Some people should have to take some kind of test before having a child. Bringing a kid into a bad environment does far more harm than good.
Where are you? France... Netherlands?
Would you be against abortion to save the life of your wife or daughter?
Some countries, like Romania, that outright banned abortion let risky pregnancies continue, which led to the unnecessary deaths of many women. There are many, even sitting congressmen, that want an outright ban on the procedure. Of course, they say that in the event of rape, incest, or risk to the mother that abortion be allowed, but what degree of risk is allowable to them?
I am against the idea of abortion as well. However, I do not want a government policy (generally based on religious beliefs) determining the outcome of personal health decisions.
My wife's last pregnancy was hit and miss. We openly discussed the option of abortion with the doctor and it was important that option be available. Luckily, everything worked out.
Letting politicians get involved in personal health care decisions is a really bad idea. It is amazing to me that politicians are still able to use this issue to raise money.
Posted Oct-14-2009 by "PH-DEE" (R)