The transcripts are here:

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org ... e-footage/



And Owen that just cost me a minute of my life that I could otherwise have spent saving the world....

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_IAW.html?gclid=CjwKEAjwjMauBRDH-bOCo56b13wSJABA2-Hv_YZucZsSe3RYHbOIQy5K3vlZX_kmKA4qt9HvqUplgxoCWkfw_wcB

A good link on abortion rates ... there doesn't seem to be much difference between western Europe and the US.. It would be good to see a breakdown amongst the European countries. I've read that northern Europe has higher abortion rates than southern Europe (which has a different religious tradition).

Yes, but Northern Europe still has a lower rate than North America on your link. The real difference is between East and West. In the former Warsaw Pact countries, contraception is used far less (and less reliable methods are used), and abortion rates are much higher. Particularly in Russia.

Here's the US rate per the Guttmacher institute:

The U.S. abortion rate declined to 16.9 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in 2011,

For England and Wales:

The age-standardised abortion rate was 15.9 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44. This was 0.8% lower than in 2012.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_2013.pdf

So it is slightly higher in the US. The US also varies quite a bit by state. This is very interesting:

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/sta ... tion-rate/

What I find fascinating, and unexpected by me, is that the highest abortion rates tend to be in the Northeast. These are the states where we have high amounts of sex education in the schools. (I have a teen so I know. My teen daughter can get a free condom at school from an undisclosed adult if we provide signed consent. It's on the same form where we provide consent to use an Epipen for an extreme allergic reaction.) These are also the states with relatively large safety nets. Conversely, the great state of Mississippi has a legal abortion rate of 3.7 per 1,000. I'm guessing that they are following Supreme Court guidelines.

In any case, this does provide some evidence that some of the liberal solutions suggested above are not getting to the heart of the issue.

RJ, the fact that there is only 1 abortion clinic (2 abortion providers) open in Mississippi might have something to do with it....http://wakeupmississippi.org
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/mississippi.html


1 clinic (apparently constantly being harassed) for a whole state; I am not sure what the other provider is, presumably a hospital, but that does provide the same access as a clinic. State law putting as many restrictions as they on abortions. Social disapproval. What liberal bromides are disproved here? Yes, you would think perhaps in richer states there would be less economic pressure but I think most women are not looking for the government to bail them out--if they don't have a husband to support them, if they are out of a job, if they are barely getting by with 1 or 2 or 3 kids they're apt to look at getting an abortion. That is going to happen whether we're talking about Mississippi or Mass. But what is different is that in Mississippi anti-abortion forces have been successful in cutting off access and making it harder to get abortions. (Also how they are counting the abortions? If women are going to other states do those abortions get counted for the other states?)

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:DF, please link us to some unedited transcripts and let's see what they say.

No, too much work.

Oh well. So why should we believe what you tell us they will prove?

My wager is with rickyp. Frankly, it's immaterial what you believe about PP. You would favor abortion no matter what they do or don't do.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:DF, please link us to some unedited transcripts and let's see what they say.

No, too much work.

Oh well. So why should we believe what you tell us they will prove?

My wager is with rickyp. Frankly, it's immaterial what you believe about PP. You would favor abortion no matter what they do or don't do.

So you do not actually care about the full transcript unless it helps you win a bet that the other guy is refusing to take up?

Sheesh. Enough of these games...

Whether or not I support the continued legal position of abortion, the original post was about PP itself. Maybe I could be convinced they are acting badly, if someone could only put a bit of effort in to present the objective evidence.

Ray Jay wrote:For England and Wales:

The age-standardised abortion rate was 15.9 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44. This was 0.8% lower than in 2012.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_2013.pdf

So it is slightly higher in the US.

But England and Wales is not all of the UK. Scotland has a lower rate and Northern Ireland does not have legal abortion (so they tend to come to England, as do many Irish - I wonder if that skews our figures?)

Conversely, the great state of Mississippi has a legal abortion rate of 3.7 per 1,000. I'm guessing that they are following Supreme Court guidelines.

In any case, this does provide some evidence that some of the liberal solutions suggested above are not getting to the heart of the issue.

Odd that when we look at variation across Europe you initially look at religious differences, but variation in the USA different explanation. There are religious differences across the US as well.

Mississippi is has one of the highest rates of religiosity among US states, and the North East states pretty much all are low (with PA close to national average).

And also there are policy differences in Europe and the US. Some US States (and European countries) have low provision and stricter rules - it is outlawed in a few EU nations. Some nearby places will then take on the abortion numbers for others, meaning the comparison is not quite as easy. Abortion stats will be based on where they take place, not where people come from (just as Switzerland will have a higher voluntary euthanasia rate overall because people travel to Dignitas from all over the world - mainly because it is illegal).

In the round, though, we can see that (contra DF's jibe), Europe overall does not have that different an abortion rate than the USA. If you only look at EU nations I suspect it would be lower.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:DF, please link us to some unedited transcripts and let's see what they say.

No, too much work.

Oh well. So why should we believe what you tell us they will prove?

My wager is with rickyp. Frankly, it's immaterial what you believe about PP. You would favor abortion no matter what they do or don't do.

So you do not actually care about the full transcript unless it helps you win a bet that the other guy is refusing to take up?

Sheesh. Enough of these games...

Whether or not I support the continued legal position of abortion, the original post was about PP itself. Maybe I could be convinced they are acting badly, if someone could only put a bit of effort in to present the objective evidence.

The entire, unedited videos are available to watch. Decide for yourself.

freeman3 wrote:RJ, the fact that there is only 1 abortion clinic (2 abortion providers) open in Mississippi might have something to do with it....http://wakeupmississippi.org
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/mississippi.html


1 clinic (apparently constantly being harassed) for a whole state; I am not sure what the other provider is, presumably a hospital, but that does provide the same access as a clinic. State law putting as many restrictions as they on abortions.

Yes, that's a good point. We should certainly look at the lower abortion states and get a sense of whether it is restriction of access -- and sometimes unlawful restriction -- as the primary reason why they are so.

Social disapproval.

Yes, that is also an influencer. Although I would say that is often a positive influencer. Social disapproval is a very positive force for good, whether it is limiting litter, bad driving, adultery, bad manners, drinking, or whatever, social disapproval is not a bad thing.

What liberal bromides are disproved here? Yes, you would think perhaps in richer states there would be less economic pressure

We tend to have paid maternity leave, higher minimum wages, better access to medical care (including contraceptives, morning after pills, etc.), and more sex education here in the blue state northeast. That doesn't seem to be reducing abortion rates, although certainly we should parse the data much more than I have done so here.

but I think most women are not looking for the government to bail them out--if they don't have a husband to support them, if they are out of a job, if they are barely getting by with 1 or 2 or 3 kids they're apt to look at getting an abortion. That is going to happen whether we're talking about Mississippi or Mass. But what is different is that in Mississippi anti-abortion forces have been successful in cutting off access and making it harder to get abortions. (Also how they are counting the abortions? If women are going to other states do those abortions get counted for the other states?)

All valid points. If we all share the goal of reducing abortions, I think we should look at all the states with low abortion rates and figure out what they are doing right. It's not only restrictions (ala Mississippi), unless you are saying that all of the low abortion states are such for that reason.

danivon wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:For England and Wales:

The age-standardised abortion rate was 15.9 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44. This was 0.8% lower than in 2012.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... s_2013.pdf

So it is slightly higher in the US.

But England and Wales is not all of the UK. Scotland has a lower rate and Northern Ireland does not have legal abortion (so they tend to come to England, as do many Irish - I wonder if that skews our figures?)

No doubt. Scotland is also close to Ireland. I'm just saying the blanket comparison of US vs. UK is a political way to look at it, but it would be more helpful to parse the data and compare individual regions of the UK, and individual U.S. states. We can also look at it by county in both places if we want to learn more.

Conversely, the great state of Mississippi has a legal abortion rate of 3.7 per 1,000. I'm guessing that they are following Supreme Court guidelines.

In any case, this does provide some evidence that some of the liberal solutions suggested above are not getting to the heart of the issue.

Odd that when we look at variation across Europe you initially look at religious differences, but variation in the USA different explanation. There are religious differences across the US as well.

By all means, religion is a factor. Utah has a strong Mormon tradition and low abortion rates. It came to mind in Europe because some countries are almost entirely Catholic whereas other countries are almost entirely Protestant. But yes, that is relevant in the US.

And also there are policy differences in Europe and the US. Some US States (and European countries) have low provision and stricter rules

I would not only look at the rules from the political lens of stricter or more lenient. I would also look at the rules from the practical lens of which reduce abortion without being intrusive. Pre-abortion counseling, waiting periods, provision of appropriate literature may all be ways to reduce abortion rates without violating certain norms of respecting a woman and the challenging situation that she faces. In some more liberal European nations they have such rules per the Atlantic article I quoted earlier, but they are rallied against here in the supposedly more conservative US.

I think there is a lot of common ground in this issue, and a lot of data from the various countries and states, but we never get there because the debate is polarized along moral lines, whether it be the sanctity of a woman's choice or a child's life. I do agree there is a huge moral dimension to this. But I do think that both sides could benefit from better outcomes.

I have no problem with pre-abortion counselling, but not if it is predicated on having to tell women a list of things politicians want to use to put them off. Sometimes inaccurate or misleading. It should be neutral and free from pressure either way.

I have little problem with waiting periods but perhaps not for all circumstances (eg, where it is fairly late term and a serious health issue is raised). And not so it becomes long enough to mean a large number of women go over the legal term limit and their decision is forced.

One law Mississippi has that I do have a problem with is a requirement to carry out an ultrasound before any abortion, including determining the heartbeat is audible.

What this means is that for early stages of pregnancy, an external ultrasound will not work to provide the standard, so an internal one would be needed. Which is intrusive, and could be harmful for a victim of rape or abuse.

Here is a list of abortion rates by state:

http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/sta ... tion-rate/

Here is a map of abortion access by state:

http://qz.com/401962/its-becoming-incre ... abortions/

A study regarding reasons given for abortion:

https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/3711005.pdf

Of course I don't really know all of the reasons as to why abortion rates vary by state, but I think there is a strong correlation of two factors and low abortion rates: (1) lack of access, and (2) ideology against it. I am not interested in trying to reduce abortion rates by either cutting off access to getting abortions or by essentially telling women they are doing a bad thing in getting an abortion. I don't really have a problem with a waiting period but at some point these restrictions become too onerous and can signal a societal judgment that she should not be doing this. The internal ultrasound requirement (as Owen pointed out) is just ridiculous.

So what can we learn from Mississippi with regard to abortion? In my view , probably nothing that I would find acceptable. The best thing we can do is to ensure access to contraception , including emergency contraception that would terminate pregnancies at very early stages. After that, ok, a waiting period of. 72 hours seems fine. Maybe even reading a hand-out on fetal development at different stages of gestation. One of the differences cited in the Atlantic article is that abortion restrictions in Europe were not directed against the personal morality of the mother but were for the common good. Here , every hinderance comes from a judgment about the morality on choosing an abortion and thus are opposed even if such a restriction in Europe would be uneventful.

Reducing abortion is a laudable idea but ideas for doing so have to be pro-woman.

freeman3

Of course I don't really know all of the reasons as to why abortion rates vary by state,

There's a clue in the way the data is collected.

As data are reported voluntarily by providers to state or area health departments, information may be incomplete and result in undercounting abortions when calculating rates and ratios in some states. Abortions by state of occurrence include abortions obtained by non-residents of the state as well as those obtained by residents.

Some women may travel to other states, and in some state facilities they may deliberately avoid reporting...
It seems to me that the equal access provisions of the US Constitution may eventually come into play when considering some of the obstructions that opponents place in some state.

Well, that did answer my question as to whether abortion rates might be skewed by women traveling to states less hostile to abortion. The extent to which the figures are skewed appears to be unknown.

freeman3

The extent to which the figures are skewed appears to be unknown.

Its a problem when trying to monitor any activity that is either illegal and/or has moral judgement attached to it.. For example, the percentage of people reporting as Gay in polls increased as society accepted them.

The problem with prohibitions on abortion is that it just doesn't work. In the 85 year period when abortions were illegal in the USA, women still sought and received abortions, at a rate that may be no different than today's rates. Just making abortion more difficult will do nothing to stop determined women who have face a tough situation with little support coming to them if they do give birth.
Hell, in the US there is less support for women who've given birth than in any western nation. If those who oppose abortion would work to make the job of raising a child easier, they might find more women choosing not to abort. But when the burden falls squarely on the young woman, and is not shared by society, they should not be surprised to find that women choose otherwise.
Morality is great when it doesn't cost anything I guess.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/0 ... 17284.html

This is dated. I noticed that Canada has now moved to 52 weeks parental leave and it isn't on this chart.

freeman3 wrote:The transcripts are here:

http://www.centerformedicalprogress.org ... e-footage/



And Owen that just cost me a minute of my life that I could otherwise have spent saving the world....

I'm waiting for something that will disprove my assertions. That would validate your minute.