This sort of story always annoys the hell out of me. The writer here, Emily Walker, had prime front page space for this story about the morning after pill and whether or not it reduces the number of abortions. But instead of helping the reader understand whether or not the morning after pill affects abortion rates, she simply drones on with pointless quotes from different interest groups.
You know its going to be a lousy story when the writer leads off with a statement that is never actually corroborated in the body of the story. So Walker writes,
Southwestern Michigan in 2004 saw its lowest abortion rates in more than a decade, which may be tied to a rapid increase in sales and use of an emergency contraceptive pill and hormonal birth control since 2000.
But there is absolutely no evidence that the abortion rate declined. Rather what declined was the total number of abortions. If the number of abortions declined from 20 per 1,000 to 10 per 1,000, then the rate of abortions has changed. The fact that there were 18 percent fewer abortions in 2004 compared to 1994 just says there are fewer total abortions. But the abortion rate could actually have increased but still result in fewer abortions.
How could that possibly be? Well, one possibility is that there are fewer abortions because there are fewer women of childbearing age in Southwest Michigan. Perhaps women are leaving this part of the state for other parts of the state or even other states. Or perhaps demographic changes such as the increasing aging of the American population or the increasing age at which people get married in the U.S. has also effected Michigan. Don’t worry though, Walker’s article is 100% free of any discussion of demographics that might illuminate a bit better why the total number of abortions declined over a 10 year period.
Something else that might be useful to know is whether or not the birth rate in Southwest Michigan has remained stable or not. If the abortion rate fell, for example, but the birth rate rose, then the hypothesis about the morning after pill would be much weaker. According to the state of Michigan, births are declining overall in Michigan because of the overall aging of the population, which would also tend to reduce the number of abortions. But, that sort of information just couldn’t make it into an article filled with pithy comments such as,
“We attribute it mostly to use of emergency contraceptives,” said Joy Brychta, director of Client Services for Planned Parenthood of South Central Michigan. “As our abortions go down, emergency contraception is skyrocketing.”
I’m sure Ms. Brychta is a nice woman, but what she or Planned Parenthood or Right to Life or the United Nations attribute the drop to is completely irrelevant.
It might also have been helpful to know how abortion rates in other parts of the United States, especially in the Midwest, compare with Michigan’s (assuming we knew what Michigan’s rate was). But all we learn from Walker is,
Michigan as a whole actually saw a four-year upswing in abortions before 2004. Nationwide, numbers have steadily declined in the past two decades.
How big of an upswing? How big of a decline? How about the abortion rate in a nearby state such as Ohio? If the abortion rate has been steadily declining nationwide, is there some demographic trend that Michigan’s finally catching up to? Again, no solid facts, but plenty of nonsense like,
“Those, I suppose, may be factors,” said Right to Life Kalamazoo President Rob Karrer. “But I really do believe that Michigan has been a leader in the country regarding declining abortion rates because of the aggressive nature of the Legislature dealing with the issue.”
Again, I’m sure Mr. Karrer is a nice man, but what he believes might be interesting for a story about whether or not abortion is moral, but it is irrelevant to the issue at hand. And, of course, if Michigan is in the lead in abortion regulation, why that apparent increase from 2000-04?
Source:
Abortions decline; cause debated. Emily Walker, Kalamazoo Gazette, August 22, 2005.
”