Archive for the Guttmacher Category

Dryfoos called 1st Guttmacher Institute Prez (Frederick Jaffe) “total bastard” and “abusive”

Posted in Guttmacher, Jaffe Memo with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 20, 2016 by saynsumthn

A former director of research for the Guttmacher Institute has described their first president as abusive and his conduct as sexist. On their website, the Guttmacher Institute names Frederick S. Jaffe as their first president, who “from 1968 (when the Institute was founded as the Center for Family Planning Program Development) until his death in 1978.”

Guttmacher describes Frederick Jaffe

But, in May of 1998, Sharon Zane interviewed Joy Dryfoos, a former director of research and planning for the Alan Guttmacher Institute who was not so complimentary. The discussion was part of the Carnegie Corporation Oral History of the Columbia University Oral History Research Office. Dryfoos is credited with originating the concept of full-service community schools and also for what she referred to as, “the Dryfoos formula for estimating the need for family planning.”

Joy Dryfoss

Joy Dryfoos

Dryfoos, who passed away in 2012, was an interesting woman who doesn’t hold back on her views of the Guttmacher family planning advocates she worked with. Her interview is full of behind the scenes snippets surrounding her association with school based clinics, The Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie among other population control organizations. The 72-year-old Dryfoss ( at the time of the interview) told Zane how she got involved with the Planned Parenthood Research Arm, named after Alan Guttmacher.

Dryfoos begins the interview describing her childhood and then admits to Zane that although she was raised religious she claims that she was eventually “turned off” to religion at a young age, “I became a non-believer at a very early age, and I’ve never figured out how I figured that out, but I did. I was just totally turned off.”

After Dryfoos finished college, traveled a bit and got married she had one child but could not have more. Her husband George Dryfoos, did not want to adopt. In the early 1960’s Dryfoss said that three of her friends got together and started a group called, Research, Writing and Editing Associates. Eventually Dryfoos ventured out on her own, analyzing the 1960 census and writing research briefs. This is when her connection to Planned Parenthood’s research arm (at that time) began. As Dryfoos tells it:

    By about ’62 or ’63, one of these research briefs — through a connection of one of my pals –got to a guy who was on the research committee of national Planned Parenthood.

    I showed how you could use the census to project the need for childcare, low-income housing, and family planning; and it was the family planning one — that got picked up.

Dryfoos recounted how she met Population Council consultant and Margaret Sanger Award winner Christopher Tietze. According to a report in the New York Times Tietze believed that biological life begins at conception, he also believed that a fetus ”deserves the respect and protection that we accord people” only ”when it has become capable of surviving.” The times then quotes Tietze as saying:

    ”At present,viability is assumed by most doctors to be reached at about 24 weeks from the onset of the last menstrual period. However, some genetic defects may not be discovered until late in pregnancy. Is such a fetus viable? Is that meaningful life? I think not.”

In addition to Tietze, Dryfoos met American Eugenics Society member Charlie Westoff was was also a member of Planned Parenthood’s National Advisory Council. Westoff would eventually become the Executive Director of President Richard Nixon’s Commission on Population Growth and the American Future which opened up the flood gates of funding to Planned Parenthood. This Commission was headed by John D. Rockefeller and applauded by former Planned Parenthood vice president Frederick Jaffe, who also influenced Dryfoos.

Commission-on-Poulation-Growth-and-teh-American-future-Maafa21

In 1968, Jaffe founded the PPFA Center for Family Planning Program Development, which later became the Guttmacher Institute.

Dryfoos explains meeting these three:

    So pretty soon, I was summoned before this research committee, which was very prestigious in those days. It had, like, Ashley Montague and — oh, people you wouldn’t know: Christopher Tietze and Charlie Westoff (who’s still alive and still very much a leading demographer). So I met with them, and here I was, this cute young woman who had written all this stuff.

    So they were particularly interested in my idea of estimating the need for family planning through the use of the census data. One guy named Fred Jaffe was vice president of national Planned Parenthood for public information. He was trying to get Planned Parenthood and the rest of the world to recognize that there had to be federal funds for family planning. He saw in me this tool for coming up with a method of describing this need in a very researchy, not at all emotional may. It had to do with low-income women. It in addition to the census, was actually based on estimates of fecundity and sterility. Overtime, it became a work of science that was published in the American Journal of Public Health.

By 1970, Dryfoos recalled how The Population and Family Planning Act was passed and that she got to know some of the people on the research committee.

    They invited me to go to the Population Association meetings, and I got pretty interested in that field.

So interested that after going back to college, Dryfoos was recruited to work for what would become the Guttmacher Institute where she remained for the next 15 years. She described Alan Guttmacher as a “terrible administrator” who “was talking about abortion” and “knew how to flatter people” which, according to Dryfoos led to him being the figurehead. There she met Frederick Jaffe, the organization’s first president, who once authored a very controversial memo that advocated eugenics through compulsory sterilization and abortion.

    So I graduated, which then gave me the qualifications to do what I would have done anyway. Fred Jaffe hired me before I even got the degree. He was just waiting for me to get out, because he was putting together money for a new agenda. Alan Guttmacher, by then, was the president of the Planned Parenthood, and Fred was preparing the way to start something which is now the Alan Guttmacher Institute, but [then] it was called the Center for Family Planning Program Development. He said, “You’ve got to come and work there.” So I said, “Fine.

Dryfoos then told Zane how abusive Jaffe was. She also claimed the Guttmacher Institute president was committed to family planning as “a poverty issue.”

    He was a very interesting character. He should be written about. He’s a very important character. I’m not sure that there would be –I don’t know whether there would be a family planning program the way it was or whether there would have been legislation without him. He was also a total bastard. He was, as my husband would always say, he was like a German who was either at your throat or at your feet.

    He was very abusive. He was totally directed on one issue. He was just totally committed to this cause of family planning, as a poverty issue. He was an old leftist, an old union guy.

Adding later in the interview that :

    everybody in the national organization of Planned Parenthood hated him because he was so arrogant and mean, and these volunteer ladies really hated him, the ones that he didn’t sleep with, I might add. There was a lot of that stuff going on. But, I mean, this was the early days of Planned Parenthood as well. So he was a controversial character, but he was just so driven, and he knew how to drive Congress as well…

Dryfoos bragged that a formula she authored was used by Jaffe at Guttmacher as the reason family planning funding was so openly received.

    And, you know, we developed the most elaborate statistical analyses over some little point, like how many trained nurses we need in 1972 versus 1973 for family planning, and where they should be trained. But I think he was right. I think it was a very good strategy to come up –to get Congress, hook Congress with all this detailed planning. And he got all this stuff written into the legislation that not only provided money for family planning in clinics. They had to plan — there had to be a national plan, and the national plan was based on the Dryfoos formula for estimating the need family planning. So the money was allocated according to that formula That’s why we would keep tinkering with it, just because it was fun. But I could tell you a neighborhood — how many family planning patients there might be, with this thing. So we used it like magic. And this Center was very successful. It got huge federal grants and a big Kellogg [Foundation] grant, and we had a lot of money.

What did they do with all that money? Well according to Dryfoos, they started the McDonald’s of centralized family planning services.

    We got Model Cities money and OEO [Office of Economic Opportunity] money, and we would go into a community and develop a plan for coordinated family planning. It’s funny, because this is sort of the first iteration of this whole idea of services in one central location. But this idea was that they should form a corporation, kind of, at the community level and figure out where all the family planning programs should be and centralize the administration and the training and the supplies and all that stuff, and get the delivery of the services out to the neighborhood. As we always said, it was just like McDonald’s. It was the same theory. And that’s what we did. And we did that in a lot of communities. Eventually, I did it in a number of states and I had sixteen people working for me.

Dryfoos talked about the day she told Jaffe she was quitting, noting that instead of selecting a replacement she suggested he was sexist and chose a graduate student with “great legs.”

    I gave him a list of, like, twenty people who would be great, and by then he could pay a huge salary. In fact, he was paying me a huge salary. And could have had his pick because it was considered a good job. Instead, he hired a graduate student sort of type.

    When I asked him, he said she had great legs. And that might have been the truth. I mean, he might have just wanted a pretty young thing around. Strangely enough, she’s still there, and this is twenty years later…He [Jaffe] was just such a pain.

In 1978, the year Frederick D. Jaffe died, despite his conduct, Planned Parenthood honored Jaffe, by giving him their top award, the Margaret Sanger Award.

Read the full Dryfoos interview here.

Guttmacher’s delusion of “independence” from Planned Parenthood

Posted in Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher with tags , , , , , , , , , , on March 23, 2016 by saynsumthn

The Guttmacher Institute – which supports and promotes the full agenda of Planned Parenthood, even taking its name from one of the abortion giant’s former presidents – has been successful in convincing the media that they are the most credible source on all things family planning and abortion. In turn, the media has happily presented Guttmacher as an impartial research organization.

But are they? Archived news articles document that in the early years of the Guttmacher Institute, the mainstream media correctly referred to them as the “research arm of Planned Parenthood.” In fact, past references from the media and others of the Guttmacher Institute also included the title “division of Planned Parenthood” and “special affiliate.”

While the organization states it became independent from Planned Parenthood in 1977, the two groups’ agendas appear to have remained the same.

Continue reading

Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher both get millions in tax dollars to promote abortion

Posted in Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood and Guttmacher with tags , , , , , , , , , , , on January 11, 2016 by saynsumthn

As pro-lifers expose how government funding of abortion business Planned Parenthood is increasing annually, reports from Planned Parenthood’s research arm reveals that government funding is pouring into that pro-abortion organization as well. And, while the Guttmacher Institute claims to be a separate entity from Planned Parenthood reports from both agencies show that money is flowing between the organizations.

In 1968, Dr. Alan F. Guttmacher, a one time president of Planned Parenthood, established the Guttmacher Institute. The Institute described him this way, “no one was better able to unite the Planned Parenthood organization or summon it to carry out its historic mission.” Guttmacher’s “history” page reveals more of their connection to Planned Parenthood:

    “The Guttmacher Institute was founded in 1968 as the Center for Family Planning Program Development…The Center was originally housed within the corporate structure of Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA). Its program, however, was independently developed and overseen by a National Advisory Council separate from the PPFA Board of Directors. Its early development was nurtured by Alan F. Guttmacher, an eminent obstetrician-gynecologist, teacher and writer who was PPFA’s president for more than a decade until his death in 1974. The Center was renamed in Dr. Guttmacher’s memory, and the Guttmacher Institute incorporated as an entirely independent nonprofit policy research institute with its own Board in 1977.”

The Guttmacher Institute has admitted that they were affiliated with Planned Parenthood but also say the affiliation has been terminated:

    “In 2007, Guttmacher’s special affiliation status with PPFA was terminated, and PPFA’s financial support to the Institute, then at $395,000 (3.3% of Guttmacher’s total budget), was phased out over the following three years. In 2010, PPFA’s final contribution in support of the Institute’s program, in the amount of $75,000, constituted 0.6% of Guttmacher’s nearly $13 million budget. In 2013, PPFA made a one-time contribution of $50,000 to the Cory L. Richards Memorial Scholarship Fund; this gift did not support the Institute’s programmatic work.”

The Guttmacher Institute which supports and promotes the full agenda of Planned Parenthood has been successful in convincing the media that they are the most credible source on all things “family planning” and “abortion.” They have also persuaded the media that they are totally separate from Planned Parenthood. But a glance at this 2002 annual report shows that Planned Parenthood support was 7% of Guttmacher revenue that year.

2002 Guttmacher Annual Report

2002 Guttmacher Annual Report

In 2010, Guttmacher’s President and CEO, Sharon Camp told CUNYTV that they were not associated with Planned Parenthood, “In 1977, call it the divorce that didn’t work because we remained for a number of years after that a special affiliate of Planned Parenthood,” the Guttmacher president said.

She then tells the host that because of those who opposed their abortion agenda they decided to completely unaffiliated from Planned Parenthood, stating, “We both, together with Planned Parenthood, decided that we needed to make the divorce final. And, so we have for the last 4 or 5 years been completely unaffiliated with Planned Parenthood.”

When Ryan Bomberger over at the Radiance Foundation heard the claim, he did some research of his own. In an article published by Life News Bomberger discovered that Planned Parenthood gave millions to Guttmacher, writing:

guttmacher3 takes money from PLanned Parenthood

    “A quick look at the nation’s largest abortion chain’s 990 tax filings reveals how “completely unaffiliated” Guttmacher has been. Planned Parenthood…gave $2,142,076 of our tax dollars to their “research” arm, Guttmacher…That’s a lot of unaffiliation! Most of us would love to be “unaffiliated” with large organizations with over $1 billion in asset, as long as it’s not PPFA of course. The corporate memo apparently didn’t get to PPFA as it listed Guttmacher, in its 2007 tax filing, as an “Independent Affiliated Organization”.

Now, it has come to light that the payout between Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood has gone both ways. A review of the past 14 years of Planned Parenthood annual reports has revealed that not only has Planned Parenthood funded Guttmacher, but Guttmacher has been very generous to Planned Parenthood as well.

Guttmacher to Planned Parenthood 6.4 million 2000 to 2001

A look at Planned Parenthood’s 2000-2001 annual report indicates that Guttmacher gave the abortion business, $6.4 million that year. But, the payout did not end there. A review of other Planned Parenthood annual reports shows similar “contributions.

In 2001, Guttmacher funneled $16.7 million into Planned Parenthood and by the end of 2002, Guttmacher lavished Planned Parenthood with an additional $7.8 million. In 2003 Guttmacher gave Planned Parenthood $7.6 million and continued the pay-outs in 2005 when they gave Planned Parenthood $7.9 million for a total of at least $40 million.

PP Guttmacher 2005 Annual Report

And where would a non-profit get that kind of money? From you and I the taxpayer. In fact, as recent as 2014, the American tax payer gave $827,961 to Guttmacher.

Guttmacher 2014 government taxdollars abortion

But the 2014 figure is relatively smaller than the contributions Government agencies deposited into Guttmacher Institute’s coffers years earlier. A look at some of the organization’s annual reports reveals the following was also paid out to Guttmacher by the taxpayer:

2013 $1,062,276

2012 $1,525,996

2009 $1,026,676

2008 $1,195,894

2007 $1,904,127

2005 $1,926,689

2003 $2,195,93

2002 $1,671,342

*Note that some of Guttmacher’s annual reports indicate that they received support from Planned Parenthood or IPPF. Similarly, several Planned Parenthood reports which documented receiving Guttmacher dollars also stated that they supported Guttmacher as evidenced below.

Guttmacher PP SUpports

So, in summary, the taxpayer gives money to Guttmacher and Planned Parenthood. Both support abortion, admitted they were, in fact, affiliated and both have given financial support to each other. So, the next time you read a report from Guttmacher or Planned Parenthood quotes Guttmacher as unbiased – keep this in mind.

And, one more thing, when you write that letter or call your Congressman/woman to ask them to defund Planned Parenthood, ask them to defund the Guttmacher Institute as well!

Analysis: As government funding increases, so do Planned Parenthood’s abortions

Posted in Abortion stats, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood abortion numbers, Planned Parenthood abortion stats, Planned Parenthood adoption referral with tags , , , , , , , , , , on January 7, 2016 by saynsumthn

An analysis of annual reports published by Planned Parenthood for the past 15 years has revealed that as government funding for the organization increased, Planned Parenthood’s share of the country’s abortions also increased. Since 2000, Planned Parenthood has performed over four million abortions and received almost $5 billion in federal tax dollars.

Continue reading

Former Planned Parenthood prez responds to 1973 legalized abortion ruling in vintage footage

Posted in Abortion History, Guttmacher with tags , , , , , , , , on January 5, 2016 by saynsumthn

A news report which aired just following the infamous 1973 Roe V. Wade Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion on demand shows us that from its beginning, Planned Parenthood saw abortion as positive for women despite the harm it does to their bodies and the fact that it takes the life of the preborn baby in the womb.

Guttmacher president Planned Parenthood Roe v Wade legal abortion

Alan F. Guttmacher, MD, served as Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) president from 1962–1974. Journalist George Herman’s CBS News Report (below) which was unearthed by Issues for Life, shows Alan Guttmacher, as head of Planned Parenthood, responding to the ruling:

“I think that to raise the dignity of woman and give her freedom of choice in this area is an extraordinary event. I think that Jan 22, 1973 will be a historic day.”

Liberating is an interesting term to use given the fact that the one time leader of Planned Parenthood who was also a Vice President for the American Eugenics Society, said this just years earlier at a 1967 forum at Harvard Law School:

    “… I would abort mothers already carrying three or more children…I would abort women who desire abortion who are drug addicts or severe alcoholics…I would abort women with sub-normal mentality incapable of providing satisfactory parental care…”(Source; “Abortion: The Issues”, Dr. Alan Guttmacher – President, Planned Parenthood, December 4, 1967, Harvard Law School Forum)

Speaking at the Harvard Law School Forum, a 1967 article in the Harvard Crimson quoted Alan Guttmacher as stating that a larger percentage of abortions performed prior to it’s legalization were from “reputable physicians” something that was downplayed as advocates pushed legal abortion as safer than illegal abortion.

“Seventy per cent of the illegal abortions in the country are performed by reputable physicians, each thinking himself a knight in white armor.”

At the same event, Guttmacher asked for liberalization of present abortion laws, but not for outright repeal, stating that, “To allow abortion on demand would relegate man to the status of the bull.” Guttmacher later said that, “abortion should be a back-up procedure for failed or failure-to-use effective contraception. It must never be the primary method of birth control.” (Source: AMA Congress on Environmental Health, May 4-5, 1970 speech by Alan F. Guttmacher, Page 63.)

Interestingly, the Planned Parenthood president made this statement in 1970, “We look forward to the time when our clinics can be closed, when the government can fund enough money to serve the poor and research new birth control methods.”

In a sobering warning, George Herman ended the CBS report with these words, “If the experience of New York State is any guide, America will eventually have one abortion for every two births.

As we enter another year of legalized abortion, we look forward to the day we will see the closure of Planned Parenthood and all abortion clinics as we work for the protection of the preborn child in the womb.

Abortion Stats 2011

Posted in Abortion death, Abortion Numbers, Abortion stats, CDC, Guttmacher, Planned Parenthood 990, Planned Parenthood abortion numbers with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on April 16, 2015 by saynsumthn

PLANNED PARENTHOOD 2011

PP 2011 abortions

In 2011, Planned Parenthood reported performing 333,964 abortions for the year 2011-2012, according to their annual report. (Source: Planned Parenthood annual report 2011-2012 – released June 2012)

(MORE: in 2011, Planned Parenthood performed one-third of all abortions but in the past 10 years they have performed 25% of abortions reported.) see here.

As of the date this post was published, Planned Parenthood released 2012 and 2013 abortion figures.

2013 – 327,653

2012-327,166

CDC – 2011

2011 CDC

CDC Abortion Stats 2011

The CDC Abortion Surveillance Report dated November 28, 2014 reveals that in 2011 730,322 abortions were reported to the CDC down 35,329 from 2010 stats.

CDC Black Abortion Stats 2011

The CDC excludes abortion data from some states like California which performs a huge number of abortions nationwide.

CDC Abortion stats excludes Ca

2011 CDC Black Abortions – Total 146,856 (36.2%)

Among the 27 areas that reported cross-classified race/ ethnicity data for 2011 (Table 12), non-Hispanic white women and non-Hispanic black women accounted for the largest percentages of abortions (37.2% and 36.2%, respectively), and Hispanic women and non-Hispanic women in the other race category accounted for smaller percentages (19.7% and 7.0%, respectively). Non-Hispanic white women had the lowest abortion rate (8.0 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio (132 abortions per 1,000 live births), and non-Hispanic black women had the highest abortion rate (29.7 abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years) and ratio
(459 abortions per 1,000 live births).

According to the stats 7.3% of unborn babies killed by abortion were between 14–20 weeks’ gestation and 1.4% were 21 weeks’ gestation or greater.

That means that, according to CDC numbers:

    53,313 unborn babies were aborted between 14-20 weeks

    and

    10,224 were 21 weeks or greater.

But, a chart published by the CDC for 39 states that reported abortions by gestation (520,304 of the 730,322 abortion reported) in 2011 show that in those 39 states:

    335,748 abortions were performed at less than 8 weeks
    139,775 abortions were performed at 9-13 weeks gestation
    17,952 abortions were performed at 14-15 weeks gestation
    9,795 abortions were performed at 16-17 weeks gestation
    9,709 abortions were performed at 18-20 weeks gestation
    7,325 abortions were performed at 21 weeks gestation or greater.

CDC ABortion stats by gestation

ABORTION DEATHS-CDC

Abortion Deaths CDC 2011

According to the CDC, “Deaths of women associated with complications from abortions for 2011 are being investigated as part of CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System. In 2010, the most recent year for which data were available, 10 women were identified to have died as a result of complications from known legal induced abortions. No reported deaths were associated with known illegal induced abortions.”

However, pro-lifers continue to document women killed from legal abortion here.

2011 GUTTMACHER

In 2011, Guttmacher, whose stats were released in March of 2014, reports that 1.06 million abortions were performed. Does not break down by race !

But a Facts on Abortion sheet Guttmacher published in July in 2014 – race is mentioned:

Guttmacher abortion 2011

( July 2014)

Guttmacher Abortion Race 2011 Black Hispanic

Non-Hispanic white women account for 36% of abortions, non-Hispanic black women for 30%, Hispanic women for 25% and women of other races for 9%

More here https://saynsumthn.wordpress.com/2014/12/01/one-out-of-three-abortions-performed-in-us-by-planned-parenthood/

Reducing abortions is there an abortion change?

Posted in Abortion decreasing, Abortion Numbers, Abortion pill, Abortion reporting, Abortion stats, AHA, CDC, Guttmacher, Medication Abortion, Morning After Pill, Non-Surgical abortion, Plan B, RU-486 with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on February 11, 2015 by saynsumthn

Anti-abortion activists who “claim” that abortions are not decreasing have neither the documentation nor the knowledge to prove their claims.

One such pro-life “claim” was refuted recently by Jill Stanek on her blog which you can read here.

The argument is that medical abortion as opposed to surgical abortion are somehow not counted in the overall abortion stats which then contradicts statements by pro-life leaders who say that abortions are decreasing in United States.

Mifeprex -ABORTION-PILL-082713

Of all the people I have heard use this bogus claim, no one offers a single study to back it up.

In addition, they fail to mention that medical abortions are counted in the overall abortion stats where abortion reporting is required.

It is important to note that medical abortions never went OTC because of popularity – this happened because of politics plain and simple.

The early medical abortion, RU486 or mifepristone was not approved for use in the US until Sept 2000.

So how do they account or the drop in abortions prior to those dates?

The chemical abortion, Plan B, regarded by the FDA as a “emergency contraction”, was first approved in July 2009 for use without a prescription for women age 17 and older and as a prescription-only option for women younger than age 17. In April 2013, the product was approved for nonprescription use for women as young as 15. In June of 2013, Plan B became available to women and girls of all ages.

Although, it might be true that some chemicals labeled “contraception” which are abortive, may not be included in the abortion numbers – it is also true that this has always been the case.

For example, if emergency contraception is counted as “birth control” and not “abortion” that does not negate the fact that abortions are on the decrease.

Because emergency contraception (also called “morning after pills” or “day after pills”) is only effective up to 5 days after having sex and Plan B must be taken within 72 hours of sexual intercourse to be effective, it may be true that some women who take EC or Plan B are pregnant – but- it may also be true that some are not pregnant – a fact we will never know.

Just as it is true that the birth control pill and other forms of “contraception” may also be abortive, their numbers have never been included in the overall abortion stats.

What we are looking at is “trends.”

Prior to Roe, women were not seeking abortions by the millions like they do today.

After abortion was legalized it is true that abortion numbers rose.

However, according to stats, abortions peaked in 1990 (around then) and after groups like Operation Rescue and others took to the streets – they went on a downward trend which continues to this day.

According to the CDC:

    following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15–44 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace . However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations (5–9). Moreover, during 2006–2008, an interruption occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but was then followed in subsequent years by even greater decreases.

We used to have almost 2200 abortion clinics in America and according to a 2014 analysis by Operation Rescue which tracks abortion clinics closures, the total number of all remaining abortion clinics in the US is currently 739. Surgical abortion facilities account for 551 of that total while the number of medication-only abortion facilities stands at 188.

How can the majority of abortions be medical when the majority of clinics are surgical?

Abortion restrictions limit abortion access and reduce abortion numbers.

Guttmacher ab restrictions

We know that legalization makes abortion “appear” acceptable – which in turn increases them. We know from studying trends that when abortion became legalized, for example the numbers of African American women who had abortions went way up. We also know from studies that if an abortion clinic is within certain miles of a woman seeking abortion that her decision to have the abortion increases. All those factors change when the abortion clinic is closed.

Trends for example in the African American community show that not only did legalization increase abortion so did access.

Studies from the CDC show that, prior to legalization, approximately 80% of all illegal abortions were done on white women. One study in New York even found that white women had five-times as many abortions as black women.

But, at the moment abortion became legal, that began to reverse.

In 1973, researchers within the abortion movements were documenting that easy access to abortion clinics produces higher abortion rates in the surrounding area. And at least one expert discovered that having a nearby clinic is a bigger factor in the black abortion rate than it is in the while abortion rate.

In a 1999 paper published by the American Journal of Public Health Phillip B. Levine, Douglas Staigei; along with Thomas J. Kane and David J. Zimnmerman, entitled, Roe v Wade and American Fertility, the group points out that when abortions are made legal, fertility rates drop with a reduction in births of teens and non-White women to be the largest.

Phillip B Levine Roe v Wade and American Fertility

Estimates show that births to non-White women in repeal states (vs states with no law change) fell by 12% just following repeal, more than 3 times the effect on White women’s fertility,” that paper states.

Effect of abortion on Black births

The group also concluded that there was an important connection between the fall of birth rates in states where abortion was accessible vs. states where it was not, “The results indicate that travel between states to obtain abortions was important. Births in repeal states fell by almost 11% relative to births in nonrepeal states more than 750 miles away but only by 4.5% relative to births in states less than 250 miles away and those in states between 250 and 750 miles away,” the authors write.

What this shows is the reverse is also true. Closing abortion clinics will reduce abortions overall.

Abortion advocates know that when abortion access i.e. the closing of local abortion clinics takes place- fewer women have abortions.

Many reasons for women NOT to get a medical abortion.

According to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology women prefer surgical abortions, “Generally, women are satisfied with the method they choose but, when randomized, prefer surgical abortion to medical abortion, ACOG says.

    When women choose medical abortion they choose them because of a desire to avoid surgery, a perception that medical abortion is safer than surgical abortion, and a belief that medical abortion is more natural and private than a surgical procedure.

    However, compared with surgical abortion, medical abortion takes longer to complete, requires more active patient participation, and is associated with higher reported rates of bleeding and cramping.

ACOG medical versus chemical abortion

    With medical abortion, expulsion of the products of conception [i.e. the unborn baby], most likely will occur at home, but a few women will still require surgical evacuation to complete the abortion. An early surgical abortion takes place most commonly in one visit and involves less waiting and less doubt about when the abortion occurs compared with medical abortion. In addition, women who undergo surgical abortion will not see any products of conception [or fetal body parts] or blood clots during the procedure.

Given this data, it is a marketing ploy by the for-profit abortion lobby to give an impression that many abortions are “non-cutting” or non-surgical. That is because “Surgery” scares clients.

However- the use of the term non-surgical abortion does not imply that they are medical as Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D at National Right to Life explains:

    Clinics are obviously trying to address and assuage these fears. On the one hand they explicitly try to argue in their descriptions of the procedures that “no cutting is involved” (Aaron’s Women’s Clinic, Houston TX). Or they can say that in a vacuum aspiration “There is NO cutting or scraping of the uterus” (Northside Women’s Clinic, Atlanta, GA).

    The South Jersey Women’s Center still calls these surgical abortions (which they are), but tries to distinguish these from ordinary surgical procedures. “No cutting or incision is necessary and the procedure takes only 5 to 7 minutes.”

    Planned Parenthood avoids the term “surgical” and tries to call these “In-Clinic Abortion Procedures.”

    New York OB/GYN AssociatesTM classifies these as “Non-Surgical Abortions” because they “do not involve any scraping or scarring of the uterus.” They say that “There is no cutting during an Aspiration Abortion.” They maintain that “There is no scraping, no scaring and no damage to the uterine wall.”
    Both the chemical and aspiration methods they advertise “are designed to naturally release a woman’s pregnancy in a gentle and safe way, which does not cause damage.”

    However there is more to this than just calming fears and apprehensions. The abortion industry has found it increasingly difficult to find doctors willing to perform abortions or to add abortion to their practices. By re-defining the abortion procedure as “non-surgical,” this opens up the performance of abortion to a whole new set of medical practitioners.

    Promoters of the idea that these are “non-surgical” try to employ the rationale that because they do not cut tissue to enter the woman’s body but enter through the birth canal, these are somehow, strictly speaking, not surgery.

What the increase of medical abortions show is that abortions are occurring earlier, not that more are happening.

As of 2008 medical abortions comprised around 15-16% of abortions.

In 2011, the CDC reported that at ≤8 weeks’ gestation, early medical abortion accounted for 28.5% of abortions, but at all subsequent points in gestation the use of medications to induce abortions through nonsurgical methods accounted for only 0.6%–5.3% of reported abortions.

CDC 2011 Surgical and Medical abortion state

A July 2014 report by Guttmacher said that in 2011, medication abortion accounted for 23% of all nonhospital abortions and 36% of abortions before nine weeks’ gestation a similar figure to the CDC.

Guttmacher Medical Abortions 2011

Early medication abortions have increased from 6% of all abortions in 2001 to 23% in 2011, even while the overall number of abortions continued to decline, Guttmacher reports.

(NOTE: Medication and nonsurgical abortions numbers are reflected in Guttmachers overall abortion totals.)

REPORTING

Having said all of that, I do agree that not all abortions are reported – but – as I document above- they never have been.

What we are using to determine that abortions are declining is stats that have been in place since the 1970’s.

An analogy by Troy Newman, president of Operation Rescue, reveals the nonsense of critics of the pro-life movement by comparing stats on abortion numbers to other statistics we commonly reference, “How do they know robbery and murder rates are down? Those are just stats also,” he told Saynsumthn.

Newman points out that there are many ways to steal online and those thefts may not get counted.

In addition, Newman says that people can be murdered in ways that don’t look like murder, “Does that mean that the “anti-murder” crowd and the “anti-robbery crowd” need to do a better job and stop quoting published crime stats?” he asked.

Take polls for example, they do not sample all people but are a proven indication of trends. If you do not use any source for your abortion stats how can you then make the claim from that – nothing has changed?

So, even though an argument can be made that every abortion is not reported, that does not prove that abortions are not decreasing in numbers.

Know this, that had it not been for pro-life legislation, pro-life counselors outside abortion clinics, undercover efforts to expose doctors and clinics the numbers would be much higher no matter how you look at it. This is not a complete victory – but it is a reason to push all the harder to banish abortion from our land.

No one has ever claimed that ALL abortions are reported however the baseline is consistent.

Whatever the real number – pro-lifers have the testimony of many women who have chosen life as a source as well.

I have been in this fight for 32 years and no person who is recently interested in the unborn will EVER convince me that we have not saved lives and made a difference.

You can try to re-write history if you want to, but some of us lived this history and until we are dead we will testify to the changes we have witnessed.