New Abortion Stats

Thanks to help from my friend Kyle, I was able to find a different set of stats that include the entire nation instead of just isolated states. It's amazing how difficult this information is to find unless you know where to go...so thanks, Kyle. Here's what I was able to find from the website Kyle listed in his comments below:

"A Bad Abortion Stat, Again


Obama, who favors a legal right to abortion, noted that he was trying to "reduce the number of abortions." But he went too far when he falsely accused President Bush of failing to meet that same goal, saying incorrectly that "over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down."

Warren: Now, let's deal with abortion; 40 million abortions since Roe v. Wade. ...

Obama: ... I am pro-choice. I believe in Roe v. Wade, and I come to that conclusion not because I'm pro-abortion, but because, ultimately, I don't think women make these decisions casually. ... And so, for me, the goal right now should be – and this is where I think we can find common ground. And by the way, I've now inserted this into the Democratic Party platform, is how do we reduce the number of abortions? The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address.

This is an erroneous claim that we first tracked down and debunked more than three years ago when it was being repeated by Democratic Party chairman Howard Dean and Sens. Hillary Clinton and John Kerry, among others. See our article, "Biography of a Bad Statistic" from May 26, 2005, for full details on how a liberal theologian first came up with this notion. The fact is, it is false. The best source we know of for statistics on the number of abortions is the Guttmacher Institute, whose figures are cited regularly by both sides in the abortion debate.

And Guttmacher says prominently on its Web site:

Guttmacher Institute: In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million abortions in 2000.

In fact, Guttmacher's most recent published figures show 106,800 fewer abortions in George Bush's fifth year than in Bill Clinton's last year in office. That represents an 8 percent decline in the number of abortions and an even larger decline – 9 percent – in the rate of abortions per 1,000 women aged 15 through 44.

Guttmacher bases this finding on a survey of all 1,787 known abortion providers in the U.S.

We asked the Obama campaign where the candidate got his information, and we're still waiting for a response.

It should be noted that there's little to show the decline has come about because of anything President Bush did or didn't do. In fact, the number of abortions in the U.S. has been falling steadily since the 1980s regardless of whether the person in the White House favored a legal right to abortion or opposed it.

Source: Reprinted from "Trends in Abortions in the United States, 1973 - 2005" Guttmacher Institute, January 2008

Guttmacher's figures show the number peaked several years after the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that created a national legal right to abortion, held fairly steady throughout Republican Ronald Reagan's presidency, and has declined through the presidencies of Republican George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton and Republican George W. Bush.

And just for the record, the authors of Guttmacher's study said in March 2008 that they can't tell exactly why the decline is taking place. Reasons probably include "better contraceptive use, lower levels of unintended pregnancy, more women carrying unintended pregnancies to term and greater difficulties accessing abortion services in some geographic areas," the authors said."

So according to this site, although the rate of abortion in some individual states may be increasing at an alarming rate, the overall percentage of abortions nationally has been dropping since the 1980's...a fact that I am ultra happy to have been wrong about.
However, the purpose of my original post still remains: These numbers have had nothing to do with whether a 'pro-life' or 'pro-choice' (their words, not mine) President is in office.
So, is it smart to choose a candidate based souly on one issue in which they have been proven to not bring about change? I don't think so.
Some days I wonder why I care so much about the election. After all, I'm not even an American! But now I'm starting to think that's why I care...my hands may be tied from voting but my voice can still be heard...and I do care about the country I live in, whether it gave birth to me or not...
To be frank (as if you'd expect me to be anything but) I've been living in America for the past 5 years and I'm yet to see "the land of freedom" that I so often hear about. I see struggle, poverty, people who can't afford their houses or their health care, poor education, neighbours divided on every major issues...
My husband is American, my son is partly American, a large majority of my family and friends are American, so I am passionate to see a free America...a place that isn't struggling financially, where education is at it's best, where health care is quality and accessible and affordable for the hard working, lower middle class family like us. Where people stand in unity instead of falling through division. Where the church has a voice again...
I'm excited about this election because I am, as many of you are, ready for a change.