Catholics United: Abortion - way beyond Roe vs. Wade

[geocajun]

Catholics United Study Finds that Overturning Roe v. Wade Will Have Minimal Effect on U.S. Abortion Rate


Catholics United today released a study analyzing the likely effects overturning Roe v. Wade would have on reducing the actual numbers of abortions in the United States. The study challenges the conventional wisdom that pursuing strategies to overturn the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision protecting abortion rights constitutes an effective means of reducing or ending abortions.
According to the study, entitled Reducing Abortion in America: Beyond Roe v. Wade, there are only 16 states where over 45% of the adult population self identifies as “pro-life.” Enacting total bans on abortions in all of these 16 states would only affect 10% of all abortion decisions in the United States. However, many women in states where bans were enacted could still travel across state lines or procure illegal abortions in their own state. Therefore, the actual number of abortions affected by state bans would be less than this 10% figure. Even under an unlikely best-case scenario, if the 25 most “pro-life” states enact abortion bans, the study finds, overturning Roe v. Wade would affect less than 37% of all abortion decisions, leaving 63% unaffected.


“This study confirms what many have suspected for some time: that pursuing legal restrictions on abortion services is a generally ineffective strategy of addressing abortion in the United States,” said Dr. Joe Wright, assistant professor of political science at Penn State University and Visiting Fellow at the University of Notre Dame, and author of the study. “Successfully combating the practice of abortion requires policies which speak to the reasons most women choose abortions in the first place: economic insecurity, lack of health care, and absence of other essential family supports.”
Dr. Wright authored a similar study for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good – entitled Reducing Abortion in America: the Effect of Economic and Social Supports – which draws a clear connection between availability of family assistance programs and lower abortion rates.

Read the rest here:


http://www.catholics-united.org/?q=node/197

 

[helenofbritain]

Here we go again....

*goes for popcorn and comfy chair*

 

[benedictaoo]

Why don't we just ban it so we can find out for sure...? It surly can not hurt the cause... can it? Of course not.

the only reason why the pro death side argues we can not ban it is becuase they claim we have to give women the choice... really? why?

do you personally believe it's a must we let women have keep that choice till we solve why they have them? If you do, got news, that's pro choice, not pro life.

I'm sick of this false premise that women have them due to reasons we don't help them or there is no support... of course there is support... they have them becuase a young girl now grows up hearing for 30 years now how it's her right, her choice, that it's not really a baby but something else... that we do not know when life really begins.

you know, I would be more then willing to just keep the stupid law on the books and give women that "choice" but a long as we can call them ppl and acknowledge that it is a baby, not tissue and that the are taking a life and that it is sin in just about every religion and culture, Christan and non Christian, there is.

I bet if we grew up knowing that, hearing that rhetoric young girls in a society like that would choose against it thus reducing the numbers becuase less girls would be deceived... They would not have the errounous notion that it's not a child, that it is just a choice.

A novel idea... we just tell women the TRUTH...

Oh and BTW, Bill O Reilly right now is screaming and hollering at Rep. Barnie Frank, good for Bill O' Reilly.

 

[geocajun]

Did you bother to read the article you didn't address at all, Bene?

 

[Fantine]

This group is swimming against the tide, Geo.

It takes a lot of faithfulness and devotion to the Church to hold her accountable for promoting all her social teaching.

God bless them for promoting a positive and uplifting message against a growing group of shrill and strident single issue voters.

 

[benedictaoo]

I read what you posted.. not the rest.

Can you answer me, do you think a women needs to be able to abort till we solve the, "we need a easier way out of pregnancy other then abortion" dilemma?

 

[Antigone]

I read what you posted.. not the rest.

Can you answer me, do you think a women needs to be able to abort till we solve the, "we need a easier way out of pregnancy other then abortion" dilemma?

Read the study again, Benny. She will abort, whether or not it's illegal. And yes, banning it will hurt because it'll cause an equal amount of babies to die, and a lot of prospective moms in addition.

 

[benedictaoo]

Read the study again, Benny. She will abort, whether or not it's illegal. And yes, banning it will hurt because it'll cause an equal amount of babies to die, and a lot of prospective moms in addition.

That is a pro choice argument... that was the argument that made it legal.

 

[beyondthesmile]

Read the study again, Benny. She will abort, whether or not it's illegal. And yes, banning it will hurt because it'll cause an equal amount of babies to die, and a lot of prospective moms in addition.

I agree. I don't think banning abortion would prevent it from occurring.

 

[Lady Bug]

yeah but what is the basis for promulgating any law then - since people will break a law anyway?

 

[Voegelin]

Enacting total bans on abortions in all of these 16 states would only affect 10% of all abortion decisions in the United States

So...what is the magic percentage? If 15% more lived, would that be worth it? 20%? Somewhere over 50%? Where is the "common" or "greater" good best served?

 

[JoabAnias]

This site is a guy named Chris Korzen who seems to be a democratic insider for pro-life.

He claims to be bi-partisan on his site but his site seems to show otherwise with criticisms of the Supreme Knight's Letter to Biden and of McCain and nothing about Obama's positions on abortion.
http://www.catholics-united.org/?q=node/18


The study isn't cited and appears to be unsupported randomly gathered facts.

What I find curious is that the article states:

the study finds, overturning Roe v. Wade would affect less than 37% of all abortion decisions, leaving 63% unaffected.

I would say affecting 37% of abortion decisions would be substantial though it is apparently marked light of that in lieu of pursuing only social remedies.

Why is it always an either or situation? And this guy talks about issues being used as a wedge.

To me, that bias proves partisanship.

Curious...


This questionable and non-authoritative site is not to be confused with the great work done by: Catholics United for Faith. from which Korzan seems to be riding the coat tails of, at lest in domain name.

Here is an interested article on this Korzan: Catholic Author Urges Flexibility On Abortion

I think the title is a bit lop sided (left spin) from what he says but this passage did surprise me:

My organization, Catholics United, authored a study two years ago using data from Kansas that showed that the best way to lower the abortion rate was to make sure that families had jobs and health care and child care for their children.

and kind of sheds a light on the above study and its credibility.

Some other things he says in that article that were interesting were:

So really, we need to start thinking of new and creative ways to address the abortion issue that don’t resort to the language of division.”

and

Tom: “Is it possible to be a Roman Catholic and vote for a candidate who supports abortion?”
Chris: “Cardinal Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI, addressed this question in 2004. And he said it can be possible.

Jimmy Akin addresses that quite masterfully here: What Ratzinger Said

 

[benedictaoo]

Enacting total bans on abortions in all of these 16 states would only affect 10% of all abortion decisions in the United States

So...what is the magic percentage? If 15% more lived, would that be worth it? 20%? Somewhere over 50%? Where is the "common" or "greater" good best served?

if it just saves 1 person it's worth it.

 

[colleen]

I'm not going to argue this report even though I don't believe every women that chooses an abortion today would do the same if it was illegal (and, I think a lot more than 10% would choose otherwise). The report also assumes that we never get 50 states abortion free, which I believe with the Grace of God is a real possibility some day.

But, even if it didn't save one baby abortion should be illegal, because abortion is morally unacceptable. Even if having laws against murder didn't save a single life (and there is certainly proof that laws don't stop every murder) murder is still wrong and should be outlawed. The same is true of abortion.

I certainly believe in helping women that have become pregnant and need our help. And, so do most of the other pro-life people I know. The side walk counselor I worked with in San Francisco had a whole binder full of babies she had helped save, but when you look through it you will see babies at various ages. She had those pictures, because with the permission of the mother she stayed in their lives. She threw the mother showers, helped her get other aid she needed, and helped her find the things she needed to succeed so to speak. Birthright and other crisis pregnancy centers really help women find the aid they need to have their baby. And, we have a house in St. Louis where pregnant women can stay and while they are their they also learn the skills to get a good job (whether that be on the job training or college), have parenting classes, etc. and if I remember correctly they can stay their with their child until they are ready to be on their own.

Fantine- I don't think couples experiencing fertility issues look at abortion as wrong, because they have such a desire for more babies to adopt. I think it's because when you know what it's like to want a baby so bad, or to have lost multiple babies to miscarriage to watch someone choose to let their baby die is extremely painful.

Even Geo admitted that adoptions needed to be easier on this forum a few weeks ago.

 

[colleen]

Fantine- I don't think couples experiencing fertility issues look at abortion as wrong, because they have such a desire for more babies to adopt. I think it's because when you know what it's like to want a baby so bad, or to have lost multiple babies to miscarriage to watch someone choose to let their baby die is extremely painful.

Opps this a response to Fantine's thought in the Palin adoption thread, "I always find it interesting that the biggest opponents to abortion I know, regardless of religious persuasion, are usually people who have or have had infertility problems. "

 

[InTheCloud]

Bovine body waste. The socalled studies often do inflate the rate of ilegal abortions to made a point. And how many lives are needed to be saved to mate something worthwile. One, ten thousands, 100, 000? They are saying, support Obama becasue if you do not you are going to save only x number of lives?

 

[geocajun]

There is no beyond Roe V Wade?

 

[InTheCloud]

Yes, either overule it or take it to the logical conclusion.

Declare all paternity suits invalid, all state child support invalid. If having a child is only the woman choice, them why men and society should pay for a personal decision?
In fact some libertarian groups that are prochoice are thinking on that. Suing based on Roe vs Wade.
Lets face it: Roe vs Wade was a political decision. Legislating for the bench, as Robert Bork said was itself unconstitutional. Christians shall not defend a iligitimate authoriy ruling.