{"id":24061,"date":"2024-03-26T14:18:50","date_gmt":"2024-03-26T18:18:50","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/preborn.com\/?p=24061"},"modified":"2024-03-26T14:23:07","modified_gmt":"2024-03-26T18:23:07","slug":"post-roe-v-wade-abortion-trends","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/preborn.com\/post-roe-v-wade-abortion-trends\/","title":{"rendered":"Post-Roe v. Wade Abortion Trends\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In March 2018, the Mississippi State Legislature passed the Gestational Age Act to restrict abortions past 15 weeks’ gestation. It was the most restrictive abortion law in the country at the time.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In response, Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization, the only abortion clinic in Mississippi, filed a lawsuit in federal district court against the state health officer with the Mississippi State Department of Health.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

More than four years later, on June 24, 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States Constitution protects life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for both the born and the unborn. In doing so, the Court overturned Roe v. Wade<\/em> and gave each state the power to determine abortion laws for themselves.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

As time marched on, the country held its collective breath, waiting to see how many children would be saved. So where are we now? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here\u2019s a snapshot: <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u201cThe impact of the Dobbs<\/em> decision is just as devastating as we expected.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\u2014Amber Gavin, abortion clinic vice president, October 24, 2023, <\/em>#WeCount<\/em><\/a> Press Release<\/em> <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cUS abortion rates rise post-Roe<\/em> amid deep divide in state-by-state access.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\u2014The Guardian<\/em><\/a>, October 24, 2023<\/em> <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201cAbortions increased the year after Roe<\/em> was overturned.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\u2014AXIOS.com<\/em><\/a> October 24, 2023<\/em> <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/div>\n\n\n\n
\n

\u201c65 Abortion Centers Have Closed Since Dobbs<\/em>, Saving Thousands of Babies From Abortion.\u201d <\/strong><\/p>\n\u2014Lifenews.com<\/em><\/a>, December 5, 2023<\/em> <\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If you are confused, you are not alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Just as it took years to decide Dobbs v. Jackson<\/em>, it will likely take decades to determine the impact.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

About the I Z A Institute Study<\/strong> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In November 2023, the I Z A Institute Department of Labor Economics published a 66-page research report titled \u201cThe Effects of the Dobbs<\/em> Decision on Fertility<\/a>.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the report, \u201cThe question addressed in this paper is: to what extent are state abortion bans affecting fertility? . . . We aim to estimate how births are changing in banned states relative to states where abortion access has not been restricted or threatened since the Dobbs decision.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The abortion landscape is a complex, ever-changing space. To simplify the study, researchers used selected data from the first half of 2023 and grouped states into three categories to represent the legal accessibility of abortion.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Total Ban<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

States that \u201cenforced bans on abortion under almost all circumstances by the end of 2022\u201d were listed in the Total Ban<\/em> category. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Protected <\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Protected<\/em> category consisted of \u201cStates that have not enacted or enforced a significant abortion restriction since Dobbs<\/em> and are not viewed as likely to do so.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Excluded<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n

The Excluded<\/em> category included thirteen states that \u201crepresent late, limited, or restricted access to abortion [as determined by referencing] abortion policy laws and proposals, as well as news articles.\u201d Essentially, it\u2019s states that having late, limited, or restricted access to abortion. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Timing of the Bans<\/em><\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

States that \u201cattempted to enact or enforce a ban but did not effectively do so by the end of 2022 [October 31]\u201d were placed in the Excluded<\/em> category. This includes states where \u201cAlthough abortion access is not legal anymore in this state, the changes happened late enough not to affect abortion access and therefore births during 2023 [because] the landscape would have prevented access to abortions for a lot of these women.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Gestational Ban<\/em><\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

States that \u201cenacted only a gestational age ban by the end of 2022\u201d were listed in the Excluded<\/em> category. These states \u201cenacted a pre viability gestational ban at any point through the present and or enacted a total abortion ban after October 2022.\u201d Gestational age limits were \u201chighly restrictive,\u201d but abortion \u201cwas not completely banned.\u201d Most states in the Excluded<\/em> category allowed abortion up to six weeks gestation.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pro-life Environment<\/em><\/strong> <\/h4>\n\n\n\n

States that \u201care viewed as hostile to abortion and at high risk of enforcing a ban\u201d were placed in the Excluded<\/em> category. This consists of states that \u201chave not implemented abortion bans or gestational age limits, [but] their state legislature proposals and decisions around abortion access have been hostile. Therefore, we consider these states in a separate category, because abortion access has been in a grayer area. For instance, the threat of potential bans may result in provider closures or relocations.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What\u2019s interesting is that data from states in the Excluded<\/em> category were omitted from the study entirely \u201cbecause these environments have intermediate effects on fertility.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The abortion data came from the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, the report also discloses that \u201cfinal birth data for 2023 will not be published until 2024.\u201d To make up for this, the researchers analyzed birth and abortion rates during the first half of five years before COVID. They intentionally omitted birth and abortion rates during the pandemic to eliminate any possible bias. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Through an extensive \u201cpower analysis\u201d researchers concluded that, \u201cin the first six months of 2023, births rose by an average of 2.3 percent in states enforcing total abortion bans compared to a control group of states where abortion rights remained protected, amounting to approximately 32,000 additional annual births resulting from abortion bans.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

To summarize, researchers defined the scope of the study using an abbreviated calendar and omitted one-fourth of an ambiguous landscape.<\/strong>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The scope of the project was then married to partially compiled data corrected by historical data from a pre-pandemic reality that no longer exists. This fundamentally flawed union formed the baseline to which they compared our current environment.<\/strong>  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

From this design, the researchers defined what could have happened if the most significant legal upheaval in fifty years didn\u2019t happen: 32,000 babies that could have been aborted are now learning to walk. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And now, anyone with an interest in the abortion landscape shouts their conclusions far and wide: The impact of Dobbs<\/em> is negligible. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Analysis of the I Z A Institute Study <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The litany of faults inherent with this study begins with the very title of the report, \u201cThe Effect of the Dobbs<\/em> Decision on Fertility.\u201d  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

No court has the power to impact a woman\u2019s capacity to conceive. <\/strong>Fertility<\/em><\/strong> is controlled by biology, which is controlled by God alone. <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Another assumption woven in the vernacular of the report is that the Supreme Court demanded that the states choose between total restriction or abort at any stage. The Court did not tell states to either ban or allow abortion. In fact, it\u2019s that very decision from which the Court excused itself.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, the Dobbs<\/em> decision gave power to the states to decide for themselves. The gray area the I Z A researchers chose to disregard is the very spirit and purpose of the Dobbs<\/em> decision.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The authors in the I Z A study indicate they obtained data \u201cto estimate how births are changing in ban states relative to states where abortion access has not been restricted or threatened since the Dobbs<\/em> decision.\u201d However, abortion access is indeed restricted or threatened by the climate, laws, or availability in these excluded states.  <\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"IZA