Tag Archives: Roe v Wade

Elisabeth Moss to star in “women’s rights” drama “Call Jane”

elisabeth moss

How Elisabeth greets her fans on her Instagram

Don’t let the biased headline fool you. She’s going to star in a pro-abort movie.

From Hollywood Reporter: On the heels of her groundbreaking best actress Emmy win for Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale, Elisabeth Moss (a TDS-infected libtard) has signed on to star in Call Jane, an abortion drama to be directed by My Week With Marilyn filmmaker Simon Curtis.

Robbie Brenner, one of the producers behind the Oscar-winning Matthew McConaughey AIDS drama Dallas Buyers Club, is producing the indie pic along with Jeff Kwatinetz and Kevin McKeon of The Firm.

Set in 1960s Chicago, Call Jane focuses on the true story of an underground network of suburban women who secretly provide safe abortions for women in need pre-Roe v. Wade. Moss will play Jane, a married woman who is unexpectedly pregnant and discovers the underground group of women.

The screenplay, based on the true story of a 1960s movement called the Jane Collective, was written by Hayley Schore and Roshan Sethi, co-creators of The Resident, the upcoming Fox drama set to premiere in January.

“This script [for Call Jane] is commercial and entertaining, but it’s also really relevant to what is going on with the world today,” Brenner told The Hollywood Reporter. “Women’s rights are important and no one should have the right to control a woman’s body. And that such an idea can be challenged today and that we can go back in time on these issues is scary.”

The project is out to financiers, and the goal is to start production in the first quarter of 2018.

Read the rest of the story here.

DCG

Advertisements

Professors urge abortionists to embrace “gruesomeness” of their jobs

limbs of aborted baby, April 9, 2015, Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast

An abortionist’s “most fulfilling” work…

From Campus Reform: A group of University of Michigan professors recently suggested that abortion providers should be more open about the “gruesomeness” of their jobs.

Professor Lisa A. Martin, et al. published an article in the most recent issue of Social Science and Medicine, where they explain that abortion providers “self-censor” in order to avoid discussing sensitive issues such as “multiple abortions, grief after abortion, [and] the economics of abortion.”

Martin and her colleagues go on to note that many abortion providers face severe backlash for speaking up about these issues, but argue that failing to do so “results in costs to the movement itself.”

“One consequence is that nuanced public depictions of abortion workers are rare,” Martin explains, adding that “the absence of providers’ voices has created a vacuum in which stereotypical caricatures may dominate the public discourse.”

Indeed, the four authors claims that neglecting to talk about the “difficult aspects of abortion work [could] ultimately weaken the abortion rights movement,” referencing an argument initially made by the late Norma Leah McCorvey Nelson (the “Roe” in Roe v. Wade, who eventually became an anti-abortion activist.)

The professors reviewed the testimony of 96 abortion providers collected during a 2007 research study, and found that abortion providers tend to stay silent because of fear of “affirming anti-abortion stereotypes, challenging pro-choice movement messaging, and acknowledging moral ambiguities in abortion work.”

The paper elaborates that “while participants often commented about their pride in their work, many also identified moral uncertainties about whether or not providing abortions was always a good thing.”

“I still to this day say to myself I hope I’m doing the right thing. That never goes away,” said one abortion provider. “There’s part of this where you need some validation [that] what you’re doing is right.”

Another abortion provider expressed concern that she worked in an “abortion mill,” as anti-abortion activists call it. “It’s like a slaughterhouse—it’s like—line ‘em up and kill ‘em and then go on to the next one—I feel like that sometimes.”

Worry over whether abortion is murder also caused abortion providers distress, with one admitting that “I thought I was going to go to Hell and God was going to punish me if abortion was murder—I was like ‘Is abortion murder, maybe it is murder?’ I just sat there and used to think about that constantly.

Others, however, expressed disappointment with the pro-choice movement’s perpetual defensive stance, exemplified by messaging focusing on the issue of choice rather than explicitly advocating abortion.

“Why can’t we have a pro-abortion stance?” one asked, while another wondered, “… can you say that on a bumper sticker?”

Regardless of the potential backlash that the practice could incur, Martin argues that abortion providers should nonetheless talk more about abortion because it “could strengthen the pro-choice movement” by offering “opportunities to grow, mature, and strengthen by developing new discursive messaging.”

“What kind of radical shift might we see in the nation’s polarization around abortion if some abortion providers routinely said, ‘Yes, abortion stops a beating heart and sometimes I do think of my work as killing—and yet I find it the most fulfilling work I could do’?” the authors ask near the end of the paper

Campus Reform reached out to Martin for more information, but did not receive a response.

DCG

Ohio governor vetoes ‘heartbeat’ abortion bill, but passes 20-week ban

At six weeks, your sweet pea is developing central organs such as: kidney, liver, and lungs. Your baby’s heart beat runs between 80 and 150 times per minute. An ultrasound/checkup at this time will take a very long time to ensure that your baby is growing healthy.

Yet Planned Parenthood wants to celebrate  a victory of the heartbeat bill defeat! Yeah to women’s health care abortion!

From USA Today: COLUMBUS, Ohio — Gov. John Kasich on Tuesday rejected the so-called “heartbeat bill,” breaking with his party to veto legislation that would have given Ohio the strictest abortion ban in the nation.

Kasich did tighten Ohio’s abortion laws by signing a bill that would prevent abortions after 20 weeks’ gestation, when opponents of the procedure say fetuses can feel pain.

A baby at 20 weeks gestation

A baby at 20 weeks gestation

Still, the governor will face backlash from conservative Republicans for killing the bill they say would have prevented thousands of abortions. The measure prohibited abortions after a fetal heartbeat was detected, as early as six weeks’ gestation.

Janet Porter, a northeast Ohio activist who has led the effort to pass the bill, sent a message to her supporters Tuesday: “IT IS NOT OVER.” She urged them to encourage Republicans to override Kasich’s veto before the new legislative session kicks off January 3 – a prospect that seems unlikely.

Many Republican lawmakers, emboldened by Donald Trump’s recent election, wanted Kasich to sign the more restrictive ban. GOP leaders like Senate President Keith Faber saw an opportunity to use the heartbeat bill to overturn Roe v. Wade, counting on new Trump-appointed, conservative U.S. Supreme Court justices.

In vetoing the bill, Kasich pointed to judicial precedent, saying the legislation was “clearly contrary to the Supreme Court of the United States’ current rulings on abortion.”

The governor joined Ohio Right to Life and several Republican lawmakers who opposed the six-week ban, saying similar measures already were ruled unconstitutional in North Dakota and Arkansas. Why spend taxpayer money defending the law?

“The State of Ohio will be the losing party in a lawsuit and, as the losing party, the State of Ohio will be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to cover the legal fees for the pro-choice activists’ lawyers,” Kasich wrote in a veto message.

Ohio Right to Life President Mike Gonidakis praised Kasich’s approach. “While it must have been difficult, the current make-up of a radically pro-abortion Supreme Court required the governor to exercise great restraint,” Gonidakis said.

The 20-week ban will restrict access to abortion while still chipping away at Roe v. Wade, abortion opponents such as Gonidakis argue. Still, it does not include exceptions for rape, incest or severe fetal anomalies. It does include an exception to save the life of a pregnant woman.

More than a dozen states have a ban on abortions after 20 weeks gestation. Still, those could be overturned or taken to the Supreme Court for ruling. Current Supreme Court standards say states may not limit abortions before a fetus is viable outside the womb, generally accepted as 24 weeks’ gestation.

Abortion rights’ supporters seem torn on how to respond to Kasich’s veto. They celebrated a victory with the heartbeat bill’s defeat, but they also adamantly opposed the 20-week ban, which was seen as an extension of Ohio Republicans’ continued fight to reduce access to abortions. The state had 14 abortion clinics in 2013 and now has nine. Cincinnati has one surgical abortion clinic, Planned Parenthood clinic in Mount Auburn, and it nearly lost its license to operate last year.

Pro-abort Planned Parenthood exec Dawn Laguens

Pro-abort Planned Parenthood exec Dawn Laguens

“Don’t let John Kasich fool you. He is one of the most extreme anti-abortion governors in this country. Kasich is on a mission to make abortion illegal in Ohio, and he’s intent on using smoke and mirrors and backdoor politics to do it,” said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in a statement.

Very few abortions are performed after 20 weeks in Ohio. Last year, 145 abortions occurred at 21 weeks or later, according to Ohio Department of Health records. The 20-week ban will take effect in 90 days.

DCG

U.S. bishops betrayed the unborn, fearing Catholics would leave Democrat Party

“For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also transform themselves into ministers of righteousness, whose end will be according to their works.”
-2 Corinthians 11:13-15

Mark Gallagher had worked with the Government Liaison Office of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference in Washington from 1974 to 2007. He was mainly responsible for lobbying Congress on abortion and programs for the poor.

In a stunning article for Crisis Magazine, Oct. 22, 2014, Gallagher gives a first-person account that after the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v Wade ruling opening the floodgates to the killing of unborn human beings by legalizing abortion in the name of women’s “right to privacy,” Catholic bishops — putting “social justice” before the right to life — made a collective decision not to aggressively warn and inform the laity because they feared doing so would drive American Catholics away from the Democratic Party into the GOP.

Our Lord Jesus the Christ had warned: “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits.” (Matthew 7:15-16)

These bishops have nothing less than the blood of innocents on their hands. They will be called to account for their grave sins before God.

Here is Gallagher’s article in its entirety.

JesusHoldingBabyClose

The Bishops’ Fateful Decision Respecting the Unborn

Mark Gallagher – Crisis Magazine – Oct. 22, 2014

In 1973 the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision legalized abortion. It was projected that the decision would not just replace illegal abortions with legal ones, but that the total number of abortions would dramatically increase (it turned out by approximately a million a year). It was clear that there were only two remedies: the Supreme Court reversing it; or a constitutional amendment proposed by Congress and ratified by the states to overturn it. This required the election of presidents who would nominate Supreme Court justices not interested in creating constitutional rights to legal abortion, and the election of pro-life members of Congress to confirm the justices, and to propose a constitutional amendment. Elections were the key. How were the bishops to proceed?

The bishops’ conference staff provided two conflicting recommendations. As their pro-life lobbyist, I recommended that the bishops conduct a major campaign to educate and correctly form the consciences of American Catholics to their responsibility to elect candidates who support the Common Good, which is protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God (including the unborn). And those candidates who refused to support the Common Good would be morally unacceptable for public office. The laity’s responsibility included being involved in their political party so that Common Good candidates would be recruited and nominated for office.

The Social Development and World Peace staff at the bishops’ conference disagreed with this approach. They dealt with the economy, poverty, food policy, housing, human rights, military expenditures, and U.S. foreign policy, and felt their goals and prudential judgments were more reflected by the Democrats in Congress. I was told sometime later of their concern that Roe v. Wade would cause Catholics to seek the protection of the unborn by voting for Republicans (most were pro-life [90+ percent]) instead of Democrats (about 2/3rds were pro-abortion then [94 percent now]). This shift in the Catholic vote would necessarily hurt their legislative agenda. So a campaign should be undertaken to convince Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. Their view prevailed and they pursued with the relevant bishops’ committees the first-ever Catholic voters guide published in 1976, called the “Political Responsibility Statement” (now called Faithful Citizenship). It would be the primary tool to achieve their objective. The document:

(1) Did not call upon Catholics to vote against a candidate who opposed the Common Good by supporting abortion. It cited no intrinsic evil that if supported would render a legislator morally unacceptable for office. And It did not include relevant Catholic moral theology: (a) that the constant teaching of the Church is that there are “certain choices that are always intrinsically evil” (i.e. abortion: … if one could eliminate all poverty in America at the cost of permitting the killing of one innocent person, that cost was too high and morally wrong); and (b) the applicability of proportionalism. According to one authoritative source, it holds that “the moral quality of an action is determined by whether the evils brought about by proposed action are proportionate to the goods the action effects. If the goods effected by the action are not in proportion to the evils caused, then the action is evil, but if they are, then the action is morally good.” First, there are no proportionate goods achieved by the killing of a million unborn each year. Second, voting American Catholics are not faced with any moral evils equivalent to abortion that might warrant voting for a pro-abortion candidate. Voters have never been faced with the dilemma of choosing between a pro-abortion candidate and, for example, a rival candidate that would permit the killing annually of a million citizens through starvation or freezing. Or, by way of another example, Catholic voters do not have to choose between a pro-abortion candidate and a candidate advocating an unjust war that would involve a first-strike nuclear attack on millions of innocent persons. Voting for pro-abortion candidates in America has never been, and still cannot, be justified under the principle of proportionality.

(2) Listed everything they hoped a legislator would support (at least a dozen). This marginalized protecting human life by making it just one of many important issues. The candidate who supported abortion could say (and routinely did), that they supported 90-95 percent of the bishops legislative agenda.

(3) The current voter guide explicitly permits Catholics to vote for candidates who support intrinsic moral evils. It says, “A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil” like abortion, “if the voter’s intent is to support that position.” But what if a voter supports a pro-abortion candidate for some other reason? “There may be times when a Catholic who rejects a candidate’s unacceptable position may decide to vote for that candidate for other morally grave reasons.” The moral reasons must be “truly grave,” yet as I have argued, there are no grave moral reasons that trump protecting the unborn. Also would it really be far fetched to imagine that a Catholic voter, following the guide’s exception, might support a pro-abortion candidate because, for example, his position on “climate change” echoes that of the bishops who have said that saving the planet by reducing carbon emissions was a moral obligation?

In addition to this voters’ guide, the national Social Development and World Peace staff, as well as their diocesan counterparts, informed Catholics that there was justification to vote for pro-abortion candidates. This education campaign included workshops to persuade the laity that it was better to use their vote to achieve a good (helping the poor) rather than to oppose an evil (abortion).

A final step that helped pro-abortion Catholic candidates was the bishops giving them, or permitting them to receive, Communion. Many laity concluded that these legislators’ votes for abortion were morally acceptable, and that Catholics could vote for them in good conscience. Regular reception of Communion in the Catholic Church conveys that the person is a practicing Catholic, in the state of grace, in good standing, in communion with the Church.

All of these actions decreased the number of churchgoing Catholics voting pro-life, and this prevented (and still prevents) achieving sufficient votes to legally protect the unborn.

From a political science perspective the division of the Catholic vote (those voting for pro-life candidates and those voting for pro-abortion candidates) has severely limited if not completely neutralized the effect of the Catholic vote for good. If a significant majority of Catholics were united in only supporting Common Good candidates, as the Jewish community is largely united in only supporting candidates who support the State of Israel, then Catholics would legislatively achieve protection for the unborn and many other goals. When a group can decide the outcome of elections on one issue, then it will command serious consideration of whatever it pursues. The divided Catholic vote has prevented this.

The bishops have continued on their failed course for forty years, with fateful, disastrous results. If the bishops would change course, the legal killing, now at 56 million, could be stopped. The bishops need to teach that: (a) Legislators have the compelling moral responsibility to pursue the Common Good, protecting the human life and respecting the human dignity of every person created by God, born and unborn. And those who do not, are morally unfit for office; (b) “Catholic” legislators who support abortion are not in communion with the Church and they will not be given Communion until they are; and (c) Catholic citizens cannot in good conscience elect legislators who support the killing of the unborn (for there are no proportionate reasons to justify it).

H/t California Catholic Daily

~Eowyn

Oregon’s Covanta plant incinerates aborted babies to generate electricity

We are reminded again and again, in schools and by the media, of the horrific practices of Nazi Germany — how the Nazis dehumanized Jews as Untermenschen (sub-human), herded them into concentration camps, then exterminated an estimated 6 million of them in gas chambers and even used their fat to make soap.

But that’s EXACTLY what we’re doing to tiny human beings of all races under the guise of a woman’s “reproductive rights”. And it’s lawful!

Since 1980, a total of 1,332,55o,000 unborn babies have been killed worldwide. That’s one BILLION 332 million 550 thousand! In the United States, more than 56 million abortions have been committed since the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 1972 making the killing of unborn human beings lawful.

A month ago, news came from across “the pond” that the remains of thousands of aborted and miscarried babies in the UK were incinerated as clinical waste, with some even used to heat hospitals.

Now comes news that this barbaric practice isn’t just in the UK. An energy plant in Oregon, Covanta Waste-to-Energy Facility, burnt aborted babies from Canada to generate electricity.

Covanta Waste-to-Energy Facility

Steven Ertelt reports for Life News, April 23, 2014, that The British Columbia Catholic Herald (BCCH) newspaper reported this week that the remains of aborted and miscarried children from British Columbia are likely being mixed with everyday trash and sent to an energy plant in Oregon.

BCCH contacted the British Columbia Health Ministry and received a response back saying that, in accordance with provincial laws, “biomedical waste,” including “human tissue” and “fetal tissue” are being disposed of through officially approved contractors, and that some of that “waste” is shipped to Oregon:

“The ministry understands that some is transferred to Oregon. There it is incinerated in a waste-to-energy plant.”

According to BCCH, the Oregon plant in question is located in Brooks, Marion County, Oregon.

Following the LifeNews story that received national attention, Oregon’s Marion County Board of Commissioners issued the following statement:

Today the Marion County Board of Commissioners learned that the Covanta Waste-to-Energy Facility located in Marion County may be accepting medical waste containing human tissue from outside sources. In response to an April 21 article in The B.C Catholic, the board took immediate action to temporarily halt the acceptance of boxed medical waste at the facility.

Commissioner Sam Brentano, chair, said, “We provide an important service to the people of this state and it would be a travesty if this program is jeopardized due to this finding. We thought our ordinance excluded this type of material at the waste-to-energy facility. We will take immediate action to ensure a process is developed to prohibit human tissue from future deliveries.

“We are outraged and disgusted that this material could be included in medical waste received at the facility,” said Commissioner Janet Carlson. “We did not know this practice was occurring until today. We are taking immediate action and initiating discussions with Covanta Marion to make certain that this type of medical waste is not accepted in the future.”

The board has called an Emergency Meeting to discuss the issue further for 9 a.m. Thursday, April 24, 2014, in the Board of Commissioners Office located at 555 Court Street NE, 5th Floor, Salem.

In other words, the board is meeting TODAY.

Here’s contact info for the members of Marion County’s Board of Commissioners:

David Moore Kathy Bryant Stan McClain Carl Zalak Earl Arnett
District 1
District 2
District 3
Vice Chair
District 4
Chairman

UPDATE (April 28, 2014):

Bud Waterman, a former plant worker at Covanta, says the incineration of aborted babies for energy had been going on for years and he believes plant officials and perhaps even county government officials should have known. He said that on more than one occasion, the contents of the truck dropping off biohazardous material spilled out of their containers. “It would make you sick, especially if you had to clean it up or have to pull a box off the trailer,” said Waterman. Read more, here.

~Eowyn

Actor Mark Ruffalo is proud his mother aborted his sibling

svomit_100-121

mark_ruffaloMark Ruffalo is severely IQ-challenged

In a column for the website Stop Patriarchy, actor Mark Ruffalo propagandizes for abortion the killing of unborn babies with a tear-jerking account of how his mother was “driven” to an illegal abortion the illegal murder of Ruffalo’s sibling.

Ruffalo, who was raised Roman Catholic,  is best known for portraying Marvel Comics character Bruce Banner/The Hulk in the 2012 blockbuster The Avengers.

Ruffalo writes (my editorial comments are in italics, colored teal):

I am a man. (Gosh, you don’t say!) I could say this has nothing to do with me. (Yes, it does. The murder of human beings concerns everyone, man and woman.) Except I have two daughters and I have a mother who was forced (We are all given free will. No one, including your mother, is ever forced to do anything.) to illegally have an abortion in her state where abortion was illegal when she was a very young woman. It cost $600 cash. It was a traumatizing thing for her. (Imagine, Mark, the trauma of your unborn sibling being aborted killed.) It was shameful and sleazy and demeaning. When I heard the story I was aghast by the lowliness of a society that would make a woman do that. (I am aghast by the continuing lowliness of a society that sanctions the killing of not-yet-born human life.) I could not understand its lack of humanity; today is no different. (Today is no different? Then why do the pro-aborts so fiercely protect the historic Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling?)

What happened to my mother was a relic of an America that was not free nor equal nor very kind. (Is it kind, Mark, to kill innocent, albeit very small, human beings against their will?) My mother’s illegal abortion marked a time in America that we have worked long and hard to leave behind. It was a time when women were seen as second rate citizens who were not smart enough, nor responsible enough, nor capable enough to make decisions about their lives. (There you go again, Mark, repeating one of the Left’s favorite lies that anyone who disagrees with the Left must be stupid. Tsk, tsk.) It was a time that deserved to be left behind, and leave it behind we did, or so it seemed.  We made abortion and a woman’s ability to be her own master a Right. (Killing is now elevated to being a woman’s right. Our Founding Fathers must be weeping.) That Right was codified into law.  That law was the law of the land for decades.  My own mother fought to make herself more than a possession; she lived her life as a mother who chose when she would have children, and a wife who could earn a living if she so chose.  I want my daughters to enjoy that same choice (–of killing my own grandchildren!). I don’t want to turn back the hands of time to when women shuttled across state lines in the thick of night to resolve an unwanted pregnancy, in a cheap hotel room just south of the state line.  Where a transaction of $600 cash becomes the worth of a young woman’s life.  ($600 is still $600 more than the worth of your aborted sibling’s life, Mark.) So that is why I am lending my voice to you and your movement today.  Because I actually trust the women I know (to kill and “Do As They Will” — the motto of the Church of Satan!).  I trust them with their choices, I trust them with their bodies and I trust them with their children (– only the children that are allowed to live).  I trust that they are decent enough and wise enough and worthy enough to carry the right of Abortion (Infanticide) and not be forced to criminally exercise that Right at the risk of death or jail time.

Blah. Blah. Blah.

I’m sick of reading the rest of Ruffalo’s mindless, unthinking, downright stupid and evil drivel.

Mark Ruffalo, you’re so stupid you haven’t even thought of this:

But for the grace of God, it could be your sibling, instead of you, writing this obscene column about how proud s/he is that your good ol’ mum had aborted you.

Mark Ruffalo, you make me puke. svomit_100-121

I now vow I will NEVER watch any movie or TV show you’re in. EVER.

H/t LifeNews

~Eowyn

In 1973 only 2.8% of American women had aborted a child.

By 2008 that percentage had grown to 40%.

SatanFrom 2008 to 2013, under the regime of President Lucifer, abortion mills have risen to a near governmental power, and are being actively promoted in the public schools.

The following article can be read at: http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/uslifetimeab.html

Percentage of United States women who have had abortions

compiled by Wm. Robert Johnston
last updated 15 October 2008

Summary: It is estimated here that, as of 2008, about 28% of U.S. women ages 15-64 have had abortions. This figure has risen from 2.8% in 1973 to 11% in 1980, 19% in 1987, 24% in 1994, and 27% in 2001. In 2008, of women ages 40-55, about 40% have had abortions in their lifetimes.

From 1967 to September 2008, approximately 50,200,000 abortions occurred in the United States; of these, about 30,260,000 or 60% were to women with no prior abortions [1,2]. In other words, 30,260,000 different women had one or more abortions from 1967 to the present in the U.S.

Given that there were 101,314,000 women ages 15-64 in the U.S. in 2007, this implies about 25-28% of women ages 15-64 in the U.S. today have had at least one abortion in their lifetime. The uncertainty stems from unaccounted-for factors such as mortality among older women, women who have immigrated into the U.S. in this time period, U.S. women who obtained abortions abroad, and abortions obtained in the U.S. by women from other countries. (This discussion only includes legal abortions; illegal abortions prior to the 1970s were probably in numbers small enough not to significantly affect the final results.)

These statistics are reported by the Alan Guttmacher Institute:

  • “… roughly one-third of women will have an abortion during their reproductive lifetime…” (2008) [1]
  • “… of American women … at current rates more than one-third (35%) will have had an abortion by age 45.” (2008) [3]
  • “… of women aged 15-44 … 30% have had an abortion.” (1992 figures) [4]

The following data are based on a model incorporating data from a 2008 Alan Guttmacher Institute release [1], reporting 1973-2004 figures based on their periodic surveys of abortion providers (these surveys are widely accepted as the most complete data available on U.S. abortions), supplemented by CDC and other data for 1967-1972 [2] and estimates for 2005-2008.

The graph below shows estimated number of U.S. women who have had abortions by age. The annual number of abortions in the U.S. peaked in 1990, although the abortion rate per 1000 women aged 15-44 peaked earlier, in 1980. This abortion rate has dropped from 29.28 in 1980 to 19.41 in 2005, representing a variety of factors but likely including a shift in attitudes towards abortion. The peak in the graph has shifted with the aging of those women who obtained abortions in the 1980s.

The next graph shows the estimated percentage of U.S. women who have had abortions by age. Again, it shows the aging of women who obtained abortions in the first 15-20 years after Roe v. Wade and the more recent drop in abortion rates among women under 25. Consequently, the fraction of 25-year-old women who have obtained abortions has dropped from 32% in 1980-87 to 26% in 2001 and 21% in 2008.

The following table gives estimated percentages of U.S. women who have ever had abortions by age ranges–note that these percentages are approximate. Nonetheless, both the prevalence and the shifting demographics of abortion is evident. (One issue is the health implications of a large aging population who have obtained abortions in the past–for example, given the possible link between induced abortion and breast cancer.)

year estimated % of US women who have had abortions by age range
12-80 15-64 12-19 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79
1973 2.3 2.8 2.7 6.2 2.7 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.0
1980 9.0 11.1 6.1 23.3 13.5 4.4 0.3 0.0 0.0
1987 15.2 18.6 6.2 30.6 29.6 12.2 2.6 0.1 0.0
1994 19.8 24.4 4.6 30.4 39.8 25.8 8.6 1.3 0.0
2001 22.3 27.0 4.8 26.6 40.0 36.9 16.6 4.8 0.3
2008 24.3 28.6 2.3 19.3 35.0 41.2 34.6 14.3 3.4

A 1998 study by Henshaw [4] included a more sophisticated analysis than the one above; for 1994, here are a comparison of percentage of women who have had abortions by age range from Henshaw and from this analysis–to give some indication of the uncertainty in the figures above.

year estimated % of US women who have had abortions by age range
15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44
1994, Henshaw 7.0 26.3 37.3 40.2 38.3 25.0
1994, this analysis 7.2 24.9 35.5 39.8 39.8 31.2

Some published analyses similar to (but more sophisticated than) the analysis above:

  • United States: Henshaw, Stanley K., 1998, “Unintended pregnancy in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives, 30(1):24-29, 46.
  • Australia: Chan, Annabelle, and Rosemary J. Keane, 2004, “Prevalence of induced abortion in a reproductive lifetime,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 159(5):475-480.

References:

  1. Henshaw, Stanley K., and Kathryn Kost, August 2008, “Trends in the characteristics of women obtaining abortions, 1974 to 2004,” Guttmacher Institute, on line [http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/09/18/Report_Trends_Women_Obtaining_Abortions.pdf].
  2. Johnston, W. R., 4 June 2008, “Historical abortion statistics: United States,” on line, Johnston’s Archive [http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html].
  3. Alan Guttmacher Institute, Jan. 2008, “An overview of abortion in the United States,” Guttmacher Institute, on line [http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html].
  4. Henshaw, Stanley K., 1998, “Unintended pregnancy in the United States,” Family Planning Perspectives, 30(1):24-29, 46.

© 2008 by Wm. Robert Johnston.
Last modified 15 October 2008.
Return to Home. Return to Other Policy Issues. Return to Abortion Statistics.