Great news! Abortion rate plummets

No matter what your abortion politics are, it should be great news that the abortion rate has plummeted 25 percent from 2008 to 2014, according to the Guttmacher Institute.

As the Institute reported in the American Journal of Public Health:

Between 2008 and 2014, the abortion rate declined 25%, from 19.4 to fetus14.6 per 1000 women aged 15 to 44 years. The abortion rate for adolescents aged 15 to 19 years declined 46%, the largest of any group. Abortion rates declined for all racial and ethnic groups but were larger for non-White women than for non-Hispanic White women. Although the abortion rate decreased 26% for women with incomes less than 100% of the federal poverty level, this population had the highest abortion rate of all the groups examined: 36.6. If the 2014 age-specific abortion rates prevail, 24% of women aged 15 to 44 years in that year will have an abortion by age 45 years.

This is the lowest rate ever, lower than the 16.3 in 1973 when the Supreme Court legalized abortion on demand. 

That has to mean that tens of thousands if not millions of people among us were saved, some of them undoubtedly in line to make a significant contribution to mankind.

Of course, some will say that many of them would have been born into lives not worth living and into a cold, cruel world. They would have been better off dead, I guess.

Both sides in the abortion wars have tried to take at least some of the credit for the reduction. Pro-choicers credit their efforts, pointing to among other things greater use of contraceptives and reduced sexual activity by teens. (Interesting that the same research finds that:

Fifty-one percent of abortion patients in 2008 were using a contraceptive method in the month they became pregnant, most commonly condoms (27%) or a hormonal method (17%))

Why else would they say that they are for abortion to be legal but rare.

Pro-lifers say their education efforts are in part responsible, pointing to a trend towards more Americans identifying themselves as pro-life.

Whatever. It's welcome news that both sides can agree on something.


Leave a comment
  • Your bishop allows you to laud contraception?
    BTW, how's your investigation of NW Ind Franciscan hospitals denying women medical care going?

  • In reply to jack:

    More anti-Catholic nonsense. Next time it gets deleted, Jack.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    With your anti-Jewish bias, it takes one to know one. Once you get this message, I personally don't care what you do with it.

  • In reply to jack:

    Jack, I'm leaving it up. It speaks volumes about you.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    As did your siding with "the Holocaust was a liberal plot" posters. If you think you are threatening me by leaving it up or taking it down, as I said, I don't personally care.

  • In reply to jack:

    When did I side with"the Holocaust was a liberal plot" posters?

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Unless you deleted your own comments, look to your responses to the former Chef, and Jill Marie. That is, unless I should have used the term "anti-Semitism" instead of "Holocaust" with reference to the Holocaust post and their comments that liberals and BLM are anti-Semites.

    You were asked then, by me and Bob Abrams, why you posted about the Holocaust if the only purpose was to assume Jill Marie's and the former Chef's views. Instead of responding, you hid in you rabbit hole for a couple of weeks.

    Note, unlike you, I stand behind what I post, or admit a mistake.

    Other than that, you can use Google to find to what I referred, if you can't remember it.

  • In reply to jack:

    Here is the link to the referenced discussion:
    ("For those needing a reminder of what the Nazis did.") I'll let the readers decide if I'm "anti-Jewish," etc. If any readers have gotten this far.

  • In reply to jack:

    Sorry, Dennis, you linked to this story. Are you just losing it, or is your excuse that they didn't teach you computer skills when you went to journalism school?

    And the point is, I don't have to find where that discussion was--you do.

    Maybe, to use your own words, what you post says volumes about you. And, unlike me, you don't seem comfortable about saying it, or you wouldn't be claiming amnesia.

  • In reply to jack:

    BTW, if you think you can edit this, I just took a screenshot.

  • Thanks Obama!

  • In reply to Michael Messinger:

    I assume you mean for making contraceptive coverage available, Hobby Lobby notwithstanding.

  • Jack, you're right. Here's the correct link:

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Now, read your replies to the former Chef and Jill Marie. And your comment about how you didn't have to apologize to a Holocaust survivor for twisting a neutral post into a blame the left rant.As you recognized 20 hours 30 minutes ago, what was at issue is the comment board and your responses in it, not the initial post.

    As I said 19 hours ago, in response to that comment, "You were asked then, by me and Bob Abrams, why you posted about the Holocaust if the only purpose was to assume Jill Marie's and the former Chef's views." You would not respond then, so if you are a man whose words speak for who you are, you should respond now.

    Let's also remember that you took this down the road of "More anti-Catholic nonsense" 22 hours 30 minutes ago. Maybe I used a snarky tone, but I did post in your last abortion column a link to the NWI Times article about the Franciscan-Methodist merger and how some bishops were dictating medical practices in the Franciscan hospitals. Now, if the NWI Times article was "anti-Catholic nonsense," you could use your journalistic skills to expose it. But I bet you rather user mischaracterization instead of using sound journalistic methods to refute it.

    Finally, you should explain why you are so obsessed with abortion, even to the extent of posting someone else's work that seemed to credit contraception.

    I hope I made myself clear.

  • I see you were back to respond to the community manager, but given numerous opportunities to do so, you won't respond to the points made in the preceding post. I take that as your admission that I am correct, as, of course plainly appears on the face of the portions of the blog I cited. Given your admission by silence, I won't further pursue it. But I can't give absolution--you'll have to go to confession for that.

  • In reply to jack:

    1. "bishops were dictating medical practices in the Franciscan hospitals." Franciscan hospitals are Catholic, aren't they? Also, I guess it depends on how you define "medical practice," as if they do not have a moral component. Even law defines what "medical practices" are allowed in hospitals because of their moral components.
    2. " I take that as your admission that I am correct." Silence is not such an admission. Rather it is a statement that your post doesn't deserve an answer.
    3. Have you not noticed the existence of anti-Semitic groups on campus?
    4. "BTW, if you think you can edit this, I just took a screenshot." Are you paranoid? I have never edited anyone's comments, including yours.
    5. Somehow you have turned a sympathetic post into "anti-Jewish bias." Find a hobby, Jack.

  • In reply to Dennis Byrne:

    Well, you broke your silence.
    1. No, I don't necessarily agree that medical practice has a moral component, at least in the sense that one religion can obtain a near monopoly of hospitals in a region, and then have a bishop decide over a doctor what is medically necessary. There is more than one religion in this country. And this does not answer my point that you asserted that the NWI Times article was "anti-Catholic nonsense."
    2. But you finally felt compelled to give one. Tell us why.
    3. How is that relevant to this? I do get WJC and ADL mailers. Do you? I also note anti-Semtism on this site.
    4. You were the one talking about deleting posts. I've seen you edit my posts (such as "oh goody"). Don't lie to me.
    5. I didn't, you let Chef and Jill Marie do so and noted your approval. Find a hobby other than blogging. You're no good at it.

    Again, you haven't explained why you brought up religion at the top of these comments, why you approved of Chef and Jill Marie, and why you are so obsessed with abortion. Try again.

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • Dennis, thanks for bringing exposure to this question. I don't know what might stave off coastline destruction and hurricane damages,…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to Aquinas wired:
      Right, because drilling for oil on a small piece of frozen tundra is SO comparable to illegally confiscating publicly owned…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • "It is a giveaway of public land to a private, partisan enterprise." Dennis, you most certainly are…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • fb_avatar
      I agree Richard. Aquinas's comment is just a red herring to turn focus away from what the article is…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • In reply to Aquinas wired:
      Fair game. However, the parties there are private on private property and the Obama Center is taking public property for…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Advertisement: