Michael New, a professor at the University of Alabama and friend of mine, writes in:
“In the Corner I have noticed a lot of discussion about Dr. Stassen’s article in Sojourners. As someone who has done some research on fluctuations in abortion rates, I might have some insights to offer. Overall, I think that Dr. Stassen’s reasoning is very flawed for the following reasons.
“1) Academic researchers who study abortion, almost never use data from state health departments the way Dr. Stassen does. Papers in academic journals always use data from either the Center for Disease Control (CDC) or the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). Both of these groups have collection mechanisms that are more consistent.
“2) Dr. Stassen does pose an interesting question when he asks why the abortion rate declined during the Clinton administration? The research I have done indicates that the decline has little to do with Clinton’s policies. Instead, it has more to do with the sharp increase in pro-life legislation that was enacted at the state level during this time.
“In 1992, virtually no states were enforcing had informed-consent laws, by 2000 27 states had informed-consent laws in effect.
“In 1992, no states had banned or restricted partial-birth abortion, by 2000, 12 states had bans or restrictions in effect.
“In 1992 only 20 states were enforcing parental-involvement statutes, by 2000 32 states were enforcing these laws.
“My January study for the Heritage Foundation, which analyzes abortion data from every state from 1985 to 1999, provides solid statistical evidence that state legislation caused real declines in the abortion rate.
“3) Why was there this increase in pro-life legislation? There are two reasons and they both have to do with the election of pro-life candidates. The same candidates whom Dr. Stassen likely opposes.
“First, Republicans took control of both chambers of the state legislature in 11 additional states during the 1994 elections. In most cases, Republicans maintained control of these legislatures through end of the decade. This made it easier for pro-lifers in many states to enact protective legislation.
“Second, judicial appointees by Presidents Reagan and Bush gave state
level pro-life legislation more protection. The Casey vs. Planned Parenthood decision was a disappointment to pro-lifers because the Supreme Court chose not to overturn Roe vs. Wade. However, by finding constitutional some of the policies in Pennsylvania’s Abortion Control Act, the Supreme Court gave greater protection to state level pro-life legislation.
“Prior to Casey, the only laws that consistently survived judicial were parental involvement laws and Medicaid funding restrictions. After Casey, informed consent laws and many state partial birth abortion bans were upheld as well.”