THE HILL
 

Implications for U.S. policy from new evidence on global abortion trends

By Susan A. Cohen, Director of Government Affairs, The Guttmacher Institute - 10/14/09 03:29 PM ET

A new report from the Guttmacher Institute has major implications for U.S. policy, highlighting the urgency for boosting U.S. international family planning assistance and the need for the United States to be more engaged in mitigating the impact of unsafe abortion.

The report, published on October 13, shows positive global trends in increased contraceptive use, lower unintended pregnancy rates and declining abortion numbers, but also demonstrates that unsafe abortion remains a critical global health challenge. According to “Abortion Worldwide: A Decade of Uneven Progress,” both the developed and the developing world saw overall improvements. However, developed regions saw the greatest progress, while improvement varied widely in the developing world, with Africa lagging behind all other regions.


Increases in global contraceptive use have contributed to a decrease in the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions, which declined from 45.5 million procedures in 1995 to 41.6 million in 2003. This decline in worldwide abortion occurred alongside a global trend toward liberalizing abortion laws, with 19 countries significantly reducing abortion restrictions since 1997, and only 3 countries substantially increasing legal restrictions.

The report finds that while the incidence of abortion is closely related to that of unintended pregnancy, it does not correlate with abortion’s legal status. Indeed, abortion occurs at roughly equal rates in regions where it is broadly legal and in regions where it is highly restricted. The key difference is safety—illegal, clandestine abortions cause significant harm to women, especially in developing countries. Unsafe abortion causes 70,000 deaths each year and 5 million women are treated for severe complications resulting from unsafe abortion. Another 3 million women with serious complications go untreated.

In essence, the report provides new proof that abortion legality has much more to do with safety than incidence. Abortion rates correspond mostly to the rates of unintended pregnancy, which in turn correspond closely to rates of contraceptive use.  Where abortion remains severely restricted, it happens about as often as where it isn’t—but it accounts for high rates of maternal death and disability and huge costs to already strained health systems in developing countries. 

The report’s findings are an urgent call to action, and the United States is well-positioned to be a leader in helping to prevent unintended pregnancies and unsafe abortions worldwide. The Obama administration deserves praise for reprioritizing international family planning assistance by rescinding the anti-family planning Mexico City Policy (also known as the Global Gag Rule) and for restoring U.S. funding to UNFPA. The administration likewise deserves credit for making unintended pregnancy prevention one of four pillars of its soon-to-be-released Global Health Initiative. And the new administration and Congress already have begun making up for lost time and have committed important increases in funding for international family planning services despite the tough fiscal environment.

But these positive steps are not enough. Deaths from unsafe abortion are utterly preventable and there is much more the United States can do to avert death and suffering among millions of women, their children and their families:

  • The U.S. Congress should increase foreign aid to international family planning programs beyond current proposed increases. U.S. advocates have called for U.S. family planning assistance to be doubled, to at least $1 billion annually. A recently released report by five former directors of the Population and Reproductive Health Program of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) goes even further, recommending that funding for USAID’s population budget be set at $1.2 billion—and raised to $1.5 billion by fiscal year 2014.

  • Congress should also reexamine restrictive abortion policies. The 1973 Helms amendment bars the U.S. government from paying for safe abortion services overseas (much like the Hyde amendment does domestically). This restriction should be overturned because it is only exacerbating the problem of unsafe abortion and having no effect whatsoever on making abortion less likely. The United Kingdom’s Department for International Development’s position on unsafe abortion shows just how far the United States is lagging behind other nations when it comes in supporting programs that make safe abortion and post-abortion care more accessible globally.

  • Until such time as Congress is prepared to confront the Helms amendment ban on providing funding for safe abortion services in the world’s poorest countries, at the very least, the U.S. should work within the existing exceptions under Helms (in cases of rape, incest and danger to the mother’s life) to make safe abortion care available to women who meet these criteria (consistent with local law). The U.S. should also boost programs that aim to prevent the worst consequences of unsafe abortions, by helping to make post-abortion care more widely available to women suffering complications from clandestine procedures.

  • Lastly, the Obama administration should return the United States to its traditional role as a strong advocate for family planning at the international level. As part of this overall effort, the United States is recommitting itself to achieving reductions in maternal mortality and broader access to family planning services under the framework agreed during the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development in Cairo as well as under the millennium development goals.


Women are critical to the economic and social development of societies and to the realization of U.S. international development priorities, as well as many, if not most, of the Millennium Development Goals. It’s time for the U.S. to get serious about addressing better access to contraception, unwanted pregnancy and unsafe abortion as the key public health challenges they are.

Source:
http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/civil-rights/63115-implications-for-us-policy-from-new-evidence-on-global-abortion-trends-

Comments (13)

The claim that the legal status of abortion has no substantial impact on the abortion rate is pure bunk. As Stanley K. Henshaw, Guttmacher Senior Research Associate (now Senior Fellow) wrote in 1994, "In most countries, it is common after abortion is legalized for abortion rates to rise sharply for several yars, then stabilize, just as we have seen in the United States."Recently, Guttmacher published a report indicating that the effect of cutting off federal funding of abortion through Medicaid was that roughly one-fourth of the Medicaid-eligible women, who would have had abortions if federal funds had been available, instead carried their babies to term. So they want you to believe that a law curtailing government subsidies for abortion has a major abortion-reducing effect in the U.S., but a law limiting abortion across the board has no abortion-reducing effect in another country. It does not compute.Douglas JohnsonLegislat ive DirectorNationa l Right to Life CommitteeWashin gton, D.C.legfederal // at // aol.comBY Douglas Johnson on 10/14/2009 at 18:21
This is too important a subject to leave to governements alone. I am co-founder of 34 Million Friends of the United Nations Population FUnd. You can save a woman's life and offer her family planning with one dollar. www.34millionfriends.org YOU out there have contributed more than $4 million Let's keep it going. Take a stand for the women of the world. Cheers, Jane RobertsBY Jane Roberts on 10/14/2009 at 19:05
Abortions safe for whom? No abortion is safe for the baby involved. 100% mortality rate. And true to form, the liberal answer is to kill the baby rather than modify the behavior that led to the baby's existence in the first place. Furthermore, it is not the responsibility of the United States of America to provide abortions for the rest of the world.BY Millie on 10/15/2009 at 08:49
Our hearts should break for each of the 70,000 women who die each year from unsafe abortions. Our hearts should also break for the 40,000,000 children who die each year as a result of safe and unsafe abortions. Carrying each child to term alleviates both kinds of tragedies.BY Cliff Britton on 10/15/2009 at 08:57
Contraception. Contraception. Contraception.If you are anti-contraception then you are pro-abortion, not just pro-choice. If you don't support universal health care and sex education for all post-birth canal living children, you are also pro-abortion. The rest of us are pro-choice.The hypocrisy of the Right to Life movement is astounding. Once the brat is out of the womb they're on their own, eh? Let 'em starve, let 'em suffer, let 'em die in their millions in untold misery. A crueler bunch of sanctimonious, self-serving, sociopaths I have yet to see outside of a prison revival meeting.BY Eve Adams on 10/15/2009 at 10:24
Safe abortion…What is this world coming to. Family planning should be planning to take care of your family, not how can I duck my responsibilitie s as a human being. Contraception is fine with me…we all know how babies are born don't we?BY Greg on 10/15/2009 at 10:38
Unfortunately, as much as you may want to, you can't make women carry babies they don't want. It's their body and if they decide to have an abortion in the first trimester, it's not even a baby yet at that stage. You can't and won't stop this. What this report is suggesting is that we help and offer family planning services so that women don't get pregnant and get put in the situation where they have to make the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. Stop judging others. And if you are so worried about people being killed, why are you so for the death penalty?Continue the discussion: Visit my blog! http://thepoliticrat.blogspot.comBY thepoliticrat on 10/15/2009 at 10:44
@Douglas Johnson and @Cliff Britton: What would you have women do? If they have sought an abortion, they've obviously taken the time to decide that they are in no way financially or mentally ready to give birth and raise a child. What exactly do you suggest they do if they are forced to deliver the child? Folks in your camp certainly don't support increased public support for low-income women raising the children that Medicaid restrictions force them to have. I just can't imagine how your mind comes to these seemingly easy conclusions—that "carrying each child to term" would alleviate all tragedies of the situation. You seem to easily forget that unintended pregnancy is never something taken lightly. Abortion is a medical decision that should be decided between a woman and her doctor. Most conservatives demand that government not interfere with citizens' lives. How hypocritical for you, then, to support government interference in this very private decision.BY Marabel on 10/15/2009 at 11:06
UNFPA is one of the most brutal UN agencies there is. They helped set up and run the Chinese one-child policy that performed millions of forced abortions. Specifically, they set up the program's computer system which allowed Chinese officials to keep track of fertility. Friends of UNFPA?BY Austin Ruse on 10/15/2009 at 13:30
Mr. Johnson fundamentally misreads the Guttmacher Institute’s study on the Medicaid funding ban. Indeed, our study concluded that one in four of America’s poorest women who would have an abortion if it were paid for by Medicaid instead continue the pregnancy to term. However, that does not mean the public funding ban has had a “major abortion-reducing effect,” as Mr. Johnson claims—nor would restoration of public funding have a substantial impact in reverse. We estimate that if the Hyde amendment were repealed, the annual number of abortions nationwide would increase by approximately 33,000—increasing the U.S. abortion rate by only 2.5% (there were a total of 1.21 million abortions in 2005). Read my related August 5 blog post here: http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/08/04/politics-distorts-facts-impact-abortion-coverageAlthough our study demonstrates that the Hyde amendment has devastating effects for many individual poor women, if anything, it also proves the larger point that women will go to great lengths to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. When denied Medicaid funding, three out of four indigent women still manage to scrape together the funds, not to mention arrange for transportation and child care and put up with onerous state-level regulations such as unnecessary consent laws and waiting periods, in order to obtain an abortion they feel they need. This often comes at great expense for themselves and their families, as money meant for rent, utilities or groceries is instead used for the procedure. In developing countries, many women routinely go to even greater lengths to obtain illegal, clandestine abortions that pose a terrible risk to their life and health. The numbers don't lie: 70,000 women die each year from an unsafe abortion; fully 8 million more suffer severe complications, only 5 million of whom actually receive treatment for these complications. And to respond to Mr. Johnson’s point about the link between legality and incidence: Our new study on global abortion trends does not claim that the legal status of abortion has no effect. Its conclusion is as follows: “The fact that the abortion rate in the less developed world, where the procedure is legally restricted in many countries, is quite similar to that in the more developed world, where abortion is largely permitted on broad grounds in almost all countries, confirms the lack of an inherent relationship between the prevalence of abortion and its legal status. Abortion rates can be quite low in some countries where the procedure is legal on broad grounds, and quite high in many countries where it is highly restricted. Restricting abortion by law does not guarantee a low abortion rate, nor does permitting it on broad grounds guarantee a high rate.” Moreover, Mr. Johnson‘s quotation from Guttmacher’s Stanley Henshaw does not tell the full story of abortion in the United States. In the years immediately following nationwide legalization in 1973, documented abortions in the country did increase—largel y as legal procedures replaced previous illegal procedures. The official U.S. abortion rate peaked at 29.3 per 1,000 women aged 15–44 in 1981, but as the national rate of unintended pregnancy declined, the abortion rate also declined steadily, to 19.4 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age by 2005. The number of abortions declined as well, to a total of 1.2 million in 2005, 25% below the all-time high of 1.6 million abortions in 1990.BY susan cohen on 10/15/2009 at 17:13

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.