Wednesday, August 11, 2010


Doing some research at work on contraceptive prevalence in some developing countries to appease a lazy donor (duh,, and we decide to give them some abortion data as well. The reasoning: if our programs increase contraceptive prevalence, then it also reduces abortion prevalence. Since the DHS doesn't capture abortion data (unclear on why; political issues?) we find some Guttmacher data. Initially I was concerned that this info might confuse our donors; since ab laws have been relaxed in many places over the last decade, abortion prevalence might increase and lead them to believe horrible things about contraception and the ineffectiveness of our programs. And it's not easy to talk a donor down from a ledge.

But check it! Worldwide, ab prevalence has actually gone down. From this particular data I can't say why, but of course we'll speculate that it has to do with increases in method use, especially long-term methods (IUDs and such). But read further: though overall abortion rates have fallen, rates of illegal/clandestine abortions have stayed the same!


So the situation is actually pretty bleak. Because the most relaxed laws occur in the most developed countries, the women at greatest risk for complications from abortion are not granted access. This report mentions 19 countries have reduced restrictions, many in the developing world, but with the same access barriers and so on that have existed forever. God bless pro choice de jure.

With all the resource allocation and funding for ab in the states, what is the prognosis for that kind of support in the rest of the world? My org is not allowed to; which orgs are? Does anybody know of prospects for abortion access overseas? Is it too much of a hot button issue? I'm so confused. So many countries' women are dying and they don't care! How is it that the world has managed to (for the most part) get on board with HIV/AIDS within a decade, but has taken centuries to do so for ab? If you ask me HIV is as tricky an issue as ab, by which I mean it's not tricky at all. Give people things so they don't die.


If I were Miss America, I wouldn't wish for world peace. I'd wish for world abortions.



I just received an email stating the following:

"New rule from Dept. of Health and Human Services: women with pre-existing conditions like breast cancer, AIDS and diabetes will be banned from buying insurance coverage for abortion in
high-risk insurance pools. They won't even have the option to buy coverage with their own money. Outraged? So am I."


End the madness!



As long as I keep getting distracted at work by checking email and IMDB and other distracting sites, I found the following while reading the Wikipedia entry for Nick Cannon (don't ask):

"Cannon's music video for Can I Live? reveals that he was almost aborted by his mother, but she panicked in the abortion clinic and decided to have the baby."

Sigh. I love when people talk about this stuff as though it's an argument for abortion banning. Not that this entry was explicitly anti-choice in any way, but it reminded me of other instances in which "My mom almost aborted me and etc etc" comes into the discussion. Remember when it's "pro-choice" and not "pro-strapping-women-to-tables-and-forcing-things-between-their-legs"? Why would we not want women to have babies if they want to have them? Ack ack.

1 comment:

  1. I found research about prospects for abortion access for Latin America and Europe. Did you want the actual articles or just the citations?
    Either way, I'm happy to help.


This is not a debate forum -- there are hundreds of other sites for that. This is a safe space for abortion care providers and one that respects the full spectrum of reproductive choices; comments that are not in that spirit will either wind up in the spam filter or languish in the moderation queue.