Legislation

June 2010: Legislation

Committee Seeks to Sneak 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal before Pentagon Study Results Showdown at the OK Capitol: Senate Overrides Gov’s Veto of Abortion Law Abortion Foes Advance the Cause of Human Life at the State Level… Committee Seeks to Sneak 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' Repeal before Pentagon Study Results  The Senate Armed Services Committee may vote this week to attach an amendment to the 2011 defense spending bill that would end the armed forces' "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," (DADT) policy and permit homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Attaching the repeal to the defense measure would both coerce conservative congressmen to vote for a measure that they might otherwise strongly oppose, and rush the repeal of DADT before a Department of Defense study of the effects of such a policy change was completed. If the repeal succeeds, it would not be the first time radical homosexualist legislation has slipped through in a defense bill: in 2009, President Obama signed the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which had been attached to the 2010 defense authorization bill. Despite this and many other instances in which he has shown his support for the homosexualist agenda, “gay rights” groups have continued to fault Obama for not acting more aggressively against the military ban. "This is our ‘all hands on deck’  moment," said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the homosexualist Servemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN), which is dedicated to repealing DADT.  "For repeal [of DADT] to succeed, it is critical that all proponents for full repeal weigh in now, including the White House." In his January State of...

Study: Abortion Funding Cuts Reduce Abortions, Why Does Present Administration Want More? (2009)

Study: Abortion Funding Cuts Reduce Abortions, Why Does Present Administration Want More? The Alan Guttmacher Institute, the premier pro-abortion research group, has released a new report admitting that almost all of the public studies on the subject show cutting taxpayer-funding for abortions reduces the number of abortions. AGI's recent literature review about limits on Medicaid funding of abortions reveals 20 of 24 academic studies arrive at that conclusion. Dr. Michael New, a political science professor at the University of Alabama, talked about the new AGI review in a column at National Review. "Overall, the results indicate that there is a very strong consensus among both public-health researchers and economists that public funding restrictions lower abortion rates," he explains. "These studies analyze data from a range of sources including surveys and aggregate data from the federal, state, and local level." The other four studies AGI surveyed do not show that abortion funding cuts increase abortions, they merely were unable to reach a conclusion about the effect of such policies. "The evidence presented about the effectiveness of public funding restrictions is very persuasive," New says. One 1999 study looking at North Carolina’s provisions for public funding of abortions. Unlike other states that use taxpayer money to pay for abortions for poor women, North Carolina did not subsidize abortions through Medicaid but used a separate abortion fund that recently was cut from the state budget. "When funds were unavailable, the authors found a consistent increase in the birth rate and a decrease in the abortion rate," New writes at National Review. "Furthermore, these trends were more pronounced among blacks," who typically have...

Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1990s (2004)

Analyzing the Effects of State Legislation on the Incidence of Abortion During the 1990s by Michael J. New, Ph.D. Center for Data Analysis Report #04-01 January 21, 2004 The 1990s saw both the election and re-election of a "pro-choice" President.1 However, the "pro-life" movement made considerable gains at the state and local levels. Survey data indicate that by the end of the decade, more people supported restrictions on abortion and fewer supported discretionary abortion.2 Meanwhile, the actual number of abortions declined during the decade. For the 46 states reporting data to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in both 1990 and 1999,3 the number of abortions fell from 1,035,5734 to 854,416,5 a decline of 17.4 percent. This decline translates into a reduction in the abortion rate from 20.61 to 16.62 abortions per 1,000 women between the ages of 15 and 44.6 What is the reason for this decline in the number of abortions? The economy, which grew at a brisk rate during the mid- to late 1990s, might be partly responsible. Studies indicate that abortion rates decline during periods of strong economic growth.7 However, an even more directly related factor might be the impact of legislation intended to reduce the number of abortions. This study used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) to estimate how state-level "pro-life" legislation affected abortion rates and ratios.8 This paper reports a number of findings based on these data. Among them: Those states that adopted pro-life legislation during the 1990s experienced larger reductions in abortion rates and ratios than those states that did...

FOCA — Would It Increase U.S. Abortions?

Freedom of Choice Act …If enacted, FOCA will reverse decades of progress in reducing the annual toll of abortions in the United States, a result no one should welcome regardless of his or her feelings about “choice.” How can we be certain that abortions will increase under FOCA? A recent study by Dr. Michael J. New, assistantprofessor of political science at the University of Alabama, proves the effectiveness of parental involvement laws in reducing minors’ abortion rates. Examining data for minor girls in all 50 states from 1989 to 1999, Dr. New found that minors’ abortion rates fall by an average of 13.6% following enactment of a state parental involvement law. The more protective the law, the greater is the decline in the abortion rate. Laws, for example, that require the consent (rather than simply notification) of one parent reduce the abortion rate by an average of 19%. Laws requiring the notification or consent of both parents yield an average 31% reduction in minors’ abortions. Such reasonable regulations would be invalidated, and these gains reversed, by FOCA. Using this and earlier research by Dr. New on the effect of state abortion regulations, Matt Bowman, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund, calculated the increased number of abortions that could be expected annually if FOCA became law and invalidated three common types of state abortion laws: parental involvement, informed consent, and laws restricting state funding of abortions. Mr. Bowman arrived at a figure of 125,000 additional abortions annually due to FOCA. Even NARAL has acknowledged that states providing Medicaid funding for abortion have much higher abortion rates among Medicaid-eligible women...

Introduced Federal Legislation 2008 /Recent State Legislation 2007

PROPOSED 2008 FEDERAL LEGISLATION Pro-Abortion US Senator Reintroduces Bill Targeting Crisis Pregnancy Centers Senate Bill Would Protect Women From Botched Abortions, Requires Hospital Priveleges Revised Global AIDS Program Would Emphasize Abstinence and Fidelity PRO-ABORTION U.S. SENATOR REINTRODUCES BILL TARGETING CRISIS PREGNANCY CENTERS. The bill targets the thousands of crisis pregnancy centers across the country that offer tangible help to pregnant women. Sen. Robert Menendez alleges the centers mislead women by giving them information on abortion's risks and alternatives. The so-called "Stop Deceptive Advertising for Women’s Services Act" would place burdensome regulations on pregnancy centers. It would also force the Federal Trade Commission to create and enforce rules to prohibit deceptive practices that pregnancy centers say they never use to reach women — such as advertising under the "abortion services" section of the phone book. Ironically, abortion businesses themselves have been accused of the same practices and one in New York stopped advertising in the "abortion alternatives section. Tom Glessner, an attorney with NIFLA who has spent decades helping pregnancy centers, told LifeNews.com the bill is what's deceptive, not the help centers. "This is the same old tired ranting from the abortion lobby," Glessner said. He said abortion advocates "get hysterical about the effective work of pro-life agencies that are taking away business (and money) from them by providing alternatives to abortion." [3Apr08, LifeNews.com, DC]   SENATE BILL WOULD PROTECT WOMEN FROM BOTCHED ABORTIONS & REQUIRES HOSPITAL PRIVELEGES FOR ABORTION PROVIDER. The new Pregnant Women Health and Safety Act, introduced 2Apr08, would protect pregnant women from the aftereffects of a botched abortion. The bill requires abortion practitioners to have admitting...