A similar pattern of anti-abortion laws and increased crime rate was discovered in the United States. From the early 1960’s to 1989, the violent crime rate in the United States rose 80% reaching a peak. It was expected that violent crime would continue to increase but suddenly and without explanation, violent crime began to fall rapidly, eventually reaching the levels of 40 years prior. Where did the criminals go? That was the question asked by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner in their book, Freakonomics. Levitt and Dubner looked at the question from many angles and arrived at a surprising correlation. They linked the drop in crime rate in the United States to the legalization of abortion by Roe v. Wade in 1973.[35]
A greater percentage of the children born following Roe v. Wade were wanted children, born into situations where mothers were ready and willing to care for them. By 1990, the Roe v. Wade generation had grown up, and the population in the United States contained a much reduced number of adults who, without Roe v. Wade, would have been unwanted as children and at a greater risk of leading a life of crime. Levitt and Dubner found that increased and decreased crime rates could be directly correlated to increased or decreased restrictions on abortions. Their results were reproduced in multiple states in the United States. The effects were also similar across countries and even across continents.[36] Access to abortion today reduces crime tomorrow.
When women have the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, they are unrestricted in their ability to contribute to the economic well being of their families and communities. When women are restricted to the home and raising children, fewer women participate in the society’s economy, and there is often rapid population growth. World Bank advisor Thomas Merrick suggests societies that recognize the economic and social status of women and women’s rights of reproductive control are better able to take advantage of the economic forces of an increased workforce and thus enjoy a rise in living standards.[37] Societies, that support women and women’s control of fertility, limit population growth and experience economic prosperity. In contrast, rapid population growth often coincides with a decline in the economic and social status of women, fewer women in the work force, and restrictions on fertility regulation services. The combined effect leads to a cumulative downward spiral that good economic policies cannot overcome.
In the United States, there is a push among anti-abortion forces to reverse the federal law of Roe v. Wade. The effect would turn the legislation of abortion over to the states. The 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, upheld various provisions of a Missouri law that restricted abortion, including: allowing states to prohibit abortion in publicly funded spaces or by publicly funded employees, and allowed a state to declare, “the life of each human being begins at conception.” Webster opened the door to permit greater states’ rights to restrict access to abortion services. Conservative Christian organizations have been preparing for the overturn of Roe v. Wade by promoting fetal homicide bills. These new state laws would increase the rights of the unborn in a majority of states if Roe v. Wade is overturned, and the state laws go into effect. From 1995 to 2008, nationwide, state governments enacted 335 anti-choice legislative measures.[38] If the United States Supreme Court rules that abortion law is a state issue, then the availability of abortion will become much more restricted than it is now.
More restricted than it is now? Even with Roe v. Wade, abortion is restricted in the United States. Despite the fact that every year approximately one million women in the United States have abortions, 87% of all counties in the United States have no abortion provider, and 97% of rural counties have no provider.[39] The Hyde Amendment of 1976 restricted federal Medicaid funding for abortion, which makes it all the more difficult for low income women to obtain abortion services.
Just as in the days before Roe v. Wade, in the United States in 2008, women who have adequate financial resources are able to obtain a safe abortion. However, young and poor women face many hurdles if in need of abortion services.
Parental consent or notification laws in many states in the United States force young women who want abortions to choose between informing their parents (who may not consent) and traveling to states with no parental notification laws. Pregnant adolescents are often slow to recognize the pregnancy and access a clinical provider, leading to a greater likelihood of complications with increased gestational age of the pregnancy. The United States has the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in the industrial world, approximately 750,000 teenage pregnancies of which 80% are unintended.[40]
Mandatory waiting periods in some states require women to be in person for counseling and then wait 24 hours for services. This can mean increased costs and problems for a woman who must arrange for leave from work, childcare, and perhaps stay overnight in a distant city. The cost of abortion can prohibit some women from seeking an abortion, and health insurance does not cover abortion services in many states, which presents more difficulties for middle to low income American women.
Challenges to women seeking abortion are great, and doctors and nurses are also challenged. Medical professionals in North America who provide abortion services continue to serve women despite the terrorist tactics of anti-abortion extremists. Since 1993, in the United States, three doctors who provided abortions were assassinated. Five others have lived through assassination attempts in the United States and Canada. Terrorism against abortion service providers has included bombing, arson, vandalism, burglary, and harassment. Anti-abortion extremists have also launched frivolous lawsuits in an attempt to prevent providers from offering services.
The number of licensed medical doctors willing to provide abortion services is dwindling. According to a 2003 study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute, in the four year period from 1996 to 2000 the number of abortion providers decreased by 11%. Another study shows a drop of 37% in abortion providers since 1982.[41]
The number of medical schools in the United States who train medical students in abortion is also declining. A 1998 study found that only 26% of OB/GYN residency programs trained all residents in abortion procedures. Most OB/GYN residency programs trained only residents who expressed interest, and 14% of the programs trained no residents at all in abortion techniques and procedures.[42]
An additional way that abortion may become more restricted in the United States is through censorship of information. Censorship of information has an ancient history. The contents of the Great Library of Alexandria, Egypt were burned as fuel for the baths by the Muslim commander in the Conquest of 642. He was told by the caliph, Umar, that “if what is written in them agrees with the Koran, they are not required; if it disagrees they are not desired. Destroy them therefore.”[43] Much later, the witch hunts in Europe during the 14th and 15th centuries eliminated conservatively 60,000 people whose knowledge of the natural world was deemed heresy by the Roman Catholic Church.[44] The witch hunts often focused on female midwives and herbal healers who had information on herbal birth control.[45] It is believed by some scholars[46] that religious powers orchestrated the elimination of birth control and abortion information, as they wanted to encourage growth in the population which had been reduced due to the Black Death, estimated to have taken 30-60% of Europe’s population in the 14th century.[47]
35
Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner,
37
Thomas Merrick, “Population and Poverty: New Views on an Old Controversy.”
38
NARAL Pro-Choice America, “State and Federal Legislation” (June, 2003), http://www.naral.org/choice-action-center/in_your_state/bill-tracker/ (accessed August 13, 2008).
39
L. Finer and S. Henshaw, “Abortion Incidence and Services in the United States in 2000,”
40
Guttmacher Institute,
41
S. Henshaw and L. Finer, “The Accessibility of Abortion Services in the United States, 2001,”
42
R. Almeling, L. Tews, and S. Dudley, “Abortion training in U.S. obstetrics and gynecology residency programs,”
45
Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto Steiger, “The Elimination of Medieval Birth Control and the Witch Trials of Modern Times,”
46
Gunnar Heinsohn and Otto Steiger, "Birth Controclass="underline" the Political-Economic Rationale Behind Jean Bodin's ‘Démonomanie’,"
47
Stéphane Barry and Norbert Gualde, "La plus grande épidémie de l'histoire"