BREAKING: Taxpayers funded a dozen abortion industry groups through Paycheck Protection Program

Photo credit:金 运 on Unsplash

Taxpayer-funded Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were used to prop up numerous abortion industry groups in addition to Planned Parenthood, according to a data set released by the Small Business Administration (SBA) earlier this week.

Controversy erupted in May when news broke that Planned Parenthood had received $80 million in PPP funds, despite being a much larger company than the PPP was intended to serve. The SBA has ruled Planned Parenthood ineligible for PPP funds and demanded that it return the $80 million. However, PPP funding for smaller abortion centers and advocacy groups has not been previously reported.
Secular Pro-Life’s analysis of the SBA data set reveals that American taxpayers kept at least six non-Planned Parenthood abortion vendors and six abortion-promoting organizations afloat via the PPP program, at a cost of over $4.4 million. This is a very conservative estimate, and the true amount is surely higher, because the SBA has only identified recipients of $150,000 or more. In addition, the SBA has not disclosed the exact amounts distributed, instead giving ranges. 
The list below is not exhaustive. Secular Pro-Life searched the SBA data set using abortion-related keywords, and compared the results against AbortionDocs, but it is entirely possible that we’ve missed some. We encourage other activists and journalists to build upon our research.
Abortion Centers
Atlanta Women’s Medical Center: This Atlanta, GA surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. State health inspectors have repeatedly reported deficiencies at this facility. 
Family Planning Association of Maine: This Augusta, ME surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000.  

Feminist Women’s Health Center: This Atlanta, GA surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. State health inspectors have repeatedly reported deficiencies at this facility. 

Hope Clinic for Women: This Granite City, IL surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. This facility has been the site of multiple medical emergencies, including two in 2020. Despite applying for and receiving PPP funds, Hope Clinic for Women deputy director Alison Drieth told CBS News in April that business is booming because “women are now less likely to change their minds once they schedule an abortion. Normally, 50% go through with it; amid the pandemic, the rate is 85%.” 

Northland Family Planning Clinic: This Southfield, MI surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. Northland perforated a woman’s uterus in a botched abortion in April 2019. It has repeatedly sued the state of Michigan to challenge abortion regulations. 

[Correction: The original version of this article included a Peoria, IL clinic on this list. A local activist contacted us to say that the clinic in question has a similar name to an abortion center but does not offer abortions itself. In an abundance of caution, we have removed it.]
Abortion-Promoting Organizations
Center for Reproductive Rights: The mission of the Center for Reproductive Rights is to “use the power of law” to advance abortion. It received between $2 million and $5 million.

National Abortion Federation: This abortion industry trade group received between $350,000 and $1 million.

National Institute for Reproductive Health: The National Institute for Reproductive Health “works across the country to advance proactive policy on the state and local levels” to promote abortion. It received between $350,000 and $1 million.

National Network of Abortion Funds: The National Network of Abortion Funds, which funnels money to abortion centers for mothers who cannot afford the price of killing their babies, received between $350,000 and $1 million.

Physicians for Reproductive Health: This abortionists’ lobby received between $350,000 and $1 million.

URGE (Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity): This pro-abortion youth group, formerly known as Choice USA, received between $150,000 and $350,000.

BREAKING: Taxpayers funded a dozen abortion industry groups through Paycheck Protection Program

Photo credit:金 运 on Unsplash

Taxpayer-funded Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans were used to prop up numerous abortion industry groups in addition to Planned Parenthood, according to a data set released by the Small Business Administration (SBA) earlier this week.

Controversy erupted in May when news broke that Planned Parenthood had received $80 million in PPP funds, despite being a much larger company than the PPP was intended to serve. The SBA has ruled Planned Parenthood ineligible for PPP funds and demanded that it return the $80 million. However, PPP funding for smaller abortion centers and advocacy groups has not been previously reported.
Secular Pro-Life’s analysis of the SBA data set reveals that American taxpayers kept at least six non-Planned Parenthood abortion vendors and six abortion-promoting organizations afloat via the PPP program, at a cost of over $4.4 million. This is a very conservative estimate, and the true amount is surely higher, because the SBA has only identified recipients of $150,000 or more. In addition, the SBA has not disclosed the exact amounts distributed, instead giving ranges. 
The list below is not exhaustive. Secular Pro-Life searched the SBA data set using abortion-related keywords, and compared the results against AbortionDocs, but it is entirely possible that we’ve missed some. We encourage other activists and journalists to build upon our research.
Abortion Centers
Atlanta Women’s Medical Center: This Atlanta, GA surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. State health inspectors have repeatedly reported deficiencies at this facility. 
Family Planning Association of Maine: This Augusta, ME surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000.  

Feminist Women’s Health Center: This Atlanta, GA surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. State health inspectors have repeatedly reported deficiencies at this facility. 

Hope Clinic for Women: This Granite City, IL surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. This facility has been the site of multiple medical emergencies, including two in 2020. Despite applying for and receiving PPP funds, Hope Clinic for Women deputy director Alison Drieth told CBS News in April that business is booming because “women are now less likely to change their minds once they schedule an abortion. Normally, 50% go through with it; amid the pandemic, the rate is 85%.” 

Northland Family Planning Clinic: This Southfield, MI surgical and chemical abortion center received between $150,000 and $350,000. Northland perforated a woman’s uterus in a botched abortion in April 2019. It has repeatedly sued the state of Michigan to challenge abortion regulations. 

[Correction: The original version of this article included a Peoria, IL clinic on this list. A local activist contacted us to say that the clinic in question has a similar name to an abortion center but does not offer abortions itself. In an abundance of caution, we have removed it.]
Abortion-Promoting Organizations
Center for Reproductive Rights: The mission of the Center for Reproductive Rights is to “use the power of law” to advance abortion. It received between $2 million and $5 million.

National Abortion Federation: This abortion industry trade group received between $350,000 and $1 million.

National Institute for Reproductive Health: The National Institute for Reproductive Health “works across the country to advance proactive policy on the state and local levels” to promote abortion. It received between $350,000 and $1 million.

National Network of Abortion Funds: The National Network of Abortion Funds, which funnels money to abortion centers for mothers who cannot afford the price of killing their babies, received between $350,000 and $1 million.

Physicians for Reproductive Health: This abortionists’ lobby received between $350,000 and $1 million.

URGE (Unite for Reproductive and Gender Equity): This pro-abortion youth group, formerly known as Choice USA, received between $150,000 and $350,000.

The Democratic Party Needs Pro-Lifers

In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade,
the Democratic Party has never had less control in Washington D.C. than it does now. Interestingly, the Democratic Party has also never had a more radical
position on abortion. The
official Democratic Party platform
states:

Every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe
and legal abortion… We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to
defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health
services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to
overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to
abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

In short, the
platform advocates for taxpayer-funded abortion throughout all nine months of
pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. The policy could not be more extreme than
that. Democrats for Life
of America (DFLA) believes the DNC’s radical position on abortion is largely
responsible for the recent decline of the Democratic Party.

In DFLA’s position paper titled, “Open the Big Tent,” they note that 25 state legislatures are currently under complete GOP
control, but only six are under complete Democrat control. The DFLA report also
notes that the Democrats do not control a single legislative chamber in the South.

However, there is
a lone bright spot for southern Democrats. John Bel Edwards, the governor of
Louisiana, is a pro-life Democrat who recently signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks gestational age. As DFLA notes, Democrats have completely lost control of the South, but
pro-life Democrats like Edwards prove this does not have to be the case.
Democrats could win more elections in the South, but they need pro-life
candidates to appeal to the South’s pro-life voters. The success of Governor
Edwards and the failure of pro-choice Democrats in the rest of the South confirms
this. 
Furthermore, the
DNC’s position on abortion fails to reflect the views of their own voters. According to the Washington Times, 61 percent of Democrats support limiting legal abortion to the first
three months of pregnancy. The New York Times “Abortion Memo” from February notes that only 24 percent of young voters support
abortion under all circumstances. And earlier this month, the
Washington Post stated
Democrats must change to
appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose late-term abortion,
noting that “armies don’t shrink their way to victory.” 
The DNC party platform
is terribly out of touch with American beliefs on abortion, and Democrats have
suffered massive losses because of this. If the Democratic Party wants to gain
political power, they must appeal to more voters by “opening the big tent” and
welcoming pro-life candidates
[Today’s guest post by Pat Thomas is part of our paid blogging program.]

The Democratic Party Needs Pro-Lifers

In the 45 years since Roe v. Wade,
the Democratic Party has never had less control in Washington D.C. than it does now. Interestingly, the Democratic Party has also never had a more radical
position on abortion. The
official Democratic Party platform
states:

Every woman should have access to quality reproductive health care services, including safe
and legal abortion… We will continue to stand up to Republican efforts to
defund Planned Parenthood health centers, which provide critical health
services to millions of people. We will continue to oppose—and seek to
overturn—federal and state laws and policies that impede a woman’s access to
abortion, including by repealing the Hyde Amendment.

In short, the
platform advocates for taxpayer-funded abortion throughout all nine months of
pregnancy for any reason whatsoever. The policy could not be more extreme than
that. Democrats for Life
of America (DFLA) believes the DNC’s radical position on abortion is largely
responsible for the recent decline of the Democratic Party.

In DFLA’s position paper titled, “Open the Big Tent,” they note that 25 state legislatures are currently under complete GOP
control, but only six are under complete Democrat control. The DFLA report also
notes that the Democrats do not control a single legislative chamber in the South.

However, there is
a lone bright spot for southern Democrats. John Bel Edwards, the governor of
Louisiana, is a pro-life Democrat who recently signed a bill banning abortion after 15 weeks gestational age. As DFLA notes, Democrats have completely lost control of the South, but
pro-life Democrats like Edwards prove this does not have to be the case.
Democrats could win more elections in the South, but they need pro-life
candidates to appeal to the South’s pro-life voters. The success of Governor
Edwards and the failure of pro-choice Democrats in the rest of the South confirms
this. 
Furthermore, the
DNC’s position on abortion fails to reflect the views of their own voters. According to the Washington Times, 61 percent of Democrats support limiting legal abortion to the first
three months of pregnancy. The New York Times “Abortion Memo” from February notes that only 24 percent of young voters support
abortion under all circumstances. And earlier this month, the
Washington Post stated
Democrats must change to
appeal to the overwhelming majority of Americans who oppose late-term abortion,
noting that “armies don’t shrink their way to victory.” 
The DNC party platform
is terribly out of touch with American beliefs on abortion, and Democrats have
suffered massive losses because of this. If the Democratic Party wants to gain
political power, they must appeal to more voters by “opening the big tent” and
welcoming pro-life candidates
[Today’s guest post by Pat Thomas is part of our paid blogging program.]

Link collection: Evidence that pro-life laws mean fewer unplanned pregnancies.

Pro-life laws decrease abortion in two ways. The direct and more obvious way is by decreasing the number of pregnant women who get abortions. A wide body of research (part 1, part 2) demonstrates that when abortion is restricted abortion rates go down and birth rates go up.

But pro-life laws also decrease abortion in an indirect way: by decreasing unintended pregnancies. The idea is that people perceive abortion as an insurance policy. As Donahue & Levitt explain:

The decline in births is far less than the number of abortions, suggesting that the number of conceptions increased substantially—an example of insurance leading to moral hazard. The insurance that abortion provides against unwanted pregnancy induces more sexual conduct or diminished protections against pregnancy in a way that substantially increases the number of pregnancies.

If people know that in the event of unplanned pregnancy they can always get abortions, they’re more likely to engage in risky sex.

There’s quite a lot of research to suggest this is true. Liberalized abortion policy has been associated with increased STD rates, decreased use of effective contraception, and the aforementioned increase in unintended pregnancies. Below, in chronological order, are studies that found these and other similar results.

***

“An analysis of 12 years of state-level data indicate that restrictions are associated with a reduction in abortions and either no change or a reduction in births, implying fewer pregnancies.” The Effect of Medicaid Abortion Funding Restrictions on Abortions, Pregnancies, and Births, Journal of Health Economics, October 1996

“In particular, the results suggest that residents in counties with longer travel distances to the nearest abortion provider have lower abortion rates and lower pregnancy rates.” The impact of provider availability on abortion demand, Contemporary Economic Policy, April 1996

“We find that countries which changed from very restrictive to liberal abortion laws experienced a large reduction in births, highlighting the insurance value. Changes from modest restrictions to abortion available upon request, however, led to no such change in births despite large increases in abortions, indicating that pregnancies rose as well.” Abortion as Insurance, National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2002

“We find that gonorrhea and syphilis incidences are significantly and positively correlated with abortion legalization. Further, we find a divergence in STD rates among early legalizing states and late legalizing states starting in 1970 and a subsequent convergence after the Roe v. Wade decision, indicating that the relation between STDs and abortion is causal.” The effect of abortion legalization on sexual behavior: evidence from sexually transmitted diseases. The Journal of Legal Studies, June 2003

“Parental involvement laws resulted in fewer abortions for minors resulting from fewer pregnancies; there is no statistically significant impact on births. The reduction in pregnancy seems to be attributable to increased use of contraception rather than a reduction in sexual activity.” Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. Journal of Health Economics, September 2003

“Legalization itself is found to reduce the number of unwanted births. Beyond that, imposing moderate abortion restrictions do not appear to significantly increase unwanted births; abortions and pregnancies decline instead.” Abortion Policy and the Economics of Fertility, Society, May 2004

“First, the availability of abortion providers has the expected effect of reducing the supply of infants relinquished, particularly relative to the demand for abortion. Second, abortion law has an unexpected negative effect. This suggests that as abortion laws become more restrictive the total number of unwanted births may decrease.” The supply of infants relinquished for adoption: Did access to abortion make a difference? Economic Inquiry, July 2007

“Our results indicate that the enactment of parental involvement laws significantly reduces risky sexual activity among teenage girls.” Abortion Access and Risky Sex Among Teens: Parental Involvement Laws and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2008

“Taken together the empirical results are consistent with the hypothesis that women’s sexual behavior is influenced by the direct and indirect cost of obtaining an abortion.” Abortion costs, sexual behavior, and pregnancy rates, The Social Science Jounral, March 2008

“We find restrictions on abortion availability (through abortion legislation mandating parental consent or notification) induce women to utilize birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies, while pro-choice sentiments in the legislature may have the opposite effect.” Variation in Pill Use: Do Abortion Laws Matter? International Journal of Business and Social Science, September 2011

“A state’s antiabortion attitudes, which likely contribute to the enactment of restrictive abortion laws in a state, are a major factor in inducing greater use of highly effective contraceptive methods by adult women at-risk of an unintended pregnancy.” Restrictive abortion laws, antiabortion attitudes and women’s contraceptive use, Social Science Research, January 2012

“While county‐level access to emergency contraception was unrelated to trends in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and abortions before access changed, access afterwards led to a statistically significant increase in STD rates (gonorrhea rates), both overall and for females. We do not find, however, an impact of pharmacy access on abortion or birth rates.” The effects of increased access to emergency contraception on sexually transmitted disease and abortion rates, Economic Inquiry, December 2012 (Note: This study was not examining abortion policy as related to pregnancy. It is a similar study examining how the availability of emergency conctraception was associated with increases in STDs. Like with abortion, emergency contraception may decrease the perceived risk of sex and so increase the instances of less protected sex.)


“Fewer abortion providers increase the likelihood of women using the pill.” Utilization of oral contraception: The impact of direct and indirect restrictions on access to abortion, The Social Science Journal, March 2014

“We find that providing individuals with over‐the‐counter access to EBC leads to increase STD rates and has no effect on abortion rates.” Access to Emergency Contraception and its Impact on Fertility and Sexual Behavior, Health Economics, February 2015 (Note: Like the Economic Inquiry study above, this study is not examining abortion policy and pregnancy, but it demonstrates a similar phenomenon wherein people make riskier sexual decisions when they have an ‘insurance’ policy available such as emergency contraception.),

“Our findings reveal that restrictions on abortion funding have a significant and positive impact on a woman’s decision to use the pill.” The Role of Restrictive Abortion Legislation in Explaining Variation in Oral Contraceptive Use, Clinics in Mother and Child Health, October 2015

“Similarly, women in states characterized by high abortion hostility (i.e., states with four or more types of restrictive policies in place) were more likely to use highly effective [contraceptive] methods than were women in states with less hostility.” State Abortion Context and U.S. Women’s Contraceptive Choices, 1995–2010, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, June 2015

“We find evidence to suggest that [Parental Involvement] laws are associated with an increase in the probability that sexually active minor teen females use birth control.” The effect of parental involvement laws on teen birth control use. Journal of Health Economics, January 2016

Further reading: This article from The Cut illustrates the thought process that can connect unplanned pregnancy rates and abortion availability. In this case, the woman is clearly educated about reproduction and she has knowledge of and access to contraception, but she is not as careful as she may otherwise have been partly because she knows she can get an abortion if need be.

I knew that the time I was sloppy with protection right before ovulation would put me at risk for getting pregnant. I’m the kind of woman who learns about fertility for fun, who genuinely enjoys reading about cervical fluid, egg freezing, and progesterone spikes. Which is why I knew I should have taken Plan B after that slipup and was hard on myself when I didn’t. But I also knew that if an unplanned pregnancy did occur, I’d have options in New York City.

Link collection: Evidence that pro-life laws mean fewer unplanned pregnancies.

Pro-life laws decrease abortion in two ways. The direct and more obvious way is by decreasing the number of pregnant women who get abortions. A wide body of research (part 1, part 2) demonstrates that when abortion is restricted abortion rates go down and birth rates go up.

But pro-life laws also decrease abortion in an indirect way: by decreasing unintended pregnancies. The idea is that people perceive abortion as an insurance policy. As Donahue & Levitt explain:

The decline in births is far less than the number of abortions, suggesting that the number of conceptions increased substantially—an example of insurance leading to moral hazard. The insurance that abortion provides against unwanted pregnancy induces more sexual conduct or diminished protections against pregnancy in a way that substantially increases the number of pregnancies.

If people know that in the event of unplanned pregnancy they can always get abortions, they’re more likely to engage in risky sex.

There’s quite a lot of research to suggest this is true. Liberalized abortion policy has been associated with increased STD rates, decreased use of effective contraception, and the aforementioned increase in unintended pregnancies. Below, in chronological order, are studies that found these and other similar results.

***

“An analysis of 12 years of state-level data indicate that restrictions are associated with a reduction in abortions and either no change or a reduction in births, implying fewer pregnancies.” The Effect of Medicaid Abortion Funding Restrictions on Abortions, Pregnancies, and Births, Journal of Health Economics, October 1996

“In particular, the results suggest that residents in counties with longer travel distances to the nearest abortion provider have lower abortion rates and lower pregnancy rates.” The impact of provider availability on abortion demand, Contemporary Economic Policy, April 1996

“We find that countries which changed from very restrictive to liberal abortion laws experienced a large reduction in births, highlighting the insurance value. Changes from modest restrictions to abortion available upon request, however, led to no such change in births despite large increases in abortions, indicating that pregnancies rose as well.” Abortion as Insurance, National Bureau of Economic Research, February 2002

“We find that gonorrhea and syphilis incidences are significantly and positively correlated with abortion legalization. Further, we find a divergence in STD rates among early legalizing states and late legalizing states starting in 1970 and a subsequent convergence after the Roe v. Wade decision, indicating that the relation between STDs and abortion is causal.” The effect of abortion legalization on sexual behavior: evidence from sexually transmitted diseases. The Journal of Legal Studies, June 2003

“Parental involvement laws resulted in fewer abortions for minors resulting from fewer pregnancies; there is no statistically significant impact on births. The reduction in pregnancy seems to be attributable to increased use of contraception rather than a reduction in sexual activity.” Parental involvement laws and fertility behavior. Journal of Health Economics, September 2003

“Legalization itself is found to reduce the number of unwanted births. Beyond that, imposing moderate abortion restrictions do not appear to significantly increase unwanted births; abortions and pregnancies decline instead.” Abortion Policy and the Economics of Fertility, Society, May 2004

“First, the availability of abortion providers has the expected effect of reducing the supply of infants relinquished, particularly relative to the demand for abortion. Second, abortion law has an unexpected negative effect. This suggests that as abortion laws become more restrictive the total number of unwanted births may decrease.” The supply of infants relinquished for adoption: Did access to abortion make a difference? Economic Inquiry, July 2007

“Our results indicate that the enactment of parental involvement laws significantly reduces risky sexual activity among teenage girls.” Abortion Access and Risky Sex Among Teens: Parental Involvement Laws and Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 2008

“Taken together the empirical results are consistent with the hypothesis that women’s sexual behavior is influenced by the direct and indirect cost of obtaining an abortion.” Abortion costs, sexual behavior, and pregnancy rates, The Social Science Jounral, March 2008

“We find restrictions on abortion availability (through abortion legislation mandating parental consent or notification) induce women to utilize birth control to avoid unwanted pregnancies, while pro-choice sentiments in the legislature may have the opposite effect.” Variation in Pill Use: Do Abortion Laws Matter? International Journal of Business and Social Science, September 2011

“A state’s antiabortion attitudes, which likely contribute to the enactment of restrictive abortion laws in a state, are a major factor in inducing greater use of highly effective contraceptive methods by adult women at-risk of an unintended pregnancy.” Restrictive abortion laws, antiabortion attitudes and women’s contraceptive use, Social Science Research, January 2012

“While county‐level access to emergency contraception was unrelated to trends in sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and abortions before access changed, access afterwards led to a statistically significant increase in STD rates (gonorrhea rates), both overall and for females. We do not find, however, an impact of pharmacy access on abortion or birth rates.” The effects of increased access to emergency contraception on sexually transmitted disease and abortion rates, Economic Inquiry, December 2012 (Note: This study was not examining abortion policy as related to pregnancy. It is a similar study examining how the availability of emergency conctraception was associated with increases in STDs. Like with abortion, emergency contraception may decrease the perceived risk of sex and so increase the instances of less protected sex.)


“Fewer abortion providers increase the likelihood of women using the pill.” Utilization of oral contraception: The impact of direct and indirect restrictions on access to abortion, The Social Science Journal, March 2014

“We find that providing individuals with over‐the‐counter access to EBC leads to increase STD rates and has no effect on abortion rates.” Access to Emergency Contraception and its Impact on Fertility and Sexual Behavior, Health Economics, February 2015 (Note: Like the Economic Inquiry study above, this study is not examining abortion policy and pregnancy, but it demonstrates a similar phenomenon wherein people make riskier sexual decisions when they have an ‘insurance’ policy available such as emergency contraception.),

“Our findings reveal that restrictions on abortion funding have a significant and positive impact on a woman’s decision to use the pill.” The Role of Restrictive Abortion Legislation in Explaining Variation in Oral Contraceptive Use, Clinics in Mother and Child Health, October 2015

“Similarly, women in states characterized by high abortion hostility (i.e., states with four or more types of restrictive policies in place) were more likely to use highly effective [contraceptive] methods than were women in states with less hostility.” State Abortion Context and U.S. Women’s Contraceptive Choices, 1995–2010, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, June 2015

“We find evidence to suggest that [Parental Involvement] laws are associated with an increase in the probability that sexually active minor teen females use birth control.” The effect of parental involvement laws on teen birth control use. Journal of Health Economics, January 2016

Further reading: This article from The Cut illustrates the thought process that can connect unplanned pregnancy rates and abortion availability. In this case, the woman is clearly educated about reproduction and she has knowledge of and access to contraception, but she is not as careful as she may otherwise have been partly because she knows she can get an abortion if need be.

I knew that the time I was sloppy with protection right before ovulation would put me at risk for getting pregnant. I’m the kind of woman who learns about fertility for fun, who genuinely enjoys reading about cervical fluid, egg freezing, and progesterone spikes. Which is why I knew I should have taken Plan B after that slipup and was hard on myself when I didn’t. But I also knew that if an unplanned pregnancy did occur, I’d have options in New York City.

Last chance: send comments to HHS on the Protect Life Rule

Tomorrow is the deadline to submit your comments to the Department of Health & Human Services in support of the Protect Life Rule. This regulation limits the ability of abortion businesses to obtain government subsidies through the Title X program. Title X is intended to fund contraception, not abortion. The Protect Life Rule will prioritize funding for federally qualified health centers and other community clinics that provide legitimate healthcare, including contraceptives, without killing anybody.

You can read the proposed rule here and submit your supportive comment here. I wrote:

I strongly support the proposed rule. For too long, Title X funds have subsidized abortion vendors. The provision of taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood—which has repeatedly defrauded Medicaid and failed to report the sexual abuse of children, among other scandals—is especially troubling. Federally qualified health centers and other community clinics are far more deserving recipients of Title X funds, and are fully capable of meeting women’s nonviolent family planning needs.

Abortion lobbyists have predictably mischaracterized the Protect Life Rule as a “gag rule” that censors doctors. That’s nonsense. Abortionists remain welcome to say whatever they like. And the government remains free to direct its tax revenue to deserving healthcare providers that do not destroy innocent human lives.

The Protect Life Rule is not even particularly novel. A similar rule was briefly put in place by the Reagan administration (but soon reversed by the abortion-friendly Clinton administration). Abortion industry groups brought a legal challenge at the time, which the Supreme Court rejected, holding that the funding limitation did not run afoul of the First Amendment; rather, the government “has merely chosen to fund one activity [family planning] to the exclusion of the other [abortion].”

Planned Parenthood would stand to lose, and nonviolent clinics would stand to gain, $60 million a year when the Protect Life Rule is enacted. While we’d still have a long way to go in removing Planned Parenthood’s total government subsidy of approximately $500 million a year, this is a substantial first step. Submit your comment today!

Last chance: send comments to HHS on the Protect Life Rule

Tomorrow is the deadline to submit your comments to the Department of Health & Human Services in support of the Protect Life Rule. This regulation limits the ability of abortion businesses to obtain government subsidies through the Title X program. Title X is intended to fund contraception, not abortion. The Protect Life Rule will prioritize funding for federally qualified health centers and other community clinics that provide legitimate healthcare, including contraceptives, without killing anybody.

You can read the proposed rule here and submit your supportive comment here. I wrote:

I strongly support the proposed rule. For too long, Title X funds have subsidized abortion vendors. The provision of taxpayer money to Planned Parenthood—which has repeatedly defrauded Medicaid and failed to report the sexual abuse of children, among other scandals—is especially troubling. Federally qualified health centers and other community clinics are far more deserving recipients of Title X funds, and are fully capable of meeting women’s nonviolent family planning needs.

Abortion lobbyists have predictably mischaracterized the Protect Life Rule as a “gag rule” that censors doctors. That’s nonsense. Abortionists remain welcome to say whatever they like. And the government remains free to direct its tax revenue to deserving healthcare providers that do not destroy innocent human lives.

The Protect Life Rule is not even particularly novel. A similar rule was briefly put in place by the Reagan administration (but soon reversed by the abortion-friendly Clinton administration). Abortion industry groups brought a legal challenge at the time, which the Supreme Court rejected, holding that the funding limitation did not run afoul of the First Amendment; rather, the government “has merely chosen to fund one activity [family planning] to the exclusion of the other [abortion].”

Planned Parenthood would stand to lose, and nonviolent clinics would stand to gain, $60 million a year when the Protect Life Rule is enacted. While we’d still have a long way to go in removing Planned Parenthood’s total government subsidy of approximately $500 million a year, this is a substantial first step. Submit your comment today!

More evidence that abortion restrictions decrease abortion rates.

As a follow up to our previous post (Pro-life laws stop abortions. Here’s the evidence.) here in chronological order are more studies suggesting that abortion restrictions do decrease abortion—and not just legal abortion, but abortion in general. Note how many of the studies focus on how abortion policy affects birth rates rather than only the abortion rate itself.

“If all states observed the Hyde Amendment restrictions, many thousands of Medicaid-eligible women who would have obtained abortions under the 1977 funding policy would not receive them.” The impact of restricting Medicaid financing for abortion. Family Planning Perspectives, June 1980

“Analysis of statewide data from the three States indicated that following restrictions on State funding of abortions, the proportion of reported pregnancies resulting in births, rather than in abortions, increased in all three States.” Trends in rates of live births and abortions following state restrictions on public funding of abortion. Public Health Reports, December 1990

“The data show that 13% fewer had abortions in August through December than would have been expected on the basis of the number who had abortions in January through July.” The Effects of Mandatory Delay Laws on Abortion Patients and Providers, Family Planning Perspectives, October 1994

“A maximal estimate suggests that 22 percent of the abortions among low-income women that are publicly funded do not take place after funding is eliminated.” State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment, Journal of Health Economics, October 1996.

“Access variables, including the restrictiveness of state laws regulating abortion, state funding of abortions for poor women and the availability of hospital abortions, affect abortion rates directly.” The role of access in explaining state abortion rates, Social Science & Medicine, April 1997

“The incidence of abortion is found to be lower in states where access to providers is reduced and state policies are restrictive.” The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates. Family Planning Perspectives, April 1997

“The decline in geographic access to abortion providers during the 1980s accounted for a small but significant portion of the rise in the percentage of women heading families.” State abortion policy, geographic access to abortion providers and changing family formation. Family Planning Perspectives. December 1998.

“States legalizing abortion experienced a 4% decline in fertility relative to states where the legal status of abortion was unchanged.” Roe v. Wade and American fertility, American Journal of Public Health, February 1999

“The Texas parental notification law was associated with a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17 years of age.” Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law, The New England Journal of Medicine, March 2006

“Our results indicate that much of the reduction in fertility at the time abortion was legalized was permanent in that women did not have more subsequent births as a result.” Abortion Legalization and Lifecycle Fertility, The Journal of Human Resources, 2007

“The empirical results find that increases in the price of an abortion and the enforcement of a Parental Involvement Law decrease the number of infants available for adoption in a state. States that do not fund Medicaid abortions do not have higher rates of infant relinquishment.” The effect of abortion costs on adoption in the USA, International Journal of Social Economics, 2008

“Overall, the results show that laws that increased minors’ access to abortion in the 1960s and 1970s had a larger impact on minors’ birthrates than laws that increased oral contraceptive access.” Fertility Effects of Abortion and Birth Control Pill Access for Minors, Demography, November 2008

“Approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.” Restrictions on Medicaid Funding for Abortions: A Literature Review, Guttmacher Institute, June 2009

“Robustness tests supported the association between access to abortion and decreased birthrates, while the relationship between access to the pill and birthrates received less support.” Abortion or Pill Access Is Associated with Lower Birthrates Among Minors, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, March 2009

“Minors in states with mandatory waiting periods were more than two times as likely to report an unintended birth.” How Are Restrictive Abortion Statutes Associated With Unintended Teen Birth? Journal of Adolescent Health, August 2010

“A series of regressions on a comprehensive time series cross-sectional data set provides evidence that several types of state-level anti-abortion legislation result in statistically significant declines in both the abortion rate and the abortion ratio.” Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era, State Politics & Policy Quarterly, March 2011

“[If Roe v. Wade were overturned] abortion rates would fall by 14.9 percent nationally, resulting in at most, 178,800 additional births or 4.2 percent of the U.S. total in 2008. A ban in 17 states would result in a 6.0 percent decline in abortions and at most, 1.7 percent rise in births.” Back to the Future? Abortion Before & After Roe, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2012

“The empirical results add to the substantial body of peer-reviewed research which finds that public funding restrictions, parental involvement laws, and properly designed informed consent laws all reduce the incidence of abortion.” Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era – A Reassessment, State Politics & Policy Quarterly, July 2014

“We estimated that each year more than 4000 US women are denied an abortion because of facility gestational limits and must carry unwanted pregnancies to term.” Denial of Abortion Because of Provider Gestational Age Limits in the United States American Public Health Association August 2014

“I estimate an increase in the birthrate of 4% to 12% when abortion is restricted. In the absence of anti-abortion laws, fertility would have been 5% to 12% lower in the early twentieth century.” The Effect of Anti-Abortion Legislation on Nineteenth Century Fertility, Demography, June 2015

“Counties with no facility in 2014 but no change in distance to a facility between 2012 and 2014 had a 1.3% (95% CI, −1.5% to 4.0%) decline in abortions. When the change in distance was 100 miles or more, the number of abortions decreased 50.3% (95% CI, 48.0% to 52.7%).” Change in Distance to Nearest Facility and Abortion in Texas, 2012 to 2014 Journal of the American Medical Association, January 2017

“Increases in distance have significant effects for women initially living within 200 miles of a clinic. The largest effect is for those nearest to clinics for whom a 25-mile increase reduces abortion 10%.” How Far is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic Closures, Access, and Abortions National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2017

“This law caused an increase in viewing rates and a statistically significant but small increase in continuing pregnancy rates.” Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: A mixed methods study PLoS One July 2017

“We estimate that over the past 25 years, parental involvement laws have resulted in half a million additional teen births.” Did Parental Involvement Laws Grow Teeth? The Effects of State Restrictions on Minors’ Access to Abortion, Institute for the Study of Labor, August 31, 2017 (See the SPL blog post about this specific paper here.)

“Trends in sexual behavior suggest that young women’s increased access to the birth control pill fueled the sexual revolution, but neither these trends nor difference-in-difference estimates support the view that this also led to substantial changes in family formation. Rather, the estimates robustly suggest that it was liberalized access to abortion that allowed large numbers of women to delay marriage and motherhood.” The Power of Abortion Policy: Reexamining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control, Journal of Political Economy, November 2017

“Participants were asked if they had considered abortion for this pregnancy and, if so, reasons they did not obtain one…more participants who had considered abortion in Louisiana than Maryland reported a policy-related reason (primarily lack of funding for the abortion) as a reason (22% Louisiana, 2% Maryland, p < 0.001).” Consideration of and Reasons for Not Obtaining Abortion Among Women Entering Prenatal Care in Southern Louisiana and Baltimore, Maryland, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, October 2018

“Existing estimates suggest 10% of Louisiana pregnancies end in abortion. If Medicaid covered abortion, this would increase to 14%.” Estimating the proportion of Medicaid-eligible pregnant women in Louisiana who do not get abortions when Medicaid does not cover abortion BMC Women’s Health, June 2019

“Greater exposure to ARs [abortion restrictions] was associated with increased risk of UIB [unintended birth].” Implications of Restrictive Abortion Laws on Unintended Births in the U.S.: A Cross-Sectional Multilevel Analysis APHA’s 2019 Annual Meeting and Expo, November 2019

“We examine characteristics and experiences of women who considered, but did not have, an abortion for this pregnancy….Interviewees who considered abortion and were subject to multiple restrictions on abortion identified material and instrumental impacts of policies that, collectively, contributed to them not having an abortion.” Complex situations: Economic insecurity, mental health, and substance use among pregnant women who consider – but do not have – abortions PLOS ONE January 2020

Further reading:

More evidence that abortion restrictions decrease abortion rates.

As a follow up to our previous post (Pro-life laws stop abortions. Here’s the evidence.) here in chronological order are more studies suggesting that abortion restrictions do decrease abortion—and not just legal abortion, but abortion in general. Note how many of the studies focus on how abortion policy affects birth rates rather than only the abortion rate itself.

“If all states observed the Hyde Amendment restrictions, many thousands of Medicaid-eligible women who would have obtained abortions under the 1977 funding policy would not receive them.” The impact of restricting Medicaid financing for abortion. Family Planning Perspectives, June 1980

“Analysis of statewide data from the three States indicated that following restrictions on State funding of abortions, the proportion of reported pregnancies resulting in births, rather than in abortions, increased in all three States.” Trends in rates of live births and abortions following state restrictions on public funding of abortion. Public Health Reports, December 1990

“The data show that 13% fewer had abortions in August through December than would have been expected on the basis of the number who had abortions in January through July.” The Effects of Mandatory Delay Laws on Abortion Patients and Providers, Family Planning Perspectives, October 1994

“A maximal estimate suggests that 22 percent of the abortions among low-income women that are publicly funded do not take place after funding is eliminated.” State Abortion Rates: The Impact of Policies, Providers, Politics, Demographics, and Economic Environment, Journal of Health Economics, October 1996.

“Access variables, including the restrictiveness of state laws regulating abortion, state funding of abortions for poor women and the availability of hospital abortions, affect abortion rates directly.” The role of access in explaining state abortion rates, Social Science & Medicine, April 1997

“The incidence of abortion is found to be lower in states where access to providers is reduced and state policies are restrictive.” The effects of economic conditions and access to reproductive health services on state abortion rates and birthrates. Family Planning Perspectives, April 1997

“The decline in geographic access to abortion providers during the 1980s accounted for a small but significant portion of the rise in the percentage of women heading families.” State abortion policy, geographic access to abortion providers and changing family formation. Family Planning Perspectives. December 1998.

“States legalizing abortion experienced a 4% decline in fertility relative to states where the legal status of abortion was unchanged.” Roe v. Wade and American fertility, American Journal of Public Health, February 1999

“The Texas parental notification law was associated with a decline in abortion rates among minors from 15 to 17 years of age.” Changes in Abortions and Births and the Texas Parental Notification Law, The New England Journal of Medicine, March 2006

“Our results indicate that much of the reduction in fertility at the time abortion was legalized was permanent in that women did not have more subsequent births as a result.” Abortion Legalization and Lifecycle Fertility, The Journal of Human Resources, 2007

“The empirical results find that increases in the price of an abortion and the enforcement of a Parental Involvement Law decrease the number of infants available for adoption in a state. States that do not fund Medicaid abortions do not have higher rates of infant relinquishment.” The effect of abortion costs on adoption in the USA, International Journal of Social Economics, 2008

“Overall, the results show that laws that increased minors’ access to abortion in the 1960s and 1970s had a larger impact on minors’ birthrates than laws that increased oral contraceptive access.” Fertility Effects of Abortion and Birth Control Pill Access for Minors, Demography, November 2008

“Approximately one-fourth of women who would have Medicaid-funded abortions instead give birth when this funding is unavailable.” Restrictions on Medicaid Funding for Abortions: A Literature Review, Guttmacher Institute, June 2009

“Robustness tests supported the association between access to abortion and decreased birthrates, while the relationship between access to the pill and birthrates received less support.” Abortion or Pill Access Is Associated with Lower Birthrates Among Minors, Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, March 2009

“Minors in states with mandatory waiting periods were more than two times as likely to report an unintended birth.” How Are Restrictive Abortion Statutes Associated With Unintended Teen Birth? Journal of Adolescent Health, August 2010

“A series of regressions on a comprehensive time series cross-sectional data set provides evidence that several types of state-level anti-abortion legislation result in statistically significant declines in both the abortion rate and the abortion ratio.” Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era, State Politics & Policy Quarterly, March 2011

“[If Roe v. Wade were overturned] abortion rates would fall by 14.9 percent nationally, resulting in at most, 178,800 additional births or 4.2 percent of the U.S. total in 2008. A ban in 17 states would result in a 6.0 percent decline in abortions and at most, 1.7 percent rise in births.” Back to the Future? Abortion Before & After Roe, National Bureau of Economic Research, August 2012

“The empirical results add to the substantial body of peer-reviewed research which finds that public funding restrictions, parental involvement laws, and properly designed informed consent laws all reduce the incidence of abortion.” Analyzing the Effect of Anti-Abortion U.S. State Legislation in the Post-Casey Era – A Reassessment, State Politics & Policy Quarterly, July 2014

“We estimated that each year more than 4000 US women are denied an abortion because of facility gestational limits and must carry unwanted pregnancies to term.” Denial of Abortion Because of Provider Gestational Age Limits in the United States American Public Health Association August 2014

“I estimate an increase in the birthrate of 4% to 12% when abortion is restricted. In the absence of anti-abortion laws, fertility would have been 5% to 12% lower in the early twentieth century.” The Effect of Anti-Abortion Legislation on Nineteenth Century Fertility, Demography, June 2015

“Counties with no facility in 2014 but no change in distance to a facility between 2012 and 2014 had a 1.3% (95% CI, −1.5% to 4.0%) decline in abortions. When the change in distance was 100 miles or more, the number of abortions decreased 50.3% (95% CI, 48.0% to 52.7%).” Change in Distance to Nearest Facility and Abortion in Texas, 2012 to 2014 Journal of the American Medical Association, January 2017

“Increases in distance have significant effects for women initially living within 200 miles of a clinic. The largest effect is for those nearest to clinics for whom a 25-mile increase reduces abortion 10%.” How Far is Too Far? New Evidence on Abortion Clinic Closures, Access, and Abortions National Bureau of Economic Research, May 2017

“This law caused an increase in viewing rates and a statistically significant but small increase in continuing pregnancy rates.” Evaluating the impact of a mandatory pre-abortion ultrasound viewing law: A mixed methods study PLoS One July 2017

“We estimate that over the past 25 years, parental involvement laws have resulted in half a million additional teen births.” Did Parental Involvement Laws Grow Teeth? The Effects of State Restrictions on Minors’ Access to Abortion, Institute for the Study of Labor, August 31, 2017 (See the SPL blog post about this specific paper here.)

“Trends in sexual behavior suggest that young women’s increased access to the birth control pill fueled the sexual revolution, but neither these trends nor difference-in-difference estimates support the view that this also led to substantial changes in family formation. Rather, the estimates robustly suggest that it was liberalized access to abortion that allowed large numbers of women to delay marriage and motherhood.” The Power of Abortion Policy: Reexamining the Effects of Young Women’s Access to Reproductive Control, Journal of Political Economy, November 2017

“Participants were asked if they had considered abortion for this pregnancy and, if so, reasons they did not obtain one…more participants who had considered abortion in Louisiana than Maryland reported a policy-related reason (primarily lack of funding for the abortion) as a reason (22% Louisiana, 2% Maryland, p < 0.001).” Consideration of and Reasons for Not Obtaining Abortion Among Women Entering Prenatal Care in Southern Louisiana and Baltimore, Maryland, Sexuality Research and Social Policy, October 2018

“Existing estimates suggest 10% of Louisiana pregnancies end in abortion. If Medicaid covered abortion, this would increase to 14%.” Estimating the proportion of Medicaid-eligible pregnant women in Louisiana who do not get abortions when Medicaid does not cover abortion BMC Women’s Health, June 2019

“Greater exposure to ARs [abortion restrictions] was associated with increased risk of UIB [unintended birth].” Implications of Restrictive Abortion Laws on Unintended Births in the U.S.: A Cross-Sectional Multilevel Analysis APHA’s 2019 Annual Meeting and Expo, November 2019

“We examine characteristics and experiences of women who considered, but did not have, an abortion for this pregnancy….Interviewees who considered abortion and were subject to multiple restrictions on abortion identified material and instrumental impacts of policies that, collectively, contributed to them not having an abortion.” Complex situations: Economic insecurity, mental health, and substance use among pregnant women who consider – but do not have – abortions PLOS ONE January 2020

Further reading: