Study Claiming Birth Rates Higher in Religious States Flawed
People love science. Especially science about sex. It leads to such interesting conclusions.
U.S. states whose residents have more conservative religious beliefs on average tend to have higher rates of teenagers giving birth, a new study suggests.
The relationship could be due to the fact that communities with such religious beliefs (a literal interpretation of the Bible, for instance) may frown upon contraception, researchers say. If that same culture isn't successfully discouraging teen sex, the pregnancy and birth rates rise. (Live Science)
Now, I have a different interpretation. I would tend to think that religious individuals are less likely to choose abortion once pregnant. And that is why the teen birth rates are higher among religious individuals - because those babies aren't being killed in the womb.
The actual study, of course, "don't say anything about cause and effect", but that doesn't stop the scientists from forming their own conclusions:
"We conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the use of contraception among their teenagers than they are in discouraging sexual intercourse itself."
How odd because - again - I would conjecture that religious communities in the U.S. are more successful in discouraging the choice to abort a child once he or she has been conceived.
Am I biased? Probably. Are the scientists biased? Probably.
But the difference is that the scientists look at this issue through the lens of contraception, and I look at it through the lens of abortion. Maybe we can find common ground in admitting that both can be a factor.
Oh, and that teens having abortions is far worse than teens becoming pregnant.
And that the Church proposes very effective solutions to both problems. If anyone will listen.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
"Correlation does not imply causation, but it does waggle it's eyebrows suggestively, and gesture furtively while mouthing 'look over there.'" -xkcd #552
Some research found the CDC's 2005 "Abortion Surveillance" report and Trinity College's 2008 "American Religious Identification Survey." By separating states into groups based on the percentage of residents who indicate they are Christians I did find a downward trend in the average rate of abortion as the number of Christians went up.
States with 60-69% Christian response an average of 13.43 abortions per live birth, those with 70-79% had 12.73, and the states with 80-81% had 10.89.
There were a couple of statistical outliers. Vermont had the lowest rate of Christian response with 55%, the only state to fall under 60%, and a rather high 17 abortions per 1000 live births. North Dakota had both the highest rate of abortion, 36.5, and the second highest rate of Christian response with 90%.
Vermont lines up with the other data, but in a rather extreme way. If North Dakota is thrown out as a fluke Mississippi is left as the only state with over 90% responding Christian, and it's rate of 10 abortions lines up with the other data quite well. When North Dakota is considered it bumps the group average up to 23.4.
I tried the same analysis using groups of 5% increments and got similar results. The 65-69% group was a bit low due to Wyoming and Idaho, both of which were reported by Pro-choice America to lack an abortion provider in over 90% of counties. The 85-80% group was also a little high surprisingly due to Alabama, which is tied with Texas for 3rd highest abortion rate among states with over 80% responding Christian. The same outlier situation in the 90%+ group occurred.
Abortion rate statistics weren't available for 4 states, including California, and Washington DC. No telling how those would tip the scales.
This was a very quick and dirty analysis, but it does "waggle it's eyebrows suggestively" toward the idea that lower abortion rates in states with more Christians can explain the higher birthrate, however those lower rates could be explained by a number of other things, chiefly going out of state.
On the flip side, as my data mining instructor always said, "If you torture the numbers long enough, they'll tell you anything you want to know."
Well clearly, those North Dakotans aren't nearly as good of Christians as they claim to be. Lutherans. Hmph. What do you expect?
Actually, Mike, you are right on target with this statement:
"however those lower rates could be explained by a number of other things, chiefly going out of state."
The fact is, many states in the midwest and Bible Belt have few, and in some cases, no abortion clinics available, and women who need or wish to have an abortion must travel out of state, which simultaneously deflates the abortion stats for the "Christian" state, while artificially INflating the stats for the "not-so-Christian" state.
Such an analysis as the one you did, while interesting on the surface, is really meaningless without including the availability of abortion providers in the process.
I did a quick and dirty analysis to see if the author's idea about abortion rates was even worth investigating, and I believe the trend I found shows that it is. However, I made a point of starting with a warning about correlation and causality, and including an alternative explanation to try and prevent people from doing exactly what you did in your reply: confuse correlation for causality.
This was a test of one of the predictions made by the author's hypothesis: if higher birthrates in Christian states are due to lower abortion rates, we should see a downward trend in abortions as the number of Christians goes up. This is an essential step in the scientific method, and by no means "meaningless."
By the same token, Newton's apple does not prove gravity, but it does give evidence for a prediction made by the theory and you would be a fool to call it meaningless.
As for your point, the lower number of abortion providers in "Christian" states, an assertion you have not provided any evidence for, does not prove that teens are going out of state for abortions anymore then the trend I found proves the author's hypothesis. It's an interesting line to research, but your statement is pure conjecture.
The same principal applies in your first post. If your unproven assertions are accepted, you have only shown correlation. Additionally, that correlation is questionable, as the effects of an administration are not immediately felt. To even show a correlation between cutting cutting welfare and increased abortions one would have to take into consideration the date that cut took affect, the overall economic situation, and a number of other factors. Even then, unquestionable correlation still does not imply causality.
Lastly, simply adding availability of abortion providers is far too narrow to yield any relevant data. To be frank, I don't believe a study on this subject could be done within the current education system due to the number of variables that would need to be controlled and the potential for extremely flawed data.
Don't forget that if my assertion about fewer abortion providers is correct, which I'm not going to look up stats on, but still hold out as correct (so take it or leave it, as you like), there is also a strong possibility that, as legal abortion-providers disappear, more women resort to aborting themselves or seeking out illegal abortions, if they cannot afford to travel out-of-state to obtain an abortion.
Since some states have not only driven out legal abortion providers with draconian policies, but also passed "informed consent laws" which compel a woman who wants an out-of-state abortion to actually travel out of state twice (once for informed consent and again a few days later for the abortion), or stay out-of-state for 24 hours or more (prohibitive for low- income single mothers, especially), many women are left with fewer and fewer alternatives.
Illegal or self-performed abortions are not going to be even a part of an readily-obtainable statistics, unless they result in hospitalizations to treat the effects of a botched abortion, and perhaps not even then.
If the local Planed Parenthood could do the informed consent rather then the abortion clinic, then the women wanting abortions would never have to make two trips.
Problem is that it is the local Planned Parenthoods that have been driven out of the state. And the laws are quite stringent, often requiring that the woman receive the informed consent counseling directly from the M.D. who will perform the abortion one or more days later. Since many M.D.s who perform abortions actually live out-of-state from the clinics where they provide services (because of safety concerns and harassment) and have to be flown in for the procedures AND counseling sessions, this make the cost even more prohibitive.
What the previous two posters (Johnny & Kayaker) said is right on the nose.
Additionally, I'd like to introduce the fact that abortion rates actually have gone DOWN during the administrations of the past few democrat presidents, with greater funding and promotion for comprehensive sex education , in addition to better funding for welfare programs which ALLOW women the option to carry their pregnancies to term and actually be able to care for their infants.
On the other hand, abortions have gone UP during the conservative presidencies, as abstinance-only education was touted and as welfare cuts were made which forced women to avoid being out-of-work long enough to have a baby and take care of it at home.
"Oh, and that teens having abortions is far worse than teens becoming pregnant."
How does this statement represent common ground?
It seems that the pro-lifers feel their job is done once the little-one hits the crib. I don't see them taking responsibility for the nurturing of the new child, counseling the mother to prevent yet another pregnancy , or helping prevent the child from becoming a teenage mother herself.
Wouldn't most of the debate disappear if young females (and males) received honest, open, unbiased information about reproduction?
Many of those more religiously inclined locations push abstinence-only programs. Many of which contain little-to-no information on contraceptives; and some that have been found to contain blatantly false information about contraceptives.
Teens who have only been presented with abstinence-only programs don't know their options when they end up deciding to have sex.