Abortion
Abortion

Abstinence Education Makes Difference in Reducing Abortions

| by Jill Stanek

Some interesting information comes to us from the San Antonio Coalition for Life and the blog 104 Babcock.

From 2001 to 2005, US states had the choice to either accept or reject abstinence funding from the Bush administration, and the statistics were compiled by the CDC. With all of their crowing about how "abstinence education doesn't work," pro-aborts may want to take note:

less_than_15_graph3.jpgFor teen girls under the age of 15 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 7.5% decrease in abortions among the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

For teen girls under the age of 15 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 23.1% decrease in abortions among the states which have
accepted funding for abstinence only education.

The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 208% greater reduction in abortions among girls 14 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

Overall, the abortion rate among girls younger than 15 years old in states which rejected abstinence only funding was 37.3% higher than in states which accepted funding.

Not only that, but the overall teen abortion rates were considerably lower in states accepting abstinence education funding:

total_teen_graph.jpgFor teen girls under the age of 20 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 5.2% decrease in abortions among the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

For teen girls under the age of 20 years old, from 2001 - 2005, there was a 20.5% decrease in abortions among the states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education.

The states which have accepted funding for abstinence only education showed a 294.2% greater reduction in abortions among girls 19 years old and younger, when compared to the states which have rejected funding for abstinence only education.

Overall, the teen abortion rate among girls 19 years old and younger for states which rejected abstinence only funding was 48.2% higher than in states which had accepted funding.

CDC abortion statistics for years 2001 - 2005 found @ www.cdc.gov

Annual census adjustments were calculated into abortion statistics for each year 2001 - 2005. Source: Population Division, US Census Bureau

States rejecting abstinence only funds included: AZ, CA, CO, CT, IA, MA, ME, MN, MT, NJ, NM, NY, OH, RI, VA, WI and WY.

The following states not reporting abortion statistics to the CDC for each year 2001 - 2005 were excluded from the calculation: AK, CA, LA, FL & NH.

So, what I'd like to know is when the Obama administration will prove they truly want "common ground" by endorsing the benefits of abstinence education. Oh, but wait... that type of education won't line the pockets of the abortion industry or Planned Parenthood. No wonder their denial is so strong.

Even with these facts (certainly not publicized by the MSM) from the CDC, LifeNews reported August that a Senate Panel voted to effectively end abstinence-only education funding:

Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA) and Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI) led the move to defeat the abstinence education funding. Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) was the sole "no" vote on the funding package in protest to the elimination of abstinence education...

The spending measure next goes to the Senate floor, where pro-life advocates may sponsor amendments to restore the funding. The vote comes on the heels of an equally significant vote in the House of Representatives. The week prior, pro-abortion Speaker Nancy Pelosi and pro-abortion Rep. David Obey of WI led the House in approving a spending bill for the Department of Health and Human Services that also eliminated funding for current abstinence-only programs.

Both the House of Representatives and the Senate Appropriations Committee instead supported the president's proposal for a program that directs the money to programs that don't only promote abstinence. The Senate version also notes that abstinence programs may apply for the new "pregnancy prevention" grants, but there is no assurance that abstinence would be a priority message, nor that any abstinence programs would be funded.

Just follow the blood money trail.