Pro-abortion researchers sure have good friends in the mainstream media.
The latest example surrounds the Alan Guttmacher Institute's report released last week announcing, John Edwards-style, that there are "Two Americas for Women," due to "a widening reproductive health gap between poor women and higher-income women." Guttmacher's study found, in part:
From the 1980s to the mid-1990s, women of all income groups became more likely to use contraceptives and less likely to experience unintended pregnancies. But since 1994, unplanned pregnancy rates among poor women have increased by 29 percent, while rates among higher-income women have decreased by 20 percent. Today, a poor woman is four times as likely to experience an unplanned pregnancy as a higher-income woman.
I'm not here to quibble about the data or the findings. It's the reasoning, the rationale, and the definitions behind them that are the problem. The weakness in abortion advocates' argument is that they frequently employ the passive voice as a rhetorical means to argue for the necessity of contraception and abortion-on-demand, often at public expense for lower-income folks.
Note the above quote, for example: women are actively capable of "us(ing) contraceptives," but they passively "experience unintended pregnancies." By this logic, undesired conception can equally overcome a fertile female as can cancer -- it can't be helped. Their intended message, of course, is that the only vehicle to prevent unwanted impregnation is contraception.
Read the entire article on the American Spectator website (new window will open).