Posts Tagged ‘ wea

Release: New York State Abortion Rate Lowest Since Legalization in 1970

For Immediate Release: April 9, 2014

Contact: James R. Harden, M.Div. President/CEO, CompassCare

(585) 820-7229 | jim.harden@compasscare.info

www.compasscare.info | facebook.com/compasscarecommunity | Twitter @compasscare

New York State Abortion Rate Lowest Since Legalization in 1970

Rochester, NY—On April 7 New York State published its Vital Statistics for 2012. The data reveals that the number of abortions statewide hit an all-time low since abortion was legalized in 1970. In the last five years alone (between 2008 and 2012) the number of abortions dropped 18%.

Leading the way in the decline are Nassau County on Long Island with a 49% reduction, Westchester County north of NYC with a 40% reduction and Rochester and Monroe County in Upstate with 34%. “Actually, while Monroe County has seen the abortion numbers drop by more than a third it is also the only County of the ‘biggest losers’ with a consistent annual reduction over the last five years,” said Jim Harden, President of CompassCare. Harden claims that his agency was responsible for serving 42% of the total number of women making up the difference of the abortion decline in Monroe County from 2008-2012.

New York State has been labeled the abortion capital of the United Sates with more abortions occurring per capita than any other State. New York City, then, would be the epicenter of the abortion capital. Yet even there the abortion rate has declined 3% from 38% to 35%.

New York State is one of the few States in the Union that actually require abortion reporting and this recent round of data seems to underscore the national abortion reduction trend of 13% between 2008 and 2011 according to a recent Guttmacher study. Abortion advocates claim that the reason for the reduction is increased effective use of contraception across the population.

Regarding the contraception claim Jim Harden notes, “Abortion is obviously connected to pregnancy. Therefore it would stand to reason that if there is increased effective use of contraception across the population one would expect that the overall pregnancy rate would be declining at the same rate as abortion. But that is not what is happening, at least in NY.”

In fact the 2012 data shows that the abortion rate declined 4.7 times faster than the pregnancy rate since 2008. Harden went on to say that the inverse also does not appear to be true: “The only place where the pregnancy rate went up significantly was Albany. There the abortion rate jumped 13 times faster than the pregnancy rate. This translates into 96% of all additional pregnancies ending in abortion. It is a ghoulish outlier. When there is virtually a 1:1 pregnancy to abortion ratio something, somewhere is profoundly broken.”

Is it purely coincidence that this alarming outlier is happening in and around NY’s capital, which has been pushing for absolute abortion deregulation via the Women’s Equality Act? National abortion foes claim that the 13% decline is directly related to increased State level regulation. Yet despite New York’s aversion to regulating abortionists the rates continue to drop all the same. Why then is the abortion trend reversing if both the reasons the pro-lifers and pro-aborts use are not backed up by the data? Harden said, “A cultural shift away from abortion as an accepted norm has begun.”

Cuomo’s Abortion Expansion Bill: What’s the Problem?

SharkA good friend of ours read Cuomo’s Women’s Equality Act, specifically the hotly contested Part J abortion expansion aspect. He noticed the benign sounding language as well as its brevity compared to its longer more obviously heinous predecessor known as the Reproductive Health Act to which Cuomo referred vowing to pass it in his State of the State address. Many people have asked me this question. My response to this question the first time I heard it was, “Why is this newer, apparently softer version of the  act viewed by abortion advocates as a major advance?” The language in this version as opposed to Eliot Spitzer’s 2007 bill is noticeably more vague making it even more disconcerting. The reason why people like me get nervous with vague bill language is because of the lawmaking process. The lawmaking process generally follows five basic steps: 1) Laws are first written, 2) passed, 3) rules are drafted to interpret the law, 4) the rules are implemented and 5) enforced. This bill is especially dangerous because there is so much wiggle room for interpretation during the rule making phase. And guess who gets to interpret the new laws?

Many attorneys from several different organizations looked at the bill. And while the simple fact that virtually no pro-life or GOP affiliates were brought in to help craft bill language should be enough to question the bill, let us dig a little deeper.

It’s all about what the bill says and doesn’t say. To merely codify Roe as the bill indicates is to say abortion on demand through all 9 months of pregnancy will be the law. This position ignores all subsequent Federal restrictions as well as the ability of States to apply restrictions as noted in the Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood vs Casey. This alone could enshrine abortion as an untouchable fundamental right in New York.

The bill uses the word ‘viability’ as pertaining to the baby creating a relative threshold for when an abortion can be done. Fetal viability is not objectively set force in the law and is left to be defined by ‘a licensed physician.’ The baby is alive at conception so therefore by definition it is viable. But let’s not get bogged down in details here. It’s just the law not the rule. Beyond that, the physician determining viability is usually the abortionist himself. This represents a major financial conflict of interest. This is the same kind of language used in PA law which permitted Gosnell to perpetrate so many of his atrocities.

Coupled with the dubious concept of ‘viability,’ to say abortion should be made available for the life or health of the woman is curious language. According to Supreme Court case Doe vs Bolton, health is defined by the circumstances. Hence a woman can get an abortion for any reason that is or could make the mother feel a sense of discomfort (emotional, economic, etc).

To use the term healthcare provider in reference to delivery of abortions without limiting it to a licensed physician could easily mean lower level providers who don’t typically diagnose, treat, or otherwise perform surgical procedures. California this year considered a bill permitting nurses to do abortions so . . . you do the math.

Finishing 2012 Well

Finishing Well

To affirm a right of conscience ‘not’ to perform abortions explicitly provides no protection for those who refuse to refer for them. Moreover, those healthcare providers who work for a State certified facility are all required to implement State law when applicable. Hence providing all women access to abortion is a foregone conclusion in hospitals, clinics, etc by policy. What happens when a healthcare provider refuses not only to abide by policy but also to refuse to participate in upholding that policy?

Additionally, abortion malpractice has been stripped from the penal code altogether. This means that botched abortions will be much more difficult to prosecute outside of the toothless medical licensure boards. This has been viewed as rolling out the red carpet for Gosnellesque quackery.

Contact your Senator to encourage them to stand firm this last week against Cuomo’s WEA which harms women and children while protecting quacks by clicking here.