Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be -and lives on.

The Biography of a Bad Statistic

Abortions rising under Bush? Not true. How that false claim came to be -and lives on.

May 25, 2005

Modified: May 26, 2005


Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001.

This claim is false. It's based on an an opinion piece that used data from only 16 states. A study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute of 43 states found that abortions have actually decreased. Update, May 26: The author of the original claim now concedes that the Guttmacher study is "significantly better" than his own.
Analysis



A number of politicians and organizations have been circulating an interesting and surprising idea: that abortions have gone up under George W. Bush’s watch. The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as evidence that Bush's anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been ineffective.

But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took office, as shown in this graph



Source: Alan Guttmacher Institute, "Trends in Abortion in the United States "



Here's the story of how a false idea took hold.

The Birth of a Bad Statistic

The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological Seminary. His article originally appeared in a web and e-mail publication of Sojourners, a Christian magazine, in October 2004. Several other outlets, including the Houston Chronicle, also ran a similar piece co-authored by Stassen and journalist Gary Krane. The articles generated a good deal of discussion on a number of both liberal and conservative blogs.

Describing himself as “consistently pro-life,” Stassen reported that he “analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency” and reached some “disturbing” conclusions. "Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," he said. "Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction."

Stassen's broad conclusion wasn't justified by the sketchy information he cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have continued to decline since Bush took office. More about that later.

Hillary Clinton Uses It

Stassen offered his article as evidence that Bush's economic policies were driving pregnant women to abortion. And although he opposes abortion, his claim was soon picked up and repeated uncritically by the other side – supporters of abortion rights. In a speech to family-planning providers in New York on January 24, 2005 , Sen. Hillary Clinton recounted decreases in the abortion rate that occurred in her husband's administration, then lamented that the situation had changed. She repeated exactly some of the figures that Stassen had given in his Houston Chronicle article.

Clinton : But unfortunately, in the last few years, while we are engaged in an ideological debate instead of one that uses facts and evidence and common sense, the rate of abortion is on the rise in some states . In the three years since President Bush took office, 8 states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6% average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3% average), so we have a lot of work still ahead of us.

Clinton was careful not to state flatly that abortions were increasing nationally . She spoke only of "some states" in which the rate had increased. But she invited her listeners to conclude that the national trend to fewer abortions had reversed itself since Bush took office.

And in fact a few days later, in an interview on NBC’s Meet the Press on January 30, 2005 , Sen. John Kerry claimed that abortions were up, period:

Kerry: And do you know that in fact abortion has gone up in these last few years with the draconian policies that Republicans have….

A Kerry spokesman confirmed at the time to FactCheck.org that Kerry was relying on the Stassen article for his information.

Finally, as recently as May 22, 2005 , Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean also asserted on NBC News' Meet the Press:

Dean:You know that abortions have gone up 25 percent since George Bush was President ?

Dean's "statistic" went unchallenged by moderator Tim Russert, so millions of viewers probably got the impression that Dean's very specific 25 percent figure was correct. But Dean was wrong -- and by a wide margin.

We asked the Democratic National Committee repeatedly where Dean got his 25 percent figure, but we got no response. Even if Stassen's estimate of 52,000 additional abortions were correct, that would figure to an increase of less than 4 percent. And in any case the rate is going down, not up, according to the most authoritative figures available.

Cherrypicking Data

A close reading of Stassen's article makes clear that he didn't even pretend to have comprehensive national data on abortion rates. He said he looked at data from 16 states only -- and didn't even name most of them.

Stassen said that in the four states that had already posted statistics for three full years of Bush’s first term, he found that abortion was up. Twelve more states had posted statistics for two years of Bush's term – 2001 and 2002 – and here the picture was mixed. According to Stassen, "Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average)." A version of the piece in the Houston Chronicle reported instead that four saw a decrease with a 4.3 percent average.

So Stassen was projecting findings onto the entire country from 12 states that he said had showed an increase and 5 (or maybe 4) that he said had shown a decrease. That leaves a total of 34 other states for which Stassen had no data whatsoever.

Furthermore, Stassen is contradicted by one of the very organizations whose data he cites. The only primary source of data that Stassen cites specifically in the article is the Alan Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit organization that conducts a periodic survey of all known abortion providers, which numbered nearly 2,000 at last count. Guttmacher's statistics are widely used and respected by all sides in the abortion debate. It is the only organization to compile and publish national abortion-rate data other than the federal Center for Disease Control. CDC's official statistics, however, run only through 2001, so they shed no light on what has happened since Bush took office.

And Guttmacher – as we shall see – now says abortion rates have decreased since Bush took office. And that's based on data from 43 states, not just 16.

De-bunking the statistic

Stassen’s numbers, and the widespread acceptance they seemed to be getting, prompted the Guttmacher Institute to conduct a special analysis to update its comprehensive census of abortion providers for the year 2000. The increases that Stassen reported “would be a significant change in a long-standing trend in the US ,” Leila Darabi of the institute explained to Factcheck.

Besides the fact that Stassen claimed to have data only from 16 states, the Guttmacher Institute said it is likely that many of the states Stassen picked have higher abortion rates historically, have a higher concentration of population subgroups that tend to have more abortions, and see abortion rates rise more quickly when they do go up. Stassen himself named only Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado among the 16 states he says he studied, but his co-author on the Houston Chronicle article listed each state in a separate article posted on the Internet.

The Guttmacher Institute found that two of the states Stassen used had unreliable reporting systems. In Colorado , for instance, where Stassen claimed that rates “skyrocketed 111 percent,” the reporting procedure had been recently changed in order to compensate for historic underreporting. Guttmacher also found Arizona had an inconsistent reporting system.

The Facts

The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until another provider census can be conducted” according to a news release. The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have reliable state reporting systems.

What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide – by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.

We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions in 2000.

Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of all women and men in the United States and throughout the world.” Had Stassen’s numbers proven accurate, the Institute “would have reported and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates,” said Darabi. But facts are facts.

Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own earlier effort:

Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.

Nevertheless, Stassen still argues that the small rate of decline that Guttmacher reports still constitutes a "stall" in what had earlier been a more rapid decline. He also continues to criticize the Bush administration for economic policies that he says bring hardship on low-income women. "It is clear to me that undermining the financial support for mothers, undermining the availability of medical insurance, and increasing the jobless rate for prospective mates so that they are less likely to marry, has a bad influence on abortion rates and infant mortality rates."

For the full text of Stassen's response see "supporting documents" at right.

Correction: Our original article stated that Sen. Clinton had omitted to mention states in which abortions had decreased. In fact, as was obvious from the full quote we gave, she did state that abortions had decreased in four states. This updated article corrects our error.
Sources

Glen Harold Stassen, "Pro-Life? Look at the fruits," Sojomail, 13 October 2004.

Glen Harold Stassen and Gary Krane, "Why Abortion Rate Is Up In Bush Years," Houston Chronicle, 17 October 2004

Sen. Hillary Clinton, "Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the NYS Family Planning Providers," 24 January 2005, website.

"Meet the Press," Transcript, National Broadcasting Company, 30 January 2005.

"Meet the Press," Transcript, National Broadcasting Company, 22 May 2005.

"Decades-Long Decline in Number and Rate of U.S. Abortions Continues, New Analysis Shows," Press Release, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 19 May 2005.

I dont know about abortions, but teen pregnancy has become a MASSIVE problem in the more conservative states, thanks to the no sex ed

Has this administration done anything right?!

Liberals = 10 Times more killing than the Nazis. Which is worse?

Truthteller:

the true Nazi resides @ 1600 Pa Avenue .... Bush & Adolf are both proud members of the Satantic cult known as the Skull & Bones Society so find it funny how you have the balls to call Liberals Nazis when the most hated world leader since Hitler is now one of your idols

Put the newborn babies on the steps of the conservative anti-abortionists so they can pay to take care of and feed them, you will soon find out that none of them are really serious about thier stance......given the choice of paying out of thier own pocket or allowing abortion as a means of birth control......

You will find out they talk a mean game but they don't walk the talk.

Here's Another One From Fact Check.org

Judicial Fight Prompts Duelling, Distorted Ads
Both sides twist facts about Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owen.
May 10, 2005
Modified: May 10, 2005
eMail to a friend Printer Friendly Version

Summary

Millions are being spent on rival ads supporting and opposing two of President Bush's most controversial judicial selections. Neither ad is completely accurate.

An ad by the pro-Bush group Progress for America implies that Texas judge Priscilla Owen has been endorsed by a newspaper that actually says she's biased in favor of large corporations and "often contorts her rulings" to conform with her conservative outlook.

A rival ad by the liberal People for the American Way quotes Texas judge Janice Rogers Brown as saying seniors "are cannibalizing their grandchildren," without making clear she was speaking metaphorically of debt being passed on to future generations by entitlement programs.


Analysis



Progress for America says it is spending $3 million on its ad promoting Bush's nominees, and People for the American Way (PFAW) says their ad is part of a $1 million TV, radio, and print campaign opposing them. Both campaigns are targeting Alaska, Arkansas, Maine, Nebraska, North Dakota, Rhode Island, and People for the American Way's ad is also running on national cable stations.

Worse Than We Thought

The Progress for America ad is worse than we thought. We criticized it in a May 6 article because it misleads by saying that courtroom cases are being delayed when in fact most cases are now decided more quickly than before, and because it blames only Democrats when Republicans themselves blocked Clinton's appointments to some of the same judicial vacancies still being contested.

Now, after further research, we find that the ad also falsely implies that three big Texas newspapers endorsed one of Bush's choices for federal appeals court judge.

"Endorsed"?

The ad says Priscilla Owen is "endorsed by major newspapers." On screen it shows headlines from the Houston Chronicle, Dallas Morning News and San Antonio Express-News. But that gives the false impression that they are endorsing her now.

Those newspapers did endorse Owen several years ago when she was running for election to the Texas State Supreme Court. But they haven't endorsed her for the job on the Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals to which President Bush has now appointed her.

One of those newspapers was highly critical of Owen in 2003 after Bush nominated her to the federal appeals court, and another urged the President to make appointments that are more moderate than Owen in order to avoid "gridlock."

The Houston Chronicle said in an editorial May 12, 2003 that Owen's record "gives reason for pause" and that it was "good" that the filibuster blocking her nomination hadn't been ended. It said she has "a penchant for overturning jury verdicts on tortuous readings of the law" and that she has "a distinct bias against consumers and in favor of large corporations."

Houston Chronicle, May 12: The problem is not that Owen is "too conservative," as some of her critics complain, but that she too often contorts her rulings to conform with her particular conservative outlook. It's saying something that Owen is a regular dissenter on a Texas Supreme Court made up mostly of conservatives.

Similarly, the San Antonio Express-News editorialized more than two years ago –April 9, 2003 – that Owen "is known for her conservative activism." The newspaper noted that the same Democrats who filibustered Owen's nomination had voted to approve another, more moderate Bush nominee from Texas, Edward Prado, to the same Fifth US Circuit Court of Appeals. It urged Bush to appoint more moderates like Prado.

San Antonio Express-News, April 9, 2003: Democrats in the Senate appear likely to filibuster Owen's nomination. Once again, the battle over the White House's judicial nominees is gridlocked. To avoid this kind of partisan strife, the Bush administration should employ the Prado strategy for future judicial nominees.

Neither of those is an endorsement of Owen by any stretch.

Praised by Democrats?

The ad also lauds another of Bush's appellate court nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, who currently sits on the California Supreme Court and is nominated for a seat on the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The ad said she has “won praise by Republicans and Democrats." But there's only one Democrat cited by Progress for America – former Senator Zell Miller, the Georgian who supported President Bush’s reelection campaign, delivered the keynote address at the Republican National Convention and suggested John Kerry would arm the US military with "spitballs."

Cannibalizing Grandchildren?

On the other side, the liberal People for the American Way released an ad May 3 attacking both Owen and Brown. The PFAW ad says of Brown, "She's so radical that she says, with programs like Social Security and Medicare, seniors are cannibalizing their grandchildren!"


People for the American Way Ad "What's It Really All About?"

Announcer: What's this filibuster talk really all about? Power. And too much power's a dangerous thing. The Senate's approved more than 200 judges, but these men are all bent out of shape when we question a couple of nominees?

(Images on screen: photos of Tom Delay and Bill Frist)

This one? President Bush's own attorney general criticized her 10 times.

(Image on screen: photo of Priscilla Owen)

Her? She's so radical that she says, with programs like Social Security and Medicare, seniors are cannibalizing their grandchildren!

(Image on screen: Janice Brown)

I say, save the filibuster. Listen: For 200 years it's made sure power doesn't go unchecked.

Actually, Brown was speaking about the debt being passed on to future generations, not suggesting that Medicare or Social Security causes old people to eat human flesh. Here's the full quote from a speech she gave in 2000 before the Institute for Justice:

Brown: My grandparents’generation thought being on the government dole was disgraceful, a blight on the family’s honor. Today’s senior citizens blithely cannibalize their grandchildren because they have a right to get as much “free” stuff as the political system will permit them to extract.

That's certainly a colorful metaphor. Readers can decide for themselves whether the idea being expressed is "radical" or not.

Criticized 10 Times?

The PFAW ad also says of Owen, the Texas appointee, that “President Bush’s own attorney general criticized her ten times.”

Alberto Gonzales wasn't Bush's attorney general at the time he made the 10 statements PFAW cites. He was serving on the Texas Supreme Court with Owen in 1999 and 2000. In some of his written opinions he did indeed disagree strongly with Owen's legal reasoning, but he never criticized her personally, or by name.

The most often cited legal disagreement is from a 2000 case in which Owen and Gonzales disagreed over whether a minor seeking an abortion was “mature” and “sufficiently well informed” enough for a judge to allow her to have an abortion without notifying a parent under Texas law. A 6-3 majority ruled in favor of the girl – a senior in high school at the time. Gonzales was in the majority.

Owen, however, said the girl wasn't mature or well informed enough because she intended “to continue to seek and take support from her parents” and had “not thoughtfully considered her alternatives,” even though she had talked about adoption with a counselor and a teacher. Gonzales thought that interpretation was too restrictive and went beyond the actual language of the of the Texas law, which requres parental notification of abortions but also allows judges to grant exceptions, or "bypasses," under certain circumstances. Gonzales wrote:

Gonzales, June 22, 2000: …to construe the Parental Notification Act so narrowly as to eliminate bypasses, or to create hurdles that simply are not to be found in the words of the statute, would be an unconscionable act of judicial activism.”

Now that Gonzales is a member of Bush's cabinet he's supporting Owen for the appeals court despite their past disagreements. He said May 9:

Gonzales, May 9, 2005: Judges disagree from time to time on particular issues. . . . That doesn't in any way detract from my view that she would make a terrific a judge on the 5th Circuit. I've never accused her of being an activist judge.

Lawyers are trained to see fine distinctions, so perhaps Gonzales will explain another time how a judge who performs an act of "unconsionable . . . judicial activism" is not an "activist judge." Meanwhile, readers will just have to puzzle that out for themselves.


Sources



Janice Rogers Brown, “Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom,” Speech before the Institute for Justice, Washington, DC, 12 August 2000 .

"An Activist: Owen's record gives reason for pause on judicial post," editorial, Houston Chronicle, 12 May 2003: A18.

"Our Turn: A talke of two Texas Judges," editorial, San Antonio Express-News, 9 April 2003: B6.

"Alberto Gonzales v. Priscilla Owen," People for the American Way, press release, 22 July 2002.

In re Jane Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346, Texas Supreme Court, 22 June 2000.

Michell Mittelstadt, "Texas judge at center of Senate face-off," Dallas Morning News 9 May 2005.


Related Articles
Are Democrats Causing Delays in Court?
Contrary to a pro-Bush TV ad, Republicans share the blame for "empty courtrooms," and delays are shorter now than they were before Bush.

"Politicians from Hillary Clinton and John Kerry to Howard Dean have recently contended that abortions have increased since George W. Bush took office in 2001"

yea but i heard an actress on Ophrah say rapes are WAYYYYYY up and Bush loves it......Plus im pretty sure Haliburton sells abortion tools too...i knew Chaney was behind it the whole time..Plus....and get this, you won't believe this shit...a woman once had an abortion in miami at the same time Jeb Bush was passing thru there on a buisness trip...coincidence? i think not!!!

coincidence?