Guttmacher Institute
The folks at Guttmacher Institute track anti-abortion legislation in the states each year, and today they've released the data from 2012. The raw number showing actual enacted, new abortion restrictions is predictably down from last year's record high of 92. During an election year when all manner of legislative business slows down -- when some legislatures were holding shortened sessions and some were not meeting at all -- no one was expecting 2012 to look quite like 2011.
The loud, public opposition that proliferated in 2012 also seems to have played at least a minor role in keeping last year's number if not low, then not as high as it could have been. Elizabeth Nash, the state issues director at Guttmacher, says the outcry over Virginia's forced ultrasound law last year "really had an impact in Idaho, Alabama, and Pennsylvania," where similar bills were being considered but not enacted last year. "I'm pretty certain that we would have seen ultrasound mandates in all three states had it not been for the outcry about Virginia," she said.
But 2012 was still a banner year for new anti-abortion laws. It saw the second-highest number of new anti-abortion laws enacted in the decades following Roe v. Wade. As Guttmacher notes in its analysis of the new data, more than half of the 43 new anti-abortion laws of 2012 were enacted in just six states.
Leave a Comment:
If taking the Right Wing position, that being "giving any will end up giving all" (think gun control) I think backing off on support of abortion rights isn't an option because it will eventually lead to all forms of birth control being banned, as abhorrent as abortion is.
I think taking the Right Wing position of "giving up any will end up giving up of all" (think gun control) is whats needed here. I think backing off fighting anti-abortion laws isn't an option because it will eventually lead to all forms of birth control being banned, as abhorrent as abortion as a form of birth control is.
If the right wing only put as much energy into preventing unwanted pregnancies as they put into fighting the abortion issue I believe abortion would pretty much go away.
I remember the Bush Era when (I forget the name of the agency) the Republican wanted to make "Just say NO to Sex till you're 30" the official Government stance. I'm going to have to look that one up because it was interesting anyone would propose that.
*Far as posting 1.0 and 1.1, don't get distracted during an edit.
.
During Regan's Presidency, the answer to drug addiction was, "Just say NO." This was, as I recall, put forth by his wife, Nancy.
Yes, you remember correctly, except it wasn't just addiction. It was any illicit drug or alcohol use. At the beginning of "Just say no" there were more users and fewer addicts and around the end of the Clinton administration after 20 years of "Just say no" there were fewer users but more addicts. We can see the failure of "Just Say NO!"
I see Nancy Reagan's "Just say NO!" as the beginning and Formalization of accepting Idiot Simple Solutions to Extremely Complex Problems.
ALSO: Govt. Tells Singles No Sex Till You're 30 This is a link to an ABC news article dated 31 October 2006, just before the Republicans got their butts handed to them in the '06 mid terms. You would think in the last 6 years the Republican would have learned to keep their mouths shut when it comes to sex things.
The Dept Health Human Services was the Government agency putting forth this inanity. Google revealed pages with links to the DHHS site page for "Just Say No!" but for some reason that page is gone.
Go figure?
.
Next stop repealing the 14th, 15th, 19th and 26th Amendments to the constitution then they can really get things done in Washington...
Last year was only a temporary respite from the war on women's rights. I have no doubt we will see some of those ridiculous laws reintroduced in some states now that the national elections are over. The newly convened legislatures will begin the war anew in January, except this time the war will be more covert. They will try to slip the legislation by without anyone noticing just like voter ID laws.
Oh, Mike -- Luv ya and your long record of sanity here, but as a gyno-American I must confess to having seen only a numerical drop in legislation from the war on women's rights. The war is being waged with more ferocity than ever in the media, in politicians' press-releases, in various state legislatures, in courtrooms -- it's just that the easy stuff has already been passed. The verbal and legal and policy wars are just uglier and, I fear, more dangerous.
But you see that, too, I know. There was a quasi-respite for election season, and the upcoming, more covert campaign will be just that much more difficult for us to fight.
Eternal vigilence, you know. I'm getting too old for this (stuff).
I believe that if MEN were able to have children and were left with the children when their "wives" walked away - we would so not have this discussion period! Abortion, birth control - all would be legal & safe and in the case of birth control it would be sold over-the-counter!
Actually, Zora, if males could get pregnant abortion would be a ritualistic rite of passage.
.
It amazes me that they WANT women to get pregnant, no matter how, by taking away birth control and then taking away abortion to make sure they stay pregnant even if it means they have to die.
All the laws they are pushing for, and have been pushing for, are for the rich, against average working Americans, and against all women. They are adopting the middle east view on women while wanting to invade every country over there to push "democracy" on their governments.
And like I said in another post here, if men could get pregnant, birth control would be free and there would be an abortion clinic on every corner along with it being their rite of passage.
Thanks for adding that, Rob, so I wouldn't be tempted to. I try to restrain myself so as not to insult too many men. Why I would think that the good souls who frequent MaddowBlog would ever take offense at such an ol' joke, though....
There are so many real problems we face having to do with our economic and ecological survival and this is what these idiots spend time and tax dollars on. Not only is it none of their business but it's not a priority. God I hate the stupid (republican ) party.
Thank you TRMS for reporting on this issue. Yes, if men could get pregnant, abortion and birth control would be free and easy to get. I'm waiting for the day when men remember that women are their moms, grandmothers, daughters, sisters, and wives. It takes two to make a kid, and why on earth we punish women for pregnancy is beyond me. I'm waiting for the day when this is reversed, and a pregnant woman is embraced by the state completely. A surprise pregnancy means poverty for many women. I say let the state pay all of her costs, pregnancy and child rearing, and chase down the father to reimburse the state. It's been the woman's burden until now. Let's reverse this going forward.
I know, I'm not holding my breath, but what we have now is shameful.
Welcome back, Rachel & Happy New Year! (congrat's on ypur basement, too)
Thanks for a great show tonight - your sub's did a pretty good job while you got some well-deserved vacation time, but we like you BEST!
thanks also for your continued coverage on this & other important progressive concerns. I am 60; I got married the year Roe was passed; like many women, I thought this was a settled issue, a done deal - your coverage really woke me up. I have been absolutely astounded by these knuckle-draggers.
keep up the great work!
I rarely watch Morning Joe but today...helpful interview about pro-choice. I often think when you hammer away at the abortion issues though they are so important, it does not ring right and then listening to the discussion this morning helped me see how it could be framed to much more effectiveness for the pro choice group. They referred to Clinton's frame: Safe, Legal and Rare...and about being more comprehensive in their focus. Thanks Rachel.
You know, if it's true that morality and ethics can evolve over time and be different from place to place, then who or what is "in charge" of defining morality and ethics? Is it the federal government? Is it the New York Times? Is it Rachel Maddow? Is it the culture and society? http://www.know7things.com/holiness.html