Number of Abortion Centers Nationwide Falling, Pro-Abortion Legal Group Says

Life News ^ | 7/27/09 | Steven Ertelt

[wagglebee]

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- A pro-abortion legal group that represents abortion businesses in lawsuits against pro-life laws in almost every state in the nation says the number of abortion centers nationwide is falling. The figures come as Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion business, increases its number of abortion facilities.

The Center for Reproductive Rights released the results of a study it conducted saying the number of abortion businesses and abortion practitioners has decreased by 25 percent since the 1990s.

CRR indicates some states, such as Mississippi and North Dakota, have only one abortion facility while Missouri has three. Alabama has seven while Texas has 40 abortion centers across the state.

The pro-abortion group says the proliferation of state legislation limiting abortions, with laws such as parental involvement, informed consent and waiting periods, has lowered the number of abortion centers.

“The result is not just endangerment and marginalization of abortion providers, but a denial of rights for the one in three American women who will seek an abortion in their lifetimes," CRR president Nancy Northup said.

"The number of abortion providers in the United States fell by 25% just between 1992 and 2005. Without providers, the right to abortion is meaningless," she added.

According to CRR, nationwide 87 percent of counties in the country have no abortion facility and nearly 25 percent of women do not have one within 50 miles of where they live.

Though CRR's report shows fewer abortion centers, Planned Parenthood has increased the number of places that it operates doing abortions.

The leading pro-abortion group has been consolidating its abortion and family planning centers and local affiliates to cut costs in the midst of a troubled economy and the new numbers reflect that.

At the end of 2008, the total number of Planned Parenthood centers dropped from 855 in 2007 to 844 last year. The number of local affiliates of the Planned Parenthood federation decreased from 108 to 99.

While Planned Parenthood cuts its total number of centers providing non-abortion services, the number of abortion facilities is in the rise. It jumped to 295 last year from 287 the year prior.

Though Planned Parenthood is working hard to change its image from an abortion business to a women's health care outlet, the numbers make it clear that more of its resources are going into doing abortions.

The numbers also show that the abortion business is putting more of its weight behind using the dangerous abortion drug that has killed more than a dozen women worldwide and injured more than 1,200 in the United States alone.

While the number of surgical abortion centers it runs dropped from 179 to 174 during the last year, the number of places with the mifepristone abortion drug rose from 108 to 121.

[trisham]

Like all crime, abortion may never be completely eliminated, but that does not mean that it should be legal to murder another human being, whether in our out of the womb.

[trisham]

Like all crime, abortion may never be completely eliminated, but that does not mean that it should be legal to murder another human being, whether in our out of the womb.

[trisham]

Oh, my goodness. My apologies for the duplicate posts.

[wagglebee]

Apparently, freedomconservationist sees any opposition to his viewpoint as evidence of ignorance.

Probably part of Zero's hope 'n change, common ground crowd.

It's worth noting that the word "conservationist" is almost synonymous with environmentalist, but has NOTHING to do with conservatism.

[Albion Wilde]

Yes, there have always been abortions. However, NOTHING will convince me that prior to Roe v. Wade there were 3500+ women EACH DAY who would have had abortions had they been able to. The availability of abortion eliminated, in the minds of many women, the need to actually be responsible.

100% bingo -- the freely available option has created a holocaust where once there was only a trickle. But I would add, legal abortion/birth control also eliminated accountability for men -- it's all the woman's problem. If she gets pregnant, cads urge abortion or shirk child support and must be sued. Rarely does casual sex result in a marriage or a stable home for a child.

It was a long, slippery slope from the early 60s, when the SCOTUS affirmed in Griswold v. Connecticut that the family is the basic unit of society, to where we are today. The Court's very next reproduction-related decision was to extend the right to distribute birth control to the unmarried as well as married people wishing to control the size of their family. That decision greased the skids for Roe, which would immediately follow. Those two SCOTUS decisions, plus the California Lee Marvin/Michelle Triola "palimony" case in 1977 were the end of marriage as a social institution. From then on, it has been, as far as our SCOTUS jurisprudence is concerned, an outmoded folk tradition.

[wagglebee]

Excellent post!

[Albion Wilde]

Like all crime, abortion may never be completely eliminated, but that does not mean that it should be legal to murder another human being, whether in our out of the womb.

The life of the mother during the actual birth process is the only possible reason, and then it should be the choice of the mother and her husband. If they already have a bunch of children at home and the baby has a serious malady and the mother may die giving birth unless a choice is made, that is the only thing I can think of. But no matter what we say legally, it is hearts and minds that matter -- the culture must be reclaimed. Politicians, anti-life individuals and medical workers will always find a way to elasticize any exemption.

There was a recent thread about an adoption case in which the state divulged the name of the mother to a woman who had been given away as an infant. The mother had received assurance that the case was sealed forever, because the child was the product of rape. Distraught woman sues, alleging N.J. helped child of rape find her

Predictably, many adopted FReepers called the mother a heartless bitch for not wanting to welcome the child into her subsequently constructed family, and the rejected child harassed the mother and her daughter, causing the woman to have to relive the entire trauma of the rape and unwanted pregnancy.

One of the male posters said from that discussion that he never thought he would see a use for abortion; but that this aggressive, fantasy-based sentimentality was convincing him that it might be acceptable in case of rape. But I believe that is because the culture has become so distorted that young people today think about a child resulting from an unwanted sexual encounter, a violent one at that, as no big deal. The article didn't say whether mixed-race was involved; but if it had been back in the day, it would also have been a bigger deal than now. No matter what, this mother gave the child life instead of killing it, and now a careless bureaucrat casually ripped her past open.

One of the other moaners was upset because the adopted-out woman found out she was the product of rape through this process -- they felt the mother should have protected her from that, when clearly, the adoption authority of the state was the malfeaser. The mother is suing the NJ Department of Children and Families.

This is the 24/7 wired world we are now living in, where everyone goes on Maury Povich to display their bad behavior to the world; where YouTube will memorialize the very worst things about people in perpetuity. ( ( ( ( shaking head ) ) ) The younger generation thinks everything -- everything -- is a right!! -- yet they take so little responsibility compared to our parents and grandparents.

[freedomconservationist]

Who said anything about me having sex?

[freedomconservationist]

It was a question that I wanted answered. So you’re resorting to personal attack by calling me names?

[freedomconservationist]

That is a good way of looking at it. Yes, moral relativism is a very dangerous thing. We should steer clear of whenever possible.

However, the Constitution does not enumerate rights for individuals relative to other individuals, or to the Government of the United States, for that matter. It only enumerates rights relative to Due Process of the states. Think about that.

As for abortion as murder, it depends at what point the baby is a “person”. That was effectively decided by the courts with Roe v. Wade in the lack of legislation. The easiest way I can see to stop this is to legislate another definition of a “person” that includes babies in the womb earlier than 24 weeks. If that legislation states that conception is the formation of a person, then we’ll have to reconsider the use of some contraceptives as well.

As far as I’m concerned, an abortion later than 24 weeks may indeed be murder in the eyes of Government. See it however you wish, but this is a result of our government’s lack of respect for religions, and there is good reason for it.

[freedomconservationist]

On the contrary; that would be ignorant as well. Actually, I’ve learned a great deal with the responses to my post.

[Albion Wilde]

Who said anything about me having sex?

In post 24, you said, "Given the choice, I would rather have an abortion done in a clinic..."

[wagglebee]

It was a question that I wanted answered. So you’re resorting to personal attack by calling me names?

Okay then answer my question:

Do you think that pregnancy centers and hospitals SHOULD offer abortion services? YES or NO.

[freedomconservationist]

Yes, they should be provided when necessary, even if they’re not done on-site.

[wagglebee]

Yes, they should be provided when necessary, even if they’re not done on-site.

WHEN are the necessary? Please be specific.

[freedomconservationist]

It should be determined on a case-by-case basis. Giving a specific answer on this is not appropriate without a more specific question.

[freedomconservationist]

When faced with a complete set of choices, and counseling for pregnancy and rape when applicable, what woman would logically choose abortion as an option? If the current alternatives aren’t good enough, we should improve them. Abortion clinics only offer one option, don’t they? Annihilation through assimilation: the left uses it; we need to use it too.

[wagglebee]

Other than an actual risk to the mother’s life and possibly rape or incest do you think abortion should be permitted?

[freedomconservationist]

Most times not; possibly in cases where the mother is not physically or mentally fit to have a child. For instance, I’m sure that there are some cases where the mother can’t carry the baby through to birth but hasn’t had surgery to prevent pregnancy, or where the mother is psychotic in a way where she would harm herself or her baby before birth, or where it’s known that she would ingest substances to horribly interfere with the development of the baby, such as doing crack. I’m sure there are other minutia that could be identified by a pregnancy counselor.