It Lives! (II)
Nick Kristof is the latest to recycle last fall's debunked Democratic talking point that abortions fell under Clinton and rose under Bush:
Mrs. Clinton has helped turn the debate around by emerging as both pro-choice and anti-abortion.
That is potentially a winning position for Democrats. Abortions fell steadily under Bill Clinton, who espoused that position, and have increased significantly during President Bush's presidency. (One theory is that economic difficulties have left more pregnant women feeling that they cannot afford a baby.)
Stop it - the two established authorities for national abortion statistics are the Center for Disease Control and the Alan Gutmacher Institute, neither of which have updated their national statistics past the year 2000.
This meme is based on the Stassen study of sixteen states, and has serious flaws.
As noted by Mr. Kristof, Hillary does get it, and was quite careful not to overstate the evidence in her speech of Jan 24:
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.
Although even that phrasing drew rebukes, she at least showed some awareness of the underlying research (and the rebuttals), unlike John Kerry, who tackled this subject (or was tackled by it) on 60 Minutes.
They live for reader feedback!
Nick Kristof: nicholas@nytimes.com
Daniel Okrent: public@nytimes.com
Now, dare we address the substance of this column? His advice to Dems seeking the Presidency amounts to this:
(1) Be obviously and sincerely religious;
(2) Be pro-choice, but anti-abortion;
(3) Be a man.
Our guess is that on a different day, he would add (4) Don't be Joe Lieberman.
That's Okrent, not Okretn.
Posted by: Mark LaRochelle | March 16, 2005 at 01:45 PM
Well, I guess "Oprah" is out, too.
Posted by: TM | March 16, 2005 at 02:12 PM
Are there any prominent Democrats other than Joe Lieberman who fits those criteria? This is not a rhetorical question—I'm asking because I want to know.
Posted by: Dave Schuler | March 16, 2005 at 05:19 PM
TM, or someone? Please explain the importance or rationale behind the trend line for abortions. I don't get it. (Though abortion has never been a defining issue for me, maybe I'm just behind the nuance curve.)
Also, shouldn't Kristof be aware of the soundbite phraseology of abortion politics because I don't think someone characterized as pro-choice--NARAL terminology for pro-abortion--can also be characterized as anti-abotion, as pro-life is the preferred terminology for those on the other side of the issue. (Again, maybe it's nuance, but I've never been impressed by any nuance in abortion politics.)
Thanks.
Posted by: Forbes | March 16, 2005 at 07:25 PM
Hmmm.
I'd email Okrent but the last time I did so I was just so overcome with ennui, from having emailed the guy so many times over the past year, that I hardly bothered at all.
I think I wrote: "Article, disgusting, outrage, ashamed, reform or die, goodbye."
It somehow seems to capture the essence of this seemingly pointless exercise, I wonder if Okrent actually reads his email, without actually requiring effort.
Posted by: ed | March 17, 2005 at 01:10 AM
Why not ask the question of why had the data not been updated for 5 years? It use to be updated annually.
Posted by: spencer | March 17, 2005 at 09:58 AM
I'm always a little confused about the stance on abortion that it's a morally neutral choice but that an increase is bad. I thought the problem was access leading to a decrease in abortions? Or is that a problem too?
Posted by: Jack Tanner | March 17, 2005 at 10:24 AM
Spencer - I have no idea what the hold-up is. At the CDC, I suppose we could invoke a Rovian conspiracy. However, the Alan Gutmacher Institute looks to be independent, and pro-choice.
Posted by: TM | March 17, 2005 at 12:06 PM
See: http://www.agi-usa.org/media/nr/2005/05/19/index.html
for updated AGI report.
Posted by: rvr | May 22, 2005 at 05:12 PM