Michael J. New, University of Alabama
An August 2008 study released by the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good had Obama supporters (and some editorial boards) swooning. Analyzing state level abortion data from 1982 to 2000, it purportedly found evidence that increased spending on various welfare programs resulted in substantial reductions in state abortion rates. The spin given to the results was that many pro-life laws, such as those requiring parental notification for abortions performed on minor girls, had little effect. So the paradoxical message to pro-life voters was that they could best advance their interests by electing pro-choice Democrats instead of pro-life Republicans.
Not surprisingly, this study had a substantial impact on the debate over sanctity of life issues during the 2008 Presidential election. Self proclaimed pro-lifers who support Democratic Presidential nominees can be found in every election cycle. However, this study gave Doug Kmiec, Nicholas Cafardi, and others intellectual legitimacy in arguing that pro-life voters should vote for liberals, even if they favor abortion-on-demand and its public funding, in order to advance the pro-life cause. At last, there was a methodologically sophisticated study which allegedly demonstrated that the welfare policies favored by Democrats were more effective in preventing abortion than the pro-life laws supported by Republicans. It seemed too good to be true.
It was. In November, with no public announcement, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good removed this study from their website. A replacement version was uploaded shortly thereafter. The replacement version differs from its predecessor in a number of interesting ways. First and foremost, one of the authors of the August study, Professor Michael Bailey of Georgetown University, removed his name from the November version. Joseph Wright, a Visiting Fellow at Notre Dame, is the sole author of the current study.
More importantly, the results of the new version fall well short of the original press release. The original study argued that three welfare policies had significant effects on state abortion rates. First, family caps, which deny welfare recipients extra benefits if they have additional children out of wedlock, increased abortion rates. Second, increased spending on the Women Infants Children (WIC) program reduced abortion rates. Third, increased spending on Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF) also reduced abortion rates.
However, after the original study was released, the authors discovered that they used incorrect abortion data for the years following 1997. Furthermore, after some dialogue with me, the authors decided that it would be appropriate to eliminate data from states, such as Kansas, where abortion reporting was inconsistent over time. These changes have had a substantial effect on the study’s findings.
The new version provides evidence that welfare policy has no more than a marginal effect on the incidence of abortion. In fact, the new regression results indicate that none of the three welfare policies which the authors previously argued were effective tools for reducing the incidence of abortion have a substantial abortion reducing effect. Wright clearly states that “WIC payments are not correlated with the abortion rate in the 1990s.” Additionally, the regression results consistently indicate that the presence of family caps has only a marginal effect on state abortion rates. Furthermore, while Wright argues that increased AFDC/TANF spending reduces state abortion rates, his regression results raise serious doubts about the reliability of this finding.
Wright runs a series of regressions using only data from the 1990s which shows that increases in AFDC/TANF spending is correlated with statistically significant abortion declines. However, regressions run on data from 1982 to 2000 find that AFDC/TANF spending only has a marginal impact on the incidence of abortion. Furthermore, when Wright runs regressions on data from the 1980s, he finds that AFDC spending actually increases the incidence of abortion and the coefficient approaches conventional levels of statistical significance.
For social science findings to be reliable, the results should be fairly consistent across time. These findings certainly are not. Furthermore, Wright makes no effort to explain why welfare spending has such disparate effects on abortion rates during different time periods.
Furthermore, many of the flaws in the previous study’s analysis of pro-life legislation are still prevalent in the current version. Wright states that parental involvement laws, like the other state laws restricting abortion, have little impact on overall abortion rates. However, since parental involvement laws only directly affect minors, Wright should have mentioned that analyzing their effects on the overall abortion rate is not a methodologically sound way to gauge their actual impact.
Similarly, Wright continues to argue that informed consent laws are ineffective. However, he fails to acknowledge the substantial differences in the effects of nullified and enacted informed consent laws. In truth, by the criteria he sets forth on page 6, his results provide evidence that informed consent laws are effective. However, he makes no mention of this in the paper.
Unfortunately, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good continues to miss the boat and mislead the public. There exist plenty of peer reviewed studies which find that public funding restrictions and parental involvement laws reduce the incidence of abortion. However, instead of acknowledging the positive impact of pro-life legislation and constructively working with pro-lifers to promote social policies that will further reduce abortion rates, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good seems primarily interested in providing moral, political, and theological cover for supporters of Barack Obama and other Democrats who support “abortion rights.” Unfortunately, their latest study indicates that their original findings have been unable to withstand serious scrutiny.
Sadly, just weeks into his administration, President Obama has already demonstrated considerable disregard for the sanctity of human life. One of Barack Obama’s first acts as President was to revoke the Mexico City Policy. Now non-governmental organizations receiving funds from the U.S. Government can perform and promote abortions overseas. It is unfortunate that the faulty research of Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good was used as political cover to help make such a thing possible. As the Obama administration continues its assault on laws and policies upholding the sanctity of human life, pro-lifers need to hold this organization morally accountable.
Michael J. New is an Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Alabama and is a visiting fellow at the Witherspoon Institute.
23 Comments
Thank you for this very interesting information on the abortion business. But what will the Catholics who support a woman’s right to choose do? And more important, what will the bishops do?
Catholics in Alliance is a fraud that is funded by George Soros.
Great article!
Thank you for smashing the mirror of the pro-abortion lies. The more they gain power in today’s society, the less logic and reason they use to defend their hatred of the unborn.
This article is a catcher by title, but didn’t answer the question of the accountability of those who chose to ignore church teaching to follow a party line. Kmeic hasn’t denounced the money for obama’s release of abortions as his FIRST promised priority, nor has he been trying to change obama on the homosexual issue with the military, or in same sex union…..but I guess those too are unimportant issues. I believe this catholic (small c kmeic) probably thinks those too are “lost” issues.
I wonder if when kmeic said was a lost battle, if he cryptically was saying souls aren’t worth it.
note to self: always question groups that use the word “catholic”-most likely a front group with a pro-abortion agenda such as “Catholics For a Free Choice”, “Catholic in Alliance” and others. It is impossible to sell the culture of death with fair and unbiased data. It is however possible to deceive the ”run of the mill -need to learn the Cathechesis-catholics diluted data.
In his article, “Holding ‘Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good’ Morally Accountable,” Michael New mischaracterizes Catholics in Alliance entirely. The Alliance promotes a consistent ethic of life and challenges both political parties to help end the tragedy of abortion. Our primary interest in commissioning the study, Reducing Abortion in America: The Effect of Socioeconomic Factors, was to explore ways to reduce abortions and find common-ground policies that support families, not to “provide cover” for any political party or ideology. In addition, as explicitly stated in the report, the Alliance endorses a comprehensive approach to reach this goal, including informed and parental consent laws.
We encourage Professor New and others across the political spectrum to work with us in good faith. At a time of economic crisis, efforts to prevent abortion must include solutions to complex socioeconomic realities. Pro-life and pro-choice members of Congress are working together to find common ground and promote initiatives that offer women and families a helping hand. The Pregnant Women Support Act, a bill in Congress supported by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, is an example of effective legislation focused on preventing abortion through a comprehensive approach. After the recent March for Life in Washington, which Catholics in Alliance attended, we hosted a Capitol Hill briefing on the Pregnant Women Support Act and were pleased that Professor New attended this gathering. The Alliance will continue to support research and public policies that promote a consistent ethic of life.
Catholics in Alliance is helping to move our nation’s divisive abortion debate away from the culture-war extremes of ideological rigidity to a more respectful, bipartisan conversation about a comprehensive approach to this profound moral issue. The findings of this important study point the way toward a way to reduce abortions now. We should all be striving toward this goal rather than resorting to partisan bickering.
2009 is not going to turn out to be a good year for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good.
Michael,
Note that Catholics in Alliance are sending people to this blog to comment. Note also they assume their people are too dumb to think up their own comments. Note also they do not answer the central charges of your piece…
Best,
Austin
Catholics in Alliance has joined the ranks of many others who are promoting a way to reduce the number of abortions. Working together toward this goal is the correct. We should not be divided, polorized on this profound moral issue. We need to see the economic and social factors that move women to have abortions and assist them in handling these issues.
In response to your critique of Catholics in alliance for the Common Good , it seems again that you are “choosing sides” rather than coming to a point of working together to curb the number of abortions that are occuring. Having worked with women who found thenselves pregnant in difficult situations though Birthrite and Aid To women, I realized very quicly that economic and social factors and a sense of “no other choice but abortion, are often the determining factors in a woman’s heartrending decision to end a pregnance. Surely this is an are that we (Pro choice and ProLife) can work together to curb the number of abortions due to these reasons.
Catholics stand for life and justice and that includes the unborn children and the children who are already in this world and needs to be cared for.
Catholic Social teaching is comprehensive and does not limit itself to one issue.
The reality in the US is that many do not agree with our principles.
Tactically, we have to decide whether we take a stubburn position in defense of our principles and perhaps risk to be marginalized or we work within the system and try to change it from the inside. While we all firmly belive in our principles, we have to decide what we do about it and these are the tactical choices.
As a Catholic, I consider abortion a grave affront to the sanctity of human life. But the polarized abortion debate in this country has often been fueled by rancorous political rhetoric that has done little to reduce the number of abortions. If we are serious about preventing abortion, we must address the economic and social factors that are often at the heart of a woman’s tragic decision to end a pregnancy. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good is working toward the goal of ending the tragedy of abortion. How wonderful if we could all work on this goal instead of resorting to partisan attacks.
It’s disturbing seeing the issue of abortion continue to be used as a political football, for the past 36 years!
Let’s all work to reduce the number of abortions.
May I suggest the website democratsforlife.org which is proposing legislation to support pregnant mothers. The ambitious goal is to reduce abortions by 95% in ten years, and this is called the 95-10 Initiative.
The legislation is the Pregnant Woman Support Act (PWSA), in the Senate is S 2407 and the House is HR 3192. “The legislation is a comprehensive approach to provide support for pregnant women who want to carry their child to term.”
I invite those from Catholics United for the Common Good to issue an actual rebuttal of Michael New’s data analysis. In the absence of such a rebuttal, your statements about avoiding divisive rhetoric are irrelevant. The most successful strategy for reducing abortion will not be discovered from anecdotes but from data. If you merely assert without good empirical evidence that socioeconomic programs are effective but legal restrictions are not, then you are morally accountable for that assertion if it turns out to be false. The way to avoid making a mistake is thus to do careful empirical analysis to determine the answer — before you campaign divisively for your favorite pro-choice candidates. The fact is this: numerous papers, published in high quality refereed economics journals, and written by university professors who do not seem to have any axes to grind, have long found that legal restrictions on abortions have large effects on abortion rates. Until Catholics United for the common good takes this evidence seriously, it has no credibility to accuse others of partisan behavior. If you are interested in responding to Michael New’s post or to this comment, please refer to actual data. The academic papers I know of are listed below (my apologies if some of the links are not formatted correctly or are not accessible to people not registered at university libraries):
Texas parental notification law
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/354/10/1031
full text of article
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/reprint/354/10/1031.pdf
MN parental notification law
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/abstract/81/3/294
MS parental notification law
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/278/8/653?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=1997+abortion+mississippi&searchid=1132764823536_4170&stored_search=&FIRSTINDEX=0&journalcode=jama
Phil Cook article – North Carolina abortion funding law
http://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/5843.html
published version in journal of health economics
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8K-3VKSDTM-6&_user=489835&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022718&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=489835&md5=e8c4e3a962c6bb061324833a23d5ea60
Becky Blank article, abortion funding, Journal of Health Economics
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6V8K-3VWC6KY-1/2/9959c10ea611e2c8089b913cda5fbf27
Levine Zimmerman Journal Health Economics, Abortion Funding and Abortions
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V8K-3VWC6KY-2&_user=489835&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000022718&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=489835&md5=6d15bd70f442d4e9cc259c58a17f257f
Currie, Nixon, Cole, Abortion funding and abortions, journal of human resources
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/jhr/1996ab/currie1.html
Jacob Klerman article – Abortion funding and fertility
http://www.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-8282(199905)89%3A2%3C261%3AUAPAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2-Q
The fight against abortion is not a zero sum game. No one approach precludes any other approach. One can pursue a Court fight at the same time one pursues a Constitutional Amendment at the same time one seeks to provide high quality medical and other assistance to pregnant women and mother and child after the child is born. Free public day care for babies and young children would be an excellent start. We must get away from scorning “welfare mothers” at the same time we wish to stop abortion. Stopping public assistance to young mothers was in fact an incentive for abortion. The fiscal conservatives can’t have it both ways. Either society fully supports motherhood, or society in fact encourages abortion. We need to proceed on four fronts: continue efforts to overrule Roe, which means battles thereafter in 50 states do keep in mind, pursue a Constitutional Amendment, fully support motherhood, and run an advertising campaign advocating motherhood. We love our children and grandchildren, and enjoyed having and raising them and helping our children with theirs. Kids are fun.
Dan Deene asks, “But what will the Catholics who support a woman’s right to choose do?” I suggest they educate themselves on the subject. They first need to know that the life within them is the beginning of a totally separate human being than themselves.
We have three children, all adults now. None of them are clones of each other or of my husband and me. They are separate persons, just as they were prior to their birth. If I had aborted any one of them, I would have to know and live with the fact that I took someone else’s life.
Is the fetus a live person in the early stages of becoming a wholly developed human being? Well, I guess so. That’s the process we all experienced!
As to “when life begins”, I think that argument has mostly disappeared. No one will ever disprove that life begins at conception
Michael,
Thank you for standing for Truth. Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good are indeed accountable for this misinformation and I find it very troubling that so many people were intentionally duped by an organization with Catholic in its title. The Father of Lies at work for sure. After 36 years of talk its time Catholics walked the walk.
Bush the father supported the pro-life agenda to some extent. When that support translated into fewer abortions during the Clinton years, Bill took the credit. Bill, of course, supported the pro-death agenda passionately. When that translated into more abortions during Bush the son’s years, Kmiec and others blamed W. So get ready. W supported the pro-life agenda more strongly than his father. Obama will then take credit for the falling abortion rates. But just wait till O’s fruits ripen because he is even more pro-death than Clinton..
KD and others you are totally missing the point (btw thanks website for censoring my previous post). The point is that although all these restrictions will reduce abortion they cannot by themselves eliminate the need for abortion. One must tackle the demand for abortion directly.
Making abortion illegal will only create a black market for abortion with lax oversight and health standards where the mother will ALSO be in danger. There is a BETTER way and Catholics in Alliance is promoting and researching that.
What is the ultimate goal here folks? Reducing the need for abortion or pushing censorship on it? What works best, positive actions like reducing unwanted pregnancies by use of contraception, helping the pregnant mother economically if needed, increasing funds to adoption agencies, etc.? Or negative actions like making Abortion illegal (which is what you all really want right?).
Think about it, pray about it, and we will come to an understanding.
Thank you for this well thought out piece. Former ways are ineffective.
Let me start our by apologizing to Professor New. My last posting on this blog was meant to be an example of the name calling and divisiveness that has been going on for many years and not an indictment of Professor New. I notice it has been removed. I see many in many comments a judgment on who is Catholic and who is not. This quote from St. Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, Chapter 5: 14 &15, “For the whole law is fulfilled in one statement, namely, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” But if you go on biting and devouring one another, beware that you are not consumed by one another.
We must work together toward just and moral outcomes for all issues concerning the life and dignity of the human person, including abortion, which is what the USCCB and Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good support and promote.
St. Paul went on to say; “Let us not be conceited, provoking one another, envious of one another.” All Catholics and Christians should be working together for policies that help promote a just and moral life for us all. It is my hope that we take this time to reflect on how we are acting toward each other and where it is getting us.
3 Trackbacks
[...] little effect. Professor Michael New, of the University of Alabama and the Witherspoon Institute, countered the claim, [...]
[...] demonstrate the relationships they claim between social spending and reduced abortion. Here is a takedown of “Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good”: An August 2008 study released by the group Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good had Obama [...]
[...] Professor Michael New has shown, neither group is correct in how to reduce abortions. Tags: Abortion, Catholics for Choice, [...]