Supporters of legal abortion and their allies in the mainstream media are working tirelessly to generate opposition to a constitutionalist nominee who might vote to weaken or overturn the Roe v. Wade decision. A flurry of polls released in recent days all purportedly find that over 60 percent of respondents support Roe v. Wade. These polls are all misleading for several reasons.
Overall, the results from the most recent poll should encourage pro-lifers, as the results seem to indicate that many Americans are willing to support greater legal protections for the preborn.
The Trump administration announced its new Protect Life Rule. Contrary to some media reports, these new regulations will not reduce funding for family planning programs.
Proponents of legal abortion maintain that legalizing abortion will not result in more abortions, but will instead improve the safety of abortions. However, an extremely broad body of economic and public health research clearly indicates that various legal protections of unborn children reduce the incidence of abortion.
Planned Parenthood has not been defunded despite a Republican controlled Congress and a pro-life President. Why the delay?
Young adults today are supportive of incremental pro-life laws and are more likely to oppose abortion in a range of circumstances, but they remain somewhat reluctant to identify as "pro-life."
Congress should defund Planned Parenthood and pass a 20-week abortion ban, which enjoys popular support.
The percentage of teenagers that reported ever having engaged in sexual intercourse declined from 46.8 percent to 41.2 percent over a 10-year time period.
Although Planned Parenthood has not endorsed a candidate in the Alabama U.S. Senate race, they clearly have an ongoing interest in dissuading the Democratic Party from nominating pro-life candidates – even in conservative states.
Facebook and other social media sites should take a clear stance in favor of free speech and resist the urge to censor articles and editorials because of their ideological content.
Last month, two analysts from the think tank Third Way published an opinion piece in U.S. News and World Report claiming that new Trump-administration policies would cause a surge in the abortion rate.
The Trump administration's decision to respect the conscience rights of employers who do not wish to include contraceptives or abortion-inducing drugs in their insurance plans has generated a firestorm of controversy. The principle of religious freedom has been criticized, and the research behind this decision has been sharply, albeit unpersuasively, attacked.
There is a considerable amount of debate about various aspects of abortion policy. However, there is a very broad consensus that funding abortion through Medicaid results in more abortions.
The eyes of Illinois and the entire country are on Governor Bruce Rauner this week. Earlier this year, the Illinois legislature passed the controversial HB 40, insuring that abortion remains legal in Illinois if Roe v. Wade is overturned. More importantly, HB 40 would also require taxpayer funding of abortion
The number of abortion facilities in the United States has been declining, and many midwestern and southern states have few abortion clinics left. In response, supporters of legal abortion have advanced some medically risky proposals to expand abortion access.
There is broad body of research which shows that cutting of funding for abortion reduces abortion rates.
Aaron Carroll eagerly criticizes abstinence-based programs without evaluating the effects of other types of teen-pregnancy-prevention curricula. He claims that the Obama-era programs were responsible for the recent decline in the teen-pregnancy rate, but those rates in the U.S. have been falling since the early 1990s
The mainstream media have lobbed a considerable amount of criticism at the Trump administration for cutting funding to the Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program
This summer, a coalition of center-right groups launched a signature drive to try to make it possible to stop taxpayer funding of abortion in Massachusetts.
The past five years have seen a welcome increase in the number of books on the history of the pro-life movement. Still, the history of the pro-life movement is not complete. After decades of politicization, the pro-life movement is often portrayed as monolithic and uncooperative.
Since Texas defunded Planned Parenthood in 2011 there has been an endless parade of studies arguing that the Lone Star State is facing a public-health crisis. A more nuanced look at the numbers tells a different story.
A new study attempts to show that pro-life laws adversely affect public-health outcomes. But it suffers from two significant methodological problems.
Since Texas removed Planned Parenthood's state funding in 2011, the mainstream media have been on a constant search for evidence of a resulting public-health crisis.
Unsurprisingly, the Times article does a very poor job explaining why social conservatives are seeking to undo the HHS mandate.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the pro-life position made some impressive gains in the court of public opinion, but over the last eight years, there has been a veritable public-opinion stalemate on this issue.