The Ohio Department of Health released their annual report on induced abortions for 2012, the first year with enacted War on Women provisions1.

The abortion rate increased 3.8%, the second-highest increase on record.

This gives the lie to Ohio Right to Life’s disingenuous theory that waging the War on Women has resulted in more women realizing that they’re capable of raising another child.

Abortion levels in Ohio are the lowest in modern history, and when lawmakers pass “common-sense, pro-life approaches, good things happen,” Gonidakis said.

In reality, it looks like 2011 was a statistical outlier. Ignoring that year2, the abortion rate has continued the same general decrease since 2006.

Screen Shot 2013-10-02 at 6.40.56 PM

Hilariously, Kasich appointee and ORTL President Mike Gonidakis attributes the increase in the abortion rate to the presidential campaign and the unprecedented support for women’s access to health care.

What an egomaniac.

Women decide to continue a pregnancy based on what they feel is best for themselves and for their family. To claim that political wrangling is a strong determining factor in pregnancy termination is, frankly, a shakedown of Right to Life donors. Particularly when their press release hails the report as the “second-lowest abortion rate ever”.

This is just another reminder that the War on Women has never been about abortion. Given ORTL’s reaction, I’m inclined to think that it’s just about making money.


1 Here’s the timeline for War on Women bills:
     7/11- public hospital ban
     11/11- 20-week ban
      2/12- parental consent
      2/12- insurance ban

2 These reports aren’t superbly comprehensive, and they change the reporting requirements on a regular basis. It’s entirely possible that the 2011 figures are reflective of new ODH methodology.

Also, somebody tell the Dispatch that RU-486 isn’t the morning-after pill. If you don’t know basic facts about abortion, just don’t report on it!

  • Sandcat

    “Women decide to continue a pregnancy based on what they feel is best for themselves and for their family.”

    This is true only if one ignores what is best for the smallest family member. Usually dismemberment isn’t high on the ‘”what’s best for junior” list.

  • stryx

    No this is true regardless. Just because you want to be maudlin doesn’t mean you’re tight.

  • anastasjoy

    “Dismemberment” is the lurid fantasy of people who hate women. And a fetus would be better off “dismembered” at a point where it has no viability or independent life than to become an unwanted child. And the anti-choice movement is all about creating LOT of unwanted, un-cared–for children.

    I’d love to know how much additional poverty is created by these laws forcing women to have children they don’t want and can’t afford to care for. And don’t bring up adoption. Ohio has thousands of children waiting for adoption. And since the exact same economically stressed women who will be most impacted by these anti-choice measures (women of means will always be able to get abortions) are the ones least likely to have access to quality prenatal care (something else the anti-choice zealots are cutting), these are going to be less healthy, less “desirable” babies anyway.

  • Sandcat

    It’s true only if you ignore biology. My sentimentality isn’t science, and therefore irrelevant. If only the same were true for you.

  • Sandcat

    Dismemberment is precisely how a specific type of abortion is performed in utero. Chemical abortion (acid baths) are another.

    An unviable fetus is one thing, but an unwanted child? Better off dead than unwanted? Why don’t you let the small human decide that.

    Ah yes, the old ‘death is better than poverty’ meme of wackobirds. Ohio has thousands of children waiting for the adoption process to happen? Well, we can’t have that. Send them to Syria where Assad can use sarin on them. Better off dead than poor and unwanted, like you already said, for sure.

    Yeah, I’m anti-choice to dismember and kill defenceless humans. And you’re the ‘progressive’ one. Heh. Child sacrifice was cool a long time ago, it’s making a comeback with troglodytes such as yourself.

  • Red Rover

    Yes, let’s ask the fetus… forget about what the grown, living, breathing woman has to say!

  • Sandcat

    As long as what she has to say is grounded in science and biology, I’m all for it.

  • Red Rover

    How is forcing someone to undergo major medical procedures grounded in science and biology?

  • Sandcat

    You seem to be confused. You said ‘forget about what the grown, living, breathing woman has to say!’

    I responded by saying I’m all ears to what she has to say, as long as it’s based on science. You seem to be confused about that, so I’ll spell it out for you. Arguments about abortion only matter when they are based on biology, not sophistry. If a pregnant woman has arguments about abortion one way or the other, as long as they’re based on biology they’re valid.

  • Red Rover

    But abortion only becomes a debate when you consider why someone would be against it, because face it – it’s none of your business. Another problem for you is that both science and biology offer ways to terminate a pregnancy.

  • Sandcat

    Abortion becomes a debate when biology is applied and a fetus is understood to be human. You clearly do not understand the implications of embryology, which defines the beginning of human life at conception.

    Derp, science gives ways to terminate pregnancies? Derpity, did you think that one up all by yourself? Because science doesn’t give anyone any tools for killing! Nukes shmukes.

  • Red Rover

    And now your ideology comes to light, where it’s clear that you’re throwing out words like science and biology to try to put up an image of a rational argument to conceal it. You equate family planning with shooting someone to death to satisfy whatever your ideological or religious bent is. It remains true that a woman getting an abortion has no impact on you whatsoever, so it has nothing to do with you. We’d all be better served if you found better uses for your time.

  • Sandcat

    Nice fact-free post that does nothing to address the hard claim I made above. What is my ‘ideology’? That a fetus is a human? That’s not ideology, that’s biological fact.

    Religion has got squat to do with biology. One is a belief system, the other the empirical form of study of living organisms. ‘Family planning’ isn’t equated to shooting someone, it IS dismembering a human.

    The fact that my neighbors have a domestic slave has an impact on me, because in order to do so they dehumanize their maid in order to remove any intrinsic value she has. By dehumanizing one they devalue us all.

    You’d be better informed if you stopped the sophistry and picked up an embryology textbook.

Looking for something?

Use the form below to search the site:

Still not finding what you're looking for? Drop a comment on a post or contact us so we can take care of it!