# Hate abortion? Fire Bush! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 29, 2004, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917 "2004-10-29T20:15:15Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/edb3f5/32.png) [@The\_Asbestos\_Mango](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Asbestos_Mango)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/41 "2004-11-01T06:45:47Z")
I’m one of those rabid pro-life types, and actually, the argument presented in **Stoid’s** OP is what finally led me to decide a few months back to vote for Kerry, although in my case, it was purely hypothetical, since, being search-engine impaired, I was unable to find the statistics I needed to back me up. It just seemed to make sense. A woman finds herself unexpectedly pregnant. Is she more likely to carry the child and give it birth if she is in a stable economic situation, with a decent-paying job with decent benefits that is likely not to be offshored, or if she is making a wage that is such that she frequently has to decide between paying the electric bill or buying groceries for the week, and has no insurance benefits, and the company is claiming quite vociferously that they are not planning to lay people off in the near future, which is, of course, a sign that they are planning to lay people off in the near future? I belive that Kerry’s economic policies will create more, and better paying jobs than Bush’s will (and have, or shall I say, have not.) On another note, I don’t think abortion should be made illegal. I know that sounds contradictory, but I do know for an incontrovertible fact that women will have abortions whether it’s legal or not. I would rather that if a woman does come to that horrible decision, that she have the operation in a clean, hygenic clinic than on somebody’s kitchen table. Although my great-grandmother did keep her kitchen table, along with the rest of her house, immaculately clean… ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/42 "2004-11-01T15:13:18Z")
> [@The Asbestos Mango](#): > > On another note, I don’t think abortion should be made illegal. I know that sounds contradictory, but I do know for an incontrovertible fact that women will have abortions whether it’s legal or not. That’s exactly where I am. If you want to stop abortion, you have to swallow your bile and do what will help the pregnant woman, even though it’s not your problem. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2004, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/43 "2004-11-01T19:17:32Z")
**AZCowboy:** > [@](#): > > It is certainly reasonable to believe that another Republican administration will lead to a higher national debt and a larger federal government - if recent history is any guide. But at the time **Stoid** says the numbers started turning, we didn’t have a Republican administration, but a Democratic one. In fact we had 8 years of 'em. And there was at least even odds of another Democrat winning the 2000 election and being in charge for another 4 years. That wouldn’t have stopped the tech-bubble from bursting, the resulting market correction, and the following recession. At best, President Gore still would have had 9/11 to contend with as well as a sluggish economy, before things got better (which they are now, just not the way some people would want them to be). Trends don’t happen in a vacuum. > [@](#): > > Granted, correlation does not prove causation, but politicians are eager to take credit for a good economy, it only seems fair to hold them accountable for bad ones. So if Kerry/Edwards win tomorrow, when can I start blaming them for the mess in Iraq? After all, Iraq is a mess, and they are now in charge, since they won the election. Is the inauguration soon enough? Just stop playing the blame game; the recession wasn’t either Clinton’s fault or Bush’s. At best, you can blame Bush for prolonging it, but you can’t blame him for causing it by somehow manipulating the space-time continuum to somehow affect the economy before he was elected President. I expect this kind of partisan nonsesne out of **Stoid** , but I thought you were smarter than that. ---
**Author:** ![AZCowboy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/97f17d/32.png) [@AZCowboy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AZCowboy)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/44 "2004-11-02T01:29:02Z")
Call it partisan if you like, but I was attempting to take out some of the short term variances due to “unforseen” circumstances, and look at the economic performance under various administrations over a longer period of time. I certainly agree that Gore would have had his hands full with the tech bubble bursting and the economic impact of 9/11. I don’t hold Bush responsible for either of those. However, I do hold Bush responsible for increasing the size of the federal government, and the significant increase in the deficit (and the corresponding increase in the national debt). I believe his tax cuts were poorly targeted, and did not provide the impetus the economy needed. Likewise, I doubt Gore would have been proposing more dramatic cuts in spending or taxes. But I also suspect the Republican Congress would have been less likely to approve any new spending under Gore. Bush seemed to get a free pass. In that sense, from an economic perspective, I might lean toward a Republican presidential candidate, if I thought it likely that Congress would go to the Democrats. Bottom line, at least within the last 30 years, our economy has performed better under Democratic Presidents than Republican Presidents. While I acknowledge that such trends do not confer proof to the assertion, it certainly seems reasonable to hold the position that the economy would fare better under Kerry than Bush (even if it is attributable to the Presidency being controlled by the party opposite the one controlling Congress). ---
**Author:** ![JThunder](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e95f7d/32.png) [@JThunder](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JThunder)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/45 "2004-11-02T01:44:53Z")
> [@bup](#): > > That’s exactly where I am. If you want to stop abortion, you have to swallow your bile and do what will help the pregnant woman, even though it’s not your problem. I agree to some extent, which is why I’ve spent years of my life supporting crisis pregnancy centers–both financially and through manpower. I even worked at one for six months on an unpaid basis. However, I certainly hope you’re not implying that only people who actively help the pregnant women are in any position to condemn abortion. That would be like saying that people have no business condemning child abuse unless they are _personally_ willing to care for the children in question. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/46 "2004-11-02T03:00:03Z")
That’s exactly the argument **Zoe** is making. My bona fides shouldn’t be questioned, and I regret now that I turned her question around. We shouldn’t be arguing over which of us has done more for “the children”. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/47 "2004-11-02T04:35:24Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Fed. Chairman Greenspan was warning of “irrational exuberance” before Bush was anything more than a Governor in Texas and a darkhorse, whispered-rumor possible contender for the 2000 Presidency race; he was warning of and an impending market correction about the time Bush was cinching the Republican nomination for the Presidency. > > While I’d certainly agree the Bush’s fiscal policy and international adventurism hasn’t done much to help the economy (arguably, it’s made it worse), blaming him for an economic trend that began in 2000 and which was predicted by the nation’s foremost economic guru 4 years previously is not merely asinine, it’s fucking idiotic. With all due respect **ExTank** , there are risks in venturing outside of your core competencies. Here’s the Dec 1996 Greenspan quote: “Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? And how do we factor that assessment into monetary policy? We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability.” Sorry for the length. The Chairman was **not** forecasting a recession in 4 years time. In fact, he wasn’t forecasting at all. Rather, he suggesting the _possibility_ that Central Bankers should set monetary policy with an eye to asset values, in addition to unemployment and inflation. --------- Just stop playing the blame game; the recession wasn’t either Clinton’s fault or Bush’s. **At best, you can blame Bush for prolonging it** , but you can’t blame him for causing it by somehow manipulating the space-time continuum to somehow affect the economy before he was elected President. Emphasis added. You can blame a policy maker for increasing the duration or intensity of a given economic downturn. (One which happened to start immediately after W took office. The stock market is not “the economy”). More specifically, you can blame George Bush for refusing to use orthodox economic tools to fight the recession. Block grants to the states would have been a credible method of temporarily stimulating government spending, which is a stronger stimulant than a tax cut of a similar magnitude (see balanced budget multiplier). Tax cuts directed at those with a low marginal propensity to consume (e.g. those making over $200,000 per year) also tend to stimulate the economy less. Permanent corporate tax cuts tend not to be stimulative at all. (Temporary corporate tax cuts -some of which were passed- can provide incentives to speed up investment spending). These issues were debated on the Board, as they occurred. I argued for orthodox economic policy because -hey whadya know- it is believed to reduce the intensity and duration of economic downturns, as well as lay a foundation for long term economic growth. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 4:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/48 "2004-11-02T04:43:49Z")
> [@JThunder](#): > > However, I certainly hope you’re not implying that only people who actively help the pregnant women are in any position to condemn abortion. That would be like saying that people have no business condemning child abuse unless they are _personally_ willing to care for the children in question. No, I’m just saying if you really prefer stopping abortion to judging it, you can do it, and be more effective at it. But nobody has a particular responsibility to solve someone else’s problem. ---
**Author:** ![bup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6bbea6/32.png) [@bup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bup)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/49 "2004-11-02T04:45:00Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > …the recession wasn’t either Clinton’s fault or Bush’s. At best, you can blame Bush for prolonging it… That’s exactly what I do. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/50 "2004-11-02T04:52:57Z")
More generally, a weaker economy is associated with a range of societal ills. Administrations that succeed in attenuating fluctations and promoting long term growth do a world of good. Those wishing to reduce the incidence of abortion might want to study policies in the Netherlands. Admittedly, I was surprised that the rate in Sweden was not lower. > **[Abortion Rates in Western Industrialized Countries](https://www.infoplease.com/math-science/health/healthcare/abortion-rates-in-western-industrialized-countries)** > > Find the latest data on abortion rates in the world's leading nations.CountryRate per 1,000United States20.9Australia22.2Sweden18.7Denmark16.5Canada16.4England & Wales15.6Germany7.7Holland6.5NOTE: 1996 data, except the U.S. (2002 data). Abortion Rates in Western Industrialized Countries Country Rate per 1,000 United States 21.3 Australia 22.2 Sweden 18.7 Denmark 16.5 Canada 16.4 England & Wales 15.6 Germany 7.6 Holland 6.5 NOTE: 1996 data, except the U.S. (2000 data). ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/51 "2004-11-02T05:00:05Z")
Hm. Better cover my bases here. Leading indicators have declined for the past 4 months. The consensus view is that they signal weakness, if not immanent recession. If for some reason a recession occurs, I would hope that the next administration pursues orthodox economic policies, reversing existing ones if necessary. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/52 "2004-11-02T05:01:45Z")
Yes, we might want to look at that. The Netherlands completely banned abortion, except when the life of the mother is at stake, until **1981**. This indicates to me a society very squeamish about the wanton destruction of life. Some carryover of these attitudes may well continue today, despite the (vastly overblown) reputation the Netherlands has as a den of libertine vice. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/53 "2004-11-02T05:03:13Z")
Interesting. What about Germany? (Real question.) ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/54 "2004-11-02T05:08:36Z")
According to this site, [Short history of abortion in the Netherlands](http://en.stisan.nl/documents/content/abortus/de.ingreep.asp): > [@](#): > > The first abortion clinics started three decades ago, on the intiative of and staffed by family doctors defying the then restrictive law. This ‘bottom-up’ approach, originating from the medical profession, has appeared to be very effective as **abortion clinics were tolerated by succesive governments in anticipation of an abortion law which eventually legalized abortion although it took more than 10 years before this law was passed by the parliament en senate in 1981.** During this period abortion, although formally illegal, was widely available in private, non-profit clinics and in some hospitals. Emphasis added. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/55 "2004-11-02T05:14:51Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Interesting. What about Germany? (Real question.) [From here.](http://www.cbctrust.com/abortion.html#11) > [@](#): > > Negotiators working on the reunification of East and West Germany in 1990 were required to try to reconcile the differences between the two countries’ laws on abortion. Finally, after a two-year legal debate on the issue, a new German abortion law was approved by the Bundestag (parliament). The 1992 law permitted first trimester abortions on request after mandatory counselling and a three-day waiting period. > > However, before the new law could take effect, it was challenged in court by Chancellor Helmut Kohl and other conservative members of parliament, as well as by the State of Bavaria. > > In 1993, a confusing judgment by the Federal Constitutional Court found abortions were unlawful, since the constitution protects fetal life from conception. Yet it also found that abortions during the first three months of pregnancy should not be punished, if the woman first submits to counselling aimed at changing her mind. And, said the Court, such abortions are not covered under statutory health insurance and cannot be performed in state hospitals. (Abortions in certain situations, eg. for rape or certain medical reasons, it considered lawful and to be treated differently.) > > Evert Ketting of the International Planned Parenthood Federation says the Court’s decision reflects this philosophy: “You may have your abortion, but it is against our morality, and therefore you must pay for it, financially and morally.”50 > > A follow-up law allowing abortions in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy – provided the woman undergoes counselling by a doctor – was narrowly approved by Germany’s parliament in 1995. In practice, many German women go to the Netherlands to have abortions, thus avoiding the great expense and time consuming procedures of Germany. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/56 "2004-11-02T05:24:29Z")
Thanks, Mr. Moto. Nice link, BTW. I’m wondering whether the Netherlands data nets out people of foreign birth. Given the relative size of Germany’s population, I would think that the cross-border traffic would boost the Netherlands’ abortion rate more. Are German women traveling to France? 😕 Or maybe RU486 is more widespread than is commonly believed. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/57 "2004-11-02T05:38:30Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > With all due respect **ExTank** , there are risks in venturing outside of your core competencies. > > Here’s the Dec 1996 Greenspan quote: “Clearly, sustained low inflation implies less uncertainty about the future, and lower risk premiums imply higher prices of stocks and other earning assets. We can see that in the inverse relationship exhibited by price/earnings ratios and the rate of inflation in the past. But how do we know when irrational exuberance has unduly escalated asset values, which then become subject to unexpected and prolonged contractions as they have in Japan over the past decade? And how do we factor that assessment into monetary policy? We as central bankers need not be concerned if a collapsing financial asset bubble does not threaten to impair the real economy, its production, jobs, and price stability.” > > Sorry for the length. The Chairman was **not** forecasting a recession in 4 years time. In fact, he wasn’t forecasting at all. Rather, he suggesting the _possibility_ that Central Bankers should set monetary policy with an eye to asset values, in addition to unemployment and inflation. So my closing sentence was a tad hyperbolic (deliberate stupidity has that tendency); this is the best you can do? In the core of my post, I never said Mr. Greenspan was forecasting the recession in his “irrational exuberance” speech; he was warning of an overinflated stock market. The correction of which I identified as one of the contributing factors of the recession. And you should have quoted the rest of the paragraph: > [@](#): > > Indeed, the sharp stock market break of 1987 had few negative consequences for the economy. But we should not underestimate or become complacent about the complexity of the interactions of asset markets and the economy. Thus, evaluating shifts in balance sheets generally, and in asset prices particularly, must be an integral part of the development of monetary policy. Few negative consequences doesn’t mean _any_ negative consequences, short- or long-term. Some people took a bath, and it wasn’t _just_ evil, money-grubbing Republicans. > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > (The stock market is not “the economy”). You deny that the stock market is a bellwether? > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > More specifically, you can blame George Bush for refusing to use orthodox economic tools to fight the recession. > [@Measure for Measure](#): > > You can blame a policy maker for increasing the duration or intensity of a given economic downturn. (One which happened to start immediately after W took office. I believe I already have. What I have _not_ blamed him for is an upward trend in abortions _ **that began in 2000,** _ linked to a poor ecomnomy that began in 2000, as the OP asserts. So, are _you_ blaming George Bush for an upward trend in abortions linked to a bad economy that began in 2000 _as the OP asserts_, even as _you_ claim that the economy didn’t start turning bad until George Bush was installed into office in January of 2001? Hate the man for what he actually does; don’t make shit up out of thin air. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 5:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/58 "2004-11-02T05:57:10Z")
[Sexual health policies in other industrialized countries: are there lessons for the United States? - Statistical Data Included](http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_39/ai_87080446) Not .pdf. Ewwww… they want us to actually _talk about sex?_ Everybody knows that that’s just _wierd._ Perverse. Sex should be kept in the bedroom, right between Mom’s and Dad’s separate beds. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 6:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/59 "2004-11-02T06:13:39Z")
Just to be clear, I believe a collapse in investment (beginning, yes in 2000 and ending very roughly in Q4 2001\*) triggered the 2001 recession. The stock market is generally thought to be a rather mediocre leading indicator for the economy: for example, it generates an excess of false positives. I don’t blame GWBush for the recession that began in Feb-March 2001. I do blame him for using the recession to push for a policy constructed during times of plenty. I blame him for his inflexibility and refusal to consider policies that might reduce the fixed costs of hiring an additional worker. ## In short, I blame GWBush for not being an empiricist. Half-assed policy driven by feel-good ideology has sorry consequences. Speaking of empirics, I haven’t been able to link to the article in the OP, and Googlenews isn’t helping. So I can’t really evaluate the recent abortion data c. 2000, 2001 or whatever. Sorry. - Subject to qualifications. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [November 2, 2004, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917/60 "2004-11-02T06:30:22Z")
> [@Measure for Measure](#): > > Just to be clear, I believe a collapse in investment (beginning, yes in 2000 and ending very roughly in Q4 2001\*) triggered the 2001 recession. > > The stock market is generally thought to be a rather mediocre leading indicator for the economy: for example, it generates an excess of false positives. > > I don’t blame GWBush for the recession that began in Feb-March 2001. I do blame him for using the recession to push for a policy constructed during times of plenty. I blame him for his inflexibility and refusal to consider policies that might reduce the fixed costs of hiring an additional worker. > > ## In short, I blame GWBush for not being an empiricist. Half-assed policy driven by feel-good ideology has sorry consequences. > > Speaking of empirics, I haven’t been able to link to the article in the OP, and Googlenews isn’t helping. So I can’t really evaluate the recent abortion data c. 2000, 2001 or whatever. Sorry. > > - Subject to qualifications. We’re really not on separate sheets of music, here. The OP’s article stated that abortions began trending upwards in 2000, linked the trend to economic conditions, and **Stoid** pretty much said that it’s all George Bush’s fault because he screwed up the economy. So, in my mind we have sevral facts, as pieces of a puzzle, which just aren’t adding up.[ol] [li] Abortions began trending upwards in 2000.[/li][li] George Bush was elected (appointed, if you prefer) in November 2000.[/li][li] He assumed office in January 2001.[/li][li] His tax cuts, as bad as they were, didn’t take effect until 2002 (for the 2001 tax year).[/ol][/li] At best, he just contributed to an effect that was already there, but for all intents and purposes, the economy was still pretty much riding high in 2000. I just lucked into a paranoid IMR and managed to keep my little (emphasis: little) nest egg safe from the economic downturn. And I know enough to know when to admit that I don’t know shit, so when my IMR said “move,” I did. And since trends don’t “just happen,” arguably the root causes of the upward trend in abortions _beginning in 2000_ are to be found _prior to 2000._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/hate-abortion-fire-bush/271917.md?page=4)