We have 2 halves here. First, there’s the assertion that abortion rates respond to the economy in general (and, I would guess, the incomes of the lowest income quintile in particular). Of course, many other factors probably play a role as well.
Then, we the contention that W’s economic policy has been poorly timed (i.e. “not synced at all”) with the business cycle.
Anyway, if you buy both of the above, then one could probably estimate (roughly) some sort of relationship between the bad policies and the unwanted outcomes.
Finally (and implicitly) we have the oddity that abortion opponents seem focused on one particular tool for curbing these procedures -prohibition- while almost completely neglecting other instruments.
All you’ve got there is an indictment of one physician who allegedly interpreted the statute too broadly, and that the statute is now interpreted so that “health” includes “mental health”, which AFAICT is perfectly reasonable. That’s a far cry from the claim that doctors routinely lie about the medical necessity for late-term abortions.
Mr. Moto:I never claimed that the abortion providers lie. I claimed that they routinely found a need for abortions.
Insofar as you’re claiming that abortion providers have routinely found a need for UNNECESSARY abortions, you’re implying that they’ve routinely been lying. And you have so far failed to support that claim.
Mr. Moto: *With this mental health loophole, any abortion could be justified. *
Sez you. You haven’t provided any evidence that abortion providers are in fact using the mental-health provision as a “loophole” to justify abortions that are medically unnecessary to protect a woman’s mental health.
You seem to be promoting the old-fashioned view that “mental health” has no medical meaning and doctors have no serious criteria for diagnosing endangered mental health. Thank heavens we have qualified physicians making these decisions about late-term abortions, instead of you.