Law professors John R. Lott, Jr. of Yale Law School and John E. Whitley of the University of Adelaide found that legalizing abortion increased murder rates by up to seven percent. They concluded that legalizing abortion is a contributing factor to the great increase in out‑of‑wedlock births and single parent families, which in turn contribute to increased crime rates. Since 1970, the percentage of single‑parent households in the United States has nearly tripled, from 11 percent to 32 percent, and the percentage of out‑of‑wedlock births has nearly quadrupled, from 11 percent to 43 percent of all children.7 Children born out-of-wedlock and raised by only one parent have a significantly higher incidence of crime.
There are many other fundamental problems with the conclusion that legalized abortion leads to a decrease in crime.
Statistician David Murray confirmed that young males between the ages of 17 and 25 commit the majority of crimes. However, if abortion had reduced crime, the crime rates in the United States would have dropped first among young people. They did not. Instead, the number of crimes committed by older people dropped first. Nearly 60% of the decline in murder since 1990 involved killers aged 25 and older — who were born before Roe v. Wade.8
Murray also found that other nations with high abortion rates showed a large increase in crime about eighteen years after they legalized abortion. For example, in Great Britain, which legalized abortion in 1968, violent crime has been rising steeply since about 1985 ― exactly when it should have been declining, according to the Donohue‑Levitt thesis. Additionally, Russia, with the highest abortion rate on earth, has experienced a tidal wave of every kind of violent crime following the breakup of the Soviet Union.9
FBI statistics showed that the murder rate in 1993 for 14‑ to 17‑year‑olds in the USA (born in the years 1975‑1979, which had very high abortion rates) was 3.6 times higher than that of kids who were the same age in 1984 (who were born in the pre‑legalization years of 1966‑1970). Additionally, since Black women were having abortions at a much higher rate than White women, we should have expected the murder rate among Black youth to have declined beginning in about 1991. Instead, it increased more than five hundred percent from 1984 to 1993.10
Finally, the huge increase in violent crime that peaked in 1991 and then began to decline is more closely related to the crack epidemic, not abortion. The Donohue‑Levitt study confirms that the crime rate rose and fell exactly where crack cocaine was most easily available ― in the large cities and among young Black males.11 This is also confirmed by the rise in crime during the time period 1984 to 1991, after a decline from 1980 to 1984. If abortion were the primary cause of a decline in violent crime, the crime rate would have been relatively stable during the time period 1980 to 1991.
This might be a good post to store away, because I get the abortion reduces crime argument thrown at me about once a month. It has to be responded to with evidence. A good to buy on this is John Lott’s “Freedomnomics: Why the Free Market Works and Other Half-Baked Theories Don’t“. One third of the book covers this topic.
The Obama Administration’s disregard for the law has struck again—and this time, it’s encouraging others to violate the law at taxpayer expense.
That’s worth saying again: The Obama Administration is encouraging people to violate a law, and promising that it will use taxpayer money to cover fines incurred from this action.
The law: The law in question is called the WARN Act, and it requires that federal contractors send employees layoff notices 60 days before a plant closing or mass layoff.
The inconvenience: Massive defense spending cuts under sequestration are scheduled to hit on January 2, 2013. Defense contractors affected by the budget cuts would have to issue notice letters to employees by November 2 (four days before the election) to meet the January 2 start date for the spending cuts.
The penalty taxpayers would pay: Employers who violate the WARN Act are liable to their former employees for “back pay for each day of a violation” and “benefits under an employee benefit plan,” as well as a penalty of $500 for each day that notice has not been sent to the local government where the layoffs will occur.
As an example, Lockheed CEO Bob Stevens has said that 123,000 of his employees would receive layoff notices. If companies fail to meet the WARN Act’s deadline, lawsuits from employees could result—but the White House has provided a taxpayer-funded guarantee as a way to counter their fears of enormous litigation costs. This guarantee is not only unprecedented but also potentially unlawful.
This President is only interested in one thing – misleading the American people on the issues so he can get re-elected. We have about a week to get this out there, or he’s going to do it. Make sure you keep sharing all of these articles with people who haven’t voted. We need to get everyone informed and into the ballot box on election day.
We all know that Paul Ryan is conservative on fiscal issues. He’s the man with a plan to stop overspending and solve the debt problem. But where does he stand on other issues?
Here’s an article from the liberal Washington Post about Ryan’s foreign policy views.
Excerpt:
Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) gave a speech Thursday to the Alexander Hamilton Society in Washington. If one is looking for clues as to Ryan’s interests beyond chairing the House Budget Committee, a speech, as he put it, to “a room full of national security experts about American foreign policy” would merit attention.
…Ryan delivered an above-the-fray talk on the subject of American uniqueness (a less loaded term) and the myth that American decline in inevitable. He posited, “Our fiscal policy and our foreign policy are on a collision course; and if we fail to put our budget on a sustainable path, then we are choosing decline as a world power.”
Ryan contends that the debt crisis is not a bookkeeping problem or even simply a domestic problem; it is about maintaining our status as a superpower and about American values.
[…]He plainly is not with the cut-and-run set on Afghanistan. “Although the war has been long and the human costs high, failure would be a blow to American prestige and would reinvigorate al-Qaeda, which is reeling from the death of its leader. Now is the time to lock in the success that is within reach.” Nor can he be accused of wanting to “go it alone.” “The Obama administration has taken our allies for granted and accepted too willingly the decline of their capacity for international action. Our alliances were vital to our victory in the Cold War, and they need to be revitalized to see us through the 21st century.”
As for China, he bats down the idea that we should go along to get along… He’s clear that China has “very different values and interests from our own.”
And finally on defense spending, he rejects the sort of penny-pinching isolationism of Jon Huntsman or Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.).
According to On The Issues, he’s solid on military spending:
Rated 22% by SANE, indicating a pro-military voting record
YES on $266 billion Defense Appropriations bill
YES on deploying SDI
YES on emergency $78B for war in Iraq & Afghanistan
YES on continuing military recruitment on college campuses
YES on restricting no-bid defense contracts
He’s solid on counter-terrorism:
NO on Veto override: Congressional oversight of CIA interrogations
NO on requiring FISA warrants for wiretaps in US, but not abroad
YES on making the PATRIOT Act permanent
YES on continuing intelligence gathering without civil oversight
YES on allowing electronic surveillance without a warrant
YES on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad
YES on retroactive immunity for telecoms’ warrantless surveillance
And supports military intervention against Islamic terrorists:
Strengthen sanctions on Syria & assist democratic transition
Sanctions on Iran to end nuclear program
YES on authorizing military force in Iraq
YES on declaring Iraq part of War on Terror with no exit date
NO on redeploying US troops out of Iraq starting in 90 days
NO on investigating Bush impeachment for lying about Iraq
Ryan, the top Republican on the Budget Committee who has a strongly pro-life record, talked about the place social issues have in the election in an interview with CNBC last week.
“We will agree to disagree on those issues,” Ryan said last Monday on CNBC. “But let’s rally around the tallest pole in our tent
Ryan also released a statement today that LifeNews.com received saying pro-life issues are not on a list of menu items that have to be given up during the election season.
“Healthy debate should take place within the Republican Party on specific policies, but it is a false choice to ask which natural right we should discard
“All planks – economic liberty and limited government; keeping our nation secure; championing America’s founding truths and the dignity of every human person – are rooted in same timeless principles, enshrined in our Founding and the cause of our exceptionalism,” Ryan added. “The American family must remain at the core of our free society, and I will remain ever-vigilant in its defense.”
Conor Sweeney, a top Ryan spokesman, told LifeNews.com today that Ryan doesn’t agree with the “truce” on social issues Barbour and Daniels have advocated.
“Paul Ryan rejects the false choice that our natural rights to ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are a menu of options,” he said, adding that Ryan has been “calling upon his colleagues to defend the sanctity of life.”
He also pointed to comments Ryan made in a Weekly Standard interview rejecting the “truce” language and putting him outside the Daniels-Barbour circle.
“I don’t see it quite the same way [as Daniels],” Ryan said in June, “we don’t need to ask anybody to unilaterally disarm.”
“I’m as pro-life as a person gets,” Ryan continued. “You’re not going to have a truce. Judges are going to come up. Issues come up, they’re unavoidable, and I’m never going to not vote pro-life.”
Here’s his voting record on pro-life issues:
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record
Rated 100% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-life stance
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion
Bar funding for abortion under federal Obamacare plans
Congress shall protect life beginning with fertilization
Prohibit federal funding to groups like Planned Parenthood
Grant the pre-born equal protection under 14th Amendment
YES on barring transporting minors to get an abortion
YES on banning partial-birth abortions
YES on banning Family Planning funding in US aid abroad
YES on federal crime to harm fetus while committing other crimes
YES on funding for health providers who don’t provide abortion info
YES on banning partial-birth abortion except to save mother’s life
YES on making it a crime to harm a fetus during another crime
YES on restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions
NO on allowing human embryonic stem cell research
NO on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines
And he is also a strong defender of traditional marriage:
Rated 0% by the HRC, indicating an anti-gay-rights stance
YES on banning gay adoptions in DC.
YES on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage
YES on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman
YES on prohibiting job discrimination based on sexual orientation
NO on enforcing against anti-gay hate crimes
Tough on crime:
Rated 30% by CURE, indicating anti-rehabilitation crime votes
YES on more prosecution and sentencing for juvenile crime
NO on funding for alternative sentencing instead of more prisons.
NO on expanding services for offendors’ re-entry into society
Favors school choice:
Rated 8% by the NEA, indicating anti-public education votes
NO on environmental education grants for outdoor experiences
NO on $40B for green public schools
And an increased role for families and churches:
YES on responsible fatherhood via faith-based organizations
YES on treating religious organizations equally for tax breaks
NO on instituting National Service as a new social invention
So definitely not just a fiscal conservative. He’s conservative across the board. And STRONGLY so.
Female readers of the Wintery Knight blog may now swoon.
WINTERY KNIGHT 