Nice article. Lack of good data is a problem.

Class action lawsuits by breast cancer victims, and their survivors, against NARAL, etc., might be useful. It could also focus on the problem of data collection, etc.

Missing is any punishment for the irresponsible guys who have sex and get the women pregnant. I suggest a 21 year 1% income tax surcharge on the men, as a required payment for a woman to abort a fetus from that man -- with DNA tests to prove paternity.
The men have to be more interested in this issue; increasing their responsibility should have been the feminist goal (rather than equalizing irresponsibility).

Lust lovers might not like this. But "executing" a human fetus is not good.

The "Right to Privacy" that isn't a direct quote in the US Constitution is derived from the 9th Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." It's an odd but important part of the Constitution. It says we can do some things even if it isn't spelled out that we can do them. Some States insisted that such a thing be in the Bill of Rights since there's no way every right could be enumerated.

So some things are considered "liberty rights" and these can only be infringed upon if the government is specifically allowed to do so. That's one interpretation. Another interpretation is that this Amendment is worthless and the government can do anything under the auspices of "general welfare", Interstate Commerce control, or some other reason ("Because they can" is a strangely effective governmental mechanism). I strongly prefer the first interpretation, but it's not easy to be a 9th Amendment absolutist in a world that says "What's the 9th Amendment?"

Lawrence v. Texas, the case that made sodomy legal nationwide, cites "liberty rights". An earlier case, I think in the late 1960s in Massachusetts, cited the 9th when it said that married couples would no longer have a State prevent them from getting birth control. I haven't any idea if abortion would apply as a liberty right, but it's certainly something that can apply.

The 9th Amendment says some rights are retained by the people. It's necessarily vague as to what those rights are. And most Americans haven't even heard of it. Does it make abortion a right for an individual? I have to hold my nose and say (in a nasally voice), "Probably." But I know that's not the consensus, as if such a thing is possible.

I read a paper recently, (for which I unfortunately do not have a link) which made the case that thirty two years of unrestricted, indeed encouraged abortion has begun to change the political demographics of the US.

The mechanism is simple, and so far as I can see, unarguable: Most children grow up to have the general political orientation of their parents. If pro-abortion parents abort their offspring more frequently than anti-abortion parents, the population will tend over time to become more anti-abortion.

This may be part of the reason that more older woment and fewer younger women are aborting. It also may have been a factor in the election of George Bush. I believe the abortion toll is estimated at about 35 million. That is over ten percent of the population. About half of those would now be old enough to vote. Unless you can somehow argue that anti-abortion parents are secretly aborting as many of their progeny as the pro-abortion parents, this seems to be simply natural selection.

A surprising thing about this study is the hostile reaction shown by people- both pro and anti-abortion-to whom I have mentioned it. I suppose the anti-abortion people have trouble accepting the fact that abortionists may ultimately accomplish more to stop abortion than they have accomplished so far. The hostility of the pro abortion people is something I just expect in any event.

An advantage of rule by democracy - even if only by a vote of our elected MPs - over rule by judicial putsch is that it is easier for the losers to accept: they've had to listen to the views of their opponents, they've had a chance to put theirs, they've lost by a mechanism that's widely accepted. When you lose by judicial putsch, it is too easy for madmen to persuade themselves that they have a right to murder abortionists. I think v highly of the US constitution, but do wonder why Supreme Court judges so obviously don't.

And the disadvantage of democracy is it really amounts to little more than mob rule, with the majority able to opress the minority. The point of judicial decisions is to prevent rights from being taken away simply because a majority feels they should.

I'm from Massachusetts and never realized the value of this till recently when the Mass. Supreme court ruled that gay marriage is allowed the same protection as hetrosexual marriage. Of course if your against gay marriage you cry foul and that the court is out of line... but the whole point is to have a body of judges, not answerable to the voters so that the constitutional rights can be upheld... even for an unpopular minority.

Dear dearieme,

That's because the US does not live in a democracy, where the majority rules. It lives in a constitutional democracy where the rights of the majority is limited by the constitution. And thank God for that, otherwise multiculturism would become compulsory.

Sadly, the judges don't know this, so they think they can be the legislature.

But clarity evolves...

ADE

All pregnant teenagers from such families who aborted their first pregnancy developed breast cancer by the age of 45 (p. 67 and 75).

This makes me wonder two things:

First, what was the sample size?

Second, what's the incidence of cancer in that age-range for women in that set who became pregnant as teens and did not have abortions?

If the sample is large and the incidence rates are significantly different, that's very interesting indeed. If the sample is small or the incidence rates are very similar, it is far less so.

Sigivald:

As I did point out, the sample-size in the case-study you mention wasn't given. However, the book itself is well-packed with references for those who want to follow matters up. In the particular case of girls with a breast cancer family history, the reference is:

J.R. Daling &al, "Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortions," J Natl Cancer Inst 86 (1994): 1584-92