Posted on July 15, 2010


California, as recounted in several posts below, is the enormous capital of abortion in the United States.  For over three decades, California has performed three times as many abortions as the next most populous state, and twice as many abortions as performed in the number-two abortion abattoir, New York State.

California does not bother to collect its total abortion statistics.  California is one of only three states that do not cooperate with the federal Centers for Disease Control & Prevention in supplying abortion statistics – or assisting the CDC in its data collection – for the CDC’s Annual United States Abortion Surveillance Report.   The CDC gave up in 1997 trying to estimate California’s abortion numbers (at last count, according to the CDC, California accounted for 23% of all abortions in America).   Abortion in California, as a medical procedure – a life involving medical procedure – may be the only medical-related data not fully recorded by a State Department of Health in the United States.  California does record (and make available for public review) those abortions that are funded under the several programs covered by MediCal, the state’s medicaid funding source.

The state of California (its taxpaying citizens) publicly funds close on 100,000 abortions a year at an annual cost of well over $50,000,000.  California’s total abortions are on the order of 250,000 to 260,000 a year, one fifth of all abortions in America.  The Guttmacher Institute estimates that California’s Rate of abortions (abortions per 1,000 women aged 15-44) has declined between 1992 and 2005 from 42 to 27 (but still forty percent above the national average rate, which is 19.4).  That precipitous decline, claimed by AGI for California, is unlikely.  As analyzed by cccf earlier (see two posts below) the AGI survey numbers of California’s abortions’ totals for 1996 through 2005 are not credible (probably due to under-or-non-responsiveness by some of the state’s and/or counties’ private abortion physicians).

If California’s late-term abortion of infants aged 21 weeks-and-over gestation comprise 3% of the state’s estimated total abortions (percentages in states such as New York and New Jersey equal 2.4% and 2.7%) the number of potentially-viable and certainly-viable babies terminated by late- term D&E Dismemberment Abortion in California are over 7,500 annually.  One will never know the exact number of California’s viable infants killed by this method until the state – in conscience or by public demand – decides to collect and publish ALL its abortion data on an annual basis, in specific detail, including by-weeks’ gestation periods (per CDC’s methodology).

California’s astounding abortion industry is encouraged, supported and abetted by its Democrat legislators, both within the state, and by those U.S. representatives and senators elected by California’s liberal citizens and who are sent to Washington, D.C.  The true test for gauging their intensity to commitment to abortion, at any time during pregnancy – even after viability – by those Democrat legislators from California is revealed by the record of their votes during the 1990s and ultimately in 2003 in regard to the D&X Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act.   In the House, in 2003, 137 Democrat representatives voted against the  D&X Ban, 30 of them from California (13 of them Catholics including 9 Catholic women with Pelosi visibly up front).  In the Senate, 30 Democrats voted against the Ban, including the two Californian women Boxer and Feinstein.

D&X Partial Birth Abortion (prior to the federal Ban) was performed on the same-aged infants as D&E Dismemberment Late-Term Abortion was and is – i.e. on potentially-viable and certainly-viable babies.  Those legislators knew, in 2003, they were voting for the perpetuation of a D&X method that terminated 3,000 viable infants a year.  What they may not have known was that D&E Dismemberment Abortion terminated some 20,000 viable infants a year in the United States, six to seven times as many as the D&X method:  But if they had known about late-term D&E, and if D&E had been included in the same Bill as D&X, they would have voted to perpetuate that method as well.  Such is the level of their intense commitment to abortion, even late-term abortion of viable infants, in America.  California’s Democrat legislators  lead the America’s Democrat pack vis-a-vis late-term abortion preservation and – sorrowfully – California’s Democrat Catholics are right up there at the head of the pack.

Consider now the small state of Connecticut, a bellwether in the Northeast for abortion advocacy and liberalization.

The Guttmacher Institute (the pro-choice-advocacy think tank) wrote this of Connecticut in a January 2003 Report entitled “Abortion Incidence & Services in the U.S. in 2000”:  “The biggest absolute increases (in the number of abortion providers in the United States) between 1996 and 2000 were in Connecticut, Pennsylvania and Hawaii.”  Connecticut’s abortion providers (i.e. comprising specialized abortion clinics, hospitals, physicians’ offices and certain other nonspecialized clinics) increased from 40 in 1996 to 50 in 2000.  This number increased again, by 2005, to 52 abortion providers (see AGI Report for 2005 published in March 2008).

Connecticut’s total abortion numbers increased from 15,240 to 16,780 between 2000 and 2005, according to AGI’s survey numbers, with the state’s abortion rate increasing from 21.1 to 23.6 (some 22% higher than the national average abortion rate of 19.4 abortions per 1000 women between the ages of 15 and 44).  Astonishingly, the number reported by the Connecticut Department of Health to the federal CDC – for the Annual CDC Abortion Surveillance Report for 2005 – was far lower at 12,110 total abortions: 4,760 LESS ABORTIONS (28% less) than shown in the Alan Guttmacher Institute’s survey report for 2005.  How is that possible?  What is Connecticut hiding?  How is it hiding what it is hiding?

In the “more-or-less official” CDC Report breakdown for Connecticut, by weeks’ gestation, the 2005 figure for late-term abortions at 21-weeks-and above gestation is shown as just 32.  In an additional column labelled “Unknown” gestation, the figure for Connecticut is 188 – some of those 188 infants could also have been terminated at 21 weeks and later.  With such a huge discrepancy between the Connecticut figures submitted to the CDC, and the figures gleaned by the AGI surveyors from direct questionnaires and interviews (a difference of over 4,700 abortions), it is possible that the number of late-term D&E Dismemberment Abortions performed in Connecticut is substantially higher than admitted to by the state or by its physicians and clinics’ abortion providers.  The real number could be in the hundreds, or in the thousands:  Connecticut isn’t telling, and its citizens will never know.

Connecticut law ostensibly prohibits the abortion of infants after viability “unless necessary to preserve the woman’s life or health (CGS, 19a-602(b))”.  “Health” can mean anything, as everyone knows.  Connecticut does not have a law requiring physicians to perform “tests” to determine viability, such as Alabama’s and Missouri’s laws do.  (But how, in any event, might any physician do a “test”, at 23 or 24 weeks’ gestation, to see if a child in the woman’s uterus is viable or not?   That is a mystery – unless, of course, the test is to determine whether the child is dead, or dreadfully deformed, or terminally diseased.)  Surely a physician – whether in Connecticut or in any other state – should rely on the results of actual nation-wide medical studies carried out in both the United States and in the United Kingdom, of real viability statistics for extremely prematurely born infants, studies that have proven over one-third of extremely premature infants born at 23 weeks survive to one year of age and beyond, and 56% of all extremely preemie infants born at 24 weeks’ gestation survive to a year and beyond.  Even if the infant’s chance of surviving is just one in five – say at 22 weeks’ gestation – that in itself should be reason enough for an abortion physician to affirm potential “viability” in the womb at that stage – unless he or she has determined the child is already dead or irreparably impaired.  For Connecticut’s abortion providers, however, the question of proof of viability is moot.  Just declare – without corroboration by a second physician – that the woman’s “health” may be affected (e.g. future distress), and the late-term D&E abortion by dismemberment of a viable child is justified.

Connecticut is supremely liberal in its abortion laws.  The Guttmacher Institute writes in its “State Facts About Abortion in Connecticut”, the following:  “Connecticut does not have any of the major types of abortion restrictions, such as waiting periods, mandated parental involvement, or limitations on publicly funded abortions often found in other states.”  Guttmacher’s literature, covering the various U.S. states, has the exact same wording for California.  Connecticut, like California, does fund certain state medicaid-eligible and other special programs’ abortions (such as the Husky Plan, Part B as specifically endorsed and approved by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal).

In-depth analysis of Connecticut abortion history, Connecticut’s former and current politicians, its candidates for office in 2010, as well as further examination of the Guttmacher Institute’s modus operandi, will follow in the days ahead.  Connecticut’s congressmen and senators’ voting records on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is even worse – percentage wise – than California’s.  The outlook for this abortion prone, hapless, super-high-cost, secular Northeast state does not bode well.  Not for viable infants in the womb; not for parents; not for the disadvantaged; not for protectors nor teachers of innocent children.

Stay tuned.

Posted in: POLITICS