From: BOB 

"JLS"  wrote in
news:1174493520.083932.162590{at}o5g2000hsb.googlegroups.com:

> On Mar 21, 11:01 am, "JohnN"  wrote:
>> On Mar 21, 12:16 am, "J Young"
 wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > I've always felt that the struggle was one worth even one baby's
>> > life, but 20% reduction in all abortions?! Saints be praised!
>>
>> >http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/03/researcher_says_prolife_effort.php
>>
>> > A social scientist at the University of Alabama says pro-life laws
>> > at the state level are effectively reducing the number of abortions
>> > nationwide among both teens and adults. But his research into the
>> > effectiveness of such legislation, he contends, has been virtually
>> > ignored by the mainstream media.
>> > University of Alabama professor Michael New says the 20 percent
>> > decline in abortions across the U.S. since 1990 is largely the
>> > result of progress the pro-life movement has made in enacting
>> > pro-life legislation at the state level. Speaking recently at the
>> > Family Research Council in Washington, DC, Dr. New discussed his
>> > research into the impact that state-level pro-life legislation and
>> > advertising have had on abortion rates.
>>
>> > New says he hopes his research will encourage pro-lifers to tout
>> > their achievements.
>>
>> > "Superficially a lot of people don't think the pro-life movement
>> > has really been very effective because 34 years later we still have
>> > not overturned Roe v. Wade," he points out, referring to the 1973
>> > landmark decision that legalized abortion on demand in America.
>> > "But we have made a lot of very good incremental
gains." And that,
>> > he adds, is something that pro-lifers "should be very proud of and
>> > . should highlight and should trumpet."
>>
>> > Dr. New says although pro-life parental consent laws often yield
>> > success, most researchers would agree that restrictions on public
>> > funding are the most effective means of reducing abortion rates.
>> > And one of the ways to see that such restrictions are enacted is by
>> > electing pro-life advocates to office, he says.
>>
>> > "I also think [pro-lifers] should make the case that voting for a
>> > pro-life candidate does result in some solid protections for the
>> > unborn," New offers. "It's not wasting your vote;
good things will
>> > come out of that vote and out of electing that candidate."
>>
>> > Still, he says, his findings linking state-level pro-life
>> > legislation and advertising with reduced abortion rates are
>> > conveniently dismissed by the New York Times and the Washington
>> > Post, noting the latter avoided referencing his research in a 2005
>> > story on declining abortion rates.
>>
>> > "A reporter talked with me for about 20 minutes, but my
comments --
>> > and the comments of every other pro-lifer -- were removed from the
>> > article," he says, offering his opinion that they were
"probably
>> > spiked by a senior person" at the Post.
>>
>> > New says he finds it interesting that abortion advocates "never
>> > actually come out and say legislation doesn't work" in reducing
>> > abortions. Instead, he continues, "they put the emphasis elsewhere
>> > -- on contraception, on other factors -- but they never actually
>> > pull the trigger and say . these laws don't work."
>>
>> > Evidently that is something in which the researcher takes pride.
>> > "In some respects," says New, "I'm kind of
flattered by the fact
>> > that they don't feel confident in saying that anymore."
>>
>> > ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure
>> > Usenet News==----http://www.newsfeeds.comThe#1 Newsgroup Service in
>> > the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server
>> > Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
>>
>> Perhaps Dr New will publish his research in a quality social science
>> journal.  That will generate more buzz than lecturing to the Family
>> Research Council and whining that newspapers don't take him
>> seriously.
>>
>> JohnN- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> Although anyone who uses "pro-life" to discribe the anti-abortion
> movement is so hopelessly biased that their study is suspect. To be
> respected, a study needs to be unbiased.
>
Good point.



> ------------------------------------------------
> http://www.cafepress.com/bush_doggers?pid=2794571
>

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag