An e-mail from a reader of RRW:
I've enjoyed, call me sad, running the figures on some right wing claims. The "pro life" lobby are a good candidate. Now, don't get me wrong, I think abortion is regrettable, and that advances in medical technology may even have an impact on the point at which it should no longer be available... however...
1) Between 1973 and 2005 (the years I had figures for), the number of abortions on average decrease during the years of Democratic presidencies, and increase during the years of Republican presidencies. Which is interesting. It may be a bit much to suggest that these figures tell us that support for sex education works, and support primarily for abstinence programmes doesn't... but it is a temptation.
2) If you are "pro life" but against a public health option (there are a lot of elected representative, if not as many real people, who support this position), you should consider that the US has an infant mortality rate of 6.3 per 1000 live births (an unfortunate figure of 26,072 roughly per year). Compare to two western countries with public health care, the UK rate is 4.93/1000 (would reduce US infant mortality figures by approx. 5670 pa), Sweden's rate is 2.75 (would reduce US figures by approx. 14,691).
If you're "pro life", shouldn't you care up to and beyond the moment of birth, at least up to the first few weeks?! I understand if you get a bit bored after that.
And last point, I promise... US spends approx.16% of GDP on healthcare, UK 8.5%, Sweden 9.25%.
