Consider this: Pregnancy rates – The Rochelle News-Leader

Reed Harris

First, let’s look at some statistics. Pregnancy rates in the United States declined between 2010 and 2019. They continue to decline in the current decade. This has been a trend since at least 1991 according to the CDC. Below are the statistics provided by the CDC for the decade mentioned. They come from the site: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2023/20230412.htm.

Report findings: The estimated total number of pregnancies decreased by 9%, from 6,069,000 pregnancies in 2010 to 5,507,000 in 2019.

The overall pregnancy rate (per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44) was 97.3 in 2010 and 85.6 in 2019, a decrease of 12%.

Unintended pregnancy rates decreased by 15%, from 42.1 (per 1,000 women aged 15 to 44) in 2010 to 35.7 in 2019.

From 2010 to 2019, the percentage of pregnancies ending in live birth and those ending in loss each increased by 3%, while pregnancies ending in abortion decreased by 17%.

Overall pregnancy rates and unintended pregnancy rates among adolescents aged 15 to 19 decreased by more than half (52%) between 2010 and 2019.

Rates of unintended pregnancy decreased from 2010 to 2019 by 23% among Hispanic women, 17% among non-Hispanic women of races other than black or white, 12% among non-Hispanic black women, and 11% among non-Hispanic white women. .

I found this information while trying to determine why so many politicians and Supreme Court justices were against Roe v. Wade and why the decision was overturned. Also, why did it take so many conservative judges to overturn this law? There have been efforts to eliminate Roe v. Wade for many years, but they were only overturned when the scales shifted dramatically in this court.

I realize that most religious people have opposed this decision for many years and I understand why. It is obvious, however, that the citizens who were and are for Roe v. Wade far outnumber those who are not. Those in favor, I believe, have many reasons. Many states that have decided to change their own laws as a result of this decision have changed women’s basic rights. Some states have taken away women’s rights to do anything that would prevent them from having a baby, from having a healthy baby, and even the right to live in a way that would prevent them from having a healthy baby. Can the latter be considered a question of an eye for an eye, that is to say the mother’s life for that of the baby, even if the baby is born in poor health?

So I looked at these statistics and wondered if there was a reason for this negativity against Roe v. Wade that could be found there. When you look at them as a whole, maybe that’s exactly it. Of course, this is just my opinion and you, the reader, may have another, but it is worth thinking about. Could the birth rate, which continues to decline, be a cause of this decision? Perhaps some fear that a decline in the birth rate will be bad for the country? Would the decline compensate for the ethnic diversity in this country? Maybe it’s better to have a rising birth rate.

Yet, if this is the answer to all unrest, would we not then consider laws opposed to but actually similar to ancient Chinese laws? They passed laws to prevent women from having too many children and, furthermore, from having too many children of a particular sex. Here, don’t we make laws to force women to have babies? I really don’t believe it, but why then do they make these laws? Couldn’t this be because they want to control women or make sure they stay home and out of the workforce? And this can’t be a religious issue because religion should stay out of politics, right?

If this isn’t a question of control or concern over declining birth rates, or even a question of religious belief, then what is it? This is a question on which each of us must make a decision. Not making a decision is making one that leaves us in the status quo. In my opinion, at the moment, things are not going well.

So, if we decide to leave everything as it is, what should we do and what else should we do? We need to involve ourselves and the government in caring for babies after they are born. Make sure they have food, a good home, health and education. Of course, this is something we should have done already since so many children today are starving or living on the streets. We try to feed them at school, but even these laws are sometimes challenged and presented as gifts. Of course, all of this is to ensure that children are fed.

We also try to help families by giving them extra money to buy food. Again, some consider this a gift. This may be true since some people try to take advantage of our programs, but should we eliminate these programs for this reason? Shouldn’t we try to fix these programs instead? Shouldn’t we try to help the children on whom we impose these conditions? Maybe even provide institutional help to babies who need it? Would we help families who lost their mothers because of these imposed conditions?

It seems to me that by imposing laws that infringe on our rights, the government is getting bigger, not smaller. Are we not looking for a government that helps its citizens in situations that affect us all? Are we not against a government that deprives us of our individual freedoms? People want to call the first scenario socialist activity, but is it really? Can we each build our own road, single-handedly eliminate polluting businesses, provide our own fire department, our own police force? Can we build our own safe cars, invest our money and keep it personally safe, fly in our own safe airspace? These are tasks of federal, state and local governments that we have asked them to fulfill. It’s not for me or for you but for us.

In the second scenario, don’t we view these types of restrictions as dictatorial, autocratic, or even tyrannical? Do we want to give in to any of them? Would we be naive not to think that the next step in this process is the elimination of all contraceptive methods?

In my next article, we will discuss a man’s position regarding these ever-changing rules and laws.