“A national study commissioned by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good found that abortion rates are significantly lower in states that provide robust economic assistance to low-income families, quality child care for working mothers and in places where employment figures are strong… Abortion is a social justice issue that must be understood within the context of strategies to combat poverty and to create a truly pro-family economy that respects life.”
Ms. Kelley refers to a “study” that is really hard not to describe it as bogus. The study, never peer-reviewed, was carried out by Joseph Wright, a young Assistant Professor to the Department of Political Science at Penn State University and Visiting Fellow at Notre Dame.
Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good never responded, not even mentioned the devastating criticism of Dr. Michael J. New Ph.D., Assistant Professor at the University of Alabama and an expert on abortion and legislation.
Responding to Wright’s “study” in his article Does Increased Welfare Spending or Pro-Life Legislation Reduce Abortion? Dr. New writes that “unfortunately, their study did not acknowledge any of the previous academic or policy research on pro-life legislation. As such, they did not engage or find fault with previous research indicating that pro-life laws were effective. Overall, it seems that Catholics in Alliance was primarily interested in making the case that welfare spending was the best way to reduce abortion. They even refused to properly acknowledge and publicize their own findings which indicated that certain types of pro-life laws were effective.”
Dr. New continues: “My analysis of their data indicates that welfare spending only has a marginal impact on the incidence of abortion. Additionally I find that both public funding restrictions and informed-consent laws are effective at reducing state abortion rates. This adds to the body of research which finds that pro-life laws are effective.”
Dr. New later smashed the timid response of Mr. Wright in an even more revealing article (“Reducing Abortions: Responding to Faulty Methodology and Presentation”) on how the “study” completely broke every possible principle of sound statistics. Since then, neither Mr. Wright nor Ms. Kelley have responded to the overwhelming data. They have just repeated their self-serving results as "a fact."
After praising Obama and the Democratic platform for including “specific language that references the essential role social and economic supports play in reducing abortion,” Kelley concludes with a false opposition, without, of course a zest of drama:
“Research tells us what works. Voters are looking for a new path forward. The question is, do we have the political and moral will to make it happen? People of faith have a particular responsibility to both collaborate with and challenge the new administration. It’s long past time for all of us to move from rhetoric and division to results.”
But at this point, we already know that there is no research telling us what works –at least not what Ms. Kelley thinks works- and that the droves of voters committed to “a new path forward” are a mirage.
What we do know is that too many pro-Obama Catholics like Ms. Kelley have been trying to make the point that pro-lifers should forget about changing abortion laws and focus only on working together for social justice, as if both options were mutually exclusive and could not be pursued at the same time.
That is not what the U.S. bishops think. At their November meeting, they clearly rejected the notion that the pro-life movement has failed by assailing Roe v. Wade. “A good state protects the lives of all. Legal protection for those members of the human family waiting to be born in this country was removed when the Supreme Court decided Roe vs. Wade in 1973. This was bad law.”
That, for our bishops, is the only common ground.
Alejandro Bermudez