I”ll try to respond to this over more thoroughly over the weekend when I have time. Not sure how much I want to get into the whole pill/abortifacient issue though; I”m a great deal less convinced of this than they are but even conceding the effect exists (and the issue is very complex!) the primary documented effect of the pill is a contraceptive (both as ovulation inhibitor and in changing the cervical mucous) not an abortifacient. There”s 1) no reason to believe that the "abortifacient effect" is the primary result of taking the pill as they imply 2) nor that the "abortifacient effect" is actually growing over time 3) nor that unreported chemical abortions are replacing reported surgical abortions.

The birth rate after all is generally stable while abortions have been declining. This has been the case since the early 70”s. In fact from 1997-2007 birth rates experienced a small but significant uptick and 2007 had in nominal terms the greatest number of live births ever in the US–though at a rate well below the height of the baby-boom in 1958-59. This is simply not consistent with relatively greater use of the birth control and correspondingly higher rates of" chemical abortions"–unless people are simply having alot more sex–and there is no reason to think that is the case.

In fact, a preliminary look at the data suggests that more unmarried women are willing to give birth than before when similar situations a decade or two ago would have been more likely to result in abortion. This may well be why the rates of illegitimacy have risen as abortion rates have fallen. If this is correct, their criticism of illegitimacy should be alot more nuanced than it is. At any rate, my basic point is that the actual data simply does not fit into a simple narrative as these authors imply.

So I remain unconvinced by many of the basic contentions presented here.

While Pete is correct in saying the number of surgical abortions has decreased in recent years, that is not the entire story. The Alan Gutmacher Institute division of Planned Parenthood reports that from the 1990 high of 1,608,600, surgical abortions decreased to 1,312,990 in 2000, and approximately 1,206,200 today. These figures do not take into account the incalculable number of chemical abortions caused by Oral Contraceptives, and abortifacient drugs such as RU 486 and Plan B.

Neither AGI or CDC provide statistical estimates on the abortifacient nature of the Pill.

A recognized study estimated that “OCs have a breakthrough ovulation rate of between 2 to 10%. Using these estimates”, Dr. Bogomir M. Kohar, calculated “a 2% ovulation rate yields 200,000 ovulatory cycles. It is also known that in any given cycle, there is a 25% overall conception rate for ‘normally fertile couples of average sexual activity.’ Multiplying the two yields a result of 50,000 chemical abortions per cycle or 600,000 per annum. A 10% rate yields 1,000,000 ovulatory cycles multiplied by the 25% conception rate for a resulting 250,000 chemical abortions per cycle or 3,000,000 per annum. Thus we have a range of 600,000 to 3 million chemical abortions per annum in the USA based on 1996 usage of OCs.” According to the Centers for Disease Control, approximately 31 % of women between the ages of 15 and 44 (11.7 million) use OCs as their primary method of birth control. Using these figures, it means that a woman using OCs has a between .05 and 25.6% chance of chemically aborting at least one child per year. Although this might seem to be a small percentage risk, over time the likelihood is great. Moreover, there really is no such thing as a ‘negligible’ risk of aborting a baby. In this case, any risk is too great.

Neither does Planned Parenthood admit to or consider the number of birth defects caused by Oral Contraceptives. In the United States about 3% of babies or one of every 33 is born with a birth defect. Little research has been done to evaluate the birth control pill’s potential for causing birth defects. Most birth defects happen in the first 3 months of pregnancy, when the organs of the baby are forming; the most important stage of development. Hormonal changes during pregnancy can also have very serious negative effects on a developing baby. Few manufacturers of birth control pills are willing to publicly recognize these dangers, and warn their consumers.

Peel J and Potts M, Textbook and contraceptive technology, pp 98-90, (1964), Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Kippley, JF. The Pill and Early Abortion. ALL About Issues. 1989; 4:22-23/
Kumar et al.; “Infant Homicides through Contraceptives”; International Pharmacists for Life; 5th edition, 2003, pp. 42-43.
CDC National Center for Health Statistics, Press Release, Teens Delaying Sexual Activity; Using Contraception More Effectively, December 10, 2004.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/bd/faq1.htm#chanceofBD

Belief in God and His plan for marriage is the cement that keeps couples together in times of marital difficulties. The marital act is sacred, simply because God is involved. Denying God”s will by artificially contracepting (temporarily) or sterilization (permanently) destroys the unitive aspect of the act. True intimacy is sacrificed for self gratification and sexual intercourse becomes no different than two barnyard animals copulating. The marital act should be self-giving, not selfish. By pushing God aside, couples go it alone, and that is why so many marriages are doomed to failure.

I think that our concern should be more on understanding the underlying causes of divorce, and attempting to address them while building up strong marriages, rather than arguing about the exact percentage of divorces this year. It makes little difference whether we have a 48% or a 40% divorce rate today; we definitely have a real problem with the wide acceptance and prevalence of divorce. Contraception is a real part of the problem.

Total numbers of marriages per year are down, despite a total population increase. Between 2004 and 2005 the nation grew by 2.9 million. Only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents – the lowest in the Western world.

If you observe all of the positive marriage and family indicators, such as rates of
 first-time marrieds,
 children born to married mothers,
 children living with two parents,
 family size and overall fertility rate,
all the trend lines have been moving in a negative direction over the past three decades.

If you examine all of the negative family indicators, such as the trend towards
 never-married,
 divorce,
 cohabitation,
 children born to and living with unmarried mothers,
all the trend lines are moving in an upward direction. This means that the bad news has been mounting slowly but steadily, and we are not alarmed.

With regard to the Pill as an abortifacient, I recommend Victor Claveau’s BIRTH CONTROL AND ABORTIFACIENTS (available at http://www.evangelizationstation.com <http://www.evangelizationstation.com&gt; ) for extensive information and documentation. It is clear that the Pill, Depo-Provera, Norplant, and the IUD all have a predominantly “anti-implantation function.” They all prevent a fertilized ovum form being implanted in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself. There is no way to trace all of these early-on chemical abortions, but they have the potential of exceeding the number of surgical abortions.

The Vatican document, Statement on the So-called “Morning-after Pill,” stated: “It is clear, therefore, that the proven ‘anti-implantation’ action of the morning after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.”

First the 50% figure for divorces which you state several times is generally regarded to be false, as a simple google search on the relevant literature would have indicated. Sociologists realize that tracking divorce is a very difficult thing since it”s hard to do longitudinal studies on life long commitments–yet few defend the 50% mantra. In fact, it is true today that a woman married in 1992 is more likely to be married a generation later than a woman married in 1972. So in fact divorce seems to becoming less common–seemingly for many reasons (economic, cultural, age at marriage etc). Actually the divorce rate is much higher for low income people and for people previously married which tends to skew the stats.

Also while it is true that abortions did increase after the pill became common, this increase stopped around 1980 and has been falling since. Abortion rates are now around their 1974 levels–too high to be sure but not exactly the picture you are painting. Also the abortion rate today is more like 1 in 5 which includes chemical abortions if by that one means morning after pills etc. You could find that by looking at Guttmacher or CDC stats online.

So I think you can make a case that birth control pills have had an impact on marriage rates and abortions rates but I think your argument is more than a little overstated. It might be good then if you are going to make statistical claims that you cite the relevant data.

I write as one sympathetic to your cause but as one who senses the need for natural law arguments to be grounded in empirical facts.