Claim that contraception caused NYC’s big abortion drop defies reality
by Kelli
The City’s claim that increased use of contraception is the cause of the substantial decline is quite perplexing, though. While the CDC through its comprehensive National Survey of Family Growth has found steadily declining rates of teenage sexual activity, they have not found substantial increases in contraceptive use. And the City has been pushing Plan B for several years, which studies show does not decrease the pregnancy rate. If the City has data proving their claim, they should make it available to the public.
The abortion ratio citywide fell to just over 37% in 2012 – a record low since 1970 when abortion was legalized in New York. The Bronx continues to lead the city with an abortion ratio of 47%. The largest drop in the abortion ratio was in Brooklyn, which saw the ratio drop from 37 percent to 34%.
~ Greg Pfundstein of the Chiaroscuro Foundation, responding to the latest reports that New York City’s abortion rate has “plummeted” to levels just slightly above those in 1973, as quoted by Alveda King at Newsmax.com, February 19
The abortion percentages for NYC are still currently at “61% among black women, 35% among Hispanics and about 14% among whites and Asians.”
More here.
[Map via NYC41percent.com]

61% for black women? 14% for whites and asians. How is that not considered ethnic cleansing?
Finally, some good abortion related news out of New York. It’s still a pretty high rate, though.
How is that not considered ethnic cleansing? – because no one is forcibly dragging every black woman off to have an abortion.
It’s an indicator of socio-economic pressures.
Silly Reality. No pro-lifer cares whether black women choose to have abortions. It’s not as if those women are people with the capacity to make rational decisions about their own best interests.
“It’s an indicator of socio-economic pressures.”
Silly “reality” have sex and then abort proponent: the social – economic pressures are color-blind. This is more a black-leadership/PP being joined at the lips kind of a thing. Easier to blame some non-descript factors for you as always.
Chris: 61% for black women? 14% for whites and asians. How is that not considered ethnic cleansing?
Because when a black woman (like all women) chooses to have an abortion, it’s not with the aim being to “wipe out her ethnicity,” it’s just that she doesn’t want to be pregnant.
Reality: It’s an indicator of socio-economic pressures.
This is correct. What is silly is to pretend otherwise. Why do black women have more unwanted pregnancies? Why do many, many women of any ethnicity want to have an abortion?
No Doug. Black women are surrounded from very young age by leaders who tell them that its okay to abort, even the “pastors” in their communities do so without the blink of an eye, thus it becomes more than just “socio-economic pressures.” This mentality has been ingrained into the minds of black women. No pro-social models to aide black women to overcome these “socio-economic pressures” but only one answer -abortion. So this dilemma is about an ethnic cleansing to a degree and inability to value the black race in America. Black leadership undermines itself by showing the rest of America that black life means nothing.
More black pro-life women are the key to turning the legions of democrat-voting black women around. To be the pro-social driving force in instilling the culture of life in the black-American community.
“It’s an indicator of socio-economic pressures.”
True enough. I think it’s ridiculous to blame it on the NAACP. What I don’t get is that out of the many, many women and girls I know who felt like they had to abort because of finances, how you choicers see that as an actual free choice.
Lisa, killing your own child is NEVER a rational decision. And it’s never in your best interest.
Yes Jack, it is about NAACP but moreso about the local black leaders. “reverend” Jesse Sr nowhere to be found at the news conference of the black coalition to address Tonya Reaves’ death:
https://www.jillstanek.com/2014/02/pro-life-blog-buzz-2-18-14/
and the NAACP response to her death from abortion and “black-cleansing:”
http://www.priestsforlife.org/africanamerican/blog/index.php/naacp-forsakes-tonya-reaves-and-natural-marriage-favors-reproductive-genocide
I’ve honestly never met a black person who bases their world view and decisions on the dear Revs or the NAACP, do you listen to everything idk Pat Robertson or some other white dude says? Even if the NAACP were super pro-life and you’d still have a disproportionate amount of black women getting abortions. Because they are disproportionately in poverty, their baby’s fathers are disproportionately imprisoned, etc. Fixing the disparity requires a lot more than crying about what the NAACP does or doesn’t do.
“Fixing the disparity requires a lot more than crying about what the NAACP does or doesn’t do. ”
I agree one hundred percent. So what is the NAACP doing about it in its leadership role? They just met recently and celebrated 50 years of racial tension post Dr. King assassination. Various speakers yelled at the podium in Washington, ate some grand dinner afterwards and than they all went home. Peace bro and don’t bother me no more, heh…
The NAACP does some good, I don’t agree with all their politics but they work on several different aspects of inequity towards black people that still plague the US (whether y’all will admit it or not). And considering they’re working against a massive bias in the system I think they’ve done a decent job, along with other organizations that promote equality for minorities.
Btw, you’re acting like black people are some monolith, and that they all have the same politics, all of them look up to NAACP and Jesse Jackson. It’s more than a little condescending.
Easier to blame some non-descript factors for you as always. – as opposed to your biased and propaganda driven theme?
I think every time I hear about the high promiscuity or divorce rates I’m going to blame Focus on the Family or some other whitebread Christian thing, lol.
NAACP represents ALL Black people. Am I missing something here… Not all look up to this organization but ALL Black-Americans BENEFIT from their work! Kind of hypocritical to benefit from affirmative action and not look up to the NAACP, don’t you think ? :(
Okay that has got to be the most illogical thing you’ve ever said. It’s like saying I should be a communist because I wouldn’t have been born if Castro’s regime didn’t chase my mother’s family out of Cuba. Silliness. People aren’t required to adhere to politics just because it may have benefited them at some point. Otherwise you should start thanking the people who put Jim Crow laws into place way back when, because they certainly helped to benefit white people for decades to come.
Easier to blame some non-descript factors for you as always. – as opposed to your biased and propaganda driven theme?
The have sex and then abort proponent calling out a pro-lifer on bias, haha… :)
You’re not even being vaguely bigoted here, Thomas, it’s just plain old racist to act like black people in general are somehow required to worship the NAACP. You know some blacks don’t even support Affirmative Action right? In it’s current form, at least.
You paint your own portrait “thomas real men don’t bath” :-)
My oh my, you don’t have to support something to be a recipient of it as a matter of the nomenclature. I don’t support white privilege and many whites don’t but we are recipients of its nationally accepted wisdom that translates itself into social policy. Your communist analogy does not work because your mother did not support or use the system – it only applies to those at large who willingly take advantage of a benefit they openly “not support.”
I don’t support white privilege and many whites don’t but we are recipients of its nationally accepted wisdom that translates itself into social policy. – “nationally accepted wisdom”? Are you kidding? Are you really saying “because it benefits me I’ll happily accept it even though I know it’s wrong”?
Thomas for someone who claims to “not be privileged” at all and to dislike discrimination, you sure like upholding white privilege.
Black people are not a monolith, as I said, and again it’s racist to try and tell people that “Hey this organization has these specific policies that may have helped you at one point, you need to go support them and all their policies because of your skin color. What? You have different ideas on politics? What a hypocrite you are!”
I’ve had enough discussions with you about race to know what kind of person you are regarding race and I don’t really want to go that route anymore, it raises my blood pressure rather ridiculously.
Reality he means he disagrees with the concept. He doesn’t think there’s such a thing as white privilege and he resents it when people point out things he doesn’t usually have to deal with as a white guy. Him and I have had this conversation before. Of course the concept of white privilege is black people’s fault too, somehow, I’m sure.
I’m just responding to what he said Jack – a ‘nationally accepted wisdom (of white privilege)’. He said he was a recipient of its social policy.
He means those mountains of social policies that discriminate against white people, due to people accepting that white privilege is a thing.
I wish I were joking, but that’s really what he thinks.
Why am I not surprised.
Is he feeling all disenfranchised and stuff?
I’m not trying to bash on him, just explaining that you got the wrong idea from his comment. But yeah, him and I discussed the subject at length once. But yeah, he doesn’t like that there are minority specific scholarships, and thinks that black people are just getting things handed to them on a platter or something, and that whites have no advantages comparably. Idk.
The notion of white privilege raises the question of the difference between rights and privileges. Lewis Gordon rejects the idea of white privilege, arguing that the privileges from which whites as a group are supposed to benefit are, in fact, social goods to which all people aspire. As such, he writes, they are not privileges:
“A privilege is something that not everyone needs, but a right is the opposite. Given this distinction, an insidious dimension of the white-privilege argument emerges. It requires condemning whites for possessing, in the concrete, features of contemporary life that should be available to all, and if this is correct, how can whites be expected to give up such things? Yes, there is the case of the reality of whites being the majority population in all the sites of actual privilege from prestigious universities to golf clubs and boards of directors for most high-powered corporations. But even among whites as a group, how many whites have those opportunities?”
Viewing whites as universally privileged constructs “a reality that has nothing to do with [the] lived experience” of the majority of whites, who themselves do not have access to elite institutions. Their “daily, means-to-means subsistence” is a right, of which it makes no sense to feel guilty.Naomi Zack similarly criticizes the term white privilege as a misunderstanding of the difference between privileges and rights. Discrimination against nonwhites does not create a privilege in the normal sense of the term, a “specifically granted absolute advantage,” a “prerogative or exception granted to an individual or special group.”In the United States, Zack writes, discussion of “white privilege” distracts from the discussion of social exclusion of nonwhites, which is the origin of racial disparities.
Check out more on “white privilege” at Wikipedia. Perhaps prior to calling me bigoted (Jack seems to have affinity for this term every time a white person disagrees with his views on race) or making fun of my claims of being disfranchised as a white person (“reality” seems not to understand the negative effects of “white privilege” nonsense nationally) you may also want to consider that whites are a global minority, that social policy in the US in fact elevates non-whites over whites for many considerations, and how this “theory” in general causes more a rift than bringing us closer as citizens of this great nation.
I don’t call people bigoted or racist for disagreeing with the concept of white privilege or policies like Affirmative Action, where did I say that? I challenge you to copy and paste where I’ve said that’s bigoted. I think it’s completely wrong, but “wrong” does not necessarily equal “bigoted”.
What I said was bigoted and racist was generalizing an entire race of people (black people, at least those in America) as if they should have to believe certain things or agree with certain generalizations because of their skin color. Which is like the definition of racist/bigoted.
“”In the United States, Zack writes, discussion of “white privilege” distracts from the discussion of social exclusion of nonwhites, which is the origin of racial disparities.”
I don’t get her criticism because the social (and economic, and otherwise) exclusion of non-whites IS what is going on with white privilege.
“What I said was bigoted and racist was generalizing an entire race of people (black people, at least those in America) as if they should have to believe certain things or agree with certain generalizations because of their skin color. Which is like the definition of racist/bigoted.”
Yes Jack and what is even more bigoted and racist is generalizing an entire race of people (white people) as the recipients of “white privilege” simply in order to shift blame and responsibility. I predict that America will have racial problems going well into the 22nd century due to this wrong focus.
Her criticism is valid. It simply means that the route of scapegoating white people does not allow us to examine the true causes of the “exclusion” of nonwhites such as education, poverty and so on. Anyway – her point seems to be moot in 2013/2014 due to the extensive minority- geared policy in those areas.