But, of course, they comfort us by saying that the widespread use of contraceptives will reduce the need for abortions.
Clearly, improving use among couples who rely on contraception and persuading nonusers to adopt a method would reduce the number of unintended pregnancies—and therefore abortions.
Not so, in reality however. Out of the other side of their mouth, they attribute 1.3 million abortions per year to failed contraception. "About half of unintended pregnancies occur among couples who were using a contraceptive method in the month the woman became pregnant; either the method did not work properly or the couple did not use it consistently or correctly," states a recent report.
Despite these contradictory statements, the report also states that their goal is to reduce so-called "unintended" pregnancy by up to 40% by 2010, and their means for achieving this goal is contraception. But, if contraception is so reliable for reducing the need for abortion, why is its everyday use so, well, unreliable?
They also state a goal for "ensuring universal access to contraceptives" in addition to their "educational" programs on its use. To me, this is sounding more and more like the coercive one-child per couple policies of China.
Let's not forget that the last time contraception was so vigorously promoted in America, it was a failed pursuit. In fact, the widespread use of contraception is the reason why abortion became legal in the first place, and the US Supreme Court reiterated this point in the Casey decision.
[F]or two decades of economic and social developments, people have organized intimate relationships and made choices that define their views of themselves and their places in society, in reliance on the availability of abortion in the event that contraception should fail. (505 U.S. 833, 857)
I have an idea for reducing "unintended" pregnancies: treat children as welcomed blessings as the result as sexual union and reserve sexual union to marriage. Only then will children be wanted and welcomed.