-Caveat Lector- The Philadelphia Inquirer, August 11, 1999 Study links crime rate's fall, legalized abortion By Marie McCullough INQUIRER STAFF WRITER Two scholars trying to understand the nation's dramatic drop in crime over the past decade have come up with an explosive explanation: Legalized abortion wiped out many potential criminals. In a 45-page research paper that has been raising eyebrows at academic workshops, the authors say that, after abortion was legalized in 1973, it was disproportionately used by women at high risk of having children who grow up to become criminals. "Teenagers, unmarried women and African Americans are all substantially more likely to seek abortions," authors Steven D. Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, and John J. Donohue 3d, a Stanford University professor of law and economics, write. "Children born to these mothers tend to be at higher risk for committing crime 17 years or so down the road, so abortion may reduce subsequent criminality through this selection effect." The authors drew on a wealth of reproductive health studies done by other scholars here and in Europe showing that young, disadvantaged and minority women have higher abortion rates, and that unwanted children are more likely to have troubled lives and become involved in crime. But the researchers - who plan to submit their paper to an academic journal after making revisions - have broken new ground in linking abortion rates to crime rates. They found that the timing of the "crime bust" of the 1990s corresponds to the time when children, had they been born instead of aborted in the 1970s, would have been reaching their peak ages of criminal activity: 18 through 24. The authors also found that the crime bust began earlier in states that legalized abortion before the landmark 1973 Supreme Court ruling. Moreover, the bust was bigger in states with higher abortion rates: about 1 percent less crime for every 10 percent increase in abortion. "If these estimates are correct, legalized abortion can explain about half of the recent fall in crime," the authors write. "We predict crime rates will continue to fall slowly for an additional 15-20 years as the full effects of legalized abortion are gradually felt." This prediction seems to defy something they found in birth-rate data: Women who had abortions went on to have higher fertility rates, so, in effect, their childbearing was postponed. Yet this did not cause the crime rate to rebound. "This suggests it is not simply who has the abortion that leads to the lower crime rate . . . but the ability of the woman to choose better timing for child-rearing that lowers criminality," the authors speculate. In interviews, Levitt and Donohue said that the aim of their study was strictly to help explain one of the most puzzling trends of this decade: the abrupt drop in crime, particularly murder, which is down 30 percent since 1991. In their opinion, popular theories - better policing, more imprisonment, the war on drugs, a strong economy - simply cannot explain the magnitude, persistence and widespread nature of the drop. Legalizing abortion, in contrast, was a national watershed. In the decade after the Supreme Court decision, one-third of all pregnancies were ended in abortion. (Now, about one-quarter are terminated.) The researchers say they are not advocating abortion, or pushing any social, political or racial agenda. "My academic career has been devoted to understanding crime and the criminal justice system," Levitt said. "But we're not naive. We're aware people might take our results out of context." Donohue said he has already gotten nasty calls and e-mail. "Some people like to inflame the public, and say this is some racist agenda," he said. "That's unfortunate." Reaction from colleagues has been respectful. Many see the analysis as plausible and original, but oversimplified and overstated. Lawrence W. Sherman, a University of Pennsylvania professor of human relations and criminology who has not read the analysis, said it does not take into account the fact that many urban neighborhoods are predominantly made up of recent immigrants. "So the huge drops in crime . . . in some major cities may involve a population that consists largely of immigrants, and that wasn't subject to the impact" of legalized abortion, he said. Sherman also said that the abortion-reduces-crime theory is similar to an earlier "biological theory of crime." That one linked tuberculosis, which killed more poor children than affluent ones, to low crime rates before World War II, when the disease became curable. He called both theories too simple. Daniel Nagin, a public-policy professor at Carnegie Mellon University who also has not yet read the paper, said: "I have great respect for John and Steve, for their intellect and integrity." But Nagin's own research suggests that women who get pregnant as teens have continuing parenting problems even as they mature, a finding that conflicts with the new paper. University of Chicago Law School professor Douglas Baird, who has read the paper, praised the researchers, but said that their provocative premise could easily be misinterpreted. "They're two very serious, able economists who are worth taking seriously," Baird said. "They don't have ideological axes to grind. But you can interpret this paper as advocating eugenics. That's not what it's about." Indeed, some are appalled by the idea of linking a social good - reducing crime - to something as morally complicated as abortion. "While we have not yet read the study, the National Right to Life Committee strongly rejects the notion that the appropriate way to solve any of society's problems is to kill unborn children," the committee said in a statement. New Jersey Assemblywoman Mary Previte, the longtime administrator of the Camden County Youth Center, had not read the paper, either, but said: "Horrors! Some wacko's going to preach abortion as the newest way to cut crime. No way! Get children out of poverty. Give them hope. Give them a key to the future. That's what reduces crime." The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League's legal director, Elizabeth Cavendish, said only: "Giving women control over the timing of childbearing can only be positive for women, children and families." � 1999 Philadelphia Newspapers Inc. ================================= Robert F. Tatman [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Remove "nospam" from the address to reply. NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml POSTING THIS MESSAGE TO THE INTERNET DOES NOT IMPLY PERMISSION TO SEND UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL E-MAIL (SPAM) TO THIS OR ANY OTHER INTERNET ADDRESS. RECEIPT OF SPAM WILL RESULT IN IMMEDIATE NOTIFICATION OF THE SENDER'S ISP. DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soapboxing! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
