By Andrew Kenny Donlan, Ph.D.
Few national policy issues so polarized citizens as abortion.
Rates of unwanted pregnancy and abortion remain high relative to many other nations, yet problem-solving efforts in this area seem deeply entrenched in partisanship and inflexible rhetoric. The debate seems to be at a fixed impasse between those on the right seeking prohibitions and those on the left who want to preserve individual freedoms. Few policy avenues hold promise of being powerfully effective and widely popular, an unhappy state for both sides.
A complicating factor is that many people have been told falsely that the only way to evaluate abortion is in terms of what shall be legally punishable, that is, under what circumstances a doctor or woman undertaking the procedure will be imprisoned or otherwise sanctioned. Thus, camps are divided over whether to permit or restrict abortion. Dominant discussions focuses almost entirely on questions of punishment. While the issue of limits can’t be ignored - some line drawing is inevitable – this approach is coercive only, never asking whether abortion might be prevented through positive supports.
The punishment approach is no comprehensive strategy of abortion rate reduction. It conveniently ignores 30 years of productive research in sociology and child development, particularly with respect to the importance of the family in early life and its remarkable influence on countless later outcomes. Vast research famously indicates that early childhood is a critical period in human development.
Appreciating the effects of early family life does require some thought and reflection, but it comes with promise of real long-term payoff. Early childhood factors found to affect adulthood are far more than can be summarized here but include, among others, various aspects of parent-child interactions and socioeconomic status. These can in turn affect traits including but not limited to (a) academic success, (b) interpersonal bonding, (c) prosocial behavior and (d) economic status. Poverty, violence and related factors in youth are among the most important determinants of later life circumstances. Even from studies of neglected orphans we know that the seeds of social and economic instability in adulthood are often sewn in childhood.
This has very important implications for abortion.
Abortion is obviously affected by whether the woman is supported by a strong social network (e.g. the father and others) and affected by her relative economic condition. Since early childhood experiences affect whether a person later forms strong social bonds and is economically stable, those early experiences also affect the chances a woman will elect abortion. This model is deceptively simple with intricacies that need to be specified in a broad research agenda.
Early prevention can help form a comprehensive approach to reducing abortion rates. It differs from many policies that wait too long, that wait until after early childhood factors have already affected a person’s risk profile for later life unwanted pregnancy. Prevention has advantages over policies that fail to respond in the critical early period.
To understand prevention, it is useful to be aware of initiatives affecting early childhood experiences that have promise as effective, ones that have a track record of positively affecting later outcomes. Research on this is not hard to find. Analysts have identified programs that appear not only effective but that yield social benefits greater than program costs. Such programs are not commonly highlighted in national media, but they constitute a remarkable achievement of civilized society. Such initiatives can yield gains many times larger, by any reasonable standard, than the historic yield of the stock market. And when benefits exceed costs, everyone can come out ahead. Examples of initiatives identified as effective include domestic violence prevention, high quality early education, parenting classes, family support through home visitation, and WIC.
Early prevention, then, draws on three research areas. The first is the critical role of the early years of life. The second focuses on public policy initiatives that are effective. And the third area is the study of factors that are closely associated with the abortion decision.
The case for early prevention is very strong in that hundreds of studies form an interlocking web of support. But this research is found in different academic fields, making it less likely specialists in any one field will see the multifaceted connections. Support for new research is essential in order to connect the three areas analytically. That is the research program proposed and for which I seek support.
If there is a downside to prevention, it is a cultural one.
Prevention as a policy does not itself very directly voice moral censure of abortion, for it provides benefits widely through society, including to those that would otherwise be at greater risk of electing abortion (and to their support network). But voicing moral censure, though it has its place, has always been but one among many aims of public policy, and it has both strengths and limits. When moral censure is the only aim, to the exclusion of other compelling options, one merely cuts off the nose to spite the face. Public policy can affect our lives in quite diverse ways, not just through voicing moral censure.
The prevention idea draws on known research to a greater degree than many policy proposals in Washington.
Some famous political figures have proposed total prohibition of abortion without disclosing the details, without the burden of identifying what their proposal would mean. Are calls for total prohibition real plans - or merely vague expressions gestures that “something” must be done? Should (jail time) punishments for illegal abortion break up the woman’s family? Are the political figures advocating widespread police state actions (jails, prosecutors and courts), or merely offering vague posturing? When calls for total prohibition made before an election are generally forgotten after the election, was the idea merely a wedge issue – a disposable political tool to advance some other general platform? Does that other platform support health, dignity and life?
In contemplating the power of prevention, it is useful to consider patterns of violence more generally. The US has both among the highest rates of murder and among the largest prison populations worldwide. Such is the violence of modern society, and perhaps punishment is just not enough, and so with abortion. Early life matters. It is the seed of a person’s later life capabilities and circumstances. Squandering this insight and pushing easy answers instead is an insult to Americans. We need to dispense with the convenient myth that disregard for poverty, neglect and violence in a child’s early years is morally neutral with respect to future life conditions and one’s likelihood of seeking abortion.
I invite all to consider a multifaceted approach that includes prevention as a part of a serious effort to reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Such an avenue holds the promise of helping make society more humane and less violent in many ways, not just those of primary interest here. I invite interested citizens and researchers to join me in advancing this vision through research and related educational outreach.
Andrew Donlan, Ph.D.
Washington, DC

