Obama Administration to Stop Reporting Abortion Statistics?

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on reddit
Share on delicious
Share on digg
Share on stumbleupon
Share on whatsapp
Share on email
Share on print

Beginning in 1969 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention collected data on legal abortions carried out in the United States through its Abortion Surveillance System. The report based on this data ordinarily appeared as an article in CDC’s professional journal, The Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report (MMWR) the week after Thanksgiving. The report lagged the data by three years, i.e., the 2006 data were printed in 2009.

While not comprehensive, the CDC report provided the best single estimate of abortions in the US, as well as providing detailed breakdowns: the age of the baby at the time of abortion, age of the mother, number of abortions the mother had previous to the current one, etc. People on both sides of the abortion debate have cited these statistics to make their points.

Last year, contrary to the long-established practice, November came and went with no report posted on the CDC’s website. Over the following weeks, multiple visits to the site proved fruitless. The possibility the report was not merely delayed, but had in fact been axed from higher up, had to be considered.

Last week, RedState began investigating by calling those in DC who might have some answers. After several attempts, we finally received confirmation from Rhonda Smith at the CDC’s press office in Atlanta that the report has been buried indefinitely; the CDC “will not have stats available at any time in the near future” and there “are no plans for them to come out any time soon.”

More. This is outrageous, and raises the question of why the Obama Administration wouldn’t want the report published.

More to explorer

Bishops Will Proclaim How, In Good Conscience, You Can Still Vote For A Democrat

For decades the U.S. catholic bishops have figured out ways to deliver, or to try to deliver, the catholic vote to their

Wrecking Experts

During my 37 years at the bar I have seen quite a few cases lost due to a poor choice in experts. 

Terror at Pensacola

  As usual, the best coverage comes from the Brit papers:   The Air Force trainee who killed three and injured eight


  1. This is indeed pretty appalling.

    And here some people have promised they were going to prove to me that Obama was better at reducing abortions than Bush. So much for that, I guess…

  2. Now the CDC and the Obama administration are attempting to cover their posteriors by stating that the report has merely been “delayed” and has been in editing since November. Mediamatters claim that they obtained, read “obtained” as spoonfed to them by the Obama administration, a CDC e-mail from November discussing a publication date. The whole thing stinks to high heaven and if Redstate had not raised a furor the publication date would likely have been the 28th of Never.

  3. Hmm…. I wonder why the report is not being published. Could it be due to Obama’s record of being one of a few senators to vote against outlawing partial birth abortions? Consistently pro-choice Obama’s motives seem quite clear to me.

  4. Maybe this is what our president meant when he said he wanted abortions RARE….. he wanted the numbers to be unfindable

  5. Eric Blair, aka George Orwell, described in “1984” a memory hole into which the bureacrat was supposed to put items to be remembered. The memory hole fed into an incinerator.
    Welcome to their world.

  6. You clearly don’t understand. Obama is the most pro-life president ever. He has passed pro-life health care reform and pro-life education subsidies. He has passed pro-life bank reform and pro-life infrastructure repairs.

    The only reason that there is no report is that pro-life Obama has clearly eliminated abortion through all this pro-life investment.

  7. This is yet another example of the transparency we were promised by Mr. Obama. For those who still expect anything other than lies from this guy, you will continue to be amazed at the audacity he displays in view of the truth. The only truth is what Obama wants the people to see, and as he wants them to see it.

  8. Ah, this would explain why my comment containing a link debunking this was discarded. Not that it would convince anyone anyway.

    Have a wonderful week.

  9. Hello!?!? Where were you guys 10 years ago? After the drastic declines under Clinton the abortion rates stagnated under Bush’s social policies and started to rise well before he left office.

    Did no one pay attention to the fact that the 2004 Pro-Life ads were using Clinton ear data? Why? because Mr Pro-Life Bush’s policies were killing the same or more babies. In the article above it states that 2006 didn’t come out until 2009… which was definitely planned so that the Republican’s wouldn’t have to answer the questions as to why the rates were doing up the younger groups and why they could say they were Pro-Life all they want but if their policies of greed kill more innocent lives… well they just won’t report that.

    While I’m 100% Pro-Life it definitely seems worse to me to lie to people that you are trying to do something when you really just want votes as opposed to being delusional that life doesn’t being at Conception.

    Until the greater Pro-Life movement realizes that we don’t really have any friends in Washington and start demanding both Social policies that are in line with the Church to go along with our Life Issues… nothing is going to change.

  10. Hello!?!? Where were you guys 10 years ago? After the drastic declines under Clinton the abortion rates stagnated under Bush’s social policies and started to rise well before he left office.

    Ummm. Huh? The abortion rate and ratio continued to decline under Bush, and indeed to my knowledge were lower every single year under Bush than they ever were under Clinton.


    You may be 100% pro-life, but you need to work on being 100% clear on the facts.

Comments are closed.