John Tierney covers a recent debate in Manhattan between Malcolm Gladwell, authour of “The Tipping Point,” and economist Steven D. Levitt, co-authour of “Freakonomics” with journalist Stephen J. Dubner.
Gladwell’s book seeks to define “a new way of understanding” why dramatic and unexpected social changes occur. On the subject of why NYC’s crime rate dropped dramatically in the mid-90s Gladwell had agreed with Tierney (who in 1995 called it The Squeegee Watershed), whereby tougher anti-crime measures were the tipping point. By debate’s end they’d both been swayed by the numbers Levitt presented in defence of his research that found NYC’s legalisation of abortion in 1970 the “single most important cause,” more than hiring cops, a declining crack epidemic, or harsher prison sentencing.
Felix Salmon, in this mixed review of “Freakonomics,” excerpts from the introduction to its abortion chapter:
Conservatives were enraged that abortion could be construed as a crime-fighting tool. Liberals were aghast that poor and black women were singled out. Economists grumbled that Levitt’s methodology was not sound. As the media gorged on the abortion-crime story, Levitt came under direct assault. He was called an ideologue (by conservatives and liberals alike), a eugenicist, a racist, and downright evil. In reality, he seems to be very much none of those.
In Salmon’s comments, Steve Sailer linked to an e-mail debate he had with Levitt on Slate in 1999 when these accusations were flying in response to Levitt’s and John Donohue’s paper, “The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime.” Sailer also updated his own site restating his analysis of homicide rates whilst continuing to ignore points Levitt considered to be flaws in his argument. Sailer will be posting additional data and graphs here.
One graph shows that illegitimate births rose steadily untill the mid-90s, and Sailer blames legalising abortion, as it gave men an excuse to escape the “civilising” clutches of marriage and making “honest” women of their sex partners. He ignores data from the National Center for Health Statistics showing teen pregnancies peaked in 1990 and these facts:
The pregnancy rate for teenagers fell 27 percent overall during 1990-2000, to 84.5 pregnancies per 1,000 women aged 15-19 years. This rate was the lowest ever reported since 1976. The overall decline is reflected in significant reductions in birth and abortion rates.
Pregnancy rates fell more for 15-17-year-old teenagers (33 percent) than for 18-19 year olds (20 percent).
Rates declined about one-third each for white and black non-Hispanic teenagers and by 15 percent for Hispanic teenagers.
During the 1990-2000 decade, pregnancy rates declined about 8 percent for married women and 12 percent for unmarried women. The birth rate for married women declined about 6 percent, while the abortion rate fell one-fourth. The birth rate for unmarried women changed little, but the abortion rate also declined about one-fourth.
And this:
“Among the factors believed to be driving this downturn in teen pregnancies are increases in condom use, the adoption of the effective injectable and implant contraceptives, and the leveling off of teen sexual activity.”
Or that “American women are waiting to begin families”:
“Several factors may account for the delay in childbearing, most importantly educational opportunities and career choices for women. From 1970 to 2000 the number of women completing college has nearly doubled and the number in the labor force has gone up by almost 40 percent. Changes in contraception use, economic cycles, social support, and marriage patterns should also be considered.”
Sailer concludes:
“Well, a lot of people find the abortion-cuts-crime theory very comforting, even if they won’t say it in public. It now appears well on its way to becoming the new conventional wisdom. But the issue is hardly whether it’s comforting or not, but whether it’s true.”
“Cruelle Tendresse“? Then why the banging of pots and pans when Levitt introduced his paper in ’99? It’s high comedy that, “Conservatives were enraged that abortion could be construed as a crime-fighting tool,” but have no problem with a system rigged to cull a certain class of parents from the gene pool.
More than four-fifths of drug law violation arrests are for possession.
Estimated totals of top 7 arrest offenses, United States, 2003
Total arrests* 13,639,500
Drug abuse violations 1,678,200
Driving under the influence 1,448,100
Simple assaults 1,246,700
Larceny/theft 1,145,100
Disorderly conduct 639,400
Liquor laws 612,100
Drunkenness 548,600
*Arrest totals are based on all reporting agencies and estimates for unreported areas.
Source: FBI, Uniform Crime Reports, Crime in the United States, annually.
Education Cuts May Strip Troubled-Youth Programs
by Audie Cornish
Weekend Edition – Sunday, April 10, 2005 · The nation’s schools have depended on federal money to establish programs on drug abuse and anger management for troubled students. But the funding they count on may be in trouble as the Bush administration proposes to make huge funding cuts in the program.
“One graph shows that illegitimate births rose steadily untill the mid-90s, and Sailer blames legalising abortion, as it gave men an excuse to escape the “civilising” clutches of marriage and making “honest” women of their sex partners. He ignores data from the National Center for Health Statistics showing teen pregnancies peaked in 1990″
And after 1990 is when the abortion rate started fallling … along with the teen pregnancy rate. Funny how that works…
The biggest single fact about legalized abortion that we can know for sure is that it caused a vast number of unwanted pregnancies. Levitt himself says the pregnancy rate went up almost 30% after legalizing abortion while the birth rate went down only 6%.
Mr. Sailer — I have yet to form a final opinion concerning your debate with Levitt. Perhaps if you’d addressed the arguments he made in his last entry such as analysing state-to-state data as opposed to national numbers the subject might have reached a rational conclusion.
I don’t challenge that the pregnancy rate initially rose after the legalisation of abortion. I would expect the same short-burst in incidents of personal drug use in the aftermath of its decriminalisation as I would fully expect not only a return to prior levells but an eventual decrease in same, but most importantly, a decrease not only in use but violent and other criminal-related activities. My problem is with your continued assertion that this rise in what you call unwanted pregnancies is due a yet-to-be-proven fact that legal abortion caused an uptick in unscrupulous men preying on vulnerable women. Current data indicates to me that it’s more probable a greater number of women simply started saying yes and have not only reverted to pre-legalisation behaviour but are making much more informed and carefull choices. After all, abortion is still legal, yet even amoungst unmarried women the pregnancy and abortion rates have declined. What is the tipping point for this? Some moral epiphany on the part of men? I think research shows not. Rather, these gains are clearly attributable to the AIDS awareness campaigns and the recognition by pro-choice advocates that safe sex is a useless tool in the hands of those lacking self-esteem.
On the other hand, this Republican gov’t intends to keep the illusion alive they are pro-life crusaders by inflating the status of the predatory, immoral males you say are emboldened by legal abortion to one so threatening it demands new legislation.
Yet, according to this new law, it’s not the predator, or in their words, the “older male” who talks a girl first into sex then forces her to have an abortion, that is necessarily punished. It creates a dragnet to sweep up persons the victim turns to for help. Not only does this reward alleged predators by increasing the likelihood they will become parents, it fosters parents dependent upon the gov’t to create a line of communication with their children. Funny that, according to the right, family values are their speciality, yet they can’t seem to maintain them without a gov’t enforcer.
Shotgun weddings are a prescription for an uptick in violence, divorce, and likely an increase in unwanted pregnancies. The moral majority has yet to explain why if their way of doing things is so correct, that its stuggling, arthritic infant must be nursed at the gov’t tit. When George Bush wanted to take money away from welfare mothers to promote marriage, he wasn’t interested in leading them to the altar, but concerned about the divorce epidemic in the bible belt.