The past five years have seen a welcome increase in the number of books on the history of the pro-life movement. Still, the history of the pro-life movement is not complete. After decades of politicization, the pro-life movement is often portrayed as monolithic and uncooperative.
Since Texas defunded Planned Parenthood in 2011 there has been an endless parade of studies arguing that the Lone Star State is facing a public-health crisis. A more nuanced look at the numbers tells a different story.
A new study attempts to show that pro-life laws adversely affect public-health outcomes. But it suffers from two significant methodological problems.
Since Texas removed Planned Parenthood's state funding in 2011, the mainstream media have been on a constant search for evidence of a resulting public-health crisis.
Unsurprisingly, the Times article does a very poor job explaining why social conservatives are seeking to undo the HHS mandate.
In the 1990s and early 2000s, the pro-life position made some impressive gains in the court of public opinion, but over the last eight years, there has been a veritable public-opinion stalemate on this issue.
Stories linking the Planned Parenthood cuts to increases in the maternal mortality rate appeared in a number of mainstream media outlets, including ABC News and The Huffington Post. However, a serious look at the data tells a different story.
Teen contraception programs are counterproductive. A new study shows that cutting them actually reduces pregnancies and abortions among teens.
Last month, Washington Post fact-checker Michelle Ye He Lee conducted an analysis of the link between abortion and breast cancer. To the Post's credit, Lee's analysis is fairer than most media coverage of this topic.
Most pro-life laws are based on sound science. Pro-abortion groups and much of the media want you to think otherwise.
