top of page
Search

Debunking the Claim that Pro-Life Laws Increase Abortion by 40%

Writer: Stephani Evans
Stephani Evans
5 days ago
6 min read

For those who haven’t seen it, Luke Hanson (Doctrine and Governance) and Jim Bennett (former political candidate and author of A CES Letter Reply) recently appeared on the YouTube channel Ether’s Elephant (run by Rylan Fowers) to have a discussion about abortion, specifically whether the Church’s policy on abortion should change the way Church members vote about abortion. 



There were plenty of interesting points brought up during the discussion, but the one that really stood out to me was Jim Bennett’s emphatic claim that pro-life laws actually increase abortion by 40%! 


According to Bennett, Latter-day Saints who want to reduce abortion should not vote for pro-life laws (i.e. laws that make abortion illegal), but rather, focus their efforts on providing free support and contraception for women. 


Now, whether or not Latter-day Saints should be advocating for government provided contraception and maternal support is a subject we can delve into another day. Today, I want to address Bennett’s claim about pro-life laws, and whether or not they are actually counterproductive.


Wait… Has the Church Addressed This?

First things first, we need to acknowledge something: in order to make the claim that Latter-day Saints should NOT vote for pro-life laws, Jim Bennet has to set aside Church statements and the statements of apostles about the legality of abortion (something which both Luke and Rylan noted during the video).


Here are a few examples:


“For the wrath of God is provoked by nations which legalize … abortion.” - Russell M. Nelson (1987)
“Many laws permit or even promote abortion, but to us this is a great evil.” - Dallin H. Oaks (2012)
“The Church’s position on [abortion] remains unchanged. As states work to enact laws related to abortion, Church members may appropriately choose to participate in efforts to protect life and to preserve religious liberty.” - Church Newsroom 

(Emphasis added for all three quotes)



Digging Into the Claim

But setting aside that, let’s give Jim Bennett the benefit of the doubt here. 


On the surface, this claim seems to have some merit. After all, abortion rates have verifiably increased since Roe v. Wade was overturned, despite the fact that abortion is now almost entirely illegal in 13 states. In addition, many of us have also all been conditioned by retellings of laws like Prohibition* to think that legislating morality just doesn’t work. 


*Contrary to popular claims, Prohibition actually did decrease the amount of alcohol consumption in the country. Did it increase the amount of illegal drinking? Well obviously yes, because all drinking was illegal, but the overall amount went down. It did work as it was intended, it just didn’t have enough public support, especially once the country moved into the Great Depression.


So… what research was Bennett actually citing when he made his claim?


Bennett largely focused on the Mexico City policy, which was begun by the Reagan administration in 1984. This policy stated that any non governmental organization (NGO) receiving U.S. global family planning assistance could not promote abortion in any way. This policy has been alternately rescinded and then reinstated since 1984 along Democratic and Republican party lines, depending on who is in office. Following his discussion of the Mexico City policy, Bennett then went on to point out that since Roe v. Wade was overturned, abortion numbers have increased (which is sadly true, according to best available data). 


After doing a little digging, Jim Bennett appears to be getting his 40% number by quoting a study done by Brooks et al. (2019) titled “USA Aid Policy and Induced Abortion in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Analysis of the Mexico City Policy.”


This study found that “curbing US assistance to family planning organisations, especially those that consider abortion as a method of family planning, increases abortion prevalence in sub-Saharan African countries most affected by the policy.” Their actual results showed that abortion rose by 4.8 per 10,000 women (which equates to a 40% increase) and “modern contraception” use decreased (by 13.5%). 


This isn’t the only study that’s been done on the Mexico City Policy. Here’s a link that lists several more. Overall, they appear to find that contraception use, or access to contraception, decreased when the policy was in effect, in some countries, and that abortion rates subsequently increased, in some countries.


So… what does this mean?


You may notice that there are a few things that these studies do NOT do: First of all, these studies DID NOT examine the abortion rate in the United States, or what impact abortion policies in the United States have on the amount of abortions in the United States.


Secondly, this policy did not affect the laws of the countries studied, but rather, whether organizations which offered abortion could receive funding from the United States.


In other words, comparing the mixed effects of the Mexico City policy and United States abortion laws is like comparing the weight of apples to the color of oranges.



So How About Some More Relevant Studies?

What about studies that have actually looked at the effects of abortion law on abortion rates in the United States?  


Well, here’s an excellent compilation of studies by Secular Pro-Life ranging all the way from 1980 to 2026, all of which “examine abortion laws in relation to birth rates, fertility rates, unintended births, and similar metrics.” 


What do these studies show?


When abortion is more restricted, abortion numbers go down! 


Whether it is distance to abortion clinics (due to abortion being illegal or less accessible in certain states), or lack of funding for abortion, these studies found that abortion rates went down and birth went up when barriers to abortion were in place. Here are a few examples:


Authors Concluded: “Restrictive state-level abortion policies are associated with not having an abortion at all and lack of coverage for abortion is associated with prolonged abortion seeking. Medicaid coverage of abortion appears critical to ensuring that all people who want abortions can obtain them.”

TLDR: State laws restricting abortion correlate with fewer abortions.


Authors Concluded: “There were an estimated 1.01 additional births above expectation per 1000 reproductive-aged females in states following the adoption of abortion bans (60.55 observed vs 59.54 expected; 1.70% increase), equivalent to 22 180 excess births.”

TLDR: After abortion is banned, more babies are born. 


Authors Concluded: “Findings contribute to a more complete understanding of the full range of barriers to abortion care that people experience in the United States, and how these barriers intersect to not just delay, but to prevent people from obtaining abortion.”

TLDR: Barriers to abortion can prevent people from having abortions.


What About Roe v. Wade?

So, what about Bennett’s second claim, about the overturning of Roe v. Wade? 


What is really important to understand about the rise in abortions since Roe v. Wade is the effect of a conflicting variable: mail-order abortions. I wrote extensively about the abortion pill in my last article here, but medication abortions appear to be the main variable driving up abortion rates, especially because abortion pills are currently able to be distributed without an in-person visit and essentially no medical oversight. It is also possible that the national abortion rate is inflated, given that mail-order abortions are only tracked by the amount of pills ordered, not the amount of pills actually used. (In fairness, abortion numbers could also be undercounted, because many abortion pills are ordered from overseas, and we simply don’t know how many are being ordered or actually taking place). 


Not only this, there is evidence that abortion rates have decreased in states with strict pro-life laws, such as Texas.


Author Concluded: “States that implemented total abortion bans by the start of 2023 experience a 1.6% increase in the overall birth rate in 2023 and a 4.3% and 2.1% increase in monthly postpartum women and formula-fed infant WIC participation respectively.”

TLDR: States had higher birth rates after implementing total abortion bans.


Authors Concluded: “The results indicate that states with abortion bans

experienced an average increase in births of 2.3 percent relative to states where abortion

was not restricted.”

TLDR: States with more pro-life laws had higher birth rates than states without pro-life laws.


In other words, abortion rates have gone down in pro-life states, but have increased nationwide due to mail-order abortions. This corroborates what most studies find, which is that abortion rates increase with increased abortion access. When abortion is less accessible, it goes down. Pro-life laws which could effectively restrict access to the abortion pill would prevent a large amount of abortions.



Overall

Jim Bennett’s claim appears to have been based on research which does not address or apply to abortion law at all, or abortion rates in the United States. The effects of the Mexico City policy cannot be extrapolated to apply to what pro-life laws do in America, especially because large amounts of studies show that restricting abortion legally reduces its overall rates. In other words, pro-life laws effectively reduce abortion numbers. 


So, if you ever hear a statistic about abortion that sounds a little funny, like that pro-life policies increase abortions, dig a little deeper! While you’re at it, consider registering for our upcoming conference on October 10th in Provo, Utah. Virtual ticket options available!


Did you like this article? Share it on social media and leave a comment below!



Comments

bottom of page