Abortion Regs Don't Work, Say Cal's Plummeting Rates

California Abortions Plummet, Without Regulations: (2019 Update) Pro-lifers want to be lied to so they can continue with their comfort-laiden, failed partisan approach toward child killing. California's 16% drop in the abortion rate from 2014 to 2017, and the 60% drop in their annual clinic killings since the 1990s, exposes the lie in the pro-life industry's misuse of statistics. This article explains that abortion rates there and nationally have been dropping even as we lose the war to an immoral culture. For like Colorado, California has enacted no NRTL-approved and-then-you-can-kill-the-baby abortion regulations. Yet California, like Colorado, has seen the same decrease in clinic abortions, while the actual killing remains higher. Here's why.

Heritage Foundation Regulation Analysis Flawed: A popular report advocates increased use of abortion regulations claiming that such laws reduce abortion. Please consider this American RTL analysis of those claims.

False Claims for Abortion Regulations

*Surgical* Abortions Down
Pro-Life Regulations Wrongly Credited

For example:

Colorado enacted no abortion regulations during the years of a much-quoted Heritage Foundation report, yet saw one of the largest drops in reported abortions according to the Colorado Department of Health, from 12,679 in 1990 to 4,215 in 2000. This two-thirds drop in abortions reported by the state is greater than the average drop nationwide in abortion among teenagers of 50% that Dr. New concludes occurred in significant part due to child-killing regulations. How can this be? What's happening with the numbers?

National Right To Life, leading the abortion-regulation movement, promotes the erroneous findings of Michael J. New, Ph.D., who's report was published by the Heritage Foundation in 2007. Titled Analyzing the effect of state legislation on the incidence of abortion among minors, Dr. New claims a positive pro-life result from laws that regulate the killing of unborn children. However, based on the following analysis, abortion regulations may even increase the total number of children killed by abortion. Additionally, there are other factors that can account for some reductions in abortions including increased effectiveness of front-line intervention; the explosion and normalization of non-heterosexual behavior; and other factors causing a drop in overall pregnancy rates.

Heritage Foundation logoDisputing Pro-Life Claims for Regulations: Hundreds of pro-life laws, which are child-killing regulations, undermine personhood and the God-given right to life. As such, American RTL rejects them as immoral, and as counterproductive to the goal of eventual legal protection for the unborn. Further as attested by Professor Charles Rice of the Notre Dame Law School, stalwart legal authority of the pro-life movement, these laws can keep abortion legal for years or decades after Roe v. Wade is eventually merely overturned (hear him in the groundbreaking Focus on the Strategy II documentary). The pro-life movement has a vested interest in claiming these regulations save lives, thus we cannot document any attempts by National RTL to quantify the potential short and long-term negative consequences of these laws. Child-killing regulations prune the abortion weed, and strengthen its root. They make abortion look more reasonable and even humane to millions of women, and voters, and to countless politicians and judges, and even to those many Christians who are apathetic about abortion.

Granted, it would be difficult to quantify the number of children who will be killed after Roe is merely overturned, as pro-life laws become the nails that hold open the abortion clinic doors. Dr. Rice has stated:

"If the court says the states can regulate abortion, then to protect the right to life, you'd have to get rid of the 'pro-life' abortion laws."

For example:

Indiana Code Title 16, Section 34, Chapter 2. Requirements for Performance of Abortion... 1. (a) Abortion shall in all instances be a criminal act, except... if ...the woman submitting to the abortion has filed her consent…"

Dr. Michael New’s research ignores enormous potential negative effects of abortion regulations as shown above and is therefore fundamentally flawed and gives the pro-life industry a false sense of confidence. This undue confidence could further a pro-life strategy which may result in millions of children killed over years or decades by the permissive authority of the pro-life movement's own regulations.

Netflix & Planned Parenthood: Netflix put Blockbuster out of business. Blockbuster put thousands of mom and pop video stores out of business. This is only the streamlining of the film distribution channel and doesn't mean that people are watching fewer films. Planned Parenthood put many independent abortion mills out of business. (In the 1990s they were even sued FPA, a California abortion chain for unfair business practices. Incidentally, FPA's founder Edward Allred committed Gianna Jessen's "failed" abortion. Gianna's case became public when she testified against another abortionist, William Waddill, accused of strangling another baby who survived his abortion.) Chemical abortifacients, etc., including the Morning After Pill (see 2015 and 2019 reports) are reducing the number of surgical abortions and putting individual abortionists out of business. None of this means that fewer children are being killed by abortion.

2020 ARTL Anti-Abortion Candidate Survey

Dear Anti-Abortion Candidate, please send your answers to American RTL.


Dear Anti-Abortion Organization, you are invited to replace ARTL's name and websites with yours  to make this survey your own in the jurisdiction where you fight. A goal of ARTL's Candidate Survey is to eliminate the "wiggle room" common in typical candidate surveys. Countless pro-abortion politicians have been "rated" as pro-life by the pro-life industry. The following questions are designed to bring an end to the time when pro-lifers are commonly deceived (see examples) by our own organizations into voting for "pro-choice" politicians.

American Right To Life Candidate Survey

Dear Candidate,

Please consider your responses to these seven questions and then send your answers to us at the contact information below. We hope you will agree and answer "Yes" to each of the following fundamental moral questions. Thanks!


Candidate Name: ____________________________

Campaign Website: __________________________

Political Party: ______________________________

Office Sought: ______________________________

Election Year:  2020 

City/State/Etc: ____________________________.


1.  Will you advocate that the government recognize and uphold the God-given, inalienable Right to Life for unborn children from the beginning of their biological development?

2.  Do you agree that abortion is always wrong and should be prohibited, even when the baby's father is a criminal (that is, a rapist)? [If necessary, see online AmericanRTL.org/exceptions, and see the life-of-the mother note below.]

3.  A 2009 news headline reported: 'Personhood' movement explodes in 32 states. This modern movement started with Colorado's 2008 Amendment 48 and continued with its 2010 Amendment 62 and Mississippi's 2011 Amendment 26 and now for 2020 there are many personhood initiatives underway in various states. Will you courageously help lead the continued legal and political efforts to acknowledge that the word "person" includes every human being from beginning of the biological development of that human being?

4.  Will you oppose all abortion funding, including opposing funding for all chemical and surgical abortion regardless of the reproductive circumstances at the beginning of the child's life, and opposing funding for Planned Parenthood, the largest and richest organization in the abortion industry?

5.  It is not immoral to let an irreversibly dying person die. But will you oppose euthanasia in its various forms, including doctor-assisted suicide, and will you oppose acceptance of starvation by denial of food and water?

6.  While adult stem cell research is delivering real-world cures and boundless hope, it would be wrong to intentionally kill a single child even to save the whole world. Will you advocate for prohibition of, and oppose any funding or regulation or legislation for, practices that would intentionally destroy the tiniest living humans in embryonic stem cell research?

7.  Legislation that says, "Abortion shall be prohibited except..." and which requires a woman to meet some condition like waiting 24 hours or giving her written consent before having her child killed, in effect re-affirms the approval of the State for such abortions. Will you refuse to support any legislation, even so-called "pro-life regulations" that, after certain conditions are met permit abortion? [If necessary, see online AmericanRTL.org/regulations.] 

Thanks for taking our abolitionist survey designed to identify now the true leaders and heroes whom later history will recognize. See also this example of a completed survey. And candidates, please feel free to forward yours to us!

Leslie Hanks

American Right To Life

PO Box 1145
Wheat Ridge, CO 80034

office [at] AmericanRTL.org

Good vs. Bad Abortion Incrementalism

compromised incrementalism[For "pain capable", admitting privileges, waiting periods, heartbeat, informed consent, anesthesia, "protected class" bills, racially-motivated abortion bans, etc., see Compromised Incrementalism below.]


When personhood is finally enforced in law, of all the abortion laws then in effect, only the principled incrementalism bills will not be thereby abolished. All compromised incrementalism will be repealed when personhood is in effect. As American RTL wrote to Dr. James Dobson in our full-page open letter that appeared in newspapers around the country, "Incrementalism is fine; compromised incre­mentalism violates God's enduring command, Do not murder."

Examples of Principled Laws

  • Fetal Crimes Bills: only principled UVCA bills, but not those re-affirming abortion
  • Divesting Pension Funds: from companies that perform or support abortion
  • Parental Involvement: in medical care, but not mentioning nor re-affirming abortion
  • Born-Alive Infant Protection: though moral, legal protection for survivors backfires
  • Prohibit Embryonic Stem Cell Research: for both publicly and privately funded use
  • Prevent Insurance Coverage: prohibit any health insurance from covering abortion
  • Prevent Funding of Abortion: prohibit financing of abortion (without re-affirming abortion and its funding as is usually done)

American RTL's two must-read articles, Oppose Regulations Because... and Oppose Exceptions Because... explain the principles that must be adhered to in order to write principled incremental legislation. In summary, the God-given right to life must be advocated without exception. As an example of a horrendous violation of those principles, see ARTL's PBA Summary: Saved Not One, about the 15-year fundraiser that took in a quarter-of-a-billion dollars for the pro-life industry, yet as Dr. Dobson wrote, "Ending partial-birth abortion... does not save a single human life." Rather than being a victory, many pro-life leaders have since condemned the U.S. Supreme Court's Gonzales v. Carhart ruling upholding the PBA "Ban" for being a virtual late-term abortion manual.


If you prune the abortion weed, you strengthen its root.On the other hand, morally compromised legislation can be recognized in that they are child-killing regulations, present child-killing exceptions, and in that they therefore:
   - end with "and then you can kill the baby"
   - would keep abortion legal if Roe were ever merely overturned.
"And then you can kill the baby" bills include:

Examples of Unprincipled Laws

  • Informed Consent (here's an example)
  • Waiting Period (then kill her)
  • Partial-Birth Abortion "Ban" (for example PBA: Saved Not One)
  • Late-term Bans (including pain capable, heartbeat, and anesthesia bills)
  • Clinic Regulations (cleaner reputation for mills)
  • Admitting Privilege (safer abortions)
  • Fetal Pain Bills (here's an example)
  • Parental Notification or Consent (then kill him)
  • Etc.

Use the Personhood Test: One way to help people see whether or not an abortion law is principled or not is to apply the personhood test. When America finally recognizes the personhood and God-given right to life of every child, some pro-life laws will become redundant and unnecessary. However, other laws which include "pro-life" regulations and exceptions will be explicitly invalidated and annulled. The pro-life laws that will be merely rendered no longer necessary are the principled incrementalism. The abortion regulations that will be invalidated are the compromised laws. An example of this is found in Ohio's HB 125 "heartbeat bill" which bans the killing of an unborn child only after the detectability of a heartbeat). Morally compromised incremental efforts have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for their supporters but undermine the nation's recognition of the sanctity of human life. Principled pro-life laws build toward victory. So American Right To Life urges everyone to oppose compromised incrementalism and to support only principled laws, and especially personhood!

Compromised: Pain Capable, Heartbeat, Etc: Just like Roe v. Wade, pain capable bills, heartbeat bills, etc., regulate the age at which a child can be killed, showing them to be violations of God's command, Do not kill the innocent (and so also unconstitutional). Therefore, by the law of unintended consequences, though well-intentioned, passing a heartbeat bill can actually increase the number of unborn children killed. For if a "heartbeat bill" becomes law, there would be a predictable significant increase in the use of mechanical abortifacient IUDs and chemical abortifacients like RU-486 (mifepristone) including the routine use of the Morning After Pill.