Using Contraception to Counter Abortion

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Two leading demographers have a new recommendation for reducing abortion rates worldwide: increase the effective use of contraceptives. Although it may seem like an obvious point, John Bongaarts, vice president of the Policy Research Division at the Population Council in New York, and Charles Westoff of Princeton University actually devised a mathematical model for predicting just how effective the greater use of contraception can be. They report their findings today in the September issue of the Population Council's journal, Studies in Family Planning.

To develop their model, Bongaarts and Westoff analyzed the relationship between abortion rates and a number of influences--including the number of reproductive years per woman, desired fertility rates, a woman's propensity to seek abortion, and the availability and effectiveness of contraception. They calculated that in a population where half of all unintended pregnancies end in abortion, a 10-percentage-point rise in contraceptive prevalence would avert about 0.45 abortion per woman, assuming the form of contraception is at least 95 percent effective.

In fact, experts currently estimate that more than half of the roughly 79 million unintended pregnancies occurring each year end in abortion. Family planning programs in developing countries, where abortions can be particularly dangerous, have helped to lower the number performed, but, conclude Bongaarts and Westoff, "the reach and quality of these [family planning] services are still far from adequate.

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American