The Institute of Labor Economics' study, "The Effects of the Dobbs Decision on Fertility," primarily relies on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics for monthly births by state of residence covering the period January 2005 through June 2023.
The research was then reviewed by the New York Times in the article, "How Many Abortions Did the Post-Roe Bans Prevent?" which describes the research as "the first data on births since Roe v. Wade was overturned" and states that it shows "how much abortion bans have had their intended effect: Births increased in every state with a ban."
The Times also notes that researchers cannot be certain that the increase in births is "attributed to women who wanted abortions but couldn't get them, but the timing and consistency of the results suggest so."
Amy O'Donnell of Texas Alliance for Life sees that as something to celebrate.
"We consider it a victory that pro-life laws are resulting in lives saved," she tells AFN. "Those babies will grow up to be productive citizens of the United States, and we celebrate that 32,000 babies are alive today because we have laws to protect life across the country."
Still, O'Donnell says the study perpetuates the lie that women need abortion access to compete academically, vocationally, athletically, or in other ways.
"That is mistaken," she asserts. "In the last 30 years, when abortion rates have fallen dramatically, women's progress has advanced dramatically. In reality, women don't need abortion to advance in this country."
Liberal media suggests pro-life laws are laws for forced pregnancies, but O'Donnell points out that most abortions are not sought in cases of rape. They are sought as a form of birth control after a consensual encounter.
