Freakonomics and that very convenient abortion myth.

Abstract

In 2005 economist Steven Levitt published the bestselling Freakonomics as a “rogue economist” exploring the “hidden side of everything”. One of the more controversial claims in the book (driven, supposedly only by a love of “data ”), was that the reduction of crime experienced in the 1990s was a direct result of Roe v Wade, which confirmed the constitutional right to abortion in 1973. In short, it was argued that in the aftermath of Roe, abortion prevented the birth of unwanted children who would otherwise have grown up to be criminals in the 90s. Many of these abortions were to black mothers. The racist connotations of the claim sparked controversy, but little has been said about the basic claim – that Roe affected abortion rates. This paper examines the common whitewashing of women’s history that supports theories like those in Freakonomics, that deny the widespread practice of abortion, by women and for women, prior to 1973. It argues that globally, legal status has little bearing on abortion rates (only on the safety of the procedure) and that the medical commandeering of abortion has allowed this fact to be increasingly marginalised in contemporary debates.