According to the widely accepted Guttmacher Institute report released on Jan. 17, the number of surgical abortions nationwide has decreased by around 25 percent since 1990, a trend deemed commendable by both pro-choice and pro-life advocates. Surgical abortions are increasingly supplanted by both medication abortions — a daily regimen of pills that prevents fertilized eggs from developing further — and by hormonal contraception methods. This shift away from surgeries is an estimable development that should be continued and encouraged.

Although many pro-life advocates claim that the decrease in surgical abortions has been a direct result of their endorsement and adoption of anti-abortion legislation, the states that have experienced the largest decreases in surgical abortions are those least affected by pro-life activists. According to Americans United for Life, Oregon is the most pro-choice state in the union, but the Beaver State witnessed a 25 percent drop in abortions between 2000 and 2005. Another heavily pro-choice state, California also experienced a drop in abortions significantly greater than the national average.

In a recent Los Angeles Times article, Pomona College’s John Seery said that the change in abortion numbers can be attributed to shifting attitudes of women, or as he called it, “the ‘Juno’ effect.” In his article with the same name, Seery described this shift as an increased decisiveness in women. For example, those who choose to get an abortion are deciding to do so earlier than previous generations — 90 percent of surgical abortions are now in the first trimester, and 60 percent are within the first eight weeks. Seery also notes that larger numbers of women are using contraceptives and other preventative measures.

In addition to these preemptive options, the decline in surgical abortions can be partially attributed to medication. A Jan. 17 Los Angeles Times article by Stephanie Simon notes that, “women looking to end early pregnancies are gravitating to medication abortions, in which they take two pills under a doctor’s supervision to induce miscarriage. This approach lets them avoid surgery — and the protesters who often picket clinics — and expel the embryo in the privacy of their homes.” The Guttmacher Institute report covers the use of these pills until 2005, when they accounted for 13 percent of all abortions in the United States.

Although medication abortions are also controversial, they are significantly less politically (and morally) polarizing than surgical abortions. Emory’s Alan Abramowitz notes that, “Increasing reliance on non-surgical abortions is a problem for the anti-abortion movement. There is little popular support for restricting such abortions.” Missouri’s recent attempt to place heavy financial consequences on doctors dispensing the “abortion pill” was impeded after a judge ruled against the law.

Advocates of medication abortions argue that both the physical and psychological side-effects of such abortions are significantly less than those of surgical abortions. The reason for this may lie in the fact that the pill is only approved for use through the seventh week of pregnancy, while surgical abortions are legal as late as the 20th week. Medication abortions are also quicker, cheaper and often less psychologically traumatic than attending an abortion clinic.

Although the current shift away from surgery and toward medication and hormonal preventive measures is laudable, much improvement in still needed. Both medication and surgical abortions could be reduced further if preemptive options, such as condoms and hormonal birth-control pills, received more government subsidies. Hormonal birth-control pills, hormone-releasing patches, implants and monthly inserts — especially when used with condoms — are logistically, politically and morally better options than any form of abortion.