Bloomberg Business reported yesterday that abortion centers are closing at a record pace. By their research, 162 facilities have closed since 2011 (a rate of one business every two weeks).  Already in 2016, 9 abortion facilities have closed, or announced they will be closing.

The Bloomberg piece blames “Republican state lawmakers’ push to legislate the industry out of existence”, at least in part, for the drop off.  First, this bears a question of why these facilities (who like to refer to themselves as clinics) can’t/won’t adhere to clinical standards.  In fact, shouldn’t facilities performing a risky surgery like abortion that ends the life of one person, and leaves the surviving victim (the mother) with guilt and emotional scars that will last a lifetime (and may make her more likely to commit suicide), have to comply with basic medical standards?  Is it a bad thing to prohibit facilities like abortionist’s Kermit Gosnell’s “house of horrors” with blood stained floors and a feral cat walking freely through the halls and even in the examination rooms themselves?  Shall we keep allowing unsanitary facilities and add to the over 450 women who have died from an abortion?

Even if you want abortion facilities to be able to operate without any standards, the author argues that “state regulations that make it too expensive or logistically impossible for facilities to remain in business drove more than a quarter of the closings.”  That means almost 3 out of every 4 closings were due to some other factor besides these regulations.  In fact, almost 12 of those facilities that closed were in California, which is not exactly stringent when it comes to abortion regulations.

The reality is, a number of factors are contributing to this decrease in abortion facilities.  Some are closing because of industry consolidation or due to changing demographics.  A third factor is declining demand.  It seems these facilities are subject to the same laws of supply and demand as any other business, and as the general public’s perception of abortion changes, so decreases the demand for abortions.

The interesting exception to this trend is Planned Parenthood. The article notes that about one out of every three facilities closed were operated by Planned Parenthood, but ¾ of the facilities opened were under the Planned Parenthood brand.  The one factor that could possibly be allowing Planned Parenthood to reverse the trend of their other facilities may be the $500 million in taxpayer funds they receive every year.  It would be interesting to see how they would fare without that subsidy!