But now economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston are taking aim at the statistics behind one of the book’s most controversial chapters: The assertion that there is a link between the legalization of abortion in the early 1970s and the drop in crime rates in the 1990s. The very same issue Bennett was addressing when he gave what he called, a “a noxious hypothetical analogy”, to prove the absurdity of the book’s claim. Then he called the suggestion that ‘abortion to reduce the crime rate’ an “impossible, ridiculous and morally reprehensible thing to do”.
Christopher Foote, a senior economist at the Boston Fed, and Christopher Goetz, a research assistant, say the research behind the book’s conclusion is faulty as well. The researchers say, “There are no statistical grounds for believing that the hypothetical youths who were aborted as fetuses would have been more likely to commit crimes had they reached maturity than the actual youths who developed from fetuses and carried to term.” The very same point Bennett was trying to make.
Will liberals feign more outrage over these new found criticisms of the book? Will Harry Reid say their research “reflect[s] a spirit of hate and division“? Will “Democratic lawmakers and civil rights leaders denounce” Foote and Goetz? Will liberal 527s rally around the cause?