Adoption rates going down don't mean anything. In places where abortion isn't restricted you will also see better sex Ed, better access to birth control, and many factors that contribute to a lower teen pregnancy rate

Read the paper, they go over controls they use pretty well. It goes over all sorts of different explanations and factors and explain the reason behind their conclusions.

In places where abortion isn't restricted you will also see better sex Ed, better access to birth control, and many factors that contribute to a lower teen pregnancy rate in general which would all contribute to a lower rate of adoption.

The paper is talking about a specific time-frame, not location. Unless there was a surge in sexual education in the areas the paper talks about where change happened, this isn't a likely explanation for a change in abortion rates.

Oddly enough, some of the greatest resistance to sex ed arose during the sexual revolution of the late '60s and early '70s. Sex ed became a political issue during this time, as religious conservatives built a movement based, in part, on their opposition to sex instruction in the public schools. Groups like the Christian Crusade and the John Birch Society attacked SIECUS and sex education overall for promoting promiscuity and moral depravity. In the widely distributed 1968 pamphlet entitled "Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?" Gordon Drake and James Hargis framed sex ed as communist indoctrination: "[If] the new morality is affirmed, our children will become easy targets for Marxism and other amoral, nihilistic philosophies—as well as V.D.!" Rumors spread that sex instructors were encouraging students to be homosexuals or even stripping and having sex in front of their classes. "Religious conservatives began using sex ed to their political advantage," says Janice M. Irvine, author of Talk About Sex: The Battles Over Sex Education in the United States. "They had this really scary rhetoric." In school districts across the country, groups of parents started protesting sex-ed programs.

http://www.newsweek.com/brief-history-sex-ed-america-81001

And it seems the opposite was true.

What's irritating is you constantly tell people their experiences are wrong but you're not smart enough to make that call

I'm not making that call, years of knowledge about the nature of human experience in science and study have made that call.

you base your assumptions on logic as opposed to your own experiences and biases.

This is, without a doubt, true. My own biases probably do reflect in what I say.

However, I always seek to avoid using my experiences directly when I can use knowledge or research. If someone wants proof of something, I'm not going to state "I saw this therefore it is true" I am going to find research that backs it (barring direct things like "I saw that big airplane explode" which are general and severe enough that you can trust personal experiences).

If someone's personal experiences are on a broad topic that occurs on a far larger scope than any individual than I'm not going to ever trust any one person's viewpoint on that system. They are useful to use to go and find information, but beyond that do not prove anything.