Springfield, IL (June 26, 2004) -- A recently published law review article
suggests that a ban on abortion, even in the first trimester, may now be
allowed under the legal standards established in the Supreme Court's landmark
Roe v Wade decision. The team of authors, including medical
researchers, physicians, and an attorney, argue that this shift in practice,
arising from new medical evidence of abortion's risks, will not require a
change in constitutional law.
The Supreme Court specifically grants that states have a "compelling
interest" in regulating or banning abortion to protect women's health when the
risk of death associated with abortion exceeds the risk of death associated
with childbirth. When Roe was decided in 1973, it was commonly
believed that mortality rates associated with abortion in the first trimester
were lower than the mortality rate associated with birth. States were
therefore allowed to regulate abortion to protect women's health only after
the first trimester.
In the last seven years, however, four major epidemiological studies have
shown that abortion is actually associated with higher rates of death compared
to childbirth.
The most recent study of pregnancy-related deaths was published earlier
this year in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. That
study, linking birth, death, and abortion records for the entire country of
Finland over a thirteen year period, found that women who had abortions were
three times more likely to die than women who gave birth. Findings like these
have completely reversed scientists' conclusions regarding the relative risk
of deaths associated with pregnancy outcome.
According to the lead author of the law review article, David Reardon,
Ph.D., director of the Elliot Institute, "Prior to 1997, all the attempted
comparisons of mortality rates employed relied on subjective reports,
dissimilar measures, and even unequal time frames. These objective
record-based studies, however, directly link death certificates to centralized
records of abortion and childbirth. This methodology is far better than
anything that was available before. In the seven years since the first of
these record-based studies was published, no one has come forward with a
single study contradicting these findings. Instead, the findings have been
reaffirmed again and again."
The article Reardon and his colleagues published in The Journal of
Contemporary Health Law & Policy includes a detailed review of the
literature on abortion related mortality pre- and post-dating the 1997 shift
in research. It also examines how and why prior comparisons were inadequate or
even misleading. In addition, the authors examine how the findings of these
record-based mortality studies are supported by other recent research linking
abortion to a decline in general health and an increase in psychological
morbidity.
This body of new research, however, has mostly been ignored in the medical
community. Reardon and his colleagues comment on this fact in their article,
stating, "While some medical experts will certainly continue to defend the
opinion that abortion is a safe alternative to childbirth, this opinion can no
longer be characterized as an 'established fact.' It is at best an
unsubstantiated opinion, most likely a hope, and at worst, an ideological
mantra."
The authors conclude their paper with the observation: "After thirty years of
experience with legal abortion in the United States, it is now clear that
mortality risks associated with abortion significantly exceed those associated
with childbirth, both in the short term (under one year) and in the longer
term. While statistical association is not proof of causation, it is clear
that abortion is, at the very least, a marker for elevated mortality rates. In
the context of the additional studies reviewed in this paper, it is also clear
that the interpretation of a causal effect cannot be ruled out. It is
therefore reasonable for legislators to conclude that abortion, at any stage
of pregnancy, poses a significant risk to women's health. Since Roe
established comparative mortality rates as the standard for determining when
states can regulate abortion to protect the health interests of women, this
new medical evidence would appear to be sufficient to establish a compelling
state interest in regulating abortion throughout all stages of pregnancy."
