pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul M. Dubuc) (09/30/85)
>I would like to reply to Paul Dubuc's statistical comments, in which >he says that > >> Maternal deaths due to illegal abortions before Roe vs. Wade were >> greatly exaggerated. > >and in which he comes up with a total estimated (by 15 doctors, yet) >death rate of 500/year. The statistics aren't mine. I think they are the best available. I have noticed that you done nothing in this article to refute them or the statement you have quoted above. >Mr. Dubuc, > > You have made the mistake of equating two quite different >figures: maternal deaths due to illegal abortions, and maternal lives >saved by legalizing abortion. No, I think you are making that mistake. The study I cited was from *before* Row vs. Wade. How could it have confused these things? The main point of that article (Which was, I believe the fourth in a four- part response on the "status of the fetus and its rights") was that pro-choice groups like NARAL fabricated and greatly exaggerated statistics on maternal (sic) deaths from illegal abortion. This issue you bring up here is a little different (though related): > I was quite active in the pro-choice movement in Minnesota >in the years preceding Roe vs. Wade. Some people may remember that >the State of New York legalized abortion a year or so before Roe vs. >Wade. There is a public health statistic called the 'maternal >mortality rate', comprising all 'pregnancy related deaths'; it >includes deaths from induced abortion, spontaneous miscarriage, >toxemia of pregnancy, childbirth, etc. The maternal mortality >rate for the State of New York in the year after abortion was >legalized was less than half the same rate for the previous year. > >On close examination of the figures it became apparent that not only >had the 'death from induced abortion' category nearly disappeared, >but that nearly all of the categories of pregnancy related deaths had >decreased dramatically, even though there had been no change in the >population, no increased public health measures, etc. The only explanation >advanced was that women who were at health risk were preferentially >seeking abortions; these were postulated in include both the poor >who were statistically at risk due to bad nutrition and little pre- >natal care, and those women who had a health condition making >pregnancy somewhat dangerous who had not previously been able to >qualify under the stringent requirements necessary to perform an >abortion to 'save the life of the mother'. Given that your premise is true, your explanation is not the only one; neither is is a very good one, I think. Complications arising from legal abortions are usually not immediate and are therefore not associated directly with the abortion when they are reported. Complications like perforated uterus, infection and problems in later pregnancies are stated as just that (with no connection made to any previous abortion the woman might have had). Contrast this with the way complications of illegal abortions were reported when the woman ended up in the hospital shortly after. Complications resulting from legal abortions are usually not treated by the abortionist and there is little perceived or maintained (as the case may be) connection with abortion. Another misleading statistic is the incidence of maternal death from birth complications compared to those that *are* attributed to abortion. Pro-choice advocates point to the lower incidence of death as a result of legal abortion as evidence that abortion is inherently less risky than birth. Aside from the lesser complications that may result from abortion, I don't think this evidence holds even where maternal death is concerned. In western European countries like Sweden and England, the death rate is significantly higher for abortion than birth. People in those countries receive more uniform medical care (socialized medicine) for both procedures. In this country those women getting abortions are actually members of a privileged subset of all women who get pregnant. By-and-large, they are the ones who can afford abortions. The maternal death rate from births in this country is higher because the many poor in this country who get pregnant do not receive prenatal care that is on par with those who can afford it. All said, the two sets of women cannot really be compared. When a woman gets pregnant she will either carry to term or get an abortion, the latter are a privileged subset in this country. If all things were equal, I think death from legal abortion would have a higher rate than death from giving birth. >I remember this particularly because the pro-life people lost a >powerful debating tool. They had always been able to claim that >any lives lost because abortion was illegal were " . . . her own fault; >she could have had the baby and given it up for adoption instead of >going to that butcher." Now they were being forced to admit that >their legislated morality was putting women's lives at risk. Indeed, >after Roe vs. Wade had been in effect for a few years, and decent >statistics were collected, it became widely known that having a >first trimester abortion was statistically safer than delivering a >full term baby. It may be widely *believed*, but I don't think it is actually true when all other things are made equal. Our legislated morality against heroin abuse puts junkies' lives at risk of being poisoned by their pushers. Do we then legalize heroin to make its use safer? Before Row vs Wade, the risk of abortion was obviously greater than birth. Some women were putting themselves in that comparative danger. But why should legalized abortion have been the best answer to the problems those women faced? >I would like to really emphasize that anyone who advocates making >abortion illegal is also advocating doubling the maternal mortality >rate. It is one thing for a woman to accept the risks of having a >baby when she wants one, it is altogether another to insist that >she accept those risks for the sake of someone else's moral >position. Unfair and untrue. There is plenty that can be done to reduce maternal mortality rates independent of whether or not abortion is legal. This accusation assumes that the availability of good prenatal care cannot of should not be improved. >I do realize that I am arguing here from nearly 20 year old memory; >it has been a long time, and I no longer have such sources at my >fingertips. However, this statistic made enough of an impression on >me and was so extensively used in the debates that led up to Roe vs. >Wade that I have never forgotten it. If anyone seriously doubts its >validity, say so and I will contact some of my friends still actively >involved in abortion politics, and post the sources. > > Carole Ashmore Falsely exaggerated figures on death from abortion were used too. Anyway, this discussion necessarily give no consideration to the *intended* victim of every abortion (i.e. the fetus). Yes, it always comes back to that. -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd