carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore) (09/20/85)
I would like to reply to Paul Duboc'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. Mr. Duboc, You have made the mistake of equating two quite different figures: maternal deaths due to illegal abortions, and maternal lives saved by legalizing abortion. 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 stastistic 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'. 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. 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. 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