New Research Allows States to Regulate or Ban First Trimester Abortions

After Abortion ^ | July 26, 2004 | Elliot Institute Press Release

[Dumb_Ox]

New Research Allows States to Regulate or Ban First Trimester Abortions

Springfield, IL (July 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.

[Dumb_Ox]

Excerpted because AfterAbortion.info 's copyright standards are a little tight. Here are the names of the studies in question, the possible bombshell being the article in the first citation:

Reardon DC, Strahan TW, Thorp JM, Shuping MW. "Deaths associated with abortion compared to childbirth: a review of new and old data and the medical and legal implications." The Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 2004; 20(2):279-327.

Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. "Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000." Am J Ob Gyn, 2004; 190:422-427.

Gissler M, Kauppila R, Merilainen J, et al. "Pregnancy associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994: definition problems and benefits of record linkage." Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 1997; 76:-651-657.

Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW. "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women." South Med J 2002; 95(8):834-41.

Gissler M, Hemminki E, Lonnqvist J. "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland: 1987-94: register linkage study." British Medical Journal 1996; 313:1431-4.

My own thoughts:

Assuming that the epidemiological studies are solid studies, and not simply compilations of post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacies, the studies of the American post-abortion mortality rate is probably unattainable. I remember Eleanor Clift being really mad at John Ashcroft on the McLaughlin Group for attempting to collect records of abortions(at the time, if I recall correctly, because of concerns statutory rapists and sex abusers were "getting rid of the evidence"). Though "a common belief" was enough to install legal abortion in all 50 states, it might take more than four foreign studies to give this argument political wheels.

What's more, the idea that abortions are prohibitable only out of "concern for the health of the mother" still leaves the possibility that "safer" techniques of abortion will render any laws obsolete, or that a vague definition of health as mental well-being will continue to legitimize legalized abortion. (By the way, the amicus curiae brief in Roe v. Wade insisting on the alleged priority of the health of the mother in the history of American and English law was signed by scholars whose own research contradicted that allegation, see John Finnis, Shameless Acts in Colorado: Abuse of scholarship in constitutional cases)

Further, I fear the "mystery clause" of Planned Parenthood v. Casey ("the passage that ate the rule of law") renders the qualifications of Roe redundant.

Another problem is that the GOP might never run with this information. Roe v. Wade has proven such a useful wedge issue for them, the GOP strategists might take the Machiavellian route and say "Let's keep committing to appoint judges to overturn Roe, that'll keep the vote harvest high for another decade!"

Still, this will make a useful debating point. A congresscritter could really get nailed in a dialogue like this:

A: "Do you support Roe v. Wade?"

B: "Yes, Abortion shoulld be Safe Legal and Rare"

A: "So you think if an abortion procedure is unsafe, it should be banned?"

B: "Of course."

A: "Then what about these studies indicating all abortion procedures are more dangerous than childbirth--which would mean we could ban all abortions under Roe?"

B: "Their findings are dubious, and not American studies, regardless."

A: "So do you support scientific research into the safety of American abortions?"

B: "No, because it's a personal issue. Such research will require the invasion of womens' private medical records."

A: "So if it's really a personal issue and not a public health issue, then why do you and your campaign supporters at NARAL claim that ensuring reproductive health requires federal funding for elective abortions?"

[Dumb_Ox]

This should be of interest to you.

Askel5, do these types of new legal arguments continually show up in, say, the Human Life Review and practically nowhere else, or is this as big as I think it is?

[nina0113]

At this point I'd be happy if we could ban THIRD-trimester abortions. Most days I don't have much hope even for that.

[Askel5]

To be honest, I'm a little discouraged at present so instead of saying anything right off, I'll go look around a bit and see what I can find.

Do you still have your pop-control page available?

[Askel5]

=== Do you still have your pop-control page available?

I lost two drives recently and -- though I backed up the important stuff -- have yet to sort everything out.

[Rammer]

While I think every avenue for ending abortion must be pursued, I have to point out that this strategy is somewhat flawed and would be a mistake. The risk of death to the child is still 100% - and that is why it should be illegal. Trying to convince legislators, judges, the public, etc. that abortion should be ended based solely on a risk to the mother is skirting the real issue.

[M. Dodge Thomas]

I expect these studies will be controversial for a long time, the difficulty is that while you can attempt to control for socio-economic and psychological factors, the women who elect to have abortions are different in some way(s) from women who don't, otherwise both groups would be make the same decisions. So you are back to the problem of determining if the factors that lead women to decide to abort are in large part the reasons for the increased mortality rates rather than the abortions themselves.

[cpforlife.org]

Read with salt.

Pro-Life PING

Please let me know if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[EagleMamaMT]

Read later.

[redgolum]

Could we start a petition to put an abortion ban on a ballot somewhere? I know that Right to Life will say "Not possible" (I have lost ALL respect for some organizations after the South Dakota episode), but if we try to get an honest vote, maybe we can make some headway.

[cpforlife.org]

Impossible with current SOTUS line-up.

"safer" techniques of abortion will render any laws obsolete"

This has happened. The nomenclature may be inaccurate here, but--babies can now be killed using the same noninvasive process that breaks-up kidney stones. Focused energy. I believe it's been perfected and will greatly decrease associated risks of surgical abortion. For the killers they'll use it to lower insurance costs.

Hocndoc, if you could fine tune and elaborate?

[Askel5]

Looking for a temporary fix to raise my icon cabinet last night, I opened up a 4" 1893 or so book I'd bought years ago and (disappointed) thought was mostly bishops' bios.

Instead, it's a cache of some extraordinary pieces on americanism, patriotism, anti-catholicism and much by and about Gregory VIII.

I'm going to post some excerpts which, IMHO, underscore certain continuing realities where the political process (for Catholics) is concerned AND underscore our need to be wary ... particularly now that we've been so thoroughly corrupted from within the very hierarchy now seeking to "organize" us politically and deliver votes (Chicago/Alinsky) IAF style.

Thanks for your continued patience with me. Looking forward to visiting with you soon.

[Salvation]

Praying that this is good news.

[cpforlife.org]

Marvin, I wonder if you could help on the tech aspects of the new form of murder.

I'll be gone till tomm.

[cpforlife.org]

IN post 11

[Dumb_Ox]

While I think every avenue for ending abortion must be pursued, I have to point out that this strategy is somewhat flawed and would be a mistake. The risk of death to the child is still 100% - and that is why it should be illegal. Trying to convince legislators, judges, the public, etc. that abortion should be ended based solely on a risk to the mother is skirting the real issue.

That's one of my concerns as well, I just forgot to add it explicitly to my comments.

[Dumb_Ox]

My Eugenics Page is still on-line. I haven't maintained it in years, alas, and I doubt many of the links work. Still might get a few good FR thread links though.

[Rammer]

Hey no prob, I wasn't trying to be argumentative. I just find things like this to be encouraging but off-focus. Thank you for posting the article. Every little bit helps. :-)

[hocndoc]

Let me get back to you.
I haven't heard of using lithotripsy-like technology for abortion. That would be focused sound waves, I think.
I don't think that would make much of a difference in safety. Do you have a link or source?