Study from Finland: Women are 3 Times More Likely to Die after an Abortion; CDC Admits Its Abortion & Childbirth Mortality Statistics are Not Comparable; New Findings May Change How Roe v. Wade is Applied

Unborn Babies Cry in the Womb, New Zealand Researchers Show

British Favor Placing Further Limits on Late-Term Abortions

Chinese Police Seize A Blind Activist Promoting Legal Action Against Forced Sterilization and Abortion

BlackGenocide.org

Ayotte Abortion Case

Abortion Centers Hiding Statutory Rape?

OH Parental Consent for Abortion Law Found Constitutional...

STUDY: WOMEN ARE THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO DIE AFTER AN ABORTION: CDC Admits Its Abortion & Childbirth Mortality Statistics Are Not Comparable; New Findings May Change How Roe v Wade is Applied --International health experts have published a new study disclosing that 94 percent of maternal deaths associated with abortion are not identifiable from death certificates alone. Proper tracking of pregnancy associated deaths, they report, requires the linking of death certificates to the deceased women's medical records. Only in this way, they conclude, can accurate information about recent pregnancies be determined--information that is frequently missing from death certificates and autopsies.

The study, completed by researchers from the National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health in Finland, shows that the long held presumption that abortion is associated with fewer deaths than childbirth does not hold up once the pregnancy history of women is actually investigated using record linkage.

Previously, it has been widely assumed that the mortality rate associated with abortion was only one-sixth that of childbirth. But those estimates were based primarily on information gathered only from death certificates or other public records.

Proper identification of pregnancy history, the researchers found, reveals that the death rate associated with abortion is actually three times higher than that of childbirth.

The findings of this epidemiological study may have a profound impact on the abortion debate in the United States, according to some legal analysts.

"The claim that abortion was safer than childbirth, at least early in pregnancy, was accepted as a crucial fact in Roe v Wade," says Walter Weber, an attorney with the American Center for Law and Justice, who specializes in abortion law. "In fact, the Court concluded that the states had authority to regulate abortion to protect women's health only at the point at which death rates associated with abortion exceeded those associated with childbirth -- which at that time was assumed to be around 12 weeks of gestation."

This recent study is just one of a series of studies done among women in Finland and California demonstrating an elevated risk of death following abortion, a risk that exceeds that of both non-pregnant women and women whose pregnancies are allowed to follow their natural course. According to Weber, these studies provide a new basis for states to regulate abortion even within the judicial reasoning of Roe.

The argument over risks of death following abortion versus childbirth won't be settled overnight, however. Planned Parenthood and the closely allied Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI) continue to promote the message that abortion is safer than childbirth. Their argument is based on comparing the nationally reported rates of death for childbirth to the rate of death associated with abortion that is reported by the National Institutes of Health's Centers for Disease Control (CDC). But both sets of numbers are drawn principally from death certificates.

Even before this latest study discrediting the accuracy of accessing pregnancy associated deaths from death certificates alone, the CDC's reports on abortion associated deaths had been severely criticized by abortion opponents.

One of the chief complaints was that the top physician's in the CDC's abortion surveillance unit had clear conflicts of interest since they were not only outspoken advocates for expanding abortion services but also practicing abortion providers.

Mark Crutcher, president of Life Dynamics, has charged that CDC's abortion surveillance unit was set up by abortion advocates within the CDC not to oversee abortion but to defend and promote abortion. "When it comes to abortion, CDC stands for Center for Damage Control," writes Crutcher.

A recent law review article examining the new data on elevated death rates following abortion also criticizes the CDC's resistance to adopting the new record linkage techniques.

According to the lead author, David Reardon of the Elliot Institute, the CDC abortion surveillance team has yet to apologize for and repudiate a blatantly misleading study its team authored in 1982 which asserted they were successfully identifying at least 90 percent of deaths associated with abortion. "This report was particularly dishonest in that they misappropriated a little known statistical comparison test, and violated each of the test's three preconditions for validity, simply to dismiss calls for better investigations."

Reardon says that the work of Kevin Sherlock, a writer and reporter who specializes in public record research, proves that the CDC's abortion mortality statistics are essentially meaningless. Sherlock's independent review of death certificates, with cause of death verified by autopsies and court records regarding malpractice claims, confirmed at least 140 abortion related deaths for the decade of the 1980s, which is thirty percent more than the total reported by the CDC. "That a single investigator could fully document thirty percent more deaths than the entire CDC abortion surveillance unit should give everyone pause," said Reardon.

In light of the studies documenting higher death rates associated with abortion, combined with renewed criticism of the CDC abortion surveillance unit itself, top CDC officials appear to be backing away from their past claims. In response to a letter from Walter Weber questioning the appropriateness of comparing maternal mortality statistics for childbirth with CDC's reported mortality statistics for abortion, Dr. Julie Louise Gerberding, director of the CDC, wrote in July of 2004, that maternal mortality rates and abortion mortality rates "are conceptually different and are used by the CDC for different public health purposes."

In other words, the CDC numbers relied upon by Planned Parenthood and AGI are not truly comparable.
According to Reardon, this is why the record-linkage studies based on data collected in Finland and California are so important. "These studies represent the first time that the measurements of deaths associated with abortion and childbirth have been taken using a consistent and uniform standard."

While it is still unclear how this new information will ultimately affect abortion access, there is no doubt that it intensify the social, legal, and medical debates surrounding it.
Citing:
Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. Methods for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths: population-based data from Finland 1987-2000. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;18(6):448-55.
Sherlock K. Victims of Choice. Akron, OH, Brennyman Books, 1996.
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.
Related: Death Rate of Abortion Three Times Higher than Childbirth: 13-year Population Study in Published in Top OB/Gyn Journal
www.afterabortion.info/news
[Elliot Institute; www.afterabortion.org, Springfield, IL Sept 9, 2005]

UNBORN BABIES CRY IN THE WOMB, NEW ZEALAND RESEARCHERS SHOW [Auckland Univ, New Zealand] unborn children begin to cry in the womb at 28 weeks into pregnancy. The scientists played a 90 decibel noise through a speaker placed on the stomachs of pregnant women & the babies cried because the noise was uncomfortable. The cries were recorded using ultrasound scanners. "It was strikingly like an infant crying. Even the bottom lip quivers," Professor Mitchell said [London Sun]. Mitchell said the results of the study, coming days after a disputed study claiming unborn children don't feel pain until about the same time, show that legislation requiring giving babies anesthesia before an abortion are necessary. [LifeNews.com, 30Aug05]

A NEW TEST has been developed that can reveal the sex of an unborn baby as early as 5 weeks gestation. The test is being marketed under the name Baby Gender Mentor. There is concern that it could be used for sex selection and subsequent abortions. [Rt to Life of Greater Cincinnati, 8/05]

BLACKGENOCIDE.ORG -“With one-third of all abortions performed on Black women, the abortion industry has received over $4,000,000,000 (billion) from the Black community.” The U.S. abortion industry -in the late 90s- “rake[d] in about $64,000 every hour of the day, 365 days a year.” [HLI Special Report # 162]

AYOTTE ABORTION CASE -- Ayotte was filed over a New Hampshire abortion law, arguing that the outcome could affect a final ruling on the Partial Birth federal abortion law that has been struck down by 3 courts...A win in the Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England case would cause immediate reversal, without even argument, of all the federal court decisions invalidating the partial birth abortion ban law.  That is because the federal courts have invalidated the partial birth abortion law "on its face," without actual cases of unconstitutional application. This just reinforces how the Ayotte case is THE most important abortion case in over a decade, and perhaps THE most important since Roe v. Wade itself.  Eagle Forum filed a strong brief 12Aug05 in this case. On 8Aug05, Liberty Counsel filed an amicus brief. “If we're successful, then this could reduce abortions by up to 30-40% nationwide, approaching lower levels of abortion not seen in this country in over 3 decades.” This case could make it much more difficult to challenge pro-life parental involvement laws or other laws that seek to restrict or regulate abortion. The case arose out of a New Hampshire law that requires that the parents receive notice of their minor child’s request to have an abortion. The parental involvement statute seeks to protect immature children from the consequences of abortion by ensuring that the parents are notified. Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, commented: “The Supreme Court has created exceptions to general rules of law when it comes to abortion. The mangled mess is often referred to as the ‘abortion distortion.’ It is time the Supreme Court articulates a clear rule of law, one that is guided by principal and supported by the Constitution. We have always presumed that parents act in the best interest of their children. If parental consent is required before a doctor can treat a child for a minor cold, then certainly parental involvement is necessary when their minor daughter considers abortion.”
The legal significance of the case involves an “as applied” versus a “facial” challenge to government legislation. An “as applied” challenge contests the application of a law to a specific situation, and if found unconstitutional, it is unconstitutional in that specific application. If the law can be constitutionally applied to another set of facts, it remains constitutional to that set of facts. A “facial” challenge can be mounted only in rare circumstances where a law has not necessarily been applied to any set of facts. To find a law “facially” unconstitutional, the plaintiff bringing the case bears the burden of proving that the law is unconstitutional in every conceivable application. This is a heavy burden to prove.
In the partial birth abortion case decided by the Supreme Court in 2000, the 5-4 decision in Carhart v. Nebraska allowed the partial birth abortion statute to be “facially” challenged before it was ever applied. Some courts have made an exception to general rule of disfavoring “facial” challenges when it comes to abortion laws. Thus most abortion laws are challenged before they ever go into effect. Courts have struck down abortion laws based on one hypothetical unconstitutional application. Facial challenges have made statutes regulating abortion vulnerable and have allowed preemptory suits based on hypothetical and unproven circumstances. Liberty Counsel’s brief argues that the Court ought to bring abortion litigation within the mainstream of constitutional jurisprudence and therefore not allow facial challenges unless the law can be proven unconstitutional in every conceivable circumstance. Thus, even if there is 1 unconstitutional application of the law, the statute will survive if the law can be constitutionally applied in other circumstances. If the Court rules that “facial” challenges to an abortion law must prove that the statute is unconstitutional in every conceivable application, the result will be that most challenges to abortion laws will fail.

[AP; 18Aug05, Andy Schlafly commenting on the US Supreme Court abortion.  EF brief: http://www.eagleforum.org/topics/briefs/index.shtml; 8Aug05 Liberty Counsel]

AZ SHERIFF CAN'T PROHIBIT INMATES FROM HAVING ABORTIONS -- AZ Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio had required court approval to take a woman for an abortion because he said it violated policies against using taxpayer dollars for abortions. Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Schneider said the policy is illegal and an unconstitutional burden on women being able to obtain legal abortions. He denied the argument that requiring a court order for an abortion protects the county from a lawsuit from a third party that may have an interest in the unborn child. In October 2004, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against Arpaio, who would authorize transport for abortions only in cases when "medically necessary." In May 2004 an unnamed inmate sought an abortion while detained at Estrella Jail. She had prepaid for the abortion, but deputies refused to transport her without a court order. [LifeNews.com, 30Aug05]

ABORTION LAW IN TEXAS COULD SEE ABORTION DOCS CHARGED WITH CAPITAL CRIME -- for aborting babies in the third trimester or without the consent of the parents of the mother.  While legislators have insisted that it was not their intent, the Texas District and County Attorneys Association has warned that the parental consent legislation to come into effect this week in conjunction with the 2003 fetal protection law may result in charges against doctors in a state that retains the death penalty. [Austin, 30August 05; LifeSiteNews.com]

BRITISH FAVOR PLACING FURTHER LIMITS ON LATE-TERM ABORTIONS -- Powerful public support for an overhaul of the 40-year-old abortion laws has emerged from a Daily Telegraph survey of the nation's attitudes to the key ethical and moral issues of the day. Late-term abortions in the U.K. should be limited further than current law allows, according to a new poll of