Abortion studies can be misleading

Pro-life researchers Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles revealed that the conclusions of many abortion studies are misleading:

“There are often glaring inconsistencies between the actual research results and the summaries and conclusions of articles… Attempts to minimize negative results and to explain away findings that are not consistent with accepted opinion exist throughout the literature on abortion sequelae. A medical practitioner or family counselor is then left to wonder: Whose finding should be accepted?”

They cited, for example: Taylor VM, Kramer M.D., Vaughan TL, Peacock S. Placenta previa in relation to induced and spontaneous abortion: a population-based study. Obstetrics and Gynecology 1993 July; 82 (1) 88 – 91; P91

In this study, they found that women who have abortions are 28% more likely to have placenta previa. However, they discounted this finding as insignificant. Also, the excluded from consideration the women who had no live births after abortion. Had they included these women, the risks would’ve been increased by 50%.

“Taylor’s conclusion provides a useful illustration of a fact noted elsewhere ….that the conclusions of research studies on abortion after affects often minimize the significance of the data gathered.”

They give another example: Daling, JR, Chow WH, Weiss NS, Metch, BJ, Soderstrom, R. Ectopic Pregnancy in Relation to Previous Induced Abortion, Journal of the American Medical Association 1985 February; 253 (7): 1005 – 8

“women who had two or more induced abortions increased their risk of ectopic pregnancy 2.6 times. While admitting that this finding is “worrisome”, they nonetheless concluded that “it remains unresolved whether having a legal induced abortion in the United States imparts an excess risk of EP [ectopic pregnancy].” The abstract of the study states that the research shows that abortion “does not carry a large excess risk.” Here again, the conclusion is at odds with the data.

Elizabeth Ring-Cassidy and Ian Gentles. Women’s Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence Second Edition (Toronto, Canada: The deVeber Institute for Bioethics and Social Research, 2003) 8, 43-45, 52

Share on Facebook

Author: Sarah

Sarah is a member of the board of The Pro-life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

− two = two