New Study Finds Abortion Risks Higher Than Expected

The de Veber Institute ^ | April 23, 2002 | The de Veber Institute

[Saundra Duffy]

New Study Finds Abortion Risks Higher Than Expected

Toronto, CA -- Abortion complications are seriously underreported, leaving women who undergo abortion largely unaware of the range of physical and psychological risks they face, according to a new study by a Canadian bioethics institute.

Breast cancer, pelvic infection, infertility, life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, and subsequent premature births - with higher rates of children born with cerebral palsy - were found to be associated with abortion in a comprehensive review of the world medical literature. Abortion complications were not limited to physical health. While abortion is often regarded as a cure for the depression and stress of a crisis pregnancy, the study found that women are more likely to commit suicide after abortion than after giving birth to a child.

Current abortion rates of 114,000 in Canada and 1.4 million in the U.S. underscore the magnitude of this potential public health issue.

"In the absence of this knowledge, how can a woman give her informed consent to an abortion?" asks Ian Gentles, history professor at York University in Toronto, and one of the authors of the study entitled Women's Health after Abortion: The Medical and Psychological Evidence, published by the deVeber Institute, a nonprofit bioethics and social research group based in Toronto. Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, Emory University professor of humanities and women's studies, calls the findings "compelling", and says the study "makes overwhelmingly clear [that] women who seek abortions in the United States and Canada are not even told of the risks they are running."

The study calls for a more accountable system of risk assessment where research data accurately reflect the true risks of abortion to their future health and fertility.

Key abortion risks

An extensive review of the world medical literature reveals abortion is associated with:

* Suicide risk

A woman's risk of suicide is up to 6 times higher after abortion than after giving birth to a child, according to three large worldwide studies.

Gissler M et al. Suicides after pregnancy in Finland 1987-94: register linkage study. British Medical Journal 1996 Dec. 7;313(7070):1431-4.

* Breast cancer

27 worldwide studies, including 13 U.S. studies, show the risk caused by the unprotected internal estrogen exposure a woman receives after an abortion. A young woman who aborts her first pregnancy nearly doubles her lifetime risk of developing breast cancer.

Daling JR et al. Risk of breast cancer among young women: relationship to induced abortion. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 1994 Nov(2);86(21):1584-92.

* Immediate complications

Pain, bleeding, infection, perforated uterus, and occasional death occur at rates higher than usually reported. True rates are often underestimated by inadequate hospital diagnostic coding.

Heisterberg L, Kringelbach M. Early complications after induced first-trimester abortion. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandanavica,1987;66(3):201-4.

* Infertility, prematurity, cerebral palsy

P> Subsequent infertility, life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, and premature delivery of subsequent children - which increases the risk of cerebral palsy 38 times in the earliest premature babies.

Escobar GJ et al. Outcome among surviving very low birthweight infants: a meta-analysis. Archives of Disease in Childhood 1991;66:204-211.

To order the study from the deVeber Institute visit the website: http://deveber.org/publications2.html#launch

The Pro-Life Infonet is a daily compilation of pro-life news and information. To subscribe, send the message "subscribe" to: infonet-request@prolifeinfo.org. Infonet is sponsored by Women and Children First (http://www.womenandchildrenfirst.org). For more pro-life info visit http://www.prolifeinfo.org and for questions or additional information email ertelt@prolifeinfo.org

[B4Ranch]

jlogajan member since February 18th, 1998

Location: Arden Hills, Minnesota

One of those darn Libertarians. Oh, yeah, an atheist too. Makes me real popular around here, ehy? ha ha. Well, just don't try to jam secular or religious socialism down my throat (via the state) and we'll get along just fine. :-) The j in jlogajan is for John. Last name, Logajan, is apparently the Ellis Island phonetic spelling of a Rumanian name. Meaning?

____________________________________________________________________________________

Answer enough?

[MEGoody]

The rate of abortions would not necessarily be stated as so many per 1,000. Depends on what is being measured, e.g. abortions occur at the rate 1.4 million per year in the U.S.

[MEGoody]

Sure am glad you aren't God. Any woman who aborts their child, then repents and asks forgiveness of the Lord will receive that forgiveness. (On the other hand, she refuses to repent and denies her need for forgiveness, then she won't get what she doesn't want.)

[Elsie]

You are right about the rate. I had not thought of it over TIME, just over PREGNANCIES.

[Elsie]

You get your forgiverness from God, not the nurse or the counselor, or the priest.

The sentence for premeditated murder is "Life in prison or Death".

There is no forgiveness mentioned anywhere for premeditated murder.

---

Oh yes there is..............

---

NIV 2 Samuel 11:13-16
13. At David's invitation, he ate and drank with him, and David made him drunk. But in the evening Uriah went out to sleep on his mat among his master's servants; he did not go home.
14. In the morning David wrote a letter to Joab and sent it with Uriah.
15. In it he wrote, "Put Uriah in the front line where the fighting is fiercest. Then withdraw from him so he will be struck down and die."

NIV 2 Samuel 12:12-13
12. You did it in secret, but I will do this thing in broad daylight before all Israel.'"
13. Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." Nathan replied, "The LORD has taken away your sin. You are not going to die.

[Alas]

abortions occur at the rate 1.4 million per year in the U.S.

That is one out of every three pregnancies.

Imagine, one out of every three babies in the womb, are slaughtered and offered up to satan as a blood sacrifice by their mothers and the high priest of satan, the abortionist.
Alas

[homeschool mama]

**You get your forgiverness from God, not the nurse or the counselor, or the priest.**

On this we agree entirely! As a counselor I never offered the forgiveness only the Father could. And did. Many times.

[CyberCowboy777]

What is the "clear agenda" of the American Cancer Society, other than the prevention of or treatement of cancer in its various forms?

This organization presently represses research that contradicts it's own findings or would change it's course of action. In Brain Cancer alone the American Cancer Society has lambasted doctors who do research outside the organizations "approved" approach to cancer. Even though these "quacks" have stop the growth of Cancer in a large portion of their patience. Many significant changes in the treatment of or view of Cancer come from outside this organization; usually by researchers that it has minimized in the past. This is mostly due to arrogance and partnerships with pharmaceutical companies. I "believe" that many in leadership positions of this organization are at minimum satisfied with the status quo and at worst have clear political agendas. This is not unlike the mis-information given by the various AIDS organizations.

Do mention them. Be specific. Cite the facts.

"....in which a population of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then followed for the occurrence of new cancer. In this type of study, there is no opportunity for the disease process itself to influence one’s memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions." Why, might you ask would they leave out the very ones who may show the most evidence in the here and now? "...women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are literally searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease." Because they will be accurate??? Instead of studying only Beast Cancer Patients they study only Cancer Free Patients. This affects the Age grouping, study time table and removes all know cases of Cancer. They just wait to see if Cancer Free Women who may have had an abortion get Cancer later on. This kind of study might work if it lasted at a minimum of 40 years to allow for complete life cycles of Women who have had abortions. However, You cannot cite this type of study after 5 or 10 years as cancer has been shown not to appear for up to 40 + years after the cause.

As far as I can tell, the only basis you have for claiming them to be "biased" is because they disagree with your expected outcome.

Again you have provide two studies; one from a Socialist state that left out sections of population and one from......where? You have been provided with 30+ studies that you have yet to refute. I am against Abortion because it Kills Innocent Humans not just because it may cause cancer or other health problems with women. Why are you FOR Abortion?

Spare us your faux concern

Are you so arrogant that you feel you have the right to judge my level of concern? I would never presume to know how you "feel". If this is how you approach situations and dealings in life how are we to judge any of your statements?

is only a particular religious belief that a single (fertilized) cell is a human being in any meaningful sense.

Abortion does not end a Fertilized cells life. The Fetus stop being a "Fertilized cell" in the first few hours. It is a fact that most abortions happen long after the Brain, Spinal Cord and heart have developed and started working. Brain Waves can be Measured and the Baby can feel pain after as few as three to four weeks. This is Before most women even know they are pregnant, let alone make and act on the decision to abort.

[jlogajan]

"....in which a population of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then followed for the occurrence of new cancer. In this type of study, there is no opportunity for the disease process itself to influence one’s memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions."

Why, might you ask would they leave out the very ones who may show the most evidence in the here and now? "...women with breast cancer are more likely to accurately report their reproductive histories because they are literally searching their memories for anything that may have contributed to their disease." Because they will be accurate??? Instead of studying only Beast Cancer Patients they study only Cancer Free Patients.

Umm, you have completely misunderstood what they were saying. They were explaining "recall bias." Nowhere did they say they left out of the statistics woman who actually did have breast cancer (that would be silly anyhow.)

What they are saying is that they STARTED studying cancer-free women and then followed up on them for years and measured NEW cancers against their previous answers.

Then if a breast cancer victim suddenly changed her story and admitted an abortion, they could compare it to her previous answers when she was cancer free.

Of course they didn't eliminate women with breast cancer, they just eliminated the possibility of recall bias by pre-screening future breast cancer women.

Is there something about that you don't understand???

[CyberCowboy777]

A study design that is less prone to bias is a prospective study, in which a population of women who are cancer-free are asked about their past abortions and then followed for the occurrence of new cancer. In this type of study, there is no opportunity for the disease process itself to influence one’s memory of past abortions or willingness to report past abortions.

Re-read your Study. They are refuting the Studies that include current Cancer because of re-call-bias. Still, like I said. Using this type of study, with the controls being no current cases of Cancer, can be effective. IF and Only IF you follow the pathology of the disease (among other things). This study cannot be used until the entire case group has completed the Cycle. Because current Cancer can be caused by many different things and as far back as 40 + years this study cannot be complete until most or all the women involved die. They chose a long term, un-completed study to prove a point they do not have.

[jlogajan]

Abortion has been legal in Denmark since 1939. Therefore any study would merely have to track in all age groups those who didn't have breast cancer at the baseline. Then follow all age groups for a few years. This would eliminate recall-bias and at the same time give data on all age groups, since abortion had been around for quite long enough (60 years.)

However since it is socialized medicine in Denmark, they keep records on every patient. They know who has had an abortion and who has had breast cancer. It is all in the records there. They don't have to interview the patient and therefore there will be no "recall bias."

This "cohort" study was of 1.5 million women. It was a significant study. Since the records were already kept by the time of the study, there was no way the doctors could have known in advance for 60 years to "lie" into records so as to bias this future study.

In fact, no cohort study has ever found a link between abortion and breast cancer. Only the methodology flawed "case-control" studies have found such a link, and it has been shown that this is solely due to recall-bias -- where healthy women underreport their abortion histories as compared to women who know they have breast cancer.

[jlogajan]

In short, you can produce 10,000 flawed "case-control" studies, and they won't amount to a hill of beans beside one good cohort study -- recall bias is a really truth killer.

[CyberCowboy777]

I disagree. You should look into the papers that contradict this Denmark study. BTW- This is not the first study out of Denmark that has been debunked. They have a seriously flaw and bias process (kind of like leavening out the absentee ballots from the military personnel overseas.)

If you really wanted to know you would read these studies and counter research papers and not take the word of only those that have a one desired outcome (I believe at least one was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.) The counter research has been peer reviewed and yes, there is disagreement on both side of the debate. Anyone who says it is conclusive is lying through their teeth. I am not a scientist but the case made against the Denmark study sounds pretty darn good to me.

All that aside, I am against the killing of innocent humans. Any doctor will tell you that scientifically the fetus is all human and separate from the mother before they even know they are pregnant. It is not a tumor nor a abnormal growth. It is a person and the only way to justify killing it is to know when and if a soul enters the body making it a sentient being or some other provable and great enough separation from the basic human race. Since that cannot be proven it is always wrong to kill a child.

Would we kill any other segment of the population only to benefit another segment with no extreme circumstances (most abortions are not preformed to save a mothers life (2%? I might be wrong) they are preformed because the mother does not want the baby for some reason or another)?

Would you say it is okay to kill selected old people? Many would benefit from this. If not, why and what is the differance?

[jlogajan]

I used to assume religious people were all above board and honest as a part of their spiritual calling. But that is not the case. Not by a long shot. So when you say there is bias and agenda driven behavior on the other side which raises doubts about the veracity of their research, I'd have to point the finger right back at the anti-abortion crusaders.

I am constantly amazed (if that is the right word) at the amount of dissembling I see coming out of religious advocates for their particular agenda.

So I am disinclined to trust any "report" advocated by religionists anymore. They serve a "greater good" and truth is a secondary consideration.

I'm aware that people on all sides can be dishonest, but now I have to ask particulars -- in what way was the Denmark study dishonest. Haven't seen anyone post a good rebuttal here.

[jlogajan]

I don't think one cell is a human. I don't think two cells are a human. They may be human cells, but they do not constitute a human. I don't think eight cells are a human.

You can take that series pretty far before there is something resembling a human. I am not aware of any religious anti-abortion advocates who accept the notion that one, two, four, eight, sixteen celled clumps are NOT yet human. It is clearly a religious/soul view -- not an ethical/scientifically grounded view.

[ninenot]

Live birth is at least 8 times more dangerous to the mother's life than abortion

Duhhhh

I assume the chart refers to REPORTED maternal-mortality-by-abortion.

Got followup and peer-reviewed results, perchance?

[CyberCowboy777]

As I said, I would do the rebuttal poorly as I am not a Scientist. I hesitate to sum up the work and poorly represent it. Check out the published studies in the peer Journals. Remember, Just as you suspect research from one side I suspect research from the other. And many researchers are on both sides, so please do not passively dismiss the debate because of a closed mind. You know how often research has been wrong, how often the medical field was wrong, how often science has had to change it's position. Though again, I have other reasons that are paramount to be against abortion.

Do you know how early the fetus is beyond 1,2,3 or even a 1,000 cells? We are talking hours after conception (before you wake up the next morning!). Your argument may have validity for embryonic stem cell research, but not abortion. By the 3rd week of pregnancy the Fetus is developed to the point of recognizable human features. It has a working heart, brain and spinal cord. It feels pain and sucks it's thumb. And at three weeks most mothers have no idea they are expecting. Do you know when most abortions occur? Long after the multi-cell stage. We cannot kill this child just to ease the life of the mother, that just is not a good enough reason. We would never kill another segment of the population for the reasoning use to kill babies.