Joanna Alphonso:
Often claiming to be as essential as penicillin, the pro-abortion movement claims to be an evidence-based and medically necessary treatment. A US-based study published on June 30, 2024 in the Medical Research Archives by the European Society of Medicine revealed insufficient data in abortion-related studies, thereby calling into question the medical basis for pro-abortion policy.
Researchers James Studnicki, ScD, and Ingrid Skop, MD, explain that the publication of medical studies in journals requires a high level of detail in the “PICO” format. PICO stands for the condition of the patient, the intervention used for the condition, the outcomes and how they were measured, and comparison to available treatments for said condition. The abortion-related studies that they examined are largely in support of abortion; however, Drs. Studnicki and Skop found that these studies are deficient in a majority of the required scope of detail.
This article quotes former abortionist Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who acknowledged that pregnancy “falls comfortably into none of the usual definitions of disease.” He further commented that it is neither harmful to harmonious functioning of a woman, nor is pregnancy a state of medical, social, or physical abnormality.
The study continues by explaining that many physicians are of the opinion that it is almost never medically necessary to undergo an abortion, even in cases where a mother is in cardiac dysfunction, has cancer, or is in a hypertensive crisis. “Beyond 22 weeks’ gestation,” Drs. Studnicki and Skop comment, “the baby will often survive separation from the mother if given medical intervention. And even if too young or sick to survive, the family can show the child love and express appropriate grief with the assistance of perinatal palliative care.”
Systematic reviews addressing abortion tend not to indicate a disease of the pregnant mother, or any disease that the abortion itself addresses, contrary to PICO. Most research limits focus to how the abortion is carried out, and which is safest and most effective. A vast majority of these studies conclude that more “robust data” is necessary to perform high-quality research.
Only one study found by Drs. Studnicki and Skop defined a condition in accordance with PICO. The diagnosis was the prenatal diagnosis where the baby “would not survive or have permanent handicap” if born alive. This study also eliminated “spontaneous abortion” or miscarriage. The current researchers summarize that the conclusion that abortion is medically necessary has not been addressed in the existing body of science, let alone proven.” There remains no studies that have actually compared the well-being of a mother of a child with an adverse diagnosis who choose to abort a pregnancy with those who choose to allow their child a natural death.
The current researchers characterize the U.S. as “an abortion data desert.” California is the state with the highest number of abortions, but reports no statistics. The Food and Drugs Administration removed the mandatory complication reporting requirement in 2016 for abortions, with the only adverse outcome in its official view is the death of the mother.
Where government funding of healthcare is intended to represent the disease burden of its population, Studnicki and Skop explain, women who end up in hospital emergency rooms are often told not to reveal their recent abortion.
Modern abortion advocates promote free-for-all type access to it. This is a stark contrast to radical abortion advocates Robert Hall and Alan Guttmacher, who thought that this access and evidence-based practice were “irreconcilable.” Studnicki and Skop suggest the only way that this problem can be addressed is to collect more detailed data, while preserving confidentiality of women who seek abortion.
The scientific research community is also calling for more research on abortion. BMC Public Health, an open access and peer-reviewed journal, focuses on medical research and public health policy. The purpose of their call for research is to determine the effect, if any, of restricted abortion access on mental health, including depression and anxiety. The journal seeks to improve access to abortion and contraception. There are no other voices in research calling for objective research on abortion itself, ideally using PICO standards. However, given that it is difficult to use PICO in abortion research, the best alternative is to do a detailed statistical analysis of abortion.
Currently, Canada is in a similar situation as the U.S. regarding abortion statistics. According to the Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada, hospitals must report abortion numbers. Free-standing abortion facilities do not share this obligation, though most tend to report their numbers. There are no further details reported, such as age, marital status, pregnancy diagnosis (including adverse outcomes), reason for abortion, previous abortions, and any other parameters that may factor into a woman’s opting for abortion. These do not include forced abortions or self-administered medical abortions done with the abortion pill, beyond the direction of a medical professional.
Health Canada committed over $84 million towards research on sexual health and reproductive statistics, from 2021 through 2024. The purpose of this research is to determine barriers that LGBT, Indigenous and racialized communities, women, and youth will face in accessing abortion and contraception. They hope to expand abortion access at the conclusion of this initiative. Abortion advocates, abolitionists, and researchers alike eagerly await the release of this data.
