European newspapers are reporting that a new review of 75 scientific studies shows that women who have had a pregnancy terminated by abortion or miscarriage are far more likely to give birth prematurely in subsequent pregnancies. The findings were presented at the 25th annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Amsterdam.

The Mirror (U.K.) gives details:

A single termination raised the risk by 20%. Two or more increased the chances by 90%.

And women who have had more than one abortion double their risk of having a “very” premature baby – classed as being born before 34 weeks.

Lead researcher Dr Robbert van Oppenraaij said: “It can be concluded that a history of abortion is associated with an increased risk for premature delivery and very premature delivery.”

He added more research was needed as the findings showed only an association between abortions and pre-term delivery and not necessarily a direct link.

This is not news for pro-lifers, and should not really be news to the medical community; similar results were reported in a prominent American study in 2003 (download it here). However, there is great resistance in the scientific community to studying the effects of abortion, and there is likewise resistance in the media to reporting the results of such studies when they do not present abortion as a healthy “choice.” A survey of 162 research scientists last year found that “one-fourth of the respondents no longer included controversial topics (for example, ‘abortion’ and ‘emergency contraception’) in their research agendas, and four researchers had made major career changes as a result of the controversy.”

RELATED: Americans United for Life works towards informed-consent laws requiring abortion providers to tell patients about possible complications and other unforeseen outcomes — just as doctors are required to do before conducting any other medical procedure. Informed-consent laws also give a woman the opportunity to see her unborn child via ultrasound — to insure she is aware that it is a child, and not, as Planned Parenthood calls it, a “tissue of pregnancy.” AUL Staff Counsel Mailee Smith describes the necessity for such regulations in “Informed-Consent Laws: Protecting a Woman’s Right to Know.”

In September 2008, the Family Research Council published a study by Dr. Michael New entitled “The Effect of Parental Involvement Laws on the Incidence of Abortion Among Minors.” The study demonstrates the effectiveness of parental involvement laws (parental notice and consent) in reducing abortion rates.

New’s study examined the parental involvement laws in all 50 states and analyzed the effects of those laws on abortion rates between 1985 and 1999. The study showed that “when a state enacts a parental involvement law, the abortion rate falls by an average of approximately 13.6 percent.”

In October 2008, the Guttmacher Institute attempted to refute the conclusion of New’s study in their online publication, “The Impact of Parental Involvement Laws.” They claimed that New’s study suffered from a lack of credible supporting evidence and methodological flaws. According to Guttmacher, evidence provided by authoritative sources such as the New England Journal of Medicine present evidence contradicting New’s study.

Guttmacher also asserted that, contrary to New’s conclusion, the main reason for the decrease in abortion rates among teens has been a decrease in teen pregnancy rates; and this decrease in teen pregnancy is attributable primarily to the “improved contraception use among sexually active minors.” Lastly, Guttmacher argued that parental involvement laws put minors at risk of greater abortion complications, physical violence, and abuse.

Today, Dr. New published a response to Guttmacher’s attack, debunking all of Guttmacher’s arguments.

Credible Evidence

Contrary to Guttmacher’s assertion, New’s study relied upon evidence published by numerous authoritative sources, such as the Center for Disease Prevention and Control, the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the New England Journal of Medicine, the American Journal of Public Health, and the Journal of Health Economics, to name a few.

New refuted Guttmacher’s claim that a 2006 study published by the New England Journal of Medicine presented evidence contradicting his study. He points out that, if one reads the study carefully, it is apparent that it actually supports his conclusions. The study concluded that, after the Texas parental notice law took effect in 2000, there were statistically significant declines in the abortion rate for 15-, 16- and 17-year olds. Moreover, the authors contacted the state health departments in neighboring states and found very little evidence that Texas minors were obtaining abortions across state lines.

Methodology

New successfully disproved Guttmacher’s claim that studies such as his suffer from methodological flaws. Guttmacher falsely stated that such studies “track abortions by state of occurrence, not by state of residence,” and therefore fail to take into account the minors who travel across state lines to obtain abortions. Guttmacher suggested that parental involvement laws “may succeed in shifting the occurrence of abortions from one state to another.”

In response, New pointed out that “the CDC only releases minor abortion data by state of occurrence” and that “social scientists can only use data which is publicly available.”

Second, New pointed out that every source he cited in his study showed that parental involvement laws did not result in an increase or “shift” in the number of minors crossing state lines to obtain abortions. Peer-reviewed studies from Massachusetts, Minnesota, South Carolina, and Texas demonstrated that after parental involvement laws were enacted in those states, the abortion rate for minors decreased and the number of minors crossing state lines to obtain abortions did not contemporaneously increase (and in some cases, that number actually decreased).

Teen Pregnancy and Improved Use of Contraceptives

New disproved Guttmacher’s claims that teen pregnancy rates (and thus teen abortion rates) have been falling steadily at a national level, regardless of the enactment of state parental involvement laws. He pointed out, “states that passed pro-life parental involvement laws saw minor abortion rates fall faster than the national trend.”

New also refuted Guttmacher’s argument that the improved use of contraceptives – not parental involvement laws – is responsible for the decrease in teen pregnancy and the subsequent decrease in minor abortions. He pointed out that the study upon which Guttmacher relied in making their argument suffered from numerous flaws. Significantly, the study “assumes that minors would use contraception as consistently/reliable as adults. In reality, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.”

Putting Minors at Risk of Abortion Complications, Physical Violence, and Abuse

New refuted Guttmacher’s assertion that parental involvement laws delay the abortion process and thereby expose minors to more dangerous abortion risks and complications. Guttmacher did not present any evidence to support this claim. New also stated that many minors are “unaware of their own medical history,” and cited cases where minors have died because they were unable to inform their abortion provider that they were allergic to anesthesia.

New easily refutes Guttmacher’s claim that parental involvement laws put minors in danger of physical violence and abuse by their parents. The U.S. Supreme Court has established that all parental involvement laws must allow a judicial bypass procedure. Moreover, parental involvement laws protect minors from sexual predators who seek to cover up their crimes by secret abortions.

In short, Dr. New’s response to Guttmacher’s attack on his study further demonstrates the effectiveness and necessity of parental involvement laws to protect minors and reduce the number of abortions in America.

This is the fifth of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Placenta Previa

Thorp, Hartmann & Shadigian, Long-Term Physical and Psychological Health Consequences of Induced Abortion: Review of the Evidence, 58 Obst. & Gyn. Survey 67 (2003)

Abstract:
Induced abortion is a prevalent response to an unintended pregnancy. The long-term health consequences are poorly investigated and conclusions must be drawn from observational studies. Using strict inclusion criteria (study population >100 subjects, follow up >60 days) we reviewed an array of conditions in women’s health. Induced abortion was not associated with changes in the prevalence of subsequent subfertility, spontaneous abortion, or ectopic pregnancy.

Previous abortion was a risk factor for placenta previa. Moreover, induced abortion increased the risks for both a subsequent preterm delivery and mood disorders substantial enough to provoke attempts of self-harm. Preterm delivery and depression are important conditions in women’s health and avoidance of induced abortion has potential as a strategy to reduce their prevalence.

Only review articles including the single published meta-analysis exploring linkages between abortion and breast cancer were relied upon to draw conclusions. Reviewers were mixed on whether subsequent breast neoplasia can be linked to induced abortion, although the sole meta-analysis found a summary odds ratio of 1.2. Whatever the effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk, a young woman with an unintended pregnancy clearly sacrifices the protective effect of a term delivery should she decide to abort and delay childbearing. That increase in risk can be quantified using the Gail Model.

Thus, we conclude that informed consent before induced abortion should include information about the subsequent risk of preterm delivery and depression. Although it remains uncertain whether elective abortion increases subsequent breast cancer, it is clear that a decision to abort and delay pregnancy culminates in a loss of protection with the net effect being an increased risk.

This is the fourth of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Rooney & Calhoun, Induced Abortion and Risk of Later Premature Births, 8 J. Am. Physicians & Surgeons 46 (2003)

Abstract:

At least 49 studies have demonstrated a statistically significant increase in premature births (PB) or low birth weight (LBW) risk in women with prior induced abortions (IAs). This paper will focus on the risk of early premature births (EPBs) (< 32 weeks gestation) and extremely early premature births (XPBs) (<28) weeks gestation). Large studies have reported a doubling of EPB risk from two prior IAs. Women who had four or more. IAs experienced, on average, nine times the risk of XPB, an increase of 800 percent.

These results suggest that women contemplating IA should be informed of this potential risk to subsequent pregnancies, and that physicians should be aware of the potential liability and possible need for intensified prenatal care.

This is the third of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Ancel et al., “History of Induced Abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: Results of EUROPOP survey,” 19 Human Reproduction 734 (2004)

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to investigate the relationship between history of induced abortion and preterm delivery in various parts of Europe, and according to the main cause of preterm birth.

METHODS: We used data from a case–control survey, the EUROPOP study; 2,938 preterm births and 4,781 controls at term from ten European countries were included. Based on national statistics, we distinguished three groups of countries with high, intermediate and low rates of induced abortion.

RESULTS: Previous induced abortions were significantly associated with preterm delivery and the risk of preterm birth increased with the number of abortions. Odds ratios did not differ significantly between the three groups of countries. The extent of association with previous induced abortion varied according to the cause of preterm delivery. Previous induced abortions significantly increased the risk of preterm delivery after idiopathic preterm labour, preterm premature rupture of membranes and ante-partum haemorrhage, but not preterm delivery after maternal hypertension. The strength of the association increased with decreasing gestational age at birth.

CONCLUSIONS: Identifying subgroups of preterm births on the basis of the complications involved in delivery increases our understanding of the mechanisms by which previous induced abortion affects subsequent pregnancy outcomes.

This is the second of a series of posts highlighting various studies that document medical risks from abortion.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Moreau, et al., “Previous Induced Abortion and the Risk of Very PreTerm Delivery: Results of the EPIPAGE Study,” 112 Brit. J. Gyn 430 (April 2005).

Abstract:
There is some concern about the effects of induced abortion on subsequent pregnancy outcomes, in part because abortion usually is induced early or about halfway through a woman’s reproductive life. Recent studies have shown an excessive risk of preterm delivery. This study examined the risk of very preterm birth, at 22 to 32 weeks gestation, as related to previous induced abortion. A case-control study enrolled 1843 very preterm live-born singleton infants at less than 33 weeks gestation, 276 infants born at 33 to 34 weeks gestation (moderately premature), and 618 unmatched full-term control women who delivered at 39 to 40 weeks duration. Mothers of preterm infants were younger than those with full-term infants, had less education, and were likelier to be living alone, to be unemployed, and to smoke.

A history of induced abortion correlated with an increased risk of very preterm birth (odds ratio, 1.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.2-2.1). There was little change when controlling for maternal characteristics or without adjusting for a history of preterm deliveries. In addition, the association remained the same when women with previous preterm delivery were excluded. The risk tended to increase with the number of previous induced abortions. The adjusted risk of preterm delivery associated with induced abortions tended to be highest for extremely preterm deliveries. The major complications leading to very preterm birth were premature rupture of membranes and idiopathic spontaneous preterm labor, and these occurred more often in connection with extremely preterm birth. Hypertension and fetal growth restriction were more common when infants were born at 28 to 32 weeks gestation. An association between previous induced abortion and very preterm delivery related to fetal growth restriction was apparent in infants born at 28 to 32 weeks gestation.

This study shows that a history of induced abortion increases the risk of very preterm birth, particularly extremely preterm deliveries. It appears that both infectious and mechanical mechanisms may be involved.

In the last several years, the “usual suspects” in the pro-abortion movement have been infesting other nations with their pro-choice rhetoric.  One need only peruse the first page of the Center for Reproductive Rights’ website to see headlines such as “Center for Reproductive Rights Denounces Chilean Constitutional Tribunal’s Decision to Ban Distribution of ‘Morning-After Pill’ in Public Facilities” and “Filipino Women and Men Sue Manila Mayor for Ban on Contraception.”   It is clear that the battle lines are now being drawn in countries far from our U.S. Supreme Court’s jurisdiction.  Thus, it is becoming all the more important for the pro-life movement to shift to a more global focus, and support our pro-life brothers and sisters in other nations as they wage a war which has been litigated in this country for 35 years.  We have much to offer from our wins and our losses.

To read the entire article click here

As we noted in the press release on the 35th anniversary of Roe, the five most well-documented medical risks from abortion are:

1. A heightened risk of pre-term birth in future pregnancy
2. An increased incidence of alcohol and drug abuse
3. An increased risk of suicide
4. A heightened risk of placenta previa in future pregnancies
5. The loss of protective effect against breast cancer from a first full-term pregnancy

This post is the first in a series of posts that will highlight the studies documenting these risks.

Heightened Risk of Pre-Term Birth (PTB)

Calhoun, Shadigian, and Rooney, “Cost Consequences of Induced Abortion as an Attributable Risk for Preterm Birth and Impact on Informed Consent,” 52 J. Repro. Medicine 929 (2007).

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the human and monetary cost consequences of preterm delivery as related to induced abortion (IA), with its impact on informed consent and medical malpractice.

STUDY DESIGN: A review of the literature in English was performed to assess the effect of IA on preterm delivery rates from 24 to 316/7 weeks to assess the risk for preterm birth attributable to IA. After calculating preterm birth risk, the increased initial neonatal hospital costs and cerebral palsy (CP) risks related to IA were calculated.

RESULTS: IA increased the early preterm delivery rate by 31.5%, with a yearly increase in initial neonatal hospital costs related to IA of >$1.2 billion. The yearly human cost includes 22,917 excess early preterm births (EPB) (<32 weeks) and 1,096 excess CP cases in very-low-birth-weight newborns, <1,500 g.

CONCLUSION: IA contributes to significantly increased neonatal health costs by causing 31.5% of EPB. Providers of obstetric care and abortion should be aware of the risk of preterm birth attributable to induced abortion, with its significant increase in initial neonatal hospital costs and CP cases. (J Reprod Med 2007;52:929-937)