LifeShite reports that an old pal of DJ's and father (snerk) of the current BAD (biased, agenda-driven) Abortion Science campaign, David Reardon, is at it again.
A new study of the medical records for nearly half a million women in Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared to delivery. This finding has confirmed similar large-scale population studies conducted in Finland and the United States, but contradicts the widely held belief that abortion is safer than childbirth.Funny that. It's the complete opposite finding from a study published in January this year that, not surprisingly, concluded that giving birth is 14 times more lethal than abortion.
Dr. Elizabeth Raymond from Gynuity Health Projects in New York City and Dr. David Grimes of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, found that between 1998 and 2005, one woman died during childbirth for every 11,000 or so babies born.I say 'unsurprisingly' because obviously women who give birth are pregnant a lot longer than women who terminate, so one factor is simply odds.
That compared to one woman of every 167,000 who died from a legal abortion.
The researchers also cited a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention which found that, from 1998 to 2001, the most common complications associated with pregnancy -- including high blood pressure, urinary tract infections and mental health conditions -- happened more often in women who had a live birth than those who got an abortion.
The researchers on the real sciencey study are quick to point out that both outcomes are very safe, but that to alarm women considering abortion with bogus health risks does no one any favours.
I was going to debunk this new study but thought I'd tweet the link to James C. Coyne, BAD science watcher, who very ably demolished Priscilla Coleman's latest.
Dr Coyne directed me to this blogpost of his in which Reardon makes a rather startling admission.
Did Priscilla Coleman write her review with the intention of building a literature to restrict access to abortion? David Reardon is Coleman's co-author on ten of the articles included in her meta-analysis and according to the NY Times is know as the "Moses of the anti-abortion movement." In an article, he announced his intention rather explicitly:The intent of this BAD science is -- explicitly -- to make women fear abortion.
For the purpose of passing restrictive laws to protect women from unwanted and/or dangerous abortions, it does not matter if people have a pro-life view. The ambivalent majority of people who are willing to tolerate abortion in "some cases" are very likely to support informed consent legislation and abortion clinic regulations, for example, because these proposals are consistent with their desire to protect women. In some cases, it is not even necessary to convince people of abortion's dangers. It is sufficient to simply raise enough doubts about abortion that they will refuse to actively oppose the proposed anti-abortion initiative. In other words, if we can convince many of those who do not see abortion to be a "serious moral evil" that they should support anti-abortion policies that protect women and reduce abortion rates, that is a sufficiently good end to justify NRS efforts. Converting these people to a pro-life view, where they respect life rather than simply fear abortion, is a second step. The latter is another good goal, but it is not necessary to the accomplishment of other good goals, such as the passage of laws that protect women from dangerous abortions and thereby dramatically reduce abortion rates.
They admit they are simply creating doubts and raising fears.
This is NOT science. This is propaganda.