Abortion hurts women. We know this because women who have had an abortion share their stories. Many academic studies tell us this too. Indeed, SPUC has been at the forefront of publishing balanced, authoritative information on the harm abortion does to women.

Yet, one study after another, allegedly showing that abortion has no adverse impact on women, is put before the public and policy makers by the pro-abortion lobby. Should we be suspicious of these studies? Yes, we should.

Flawed data from pro-abortion organisations

Probe many studies cited by the abortion industry and we find that the research has been carried out by a pro-abortion organisation; that the data used in the study is flawed, and that parts of the study which do not fit in with their narrative are ignored, and/or the results do not accord with other findings.

We saw this in the slew of academic research which was rolled out to tell us that DIY abortion is safe. And these flaws are found in a 2019 study which abortion advocates would have us believe shows that there is “no evidence that having an abortion is detrimental to women’s general physical health”.

It’s worth looking at this sweeping claim, firstly because of the context in which it was made, and secondly, because it’s useful to look at how and why such studies cannot be trusted.

Unsurprisingly, the people quoting this study are Patricia Lohr, Medical Director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, Jonathan Lord, Medical Director of MSI Reproductive Choices UK and Professor Sam Rowlands, Secretary of the British Society of Abortion Care Providers. They are the joint authors of an essay in a 2020 publication titled, “Decriminalising Abortion in the UK – What would it mean?” [1]

Decriminalising abortion is still an important goal for the abortion lobby, and they are marshalling their arguments to drive it forward.

So, what’s wrong with the study these pro-abortionists are relying on? The first red flag to pop up is that this work comes from ANSIRH (Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health), which is well known for its openly pro-abortion political position.

The study compares three groups of women; those having a first-trimester abortion, those having a second-trimester abortion close to the legal limit, and women who gave birth because they were denied an abortion because their gestational age was after the legal limit of the clinic.

These women were asked to self-report their overall health over five years, including chronic abdominal, pelvic, back and joint pain; chronic headaches or migraines; and obesity. The researchers apparently found that the health of the two groups of women who aborted their babies was similar, but that the self-reported health of the mothers who gave birth was worse.

Let’s see how that holds up to scrutiny. First of all, the differences in the health outcomes across the groups were small and, in any case, asking people to self-report is a poor way to measure health. A subconscious bias in the women wanting to justify their abortion would influence them to talk positively about their health. While for mothers, the sleepless nights and general exhaustion of looking after a small child could influence them to feel that their health was poor, even though the protective effects of giving birth are well-established. Becoming a mother often leads to a healthier lifestyle and a reduction in risky behaviours.[2]

In addition, this is not a blinded study, so the interviewers knew which women they were talking to, which adds another layer of potential bias, particularly in the light of the organisation behind this study.

The abortion advocates quoting this study give the impression that any woman giving birth would have poorer physical health than a woman who aborts her baby. Not so.

The women in the study were seeking a late-term abortion, but not because they had been told that the baby had a disability. These women were likely to have had difficult and complex circumstances surrounding their abortion decision; troubled relationships, concealing a pregnancy till very late, or being abandoned by a partner or family after initially planning to have the baby. These women were vulnerable and not typical of all women who give birth.

Diminishing the impact of abortion on women

Another problem is that the data used for this study was taken from the “Turnaway” study. This data has been used by many researchers and is deeply flawed, resulting in distorted findings in numerous studies, which appear to diminish the impact of abortion on women.

Initially, over 3,000 women were approached for the “Turnaway” study, but less than 1,000 started. And by the end of the five years, only half of them were still participating. Women who were distressed by their abortion either did not join the study in the first place or dropped out early on. This means that only women who dealt well with their abortion are represented and, by comparison, the vulnerable women who gave birth, because they were “turned away” from the abortion clinic, would appear to have worse outcomes.

The truth will prevail

Finally, let’s remember that any study attempting to convince us that abortion is a healthier option than giving birth will be outnumbered by many others showing the opposite. A 2012 study produced the startling finding that the risk of death from childbirth was 14 times higher than from “legal induced abortion”. This claim was blown right out of the water by Dr David Reardon, founder of the pro-life Elliot Institute, who stated that it is an “indisputable fact that all studies which employ record linkage have found that mortality rates associated with childbirth are significantly lower than those associated with abortion”.

In the end, the truth will prevail. In the meantime, it’s our job to expose the false claims that abortion is in any way good for women.