A Serious Misrepresentation of the Relative Safety of Induced Abortion Compared to Childbirth

A Serious Misrepresentation of the Relative Safety of Induced Abortion Compared to Childbirth Published in a Leading Medical Journal | Wecare: Download PDF here

What if you are the author of a major article in a peer reviewed journal that disagreed with the contention that abortion is safer than childbirth, and you write a letter of objection to the editor of "Obstetrics and Gynecology?' Does your letter get printed? Of course not. There isn't room. See below: The letter is from Dr. David Reardon.

Dear Editor,

The comparison of abortion and childbirth mortality rates conducted by Raymond and Grimes(1) uses an "apples versus oranges" comparison which has long been discredited.(2)(3) Indeed, the CDC acknowledges its abortion associated death totals are not only incomplete but are also "conceptually different" than maternal mortality rates.(4)

Fortunately, several high quality record linkage studies, which apply a consistent and uniform standard for identifying and comparing deaths associated with different pregnancy outcomes,(2) have been conducted both in the United States(5) and in a series of studies in Finland.(3)

These studies have consistently shown higher rates of death associated with abortion compared to (a) childbirth, (b) miscarriage, and (c) not being pregnant. While a large portion of increased mortality risk is attributable to elevated rates of suicide and deaths attributed to accidents, abortion is also associated with significantly higher mortality rates for death from natural causes.(2)(5)

That these record linkage studies were completely omitted from this purported "review"(1) is inexcusably dishonest. This "apples versus oranges" retread appears to be nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to generate misleading headlines about abortion being "safer" than childbirth.

David C. Reardon, Ph.D.

(1) Raymond, Elizabeth G.; Grimes, David A. The Comparative Safety of Legal Induced Abortion and Childbirth in the United States. Obstetrics & Gynecology. 119(2, Part 1):215-219, February 2012.
(2) Reardon DC, Strahan TW, Thorp JM, Shuping MW. Deaths associated with abortion compared to childbirth: a review of new and old data and the medical and legal implications. The Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 2004; 20(2):279〓327.
(3) Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier〓Colle MH, Buekens P. Methods for identifying pregnancy-associated deaths: population-based data from Finland 1987-2000. Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2004 Nov;18(6):448〓55.
(4) Elliot Institute. New Study Finds Women Are Three Times More Likely To Die After An Abortion: CDC Admits Its Abortion and Childbirth Mortality Statistics Are Not Comparable. Sept 9, 2005 Afterabortion.org http://afterabortion.org/?p=2493 Accessed, February 8, 2012.
(5) Reardon DC, Ney PG , Scheuren FJ, Cougle JR, Coleman, PK, Strahan T. "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women." Southern Medical Journal, August 2002, 95(8):834-841.

The basic answer he received from the Green Journal was:"Your Letter to the Editor has been evaluated. We regret to inform you that we were not able to accept it for publication. It was declined on the basis of priority. Other letters were received on this manuscript and we only have limited space. Unfortunately, we can only publish a fraction of the letters received." To which Dr. Reardon replied:

I understand the limitation of space. Can you assure me that the other, better written, letters address this review's failure to identify and discuss the six to eight record based studies out of Finland and the United States which demonstrate that abortion is associated with an elevated risk of maternal deaths compared to delivery? 

Or is my letter being rejected to cover up the failure of your journal and peer reviewers to hold this "review" accountable for suppressing evidence which runs counter to "abortion is safe" mantra?

I am especially amazed that the record based studies of STAKES, the statistical analysis unit of Finland's National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, are being systematically ignored even though their findings have been confirmed in an American population in our own study."

Dr. David Reardon

Note: Dr. Reardon's letter was not printed in the March "letters" in OB & GYN. No letters referable to the Raymod/Grimes article were printed. Still possible to get in the April edition. We'll watch with you.

'via Blog this'