An investigation by the
Concerned Women for America (CWA) has come to a stunning conclusion: A United Nations report says that there is a
direct correspondence between abortion rights and higher rates of maternal mortality.
"Pro-abortion activists frequently argue that abortion reduces the maternal mortality rate worldwide. However, a newly published United Nations (U.N.) report refutes this claim. . . . The data shows that those countries where abortions are performed most freely also have higher rates of maternal death."
If true, this would be stunning news. Luckily, I was able to arrange a brief interview with Wendy Wright, the president of Concerned Women for America, and I asked her about the findings.
***NOTE: This interview never happened. This diary is snark. Leave now if it's going to make you get all snitty.
Q: Ms. Wright, thank you for speaking with me.
A: My pleasure, and it's Miss Wright. Not "Ms."
Q: Oh, I apologize. Miss Wright, I must say your conclusions in this article were quite surprising.
A: They are. It's shocking to see the lies of the pro-abortion activists displayed so clearly. But there they are in the U.N.'s newly published Worldwide Mortality Report 2005.
Q: For this article you compared the data from four countries: Ireland, Poland, Russia, and the United States.
You point out that Ireland and Poland both have strong restrictions on abortion, and in 2000, the year studied, had (respectively) 5 and 13 maternal deaths per every 100,000 births.
The U.S. and Russia, on the other hand, both have few restrictions on abortion, and had (respectively) 17 and 67 maternal deaths per every 100,000 births.
A: That's it exactly. Countries with fewer restrictions on abortion have higher rates of maternal deaths.
Q: So it might seem. But my first question is: why did you pick Russia?
A: Well, they have very few restrictions on abortion, just like the U.S.
Q: Yes, I understand that, but you admit that their general standard of health care is considerably below that of the United States. In fact, according to this same U.N. report, life expectancy in Russia is under 60 for men and about 72 for women, over 15 years lower than life expectancy in the U.S. Doesn't it seem that these two countries don't make the best comparison?
A: You do have to take those factors into account, as you do for all of the countries, but they are both quite liberal on abortion.
Q: Okay, well, then look at Mexico. A very Catholic country, like Ireland, and it has restrictions on abortions that are stronger than Ireland's. But their maternal mortality rate was 83 deaths per 100,000, 14 higher than Russia's. And their life expectancy is higher than Russia's--72 for men and 74 for women.
A: I don't think it's fair to compare Mexico and Ireland or Russia.
Q: That's what I'm asking. Is it fair to compare the U.S. and Russia? Why not look at Canada instead? They have few restrictions, like the U.S., and they had 6 deaths--quite close to Ireland's.
A: Still, that would mean 23 deaths in Canada and the U.S. versus only 18 in Ireland and Poland.
Q: Granted. Then look at other countries with liberal abortion laws: Italy had 5 deaths, Greece had 9, and Sweden had only 2. Then a few middle-of-the-road countries, ones with moderately restrictive laws: Finland had 6 deaths, Australia 8, and the U.K. had 13 deaths.
A: What's your point?
Q: I just think the numbers aren't quite as stark as you suggest in your article. I don't think they support the argument that abortion rights corresponds with higher rates of maternal deaths. I wanted to see what you had to say about these other numbers? And why didn't you look at anything other than these raw numbers in this report?
A: Well, did you finish reading the article? There is a second U.N. report that specifically lists complications from abortion as one of the leading causes of maternal mortality.
Q: Yes, I did read that report.
A: This report, called the Maternal Mortality Update 2004: Delivering Into Good Hands, identified the five leading causes of maternal deaths worldwide. They are hemorrhaging, obstructed labor, infection, eclampsia, and complications from abortion.
Q: Wait, you mean complications from unsafe abortions.
A: I mean what I said: complications from abortions.
Q: But the report, if I remember correctly . . . yes, see, right there on page nine. It says "Most maternal deaths are caused by haemorrage, obstructed labour, infection, eclampsia, and complications from unsafe abortion." Safe abortions are not included.
A: All abortions are unsafe abortions.
Q: This report distinguishes between abortions that are safe for the woman in question and those that aren't.
A: Well, I don't like to make that distinction, when you consider breast cancer and post-abortion syndrome. Numerous studies have shown that abortion poses terrible risk to maternal morality. This includes studies done within the U.S., and now these two by the U.N. The results could not be more clear: maternal morality worldwide is threatened by abortion rights.
Q: Sorry, don't you mean maternal mortality?
A: What?
Q: You said maternal morality. Twice, in fact.
A: No, I didn't.
Q: Yes, I could rewind the tape . . .
A: I'm sorry. I don't have any more time just now.
---------
SNARK OVER.
The article goes on to criticize the U.N. for its focus on preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Each action resolution relating to this topic proposed in the U.N. Population Fund's (UNFPA) International Conference on Population Development's Programme of Action contains a phrase relating to family planning education and prevention of pregnancy. (my emphasis)
Yes, heaven forbid anyone would engage in family planning.
And at the end, the real Wendy Wright is quoted as saying:
"When the concept of population control went out of favor due to the force, coercion, and inherent racism that goes along with such programs, activists changed their theme to 'promoting rights for women' and 'reducing maternal mortality.' . . . These facts help to expose that policies of pushing abortion and 'reproductive rights' are not successful in promoting good health among women. This leads us to believe that they are motivated primarily to reduce the number of people that exist rather than the claimed goal of increasing rights for women."
I suppose that's it. Since there is
clearly no connection between women's rights and family planning, those abortion-rights activists must just want the human race to die out.
On the other hand, the good people at CWA would prefer we all breed as fast as possible. Six or eight children is not too many (or too few)! Just think of their beautiful little faces (and don't think of anything else--like your annual income). Expand! Fill those few corners of the earth that aren't already overrun people! Perhaps this is why Bush wants to auction off our public lands--the space is needed for more condos and malls.