Pro-Abortion False Claims Provoke Confusion and Fear

Since the Dobbs decision, there has been a flurry of social media posts about abortion. Much of the content is an expression of differing views about the issues related to the decision. Unfortunately, some of the rapidly spreading posts contain misinformation or half-truths.  This is problematic.

Willingly or even unknowingly promoting false or misleading information is not constructive dialogue.  It only leads to great confusion, anxiety, anger, and fear. It damages our ability to have the necessary constructive dialogue regarding important issues.

For example, some who object to the Dobbs decision claim that elective abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth. They say since this is the case, women should be able to “opt-out” of pregnancy. This assertion has shocked and horrified people I know.  They have interpreted this statement to mean that childbirth is unsafe.

This statistic, however, is terribly misleading.  Even more disturbing is that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is promulgating this information.  (I’ll explain why it is misleading below.)

Actress Halle Berry also shared a social media post with false allegations. It suggested that since abortion is prohibited in many states, emergent treatments for life-threatening situations like ectopic pregnancies are now also illegal, and women will die. This post was shared over 80,000 times with more than 300,000 “likes.”

My sister saw this information and called me last week, distraught. She underwent emergency surgery six months ago to treat an ectopic pregnancy. She could empathize with women in situations like hers and knew the risks of ectopic pregnancies. So, she was distressed as to whether the post was factual

These two abortion-related claims are similar in that they provoke panic in some readers. But, ultimately, they are examples of misinformation. Tragically, these statements (among others) are sowing confusion and fears. To try to help bring some clarity to these questions, I wanted to address these two claims and offer some helpful resources.

Is Elective Abortion Safer Than Childbirth?

The claim that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth is based on one study from 2012. Even though no other research has replicated its findings, this study is still cited by ACOG.  Many hold that the ACOG is an authority for obstetrics guidance.

The ACOG published a document in 2020 arguing abortions were safe.  It pushed for easier access by using this study’s conclusions to support its stance. However, this 2012 study has significant limitations and is unreliable.

We should have reservations in accepting the conclusions of any study done in the United States claiming to be able to accurately calculate the abortion mortality rate (like the 2012 study). To calculate the mortality rate of elective abortions, we need to know the numerator (how many deaths occurred during elective abortions). Then, we must determine the denominator (how many total elective abortions were performed).

A precise calculation, however, relies on accurate data.  And in the United States, there are no requirements for reporting the number of abortions performed or the complications. Some states and facilities voluntarily submit data to the Guttmacher Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). However, there are no means of ensuring the data is accurate. And some states do not provide any data at all. Therefore, these numbers should be viewed as estimates only.

Questionable Conclusions

Additionally, estimates of all pregnancy-related deaths are made by the CDC utilizing death certificates. However, death certificates may have documentation errors.  There may also be incomplete or inaccurate information about the deceased’s medical details.

These documents also often fail to note if a woman has given birth or had an abortion within the twelve months preceding her death. Hence, the CDC acknowledges that the number of fatalities reported may be inaccurate.

A precise calculation of mortality rates is impossible if we do not have accurate data for abortion-related deaths or total abortions performed. Yet the 2012 study calculated an abortion mortality rate merely using these databases. Hence, this raises serious questions about the validity of its conclusion.

Moreover, there has not been any other study on abortion and childbirth that has been able to replicate the 2012 results. In research, analyses are unreliable if others cannot reproduce data.  Dr. John Ferrer has also scrutinized the study and expounded on its many flaws. He concluded that “despite its popularity, [the study] is pretty much useless.”

Data on Maternal Mortality Throughout the World

This 2012 study also cannot be viewed in isolation. Numerous other studies have provided us with outcomes in pregnant women.

One meta-analysis evaluated 11 studies that reported maternal mortality rates from various countries. It found that women who experienced a pregnancy loss (abortion, miscarriage, or failed pregnancy) were twice as likely to die within the following twelve months compared with women who gave birth.

The analysis also demonstrated that this elevated mortality risk persisted for several years.  What’s more, an additional pregnancy loss increased this mortality risk even further. But the findings also showed that this elevated mortality risk might be reduced if the woman had a successful delivery in a subsequent pregnancy.

The authors of this meta-analysis emphasized that they did not want to suggest that pregnancy loss was “the sole cause of the elevated risk of death identified in these studies.” They highlighted that “there is ample evidence to believe pregnancy loss can be a contributing cause,” and further research is needed.

Moreover, the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) published a committee opinion on whether abortions are safer than childbirth. They referenced a study from Finland.  (In Finland, data can be collected more reliably because of the universal health system.)

The Finnish study analyzed all pregnancies.  The study concluded that the risk of death after abortion was four times greater than the risk of death from childbirth. This research contradicts and raises further questions about the 2012 study results.

Risks After Abortions

The mortality rate is not the only concern after a woman has an abortion. The Charlotte Lozier Institute reported the results of a study in Finland studying women less than seven weeks gestation who had an induced chemical abortion [using medications]. They found that 1 in 5 women had adverse events (bleeding, infection, or incomplete abortion that required additional interventions).

Additionally, AAPLOG has thoroughly demonstrated how evidence has consistently linked abortion to an elevated mental health risk (at least a 45% increased risk). Elsewhere, AAPLOG has highlighted how studies show that women who have had an abortion have an increased risk for preterm labor in a subsequent pregnancy. These risks may increase from 25% after one abortion to 51% after more than two abortions.  Preterm labor can also cause complications for the mother and child.

In addition to the fact that abortions take the life of an unborn human being, studies demonstrate concerns surrounding outcomes for the mothers. Abortion likely has low maternal mortality, but there are other potential risks in women who have had an abortion. Hence, it is disingenuous to imply that abortions are unambiguously safe for a woman.

Does Making Abortion Illegal Result in Increased Maternal Mortality?

The claim that abortion is 14 times safer than childbirth can also lead to a further erroneous assumption—if abortion becomes illegal, the maternal mortality rate will inevitably increase. However, we can compare maternal mortality worldwide to see that this is not necessarily the case.

In 2017, Malta, Poland, and Greece were countries with some of the lowest maternal deaths. Abortion is illegal in Malta and Poland except when there is an emergent threat to the mother’s life. Greece permits abortions on demand. Despite their radically different laws related to abortions, all three countries had rare maternal deaths in 2017.

So as our state and federal governments debate the legality of abortion, it is important to stress that abortion restrictions do not automatically result in worsening maternal mortality.

The Risk of Dying After Abortion or Childbirth

In 1960, Dr. Mary Calderone, the medical director of Planned Parenthood of America, acknowledged that childbirth and abortion (even though abortion was illegal at that time) were both “safe” in America. She said, “medically speaking, that is, from the point of view of diseases of the various systems, cardiac, genitourinary, and so on, it is hardly ever necessary today to consider the life of a mother as threatened by pregnancy.”

Calderone also recognized what we know to be true today – the mortality rates for childbirth and the estimated mortality rates for abortions in America are both low.

Nonetheless, ACOG and others continue to claim that abortion is statistically safer than childbirth.  But it is impossible to make this claim with certainty in the United States. This is because there are no official requirements in the U.S. for reporting abortion numbers and complications. However, we can use our limited data to evaluate this assertion.

In an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation used some of the estimates available. They noted a 0.02% risk of dying in childbirth and a 0.001% risk of dying with an abortion. This means that “your chance of surviving childbirth is 99.99980%, and your chance of surviving abortion is 99.99999%.” If we compare these risks mathematically, there is a 20 times greater chance of dying in childbirth than in abortion. So, the claim is “technically” valid. But, as this pro-life group highlighted, there is “no practical significance” to this claim.

Does Dobbs Prevent Doctors from Saving a Pregnant Woman’s Life?

In the United States, while the likelihood of a pregnant woman dying is low, there are times when life-threatening situations do arise. However, because of the Dobbs decision, some assert that women will die because treatments for ectopic pregnancies or incomplete miscarriages are now illegal. These statements are false. In the various states where abortion is restricted, the laws make distinctions between elective abortion and treatments for ectopic pregnancies and other life-threatening situations.

Daniel Gump has researched the various exceptions in state laws on abortion and has created maps to illustrate some of these details. Texas is an excellent example to highlight.

In Texas law, the treatment for ectopic pregnancies is mentioned explicitly as distinct from an induced abortion and, as such, is not illegal. Furthermore, Texas law recognizes that treatment for a miscarriage differs from an induced abortion and is not unlawful. Texas law also has exceptions when interventions are done to save the mother’s life.

It would be valuable for everyone to explore Daniel’s research in-depth, but to summarize, he demonstrates that state laws have similar distinctions throughout the country. Hence, it is disingenuous to suggest that life-saving interventions are prohibited because of Dobbs. (A good summary of Daniel’s research can also be found at Secular Pro-Life: here.)

Safe Treatment Has Always Been Available

Pro-life doctors have always been able to safely treat ectopic pregnancies and care for pregnant women in these life-threatening situations.

For example, Dr. Christine Francis said, “As a pro-life OB/GYN who has practiced my entire career in hospitals that do not allow abortions, I have never been prevented from safely treating an ectopic pregnancy.”

Additionally, Catholic hospitals have always prohibited abortions. However, they still safely care for and treat pregnant women in these life-threatening situations. These precedents demonstrate that if states make induced abortions illegal, these women and their unborn children will still be cared for.

Contending with Social Media

While social media has some benefits, we have witnessed some of its challenges over the past several years. In particular, the speed at which misinformation spreads is dangerous. And it’s far too easy to post lies, half-truths, and propaganda. It takes a great deal of time and energy to counter false claims.

With the recent Dobbs decision and the ongoing debates about abortion in our country, I anticipate we will continue to see various provocative posts. Recognizing that social media is not a reliable source of truth or medical knowledge is crucial. Be critical of what you read and verify information from various reliable authorities.

In addition to the references that I included within the article, here are a few other excellent resources related to abortion and the recent Dobbs decision that I have found helpful:

*The various amicus briefs submitted to the Supreme Court for the Dobbs case provide valuable information. Links to these briefs can be found here.

*AAPLOG provides many resources: here.

*Pro-life arguments against abortion and in support of the Dobbs decision are not merely religious. Secular Pro-Life is proof of this and is a great resource: here.

About Dr. Allison Low:  Dr. Allison Tobola Low has written several articles for CS.  She is a lifelong Catholic, passionate about sharing Christ and the Catholic faith with others. She is married and works full-time as a physician in Tyler, Texas.  In addition to being a Doctor of Medicine, she has a master’s degree in Theology from the Augustine Institute in Denver, CO, and a master’s degree in Catholic Bioethics from the University of Mary.  Allison finds time to teach and share the Catholic faith every opportunity she can, including being a catechist for Adult Faith Formation and RCIA at her local parish.