|
In
1988 the Supreme Court struck down Canada’s abortion
law and effectively removed all barriers to abortion on
demand. In the ensuing 15 years, over 1.5 million babies
have been extinguished by abortion in Canada. Our society
has been led to believe that abortion has made a positive
contribution to women’s health. As a female medical
student, and member of Canadian Physicians for Life, I
would like to offer some thoughts on why abortion is actually
detrimental to women's health, both physically and psychologically.
Psychologically,
pro-abortion vocabulary uses phrases like "my body,
my choice". This sounds empowering, however it is
rarely the woman’s choice alone. These phrases speak
to the subconscious of women in the voices of their employers,
partners, teachers, and parents: "Yes it is your
body, and you had better choose what we are expecting
of you, so as to make our lives easier. This burden is
yours alone, and we support only one choice, that which
will save us hassle and worry." In essence, the woman
often feels abandoned rather than empowered and supported.
Pro-abortion vocabulary also tells us that "men have
no right to say what you should do with your body",
and yet women often hear "men have no obligation
to help you through this". Once again, she hears
that she is alone. Relationships often suffer consequences
secondary to abortion. Many women blame their partner
for the pain they go through following an abortion, and
the relationship then suffers the same fate as the pregnancy.
Women are expected to have abortions in certain circumstances
such as unplanned pregnancy, if she is single or if her
partner isn't interested in parenting, and during school
and university years. Women are pressured to have an abortion
on many socioeconomic fronts. Abortion has allowed employers
and universities to treat pregnancy as an easily avoidable
condition. When support and approval are only there for
one course of action, so much for choice.
As
a medical student, I have encountered yet another example
of the false vocabulary that permeates the abortion debate.
In my Obstetrics and Gynecology rotation, we had the option
of attending many subspecialty clinics, such as perinatology
and infertility. Another clinic on the list is entitled
the "Reproductive Health Clinic", a name which
certainly does not explain its purpose of terminating
unwanted pregnancies, and which does not have much to
do with either reproduction or health. Abortion must make
use of such pseudonyms to avoid the reality of what abortion
actually is.
There
are many sorrowful psychological consequences to abortion.
As a medical student in my Obstetrics and Gynecology rotation,
when asking a woman about her obstetrical history, I have
yet to meet a woman who seemed content and liberated by
her choice to terminate a pregnancy. No, on the other
hand, when asked about past terminations, the usual reaction
is not one of pride, empowerment or even the expression
of satisfaction of making a good or "right"
choice. Rather the woman drops her head, her gaze moves
downward, and she seems bound by sadness and regret. Many
situations can reawaken those negative feelings, such
as the birth of a woman's first "wanted" child,
seeing a girlfriend’s ultrasound picture of her unborn
child, or the anniversary of the termination. Post Abortion
Syndrome is very real. But too often, a woman is unable
to speak of the grief she experiences. She may feel that
because it was her choice, she now can't expect others
to sympathise with her private sorrow. She may feel that
admitting her grief would give support to the "pro-life"
message, and she has been taught that "pro-lifers"
are her enemy. Through organizations like Project Rachel,
a post-abortion healing outreach within the Catholic Church,
women have a forum in which they are comfortable to express
their grief.
In
addition to emotional health, abortion has physical health
consequences for women. The links between abortion and
the increased incidence of breast cancer, premature delivery
in subsequent pregnancy, depression and suicide are being
demonstrated by new studies. Women who have abortions
are at significantly higher risk of death secondary to
various causes than women who give birth, according to
a study published August 2002 in Southern Medical Journal(1)
. "Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record
Linkage Study of Low Income Women" reports on research
which linked California Medicaid records for 173,279 women
who had an induced abortion or a delivery in 1989 to death
certificates for 1989 to 1997. Compared with women who
delivered, those who aborted had a significantly higher
age-adjusted risk of death from all causes (1.62), from
suicide (2.54), and from accidents (1.82), as well as
a higher relative risk of death from natural causes (1.44).
The study concludes that higher death rates associated
with abortion persist over time and across socioeconomic
boundaries. This may be explained by self-destructive
tendencies, depression, and other unhealthy behaviour
aggravated by the abortion experience.
The
California data was also used in a study published in
the July issue of The American Journal of Orthopsychiatry
(2), which reveals that aborting women seek more subsequent
mental health care. By examining 173,279 Medi-Cal records,
the research team compared the rate of psychiatric outpatient
treatments for women who had abortions versus those who
carried to term. To control for differences in prior psychological
health, they excluded all women who had any psychiatric
care for one year prior to their pregnancy outcome. Women
were 63 percent more likely to receive mental care within
90 days of an abortion compared to delivery. In addition,
significantly higher rates of subsequent mental health
treatment persisted over the entire four years of data
examined. Abortion was most strongly associated with subsequent
treatments for neurotic depression, bipolar disorder,
adjustment reactions, and schizophrenic disorders. A third
study published last January in the British Medical Journal
reveals that subsequent long-term clinical depression
is more common among women who have had abortions (3).
As
well, there is an important link between abortion and
breast cancer: In 1996, Dr. Joel Brind published the pooled
data from 28 abortion/breast cancer studies and found
a connection that could not be ignored (4). Overall, a
minimum 30% increase in breast cancer risk can be expected
as one of the consequences of a typical abortion. In one
particular group (teenagers with a family history of breast
cancer) it appeared that the termination of a first pregnancy
almost guarantees eventual breast cancer (5).
Abortion
has been credibly blamed for another expensive and tragic
consequence, the loss or impairment of children through
premature delivery in subsequent pregnancies. Though not
as immediately alarming to the public imagination as breast
cancer, prematurity is a leading cause of cerebral palsy
and various learning problems. Abortion probably leads
to future premature birth by damaging the cervix and introducing
risks for infection. Data show that one abortion raises
the risk of a later premature delivery by 30% and two
abortions by a distressing 90%(6).
Abortion
has taught our children that a baby deserves life only
if her parents want her. Our living children know that
our culture allows abortion. How do they feel when they
realize that a future brother or sister could be easily
removed from the family unit? Why did they escape that
fate? The knowledge that children live in a place where
life is not necessarily respected has a detrimental effect
on their psychological development. Abortion upholds the
selfishness of those in power over the lives of the powerless.
It treats children as disposable objects before birth,
and therefore may be contributing to the increasing incidence
of child abuse when this attitude persists after birth.
The idea that some babies deserve life and others do not
goes against a principle of feminism, as feminists have
been fighting for the intrinsic value of women. Should
a child not deserve the same? A woman’s value is
not dependent on acceptance by a man, and similarly a
child’s intrinsic value is not dependent on a woman’s
desire for the child. We want the right to control our
bodies, and yet we do not give our unborn daughters and
sons the same privilege.
As
a medical student, informed consent is very important
to my interactions with patients. No matter what the procedure
being proposed, more information allows patients to make
better choices about their health care. This principle
of health care does not seem to be as imperative when
abortion is the proposed procedure. In an age where embryology
and ultrasound technology has taught us so much about
the anatomy and development of the embryo, I am appalled
when I hear from women who have been told that the abortionist
will simply scrape out the "tiny blob of tissue".
Today physicians perform incredible prenatal medicine,
including in utero surgery and administration of drugs
and blood transfusions. Thanks to recent technology, we
cannot keep pretending that abortion does not end a life.
However, "pro-choice" advocates are desperately
trying to keep ultrasound machines out of the realm of
the abortion decision, as they believe that offering such
information is "intimidating". I fail to see
why allowing women all available information so they can
make informed decisions is equal to "intimidation".
A National Institute of Family & Life Advocates study
reports that 90% of women requesting abortion change their
minds after seeing an ultrasound image, no doubt because
they realize that this "blob of tissue" has
a beating heart, fingers, toes, and male or female sex
organs. Choice should be informed by all available knowledge.
To withhold some information from women is to be condescending
and paternalistic. It is a form of coercion.
Although
some abortion supporters attempt to make us believe that
they hold the majority position and those who do not agree
with their opinions are simply fanatics, the data shows
a different story. Only 23% of Canadians want all abortions
to be publicly funded, and only 30% would deny legal protection
to unborn children, according to a Léger poll in
October 2002. In addition, 51% of 1500 Canadians polled
said that abortion should only be tax-funded in medical
emergencies such as a threat to the mother's life, or
in the case of rape or incest. Another 15% said that paying
for abortion should be a private responsibility. In order
for a medical procedure to be publicly funded under the
Canada Health Act it must be medically necessary and therapeutic.
In the majority of cases, abortion is neither of these
things, and yet taxpayers in most provinces are paying
for abortions every day.
We
know that abortion is a tragedy, but we also know that
it is an avoidable tragedy. Canadian society needs to
take another look at our collective thoughts on abortion.
The solution is complex, but it involves education, prevention
of unwanted pregnancy, support for young mothers and single
mothers, acceptance of adoption as a very real alternative,
and the recovery of a culture that embraces all human
life from conception to natural death.
Shauna
Hollingshead, on behalf of Canadian Physicians for Life.
References
1.
Reardon, DC, Ney, PG, Scheuren, F, Cougle, JR, Coleman,
PK, Strahan, TS. Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome:
A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women. Southern
Medical Journal, Vol 95. No 8. August 2002, 834.
2.
Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue VM, Cougle JR. State-funded
abortions vs. deliveries: A comparison of outpatient
mental health claims over five years. American Journal
of Orthopsychiatry, 2002, Vol. 72, No. 1, 141-152.
3.
Reardon, DC, Cougle JR. Depression and unintended pregnancy
in the national longitudinal survey of youth: a cohort
study. BMJ 2002; 324: 151-152
4.
Brind et al., "Induced abortion as an independent
risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review
and meta-analysis," J of Epidemiology & Community
Health, 1996;50:481-496
5.
Daling, Janet R. et al., Risk of Breast Cancer Among
Young Women: Relationship to Induced Abortion 86 Journal
of the National Cancer Institute; (1994);1584
6.
Henriet L, Kaminski M. Impact of induced abortions on
subsequent pregnancy outcome: the 1995 French national
perinatal survey. British J Obstetrics Gynaecology 2001;108:1036-1042.
Canadian
Physicians for Life
10150 Gillanders Road - Chilliwack, BC V2P 6H4
Ph. (604)794-3772 - Fax (604)794-3960
email: info@physiciansforlife.ca
Visit us at www.physiciansforlife.ca
|
