Earlier this summer, the Charlotte-Lozier Institute (CLI) released a report highlighting reasons why the argument frequently touted by abortion advocates that induced abortion is evidence-based medical care is false.
The report titled “Is Induced Abortion Evidence-Based Medical Practice?” is a 10-page document highlighting three major points as to why induced abortion is not an evidence-based medical practice. Such practices and interventions (1) need to be about a specifically defined disease, diagnosis, or illness; (2) the outcome needs to be measurable; and (3) the treatment must be compared to other available treatments or none at all.
Charlotte Lozier Institute is the research arm for national pro-life group Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America.
[Click here to subscribe to Pregnancy Help News!]
Researchers Dr. James Studnicki, CLI vice president of Data Analytics, and Dr. Ingrid Skop, vice president of Medical Affairs for CLI, showcase why induced abortion is not evidence-based. The reasons include: (1) the majority of abortions (up to 96 percent) are not treating a disease or illness, but, instead, are performed on healthy women carrying healthy babies; (2) “… there is no research proving the benefits of abortion compared to other alternative interventions;” and (3) abortion reporting in the United States “is among the most flawed and inadequate systems in the world.”
CLI states, “To claim a medical intervention (in this case, the abortion) is “evidence-based,” scientists have long agreed it must address a specifically defined disease, diagnosis or illness; produce measurable outcomes; and be compared to other available treatments or no treatment at all. To date, there is no published research that has tested each of these points.”
The two researchers concluded, “… the quality of abortion science in general is quite weak, … the data necessary for valid research is scarce, and … the claims of evidence-based induced abortion are unsupported by the existing body of published knowledge.”
The claim by pro-abortion advocates that abortion is healthcare is therefore short-sighted and inaccurate.
Response to the report
“There is tremendous value in the CLI article and the discussion it generates,” said Christa Brown, BSN, RN, senior director of Medical Impact for Heartbeat International. “Big Abortion has long sold abortion as healthcare but ending the life of a child and causing physical, emotional, and spiritual damage to women is not health and it's not care.”
“Abortion is often sold as a remedy to an array of circumstances when in reality it causes only harm,” Brown said. “Women choosing abortion are often seeking an answer to a problem and a relief from the pressures of an unexpected pregnancy. The abortion industry has manipulated the vulnerability of women and families facing challenging circumstances for their gain.”
Heartbeat International is the largest network of pregnancy help organizations both in the U.S. and globally.
In its most recent annual report, Planned Parenthood brought in approximately $2.1 billion dollars. After expenses, the abortion giant had $178.6 million in revenue, and the organization performed 392,715 abortions.
Although a large-scale operation, Planned Parenthood is just one source of abortion providers. State abortion numbers continue to go unreported as many state health departments do not require abortion data, including the number of abortions performed. One of those is California, an abortion-destination state after the Supreme Court’s Dobbs ruling.
“The U.S. could be considered an abortion data desert,” CLI’s co-researchers wrote. “Reporting of abortion instances by the states to the CDC [Centers for Disease Control] continues to be incomplete and inconsistent. California, with the highest number of abortions of all the states, doesn’t report at all. Maryland, with one of the highest abortion rates among all the states, fails to report as well.”
Additionally, no one knows how many chemical abortions are now done at home since the Biden administration lifted regulations and allows abortion drugs to be sent via mail. A lawsuit to hinder the mailing of the drugs was rebuffed on standing in June of this year by the U.S. Supreme Court. The case may be revived as three states have challenged the FDA’s approval of chemical abortion pills.
The many unknowns of abortion data are a detriment for women and should alarm people, Brown said.
Tweet This: The many unknowns of abortion data are a detriment for women and should alarm people.
“We have failed women continually by not collecting abortion data in the United States,” she said. “They are not provided actual risks and benefits because no one really knows what is happening to women after abortion.”
Tweet This: We have failed women continually by not collecting abortion data in the United States.
“Nearly all the data is voluntary, some states collect no data at all, and no one is collecting adverse events unless the women actually die,” Brown said. “Women deserve more information as they make these pivotal life-ending and life-altering choices.”
Editor's note: Heartbeat International manages Pregnancy Help News.
