Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rosevax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!stolaf!umn-cs!mmm!rosevax!carole
From: carole@rosevax.UUCP (Carole Ashmore)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: A Reply to Paul Duboc
Message-ID: <207@rosevax.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 20-Sep-85 16:42:31 EDT
Article-I.D.: rosevax.207
Posted: Fri Sep 20 16:42:31 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 30-Sep-85 01:03:21 EDT
Distribution: net
Organization: Rosemount Inc., Eden Prairie, MN
Lines: 65

I would like to reply to Paul Duboc's statistical comments, in which
he says that 

> Maternal deaths due to illegal abortions before Roe vs. Wade were
> greatly exaggerated.

and in which he comes up with a total estimated (by 15 doctors, yet)
death rate of 500/year.

Mr. Duboc,

	You have made the mistake of equating two quite different
figures:  maternal deaths due to illegal abortions, and maternal lives
saved by legalizing abortion.

	I was quite active in the pro-choice movement in Minnesota
in the years preceding Roe vs. Wade.  Some people may remember that
the State of New York legalized abortion a year or so before Roe vs.
Wade.  There is a public health stastistic called the 'maternal
mortality rate', comprising all 'pregnancy related deaths'; it
includes deaths from induced abortion, spontaneous miscarriage,
toxemia of pregnancy, childbirth, etc.  The maternal mortality
rate for the State of New York in the year after abortion was
legalized was less than half the same rate for the previous year.

On close examination of the figures it became apparent that not only 
had the 'death from induced abortion' category nearly disappeared, 
but that nearly all of the categories of pregnancy related deaths had 
decreased dramatically, even though there had been no change in the 
population, no increased public health measures, etc.  The only explanation
advanced was that women who were at health risk were preferentially
seeking abortions; these were postulated in include both the poor
who were statistically at risk due to bad nutrition and little pre-
natal care, and those women who had a health condition making
pregnancy somewhat dangerous who had not previously been able to
qualify under the stringent requirements necessary to perform an
abortion to 'save the life of the mother'.

I remember this particularly because the pro-life people lost a
powerful debating tool.  They had always been able to claim that
any lives lost because abortion was illegal were " . . . her own fault;
she could have had the baby and given it up for adoption instead of
going to that butcher."  Now they were being forced to admit that
their legislated morality was putting women's lives at risk.  Indeed,
after Roe vs. Wade had been in effect for a few years, and decent
statistics were collected, it became widely known that having a
first trimester abortion was statistically safer than delivering a
full term baby.  

I would like to really emphasize that anyone who advocates making
abortion illegal is also advocating doubling the maternal mortality
rate.  It is one thing for a woman to accept the risks of having a
baby when she wants one, it is altogether another to insist that 
she accept those risks for the sake of someone else's moral 
position.

I do realize that I am arguing here from nearly 20 year old memory;
it has been a long time, and I no longer have such sources at my
fingertips.  However, this statistic made enough of an impression on
me and was so extensively used in the debates that led up to Roe vs.
Wade that I have never forgotten it.  If anyone seriously doubts its 
validity, say so and I will contact some of my friends still actively 
involved in abortion politics, and post the sources.

					Carole Ashmore


Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com