Abortion is the issue of our time. Children are being terminated in record numbers, and liberal news outlets, democrat institutions, and academia are fighting to promote the pro-abortion agenda. Conservative activists need to make their voices heard.
Roe v. Wade: the Fallout
Roe v. Wade extended privacy rights to abortion to the point of viability (when the fetus can live independently from the mother’s womb). In Cruzan v. Missouri (1990), after a car accident, Nancy Cruzan was incapable of living independently and required a feeding and hydration tube to survive. The Court’s decision found that States could safeguard Cruzan’s life by requiring a high evidentiary burden that the patient would want life-saving treatments to be withdrawn. This establishes the precedent that unconscious lives cannot be terminated because they are unable to exist without medical interventions. Justifiably, a fetus or embryo should not be terminated because it does not have consciousness and is unable to exist independently from its mother’s womb. This case affirms that a “dependent life,” which does not exist on its own and does not exhibit consciousness, is still worthy of protection and has a right to life; this is true for patients who are in a persistent vegetative state, with no prospect of recovery, as well as embryos or fetuses. There is no decipherable reason that the state has a “compelling interest” in preserving only fetuses that are viable outside the mother’s womb. Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade and removed Constitutional protections for abortion healthcare. The Dobbs decision reasoned that abortion is not rooted in “constitutional text, history, or precedent,” and Chief Justice Roberts argued that the framework of Roe v. Wade, which focuses on viability, is arbitrary and lacks justification in the Constitution. The Dobbs decision was right because abortion is not rooted in the Constitution, American history, or principles. Furthermore, life should be protected at all stages and not rely on consciousness or viability as established in Cruzan v. Missouri (1990). These protections should, however, not have been left up to the States. The right to life is a Constitutional protection that should protect unborn lives against abortion.
Another question Americans should be asking is, “Do women regret abortion?” The 2015 Turnaway Study reported that, after 5 years, 95% of women who had abortions believed they made the “right decision.” After the first week, 41% of women who had late-term abortions and 50% of the Turnaway group, which were denied abortions, felt regret; 60% of the Turnaway group felt happiness, and 73% felt sadness about their pregnancy; more than 90% of the abortion group felt relief. However, 5 years later, out of the 95% who said they felt abortion was the “right decision,” 89% expressed regret (Table 2). Both groups experienced regret in the short term, and the Turnaway group was conflicted (feeling happiness and sadness) about their pregnancies. Feelings of regret between the Turnaway group and the late-term group were similar, and the feelings of the Turnaway group were mixed. However, the Introduction to the Turnaway Study found no evidence that abortion causes negative mental health outcomes. Six months following, women who had an abortion and those who were denied had similar mental health outcomes. This would seem to indicate, despite a variety of factors, that carrying a baby to term does not lead women to have greater regret over having an abortion. Out of women who answered that abortion was the “right decision,” 90% felt regret, which could indicate that by “right decision,” the participants may have felt abortion was their only option or that they would have been unhappy caring for a baby. This is misleading because, especially lower-income women or women without partners or family support, feel pressure to seek an abortion. This discrepancy may result from simplifying the participant’s feelings on abortion to a “yes or no” question, rather than asking open-ended questions or tracking changes using a numeric scale. Furthermore, when the abortion group was asked about their primary emotions, 2% responded that their primary emotion was “feeling that the right decision had been made.”
Mothers, Regret, and Flawed Research
According to the Catholic Medical Association, the Turnaway study recruited interviews from 3,045 women; 1,132 agreed to participate, and 15.5% dropped out before the first interview. Only 667 women participated through the five-year period (~17%). An article from the Washington Post suggested that responses may have differed between those who agreed to be interviewed and those who did not participate in the study. Women who reported the highest rates of “relief and happiness” at the first interview had the highest retention rate, and women experiencing primarily negative emotions were least likely to continue participation in interviews. Additionally, the study introduces selection bias by giving staff at the abortion clinics the authority to choose who to invite to the Study, and the Turnaway group is unrepresentative because one-fourth had abortions in other states or miscarriages. Furthermore, the Turnaway group does not represent a valid control group; all participants were exposed to unwanted pregnancies, which could cause distress. Turnaway participants were exposed to potential trauma from seeking abortion, and the study does not control for women with a history of abortions. The Turnaway study is invalid because of the participation and selection bias, small sample size, and lack of a control group.
In a 2010 study, Mota, Burnett, and Sareen investigated the relationship between abortion and mental health outcomes. The National Comorbidity Study (NCS-R) and National Survey of Family Growth (NSFG) are inquiries into the prevalence and correlations of mental disorders in America. Data was analyzed from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication, a nationally representative survey conducted in the US with 9,282 women. Prior research has yielded different conclusions on the correlation between mental health and abortion. Mota et al. (2010) suggest mixed findings may be due to selection bias and unrepresentative or small sample sizes (like those in the Turnaway study). This study examines a nationally representative sample of 3,310 participants with a retention rate of 70% and assessed DSM-IV mental disorders; including major depression, bipolar I, dysthymia, agoraphobia, GAD, panic attacks, PTSD, social phobia, oppositional defiant disorder, conduct disorder, ADHD, alcohol abuse and dependence, and drug abuse and dependence. The study controlled for variables including prior abortions, suicidal ideation and attempts, age, educational background, marital status, income, and racial background. Adjusting for socio-demographics, abortion correlated with higher incidences of mental disorders; women who had abortions were 1.8-1.9 times more likely to experience anxiety disorders, had a 3-5 times higher rate of substance use disorders, and were 1.9-2 times more likely to exhibit suicidality or suicide attempts. Additionally, outpatient mental health and hospital admission rates were higher in women who had abortions. However, there was a low correlation between abortion and PTSD. In a 2008 study, Steinberg and Russo sought to examine the same correlations. This study’s analysis of NCS-R “first pregnancy outcomes” found no significant relationship between abortion and rates of generalized anxiety disorder, social anxiety, or PTSD. Abortions are associated with higher rates of PTSD and social anxiety correlated with “pre-pregnancy mental health disorders” and exposure to violence. Furthermore, an analysis of the NSFG and NCS found that women having first pregnancy abortions and women who have unintended pregnancies experience violence at higher rates.
The Turnaway study was broadly reported; UC San Francisco, CNN, The Guardian, The Washington Post, CBS, NPR, Times Magazine, and the Huffington Post all wrote articles quoting the misleading “95%” statistic. Liberal media outlets like CNN continue to broadcast this claim nearly a decade later. These claims are presented by media outlets and amplified by academia and democrat institutions to promote the pro-abortion ideology. The unrepresentative and small sample sizes and biased/leading questions discredit this study and studies like it. However, this does not mean that abortion would not evoke conflicting emotions, but that many people who have an abortion experience regret or struggle with their decision to terminate.
The Recent “Surge” of Death
This push has led to a surge of abortions in recent years. In 2023, CNN reported that approximately 1,026,700 abortions were executed. Approximately 924,000 abortions were performed in the first trimester, and approximately 61,900 abortions were performed in the second trimester or later. Florida tracks the reasons for abortions within their state and found that approximately 11.8% of abortions in the second trimester were completed to preserve the physical health of the mother, due to a life-endangering condition, or because of a serious fetal defect, and 1.9% of abortions were babies conceived through rape. In 2021, Florida allowed abortion until viability, and medical second-trimester abortions would have ranked in the middle or lower end of states. This would indicate that there would have been approximately 53,000 elective second-trimester abortions nationally in 2023. The procedure to remove a second-trimester fetus involves opening the cervix with dilators and medication, inserting a suction tube to remove the amniotic fluid, and using forceps to remove parts of the fetus. In later-term second-trimester abortions, before D&E (Dilation and Evacuation), physicians perform a procedure where they inject the fetus’s heart with potassium chloride, stopping the fetus’s heartbeat.
According to Gallup’s 2023 abortion poll, only 37% of Americans agree with second-trimester abortions, 69% agree with first-trimester abortions, and 22% support third-trimester abortions. Despite the Dobbs ruling, abortion rates continue to rise, and many states have codified abortion protections into law. California, New York, Illinois, Washington, Vermont, Virginia, Massachusetts, Colorado, Nebraska, West Virginia, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, New Mexico, New Hampshire, and Pennsylvania have codified “viability term limits.” These states protect feticide and are causing tens of thousands of babies to be dismembered and killed in the second trimester.
Minimally, a probable life begins at conception, and I believe Constitutional protections should outright prohibit abortion with medical exemptions. Understanding the stages of development should inform humanity in the discussion of abortion laws. The second month (weeks 5-8) is when most mothers learn they are pregnant; the embryo develops a heartbeat in week 5; the arms, hands, and feet are fully formed at week 10; all organs, limbs, bones, and muscles, and the circulatory and digestive systems are functional at week 12; the fetus begins hearing sounds, including the mother’s voice and heartbeat, and can begin, sucking its thumb and smiling at week 15; the fetus starts to move, and the mother can feel kicks around 17 to 20 weeks; by 24 weeks the fetus is viable; at 25 weeks it responds to touch and sound; after 25 weeks it can feel pain, and between 25 and 28 weeks the fetus’s brain waves can be detected.
Taking the Mental Health Correlations Seriously
Despite the morality of having an abortion at this or that stage, considering the mental health correlations with abortion, there is a strong case for instituting waiting periods, counseling, ultrasound, and resources to help the mother make informed decisions. Liberals are against abortion education because feminism promotes independence and views motherhood as sacrificing personal agency. Feminism views women’s empowerment in terms of higher education, professional success, income, and personal autonomy. Furthermore, pro-abortion arguments avoid using words like “baby or abortion” and instead use euphemisms like “clump of cells or healthcare.” These are additional attempts to minimize the decision to terminate a pregnancy. Pushing to get younger and economically insecure women to have abortions is based on the argument that abortion leads women to have more fulfilling lives. The Turnaway study, which is unrepresentative and biased toward pro-abortion views, found that women who had abortions and the Turnaway group had similar mental health outcomes. However, women, even in marginalized groups, may have better mental health outcomes caring for a child or giving birth, and putting their child up for adoption. There is a major demand for adoption; 1-2 million Americans are waiting to adopt, and only 4% of women with unwanted pregnancies are putting their children up for adoption. If liberals are “pro-choice,” they should want women with unwanted pregnancies to know their options and understand the consequences of their decision.
This country needs to protect pregnant women and unborn babies, fight against political propaganda, and provide pregnancy resources to inform mothers about their decisions. The Turnaway study and the “95%” statistic are examples of liberal academics trying to cover up facts that hurt the pro-abortion agenda. Pro-lifers need to speak up and spread the truth about abortion procedures, the number of abortions happening annually, and mental health outcomes after having an abortion.
Image Credit: Unsplash.
