Cory is touting a study that purports to show that laws restricting abortions do not actually lower the number of abortions. You can read a summary of the study here. I took the time to do the free 
registration at the website and read the whole study. Abortion, of course, is an emotional topic and it is tough to discuss dispassionately, but let me put on my social scientist hat and suggest that this study is does not prove what Cory (and apparently Anna) thinks it proves. This does not mean that they are wrong in their pro-choice position. It does mean that they should be cautious in citing this study as evidence in their favor.
Again, the researchers claim that through their study of international abortion rates they have found that restrictive abortion laws cause unsafe abortions and, more surprisingly, that laws restricting abortion serve as no deterrent to abortion. If anything, the researchers claim, in some cases there are more abortions where there are restrictive laws.
The first thing a social scientist would note is that this study fails based on what is called "face validity." This simply means that "on its face" the study is dubious. It will surprise criminologists world-wide to learn that for every other type of behavior restrictive laws serve as a deterrent, but not for abortion. This simply defies common sense. For example, the number of abortions in the United States increased in the late 60s and early 70s as some states liberalized their abortion laws. The number than skyrocketed after Roe v. Wade eliminated virtually all restriction on abortion, peaking at 1.5 million abortions a year. This is what we'd expect to see. When the law punished the behavior, we got less of the behavior. When the law ceased punishing the behavior, we got more of it. It is important to note that the researchers provide no reasons why, contrary to what we'd expect to see, restrictive abortion laws serve as no deterrent. A serious study would, in its discussion section, give some theories as to why such a counterintuitive result was found. Even more so, the researchers' might have tested those theories. It speaks volumes that the researchers do not bother to do either of these things.
Some of the comments on Cory's site point to problems with the numbers the researchers use to arrive at their conclusions. They have a point. First, when it comes to "unsafe abortions," the researchers define any abortion occurring in a nation with restrictive abortion laws as "unsafe." Granted, in such nations abortions are more likely to be clandestine and thus more likely to be unsafe, but it is dishonest to simply define all abortions in such nations as unsafe. This renders one of the study's conclusions moot. They define all abortions occurring under restrictive law as unsafe and then tell us that restrictive laws cause unsafe abortions. This is tautology and is bogus science. Note: I agree that abortions under restrictive laws are more likely to be unsafe, but the researchers try to prove this in such a methodologically dishonest way that it makes one question the entire report.
Next, the researchers admit that abortion statistics are hard to come by, especially, naturally, in nations where abortion is heavily restricted. They estimate the number of abortions for those nations, as well as for those nations that have legal abortion but do not keep official statistics (such as in the United States). How do they do this? They get as much data as they can and then talk to "experts." Who these experts are we are not told. It is telling that they assume, without rigorous documentation, that there is massive under reporting of abortions. The researchers take the number of abortions they can document and multiply it by an average factor of 1.4, or 40%. So they are assuming, without evidence, that there is a 40% underreporting of abortions in these nations. For some nations the estimate is higher. They tell us that they multiplied their documented numbers for Bangladesh by a factor of 3, or 300%. That's quite an estimation! What's the methodological point? First, whenever the researchers can they estimate the number of abortions up, sometimes by a highly significant factor. Second, they provide us with no documentation to show us why these estimates are valid other than referring us to their own previous research. So what is happening? For nations with restrictive abortion laws, the researchers give unsupported high estimations of the abortion rate and then claim that this proves that restrictive laws do nothing to reduce abortion rates. Another note: I also do not doubt that abortions go under reported in many nations, but the researchers give us no reason why their estimates have any validity.
The last methodological error is, in my opinion, the most serious. This is the one that I was looking for when I went so far as to read the whole report. Even if we accept the researchers' estimations of abortion rates, what have they shown? They have shown that nations with restrictive abortion laws also have high abortion rates. What they have not shown is that there is any relationship between the restrictive laws and the high abortion rates. This is the old post hoc fallacy. Because the rooster crows and then the sun comes up, the rooster must cause the sun to come up. Of course we know that there are unaccounted for variables in that system. So is the case with abortion in this study. A serious study would look at all factors that might lead to an increase in the abortion rate. Examples might include per capita GDP, level of religiosity, education level, number of doctors per capita etc. You'd also probably come up with a code to quantify the level of restrictiveness of abortion laws (e.g., 1 for not restrictive, 2 for moderately restrictive, and 3 for very restrictive). Collecting all this data you would run a statistical analysis, probably a regression analysis, to see how all these variables influence the abortion rate in each nation. This would isolate which variables significantly influence the abortion rate. In this study, the researchers fail to do even the simplest tests to see if there is a statistical correlation between abortion laws and the abortion rate. In short, the researchers have collected two data sets, one on abortion laws and one on abortion rates, but have done nothing that a responsible social scientist would do to show any kind of relationship between these data sets.
I don't know about medical research journals, but this study would never see the light of day in a social science journal. As a matter of social science, this study does not say what it purports to be saying. The fact that some of the researchers are affiliated with the Allen Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, and that the study speaks favorably of "reproductive rights" is an indication that this study is not free of bias.
Let me be clear. While it would confound common sense, it is possible that restrictive abortion laws do not serve as any kind of a deterrent to abortion in those nations that have those laws. This study, however, does not even remotely prove that hypothesis. Its methodological flaws are serious and, frankly, quite obvious. I trust Anna and Cory are honest enough folks that if they read the entire report they would come to the same conclusions as I. Whatever arguments one can come up with to argue for legalized abortion, and there are some compelling ones, this study does not add to them.
Recent Comments