Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Maternal Death from Abortion.
Message-ID: <4262@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Dec-84 17:12:56 EST
Article-I.D.: cbscc.4262
Posted: Wed Dec  5 17:12:56 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 6-Dec-84 06:13:27 EST
References: <215@looking.UUCP> <4230@cbscc.UUCP> <10134@watmath.UUCP>, <1550@pur-phy.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 142

}
}> > >From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
}> > >Point 6: Abortion must be made legal.
}> > 
}> > I think it should be made both illegal and unnecessary.  Making it legal has
}> > done little to make it unnecessary.
}> > 
}> > Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd
}> 
}> While point 6 is a totally unsubstantiated assertion, I think that the answer
}> to it given above is ridiculous.  Making abortion illegal certainly has done
}> nothing to make it unnecessary, all it has done is to make it dangerous for
}> the mother.
}> 
}> So, Paul, how does one make abortion unnecessary?  the only fail-safe way I
}> could think of would be to sterilise all women of child-bearing age, or
}> better yet, kill them all.
}> 
}> Sophie Quigley
}> ...!{clyde,ihnp4,decvax}!watmath!saquigley

Sophie, I agree that if abortion is made illegal and nothing else done
you conclusion is correct.  But I wasn't talking about that.  And I'd 
think you would know that if you thought about it.  Your purpose here
seems to be to ridicule me, however.

You have said yourself in past discussion with me that providing reasonable
alternatives to abortion (so more women don't *have* to get them) should
be the main focus of the pro-life movement.

It seems to me, however, that the legality of unrestricted abortion on demand
provides no impetus whatsoever for developing these alternatives and, in fact
works counter to those initiatives.   Any reason is good enough to get an
abortion.

You also ought to know from other things I've written that I'm not talking
about making abortion illegal overnight.  Even the Human Life Amendment
wouldn't do that.  It would return the power to regulate abortion to the
state legislatures.

}[From Alex C. Tselis:]
}If abortion is made totally illegal, we will be back to the old situation,
}as Ms. Quigley asserts.  Do the so-called "prolifers" know what that was?
}Backroom abortions done by dirty little old abortionists, reeking of alcohol,
}and using dirty knitting needles.  Do the "prolifers" know what the leading
}cause of death for young women was back in those days?  I give you one guess.
}(Hint: It wasn't Von Recklinghausen's neurofibromatosis.  It wasn't
}periarteritis nodosa.  It wasn't even Cushing's syndrome.  I'm sure that
}lots of you might guess that it was polycystic disease of the kidneys.  Well,
}it wasn't that either.)  So far as I'm concerned, every death due to those
}old backroom abortions was an execution by the state.  There were lots of 
}deaths of that sort.  (Made your guess yet?)  For those fortunate ones who
}made it through, the complications and sequelae were numerous, and not at all
}fun.  I'll spare myself the descriptions.
}

Maternal death due to illegal abortions before Row vs. Wade were greatly
exaggerated by groups like NARAL.  Dr. Bernard Nathanson (NARAL cofounder)
has said in "Aborting America" that they deliberately lied to the press
and their claims were given wide and uncritical support.  The Encylclopedia
of Criminal Law and Justice gives an estimated figure of 8000 deaths per
year in 1958 (I think) without citing any source.

However, in Sept. 1967 the International Conference on Abortion was held
in Wash. DC.  Its participants included doctors, lawyers, theologans,
sociologists, and ethicists representing different views.  A book based
on the proceedings was published called "The Terrible Choice: The
Abortion Dilemma" (Bantam, 1968).  It says the following about deaths from
abortion (p. 43):

	If the number of abortions performed is difficult to come
	by, the number of deaths resulting form abortion is eaiser
	to obtain.  As one conference participant, Dr. Christopher
	Tietze, pointed out, those who die from abortion do so mainly
	as a result of hemorrage or infection.  In either circumstance
	they are likely to be seen in a hospital, where the condition
	will be diagnosed.  Those who die on arrival in hospitals,
	or shortly thereafter, usually undergo autopsies.

	In summarising the discussions of the medical panel, Dr.
	Andre' Hellegers, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology
	at Georgetown Univ.  reported that in 1964 there were a
	total of 247 known deaths from abortion in the U.S.  In
	1965 there were 235.  These figures include death from
	spontaneous miscarriages, legal therapeutic abortions and
	illegal abortion.  The question may be raised how many 
	women actually die from abortion with the fact going un-
	recognised or unreported.  Obviously, an accurate assessment
	of this is impossible.

	These statistical inadequacies emphasize the extreme care
	with which *all* available figures should be used.  But
	despite these problems, all the doctors [there were 15]
	at the International Conference on Abortion reached a
	consensus that a total of 500 abortion deaths per year
	would be a reasonable figure--based on the current data.

Page 47 has a table for the 1965 figures (latest available then)
broken down by state and race (White/Non-white).  New York had
the most reported deaths (23 white 26 non-white).  California
was next which also had the biggest difference between white
and non-white (25 white 14 non-white).  The table can be found in
"Vital Statisics of the United States" Vol. 2 Part B.

I don't think the doctors at this conference would have called
abortion the major cause of death among women.  Even in 1968, three
years before the Row vs Wade and Doe vs Bolton decisions.  As to
where figures of 8000 to 10,000 deaths per year came from, well,
I can only accept Nathanson's explanation for that.  I quoted it
a few months back.  He also made the point that, should abortion
be made illegal overnight, there wouldn't necessarily be a
return to the back-alley coathanger abortion.  Abortion technique
was revolutionized about the same time the laws were.  Even a
person with little training can operate a suction currette (not
a very hard device to hide) with "remarkable saftey".

I know that just one woman dying from an abortion is too many as
is one who dies from drug abuse or alchololism or any situation
caused by desparate conditions in life.  One answer might be to
make these all legal and safe.  Another might be to try to relieve
the desparation.  A while back Paul DuBois cited some sources to
indicate that illegal abortion had not been reduced in countries
that have legalized abortion.  For various reasons they still go
on.  The primary one is probably money and the answer to that,
proposed by many is that tax money be used.  Will that help the
poor be less poor.  Not necessarily, but it will make them fewer
in number.  The fact that a large proportion of these poor are
minority groups and those in third world countries makes me wonder
if this is the right way to approach the problem.

Also, I'm not sure that the complications from legal abortions
are insignificant.  Such complications (perforated uterus, sterility,
to name a few) are often diagnosed some time after the abortion
and are treated as a problem separate from the abortion.  Can
anyone cite any studies on the rate of uterine cancer, sterility,
abnormal births or such among women who have had abortions vs those
who haven't.  Right to Life has published some independant studies,
I think, but nobody listens to anything they publish.

-- 

Paul Dubuc	cbscc!pmd