PASSAGE ONE OF THE DAY: "The research revealed that patients who were able to receive an abortion were more than six times more likely to report aspirational 1-year plans than those who were denied one. They are more likely to have a wanted child later and better able to take care of the children they already have. Because the majority of abortion patients are already parents, this means that being able to obtain an abortion has powerful, multigenerational impacts.
-------------------------------------------------------
PASSAGE TWO OF THE DAY: "By contrast, if people are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, they are more likely to experience lasting financial hardships. After being denied an abortion, women had three times greater odds of being unemployed than those who obtained abortions and had four times higher odds of being below the federal poverty level. Their physical and mental health are also at risk: Women unable to obtain an abortion said they had more symptoms of anxiety, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction. They were more likely to report “fair or poor” health than those who had received abortions. And, again, their families feel the effects: Patients report more difficulty bonding with their baby, and their older children have worse developmental outcomes and are more likely to live in poverty. The clearest finding from the Turnaway Study is that people know what is best for themselves and their families."
---------------------------------------------------------
EDITORIAL: "The court is ignoring science," by Diana Greene Foster, published by 'Science', on May 16, 2022. (Diana Greene Foster is a professor in the Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences and director of research at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, University of California San Francisco, CA, USA.) Thanks to Dr. Michael Bowers of (CSIDDS: Forensics and Law in Focus) for bringing this commentary to our attention. HL.
GIST: "A recently leaked draft opinion indicated that the US Supreme Court is prepared to overturn Roe v. Wade as early as next month in the matter of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization.
In doing so, the Justices won’t just be disregarding decades of precedent.
They’ll also be disregarding ample evidence of abortion’s positive impact on patients’ health and well-being.
In Roe v. Wade (1973), the Court struck down a Texas law criminalizing abortion and held that the Constitution protects the right to decide whether to end a pregnancy.
Justice Samuel Alito’s leaked opinion in Dobbs stems from the idea that abortion rights are not mentioned in the Constitution or rooted in US history.
But we, as a society, are equipped with more factual information today than the framers of the Constitution were.
There is a long history of Supreme Court abortion decisions drawing on evidence.
In Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), the Court emphasized the importance of considering data when reviewing abortion restrictions.
It is critical now that the Court adhere to precedent and insist that constitutional rights be guided by evidence, not by ideology.
The Turnaway Study, which I led, was designed to contribute to that body of evidence
Launched in 2007, more than 40 scientists from nine universities and four research institutes worked on the study.
We were inspired to do so by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who raised the question of an abortion’s effect on a pregnant woman in Gonzalez v. Carhart (2006), a case that considered the constitutionality of a federal ban on one abortion procedure.
In his majority opinion, Justice Kennedy argued that there were “no reliable data to measure the phenomenon” of potential abortion regret, and the Court thus upheld the law.
My colleagues and I resolved to find that data—so that Supreme Court Justices and policy-makers could base their decisions not on conjecture, but on hard science.
To that end, the Turnaway Study followed almost 1000 women across the country for 5 years to see how having an abortion, or being denied one, affected their physical health, mental health, finances, relationships, and children.
What we found was staggering.
The research revealed that patients who were able to receive an abortion were more than six times more likely to report aspirational 1-year plans than those who were denied one.
They are more likely to have a wanted child later and better able to take care of the children they already have.
Because the majority of abortion patients are already parents, this means that being able to obtain an abortion has powerful, multigenerational impacts.
By contrast, if people are forced to carry a pregnancy to term, they are more likely to experience lasting financial hardships.
After being denied an abortion, women had three times greater odds of being unemployed than those who obtained abortions and had four times higher odds of being below the federal poverty level.
Their physical and mental health are also at risk: Women unable to obtain an abortion said they had more symptoms of anxiety, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction.
They were more likely to report “fair or poor” health than those who had received abortions. And, again, their families feel the effects: Patients report more difficulty bonding with their baby, and their older children have worse developmental outcomes and are more likely to live in poverty.
The clearest finding from the Turnaway Study is that people know what is best for themselves and their families.
The results are not theories or guesses. They are not anecdotes to be trotted out at politically expedient moments.
They are based on a large set of data in which statistically significant patterns emerged across many people.
And they are the basis for more than 50 articles that have been published in high-quality, peer-reviewed scientific journals*.
As a researcher, I believe that science should not be merely an ivory-tower pursuit, divorced from the world around it.
Understanding the nature, causes, and solutions to human problems is one of the primary goals and great gifts of science.
Science is clearly relevant to the controversial issues of our time, including abortion access in the United States—in fact, science is especially critical in these moments. The highest court in the United States should not ignore it."
The entire editorial can be read at:
PUBLISHER'S NOTE: I am monitoring this case/issue. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog for reports on developments. The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at: http://www.thestar.com/topic/charlessmith. Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at: http://smithforensic.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-smith-blog-award-nominations.html Please send any comments or information on other cases and issues of interest to the readers of this blog to: hlevy15@gmail.com. Harold Levy: Publisher: The Charles Smith Blog;
