February 2,, 2012
Analysis: WHO Staff Report Calls for Legal Abortion
in Developing World, Abortion Figures Inflated
By Lucia Muchova
Washington DC, February 3 (C-FAM) A widely publicized report in The Lancet medical journal calling for the legalization of abortion contained inflated numbers, flawed data collection and highly misleading language.
The recent article on “Induced Abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008” updates abortion estimates to show progress on improving maternal health. The Alan Guttmacher Institute and staffers with the World Health Organization claim the number of unsafe abortions per 1,000 women has risen from 44% to 49% between 1995 and 2008 while the global abortion rate has declined from 29 to 28 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age. “Unsafe abortions” are concentrated in developing countries. In Middle and Western Africa 100% of abortions are deemed “unsafe.” Presenting various statistics, the authors call for increased efforts to legalize abortion and expand investment in contraception in developing countries.
However, the paper suffers from three main faults. First, the authors use quasi-legal rather than medical definitions. Second, the authors use problematic data collection. Third, the authors have manipulated the data non-transparently. These recurring problems in World Health Organization (WHO) data on maternal mortality have been well documented by Donna J. Harrison, M.D.
Though not a WHO paper per se, much of the Lancet article draws on previous WHO studies, with the estimation of unsafe abortions “developed and commissioned by WHO.” The WHO defines “unsafe” abortion as “a procedure for terminating an unintended pregnancy carried out either by persons lacking the necessary skills or in an environment that does not conform to minimal medical standards, or both.”
However, in academic papers written by WHO staff members, like the Lancet article, this definition becomes interchangeable with a quasi-legal one: “As elaborated by WHO, abortions done outside the bounds of law are likely to be unsafe even if they are done by people with medical training… Thus, as in previous efforts to estimate abortion incidence and consistent with WHO practice, we used the operational definition of unsafe abortions, which is abortions done in countries with highly restrictive abortion laws, and those that do not meet legal requirements, in countries with less restrictive laws. Safe abortions were defined as those that meet legal requirements, in countries with liberal laws, or where the laws are liberally interpreted such that safe abortions are generally available.” No mention is made of medical standards or skills of those performing abortion.
What this means is that abortions performed in countries with liberal laws, like the U.S., which result in serious complications or death would be classified “safe” abortions. Abortions in restricted countries, sometimes facilitated by activist groups funded by progressive governments and foundations, fit in the “unsafe” category.
WHO researchers acknowledge the difficulty in obtaining good data on abortion. Records of hospital admissions cannot distinguish between spontaneous and induced abortions; surveys underreport the number of abortions; ambiguous language prevents clear classifications of pregnancy outcomes; and in countries where abortion is illegal or hardly accessible, information is limited. Unsafe abortion in particular is, according to the WHO, “one of the most difficult indicators to measure.” Even for “safe” abortion, only 66% (2/3) of the countries with liberal abortion laws have a mechanism to collect relevant data. Nevertheless, statistics are reproduced, referenced and relied upon as if their validity was set in stone.
The most recent WHO Unsafe Abortion report asserts that 13% of maternal deaths are due to unsafe abortion, identified as one of the three main causes of maternal deaths globally, together with haemorrage and sepsis due to childbirth. This statistic is relied upon in the Lancet article. Given the ambiguity of the term “unsafe” and the unreliability of the data, one is left wondering why more money should be spent on increasing access to abortion instead of measures to improve antenatal and post-partum care.
The Lancet article indicates that “on the whole,” chemical abortion procedures are classified as unsafe. Crucially, this includes misoprostol, regarded as unsafe due to the risks of heavy bleeding associated with incorrect usage. This means that organizations, such as the International Consortium on Medical Abortion, that encourage and actively distribute misoprostol for abortions are in fact raising the numbers of unsafe abortions, which they claim to be preventing.
Population Control and Reproductive Rights Activists Sidelined in Rio+20 Debate
By Timothy Herrmann
(To ensure latest information please click your Reload Button)
New York, February 3 (C-FAM) In preparation for what is arguably the most influential intergovernmental conference on sustainable development internationally, representatives from member states, UN agencies and civil society concluded three days of heated discussion over the most recent draft of a document that will serve as the guide for sustainable development practices globally. As it stands, the document makes no reference to population control or reproductive rights as necessary components of sustainable development globally. The document will be finalized at the UN conference on sustainable development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil this June (Rio +20).
The absence of references to population control and reproductive rights led UN agencies like the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and advocacy groups like the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) to make strong interventions proposing their inclusion in forthcoming drafts. Though these organizations were vocal during the consultations, on the UN floor it was clear that these references were not included in the draft because of the lack of consensus among countries and civil society on the relationship between development and population growth.
Seeking out other forums to express their controversial agenda outside of Rio +20, the UNFPA was invited during the same week to attend the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, an exclusive yearly summit attended by some of the world’s most influential politicians, corporations, and academics. While at the WEF, the President of the UNFPA, Dr. Babatunde Osotimehin, spoke on a panel titled “7 Billion and Counting: Dividend or Disaster.” Though the discussion was conducted privately, both the UNFPA and WEF have issued reports and official statements that describe population growth as unsustainable and a threat to development.
For many countries heavily invested in the upcoming conference, like Brazil, the danger of labeling population growth as a threat to development places the world at a crossroads. In an official statement, Brazil asserted that at the upcoming conference countries “can choose to repeat neo-Malthusian arguments or decide to reinstate the need for solidarity, equity and sustainable patterns of production and consumption with the developed countries taking the lead.”
In contrast, the UNFPA’s official statement regarding the draft document on sustainable development cast population growth in a negative light and recommended that governments ensure “that all women, men, and young people have information about, access to and choice of the widest possible range of safe effective, affordable and acceptable methods of family planning” which in practice includes both abortifacients and abortion services. Though the UNFPA claims in its document to support the principle that “human beings are at the center of concerns for sustainable development” its population control policies label the human person as the main problem, rather than solution, facing sustainable development.
A recent statement from the Holy See about the upcoming conference emphasized not only that the outcome document should include a “human centered approach” but that in order for such an approach to truly be human it must “avoid a reductionist approach which views the human as an obstacle to development.”
866 United Nations Plaza, Suite 427
New York, New York 10017
Phone: (212) 754-5948 Fax: (212) 754-9291
*
Disclaimer: This website does not endorse the platform of any political party nor do we urge anyone to vote for or against any particular candidate or party. We promote the pro-life position of protecting the pre-born and we condemn as immoral any attempts to promote abortion. At times this pro-life position requires mentioning individual persons or political parties. We do not think it necessary to mention and condemn every immoral and anti-life position taken by individuals and groups in our country just to validate our right to promote life for the pre-born.
