New British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology "study of studies" says abortion causes future preterm births

bjog preemie.jpg

About this new study, Brent Rooney, MSc, director of the Reduce Preterm Risk Coalition emailed...

Today Dr. Prakesh Shah (University of Toronto) had his abortion-preemie "study of studies" published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Using data from 37 prior studies, Dr. Shah reported that 1 prior induced abortion boosted relative odds of a premature birth (under 37 weeks' gestation) by 35%, and more than 1 prior induced abortion raises preterm birth odds by 93%.

Furthermore, the Institute of Medicine identified "prior first trimester induced abortion" as an "immutable medical risk factor associated with preterm birth" in the 2006 and 2007 editions of its mammoth book about preterm birth.

Finally, 3 preterm birth heavyweights (Dr. Jay Iams, Dr. Robert Romero and Dr. Robert Goldenberg) confirmed the same finding in a medical journal of the highest prestige, Lancet, January 12, 2008, page 165.

This is certainly not new news, just corroboration. Meanwhile the preeminent organization devoted to preventing preterm births, the March of Dimes, still refuses to list "induced abortion" as a risk on its webpage.

mod no abortion.jpg


yeah except the thing that's missing here is that Dr. Prakesh Shah doesn't want prolifers to use this study to repudiate abortion rights!

He believes that abortion is an integral part of women's health care.

Never mind that a baby dies every time a woman exercises her right to this kind of "health care".

Posted by: angel at September 18, 2009 4:55 PM

What is the point of organizations like the March of Dimes and the Susan G. Komen for the Cure ignore plain evidence that abortion has future complications.

Think about it... abortion is the MOST common surgical procedure in the United States. Premature births are rising at staggering rates; further, breast cancer rates have risen significantly since the legalization of abortion. Hmm... Am I falsely connecting the dots here?

Posted by: segamon at September 18, 2009 5:01 PM

I believe it. Every one of my friends who had abortions and later gave birth had complications in their pregnancies. Including SEVERAL had placental abruption and almost lost their children. Both little girls were born a month early as the mothers hemorrhaged out of control! Forget the baby, abortion poses NO RISK present or future to the woman, RIGHT?

Posted by: Sydney M at September 19, 2009 9:16 AM

Teens think they are invincible. At this point in their life they need to be told the truth about the possible consequences of abortion. Over and over again.

If you think about it, as cynical as it may sound, the abortion industry is a boon for future revenues in the healthcare industry. How much money is made treating the health problems that women experience as "consequences" to abortion - infertility and breast cancers especially? Too much to count.

One would think that doctors more than any group would understand how wrong abortion proponents have been about basic biology and science. I've always felt that doctors should bear a large brunt of the responsibility for abortion being accepted in our country. Money talks.

Think about the amount of money that could be saved by consumers if abortion were illegal, not to mentions the numbers of lives and amount of suffering by women.

Posted by: Janet at September 19, 2009 1:17 PM

After reviewing this information, the article concludes NOT that abortions should be greatly discouraged, or outlawed, but that greater effort is needed to "improve" abortion procedures. This is very sad. WHERE will our "common ground" be when an obvious conclusion is ingnored? You could bring this up in a deabate or discussion, and those who favor killing not-yet-unborn babies will say, "well we just need to make abortion techniques better." Not much room for improvement when their desired survival rate is 50%: two go in alive, one comes out alive.

Posted by: Row1 at September 20, 2009 9:00 AM

Row1, it's like doctors connecting lung cancer and smoking and then telling the general public:

"Well, we're not going to tell people that smoking harms their health. Instead what we believe is that the tobacco companies need to make a safer cigarette."

Can you imagine? I. Don't. Think. So.

Posted by: angel at September 20, 2009 12:26 PM

NB: most common surgical procedure: I believe it is cataract surgery, at 2 million / year. Abortion is a close second, per pro-abortion figures from guttmacher. If you google something like 'frequently performed surgeries U.S." you will come across an oft-repeated AMA piece about "among the most frequent surgeries are..." and then you will se the usual suspects: CABG, etc. However, they deliberately ignore abortions. AS do many other sites and studies noting what are 'frequent' surgeries. If there is nothing wrong with an abortion, why hide its relative frequency?

Posted by: row1 at September 23, 2009 9:44 AM