Us-style changes to UK abortion law would have a disastrous effect on women’s health
AS predictably as night following day, the leak of the US Supreme Court opinion on Roe v Wade has brought out the antiabortionists, epitomised by your correspondent Martin Conroy (Letters, May 5).
Since Mr Conroy, in spite of his over-simplified and overemotional views on the subject of abortion, abhors scientific inaccuracy, may I direct his attention to the May 4 edition of New Scientist, wherein he will find the following facts in an article by Dana G Smith.
A large body of evidence now exists to show that repealing Roe v Wade will not decrease the number of abortions; all it will do is increase the number of deaths of women from the procedure.
In fact, countries with restrictive abortion laws actually have higher numbers of abortions than countries with more liberal laws, according to a 2009 study by researchers in Boston. What these laws do instead is substantially increase the risk of death for those who receive abortions.
Mr Conroy states that abortion “does not make a woman healthier”. But that is precisely what it does do; carrying a baby to full term is always riskier than having a legal, medically supervised, abortion. Deaths per 100,000 for legal abortions are 0.41; deaths per 100,000 for live births are 23.8.
The same study reported that abortion-related deaths are 34 times higher in countries with restrictive abortion laws. Any repeal of Roe v Wade would be disastrous for women’s health and would also result in a greater number of deaths of unborn babies.
Let’s hope, unlike Mr Conroy, that there are no changes to UK abortion law.
Hilary Shearer, C umbernauld.
WHY am I not surprised that today’s letter on abortion (May 5) is written by a man?
John N E Rankin,
Bridge of Allan.