In the News

Boiling down a decades-long dispute dividing generations of Americans to a few simple polling questions fails to accurately capture the nuance of Americans’ attitudes towards abortion. A recent Gallup poll that purports to find most Americans oppose restrictions on abortion after the 18^th week of pregnancy and support Roe v. Wade is a case in point.

A more careful analysis of American public opinion shows that while a majority of the public identifies as “pro-choice,” a supermajority also supports limiting abortion after the first three months of pregnancy. Reliance on the latest Gallup polling ends up distorting and politicizing public opinion.

Accurately portraying public opinion on abortion is especially critical because the Supreme Court is slated to hear Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization during its 2021-22 term. The case concerns whether states can limit abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. Over the coming months, abortion activists are likely to cite the Gallup survey as evidence that this sort of limit is deeply unpopular, even though more reliable polling shows a majority of Americans support it.

Many Americans don’t fully understand that the nearly 50-year-old decision in Roe v. Wade allowed abortion during all nine months of pregnancy. That makes the United State one of just seven countries in the world allowing elective abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy and puts us in the company of North Korea and China.

Given the complexity and importance of abortion attitudes, it is critical that polling on the subject delves into the specific policies concerning the practice. Superficial up/down questions are likely to lead to superficial answers that don’t fully or accurately capture public opinion.

For 12 years, Marist has been conducting annual polling on abortion with a high level of precision and detail. Marist asks a range of questions about abortion that go beyond simple yes or no questions about Roe. A major finding of Marist’s 2021 poll was that 76% of Americans would limit abortion to — at most — the first three months of pregnancy. This has consistently been the case for each of the 12 years Marist has been asking. The Associated Press has just released a poll with findings similar to Marist.

While the Gallup poll results report Americans support Roe v. Wade, a deeper dive with Marist demonstrates Americans back many restrictions that the ruling permitted. For instance, Marist found that 70% of Americans believe in limiting abortions performed because a child will be born with Down syndrome.

This level of detail, along with the longevity of the poll, makes Marist a superior source of data compared to the Gallup’s latest poll. Results from Marist prove that the American people aren’t robotically supportive unlimited abortion. The public understands the tragedy of abortion, particularly late-term abortion, and their views reflect the issue’s complexity.

How the questions are phrased is vital for getting at what Americans believe. Consider, for example, that the 2021 Gallup poll found that 56% of Americans oppose an abortion ban after 18 weeks, but a 2018 poll also conducted by Gallup showed that 60% of respondents thought abortion should be legal only during the first trimester of pregnancy (through week 12).

News outlets have acknowledged that public opinion about abortion is very difficult to parse. A recent analysis by the New York Times found that most Americans say they support Roe, and yet a majority support limits on abortion banned by it. This split reflects the complexity of abortion and the importance of clearly defining what it means.

When pollsters successfully tap into the nuances of Americans’ attitudes towards abortion, we find that limiting abortion after 15 weeks — when children in the womb have fully formed noses and lips, eyelids and eyebrows and can suck their thumb — isn’t very controversial at all. It would simply bring the United States in line with the laws of most European countries as opposed to keeping company with human rights offenders like China and North Korea.

We look forward to the day that no woman feels she must resort to abortion. But in the meantime, upholding the modest law at issue in the Dobbs late-term abortion case would not only align with American public opinion, it could also allow our outdated laws to finally catch up with the indisputable science that confirms the unborn child is every bit as human and deserving of protection as you and me.

---

(Originally published in Real Clear Politics)

Months of pandemic lockdown forced doctors to expand their use of telemedicine. In many ways, this change made it easier for Americans to receive swift, high-quality care. But telemedicine also quickly became politicized. Pro-abortion advocates are pushing President Joe Biden‘s Food and Drug Administration to make permanent a policy—temporarily in place due to the pandemic—that lifts restrictions on the online sale and distribution of abortion pills. This dangerous policy allows women to receive abortion pills in the mail without ever meeting face to face with a doctor. It should be reversed, not extended as Americans return to in-person activities.

The administration’s support of mail-order abortion reflects a commitment to political priorities, not the safety and well being of women. Mail-order abortion pills jeopardize the health of women who are now being told it is safe to take potent drug cocktails without supervision or adequate screening. After more than a year of grief, the last thing we need is a cavalier policy that leaves women alone and at serious risk.

Without guardrails that prevent mail-order abortions, the use of abortion pills accelerates. In 2001, there were only 71,000 chemically induced abortions, but in 2017 there were approximately 340,000, according to the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. A cottage industry of companies offering abortion pills by mail is already shipping pills to women in 26 states.

Proponents of the temporary FDA rule argue that abortion-by-mail is a safe and simple procedure, but avoid discussing specifics. First, a woman has to take a pill, mifepristone, which stops the baby from growing, essentially starving it of necessary proteins to continue living. Shortly after taking this pill, the woman takes another pill, misoprostol, which induces uterine contractions that expel the baby. Side effects from this drug cocktail include vaginal and abdominal bleeding, vomiting, chills, headaches and diarrhea.

Under the FDA’s temporary rule changes, many women are left to ingest this drug regimen alone. They have to become their own abortionist and deal with the psychological and physical pain of abortion without any medical care.

Academic research supports concerns about the safety of chemical abortions. A study conducted in Finland discovered chemical abortions were nearly four times more likely to result in complications than surgical abortions. Moving this already risky procedure from a doctor’s office to a private home is reckless.

According to a 2015 peer-reviewed study, women who took abortion pills often did so outside of the FDA-approved time frame. Tragically, many of them had severe complications. Out of the 40 women analyzed, 31 had excessive bleeding, 25 had an incomplete abortion and two went into shock. The authors concluded, “Strict legislations are required to monitor and also to restrict the sales of abortion pills over the counter.” Loose restrictions that allow women to obtain these pills more easily could lead to a spike in severe complications.

The inherently risky nature of chemical abortions makes eliminating existing safeguards, such as in-person medical examinations, a bad idea. An online zoom call with a doctor can’t establish the baby’s gestational age or allow the doctor to perform an ultrasound, both of which help detect potentially fatal conditions like an ectopic pregnancy.

Data released by the FDA in 2018 show that chemical abortions have resulted in thousands of complications in the last 20 years, including 768 hospitalizations and 24 deaths. It is likely that those numbers significantly undercount the actual totals because of insufficient reporting requirements. Another study found more than 500 cases in which women had severe complications that likely would have resulted in death if they hadn’t had access to an emergency room.

We must push back against FDA efforts to expand the use of abortion pills and decrease safety precautions. Ingesting abortion pills can be extremely dangerous, especially when performed alone without adequate medical supervision. Sadly, President Biden and his team seem more focused on politics than on protecting women.

---

(Originally published in Newsweek)

Fights over abortion are moving to a new frontier as President Joe Biden’s FDA considers allowing abortion pills to be prescribed and sold online. The increasing use of telemedicine due to the coronavirus pandemic has served as the perfect cover for pro-abortion advocates to push for the deregulation of abortion pills. If the Food and Drug Administration changes the current rules, it would be possible for a woman to consult with a doctor in another state or even a foreign country and receive abortion pills in the mail.

The Biden administration should reject this push because there are serious health risks associated with chemical abortion, and removing the current health oversights would harm, not serve, women. President Biden should focus on improving authentic healthcare for women, not changing an FDA rule that protects women.

Research by the Guttmacher Institute (a pro-abortion group started as a branch of Planned Parenthood) shows a rapid rise in medical abortions from approximately 71,000 in 2001 to 340,000 in 2017. If the Biden administration approves the sale of abortion pills online, this number will rise substantially as chemical abortions become easier to obtain.

Those in the abortion industry claim abortion pills are a safe and easy option, but the facts contradict this narrative.

To undergo a chemical abortion a woman has to ingest two separate pills. First, the woman must take mifepristone which blocks progesterone, stopping the baby from obtaining the nutrients it needs to grow, essentially starving the baby to death. After ingesting this pill, the woman takes the second pill, misoprostol which causes uterine contractions expelling the unborn baby. These pills cause a range of side effects, including vaginal and abdominal bleeding, and often nausea, vomiting, fever, chills, headaches and diarrhea.

Unsurprisingly, such a potent cocktail of drugs can jeopardize a woman’s health. Allowing unsupervised procedures without timely access to a doctor and an emergency room would be a grave mistake and flies in the face of what we know about chemical abortions.

A big picture survey on the safety of chemical abortion drugs shows there are serious risks. Data released in 2018 by the FDA shows thousands of adverse events caused by abortion pills, including 768 hospitalizations and 24 deaths since 2000.

These risks will increase if an expansion in telemedicine abortion removes the current oversights that protect women, such as a doctor performing an ultrasound to rule out a deadly ectopic pregnancy (where the baby attaches to the fallopian tubes, not the uterine wall) and determining the gestational age of the baby. These determinations are impossible to make over the course of an online visit, and doctors shouldn’t be encouraged to prescribe drugs without performing an accurate risk assessment.

Current guidelines say abortion pills should be taken only during the first ten weeks of pregnancy and a peer-reviewed study shows that there are negative consequences when women ingest abortion pills after ten weeks. Thirty-percent of women in this study took abortion pills after the recommended date, and out of that group, 62% had incomplete abortions, while 12.5% had to have a surgical evacuation and a blood transfusion.

The obstetricians who conducted this study argue the results show, “Unsupervised medical abortion can lead to increased maternal morbidity and mortality.”

Another study from Finland found that women are four times more likely to experience serious side effects and complications from chemical abortions than from a surgical procedure. Claims by groups like Planned Parenthood that abortion pills are safe disintegrate when the actual data is analyzed. These drugs are extremely powerful, and pretending that an abortion-inducing drug is “safe and highly effective” does a disservice to women.

Dismantling limits on how women can obtain these drugs is a foolish move that would prove the Biden administration is more interested in political considerations than in following the science.

If President Biden is genuinely concerned about women’s health, he should not expand chemical, at-home abortion. Women would suffer the most from this politically motivated change in policy, as they would be given dangerous drugs with unpredictable complications and told they are safe to use at home and without medical supervision.

---

(Originally published in Real Clear Policy)

As we celebrate World Down Syndrome Day, it’s critical that we recognize the equal dignity and worth of our brothers and sisters with Down syndrome. Sadly, here in the United States and in many places throughout the world, the failure to acknowledge this begins before these individuals are even born. It’s beyond time that our laws reflect the truth that a person’s entrance into the world shouldn’t hinge on whether he or she has an extra chromosome.

Yet that is what expectant parents of unborn babies with Down syndrome often hear from doctors who wrongly presume those with the condition are of less value. Parents often feel pressured to abort babies with Down syndrome. Often this pressure comes from doctors, but also from family and friends. None of us, doctors included, should ever assume some people’s lives are any less worthwhile.

The truth is that people with Down syndrome love life, are intensely happy, and their joy is a gift to our world.

Dr. Brian Skotko, a board-certified geneticist and director of the Down-syndrome program at Massachusetts General Hospital, in 2011 published findings that the overwhelming majority of those with Down syndrome are more than satisfied with their life and happy with themselves.

What’s more, respondents overwhelmingly expressed love for their parents and siblings, and want expectant parents processing the news of their preborn infant’s Down syndrome diagnosis to take heart and to think of their growing child in a positive light.

“In our qualitative analysis, people with Down syndrome encouraged parents to love their babies with Down syndrome, mentioning that their own lives were good. They further encouraged healthcare professionals to value [unborn babies with Down syndrome],” reads the report.

Bias in the medical community against people with Down syndrome extends to the greater culture as well. Many countries have utterly failed to appreciate this whole class of people. Iceland, for example, has virtually eliminated its Down syndrome population through selective abortions. Similarly, Denmark has a 98 percent termination rate for babies diagnosed with Down syndrome, and the United Kingdom is right behind at 90 percent. It has been said that you can judge the advancement of a culture or nation by how it treats its most vulnerable. These trends are not just sad; they are repulsive.

The reasons for these astronomically high rates of selective abortion are complicated, but often the decision comes down to concerns about the quality of life of the child and the burden placed on families. Many prominent voices argue for abortion, including columnists and editorial boards in major newspapers and the Oxford biologist Richard Dawkins. Our cultural elites seem to believe those with Down syndrome are destined to live miserable lives burdening those around them.

Women who are pregnant with a little one who has tested positive for Down syndrome in utero (an imperfect test) often feel that they have no other options besides abortion. There is far too little discussion about the joys of raising a child with Down syndrome. Many women never see research such as Dr. Skotko’s or other studies such as one by Vanderbilt Kennedy Center researchers which discovered parents of children with Down syndrome are less likely to get divorced.

Just because someone with Down syndrome is different from society’s expectations doesn’t mean their life is any less valuable. People find meaning in many different ways, and there is no one path to living a meaningful or productive life.

As one living with Down syndrome, Regan Reinertson, a 15-year-old from Bolingbrook, Ill., exemplifies this positive approach to life. She stole the show at the 2019 March for Life and was featured in its theme video. She has done print ads, social-media ads, and commercials working with Mattel (American Girl), Vision Works, Oberweis Ice Cream, All State, and JP Morgan Chase. She has also competed in the Special Olympics, winning a gold medal in rhythmic gymnastics and also competing in equestrian, and participated in a theater group for kids with special needs, playing parts in Beauty and the Beast and Wizard of Oz. Regan loves school, she’s very social, and she is loved by everyone. She loves to swim and go on vacations to the beach. Self-proclaimed medical experts might not see it, but she is a precious gift bringing joy to everyone around her. She is one of the most uplifting people I have ever met, and she shows that Down syndrome doesn’t stand in the way of a happy life. She and many who share her diagnosis have brought joy and meaning to people everywhere, and we must continue guarding those with Down syndrome from extermination.

Some lawmakers in statehouses across the country have introduced legislation that, if enacted, would prohibit discriminatory abortions prompted by a pre-natal Down syndrome diagnosis. That would be a step in the right direction and show the path forward for defending those with Down syndrome. It would be a tragedy for the world to lose any more of these exceptional souls.

---

(Originally published in National Review)