NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #19/NN_1992_19.iso/spool/talk/abortion/33645

Text File | 1992-08-26 | 5.2 KB | 115 lines

Newsgroups: talk.abortion
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!hubcap!opusc!usceast!nyikos
From: [e-mail] (Peter Nyikos)
Subject: REWRITING HISTORY: Adulterated RvW versions: FAQ, recent post...
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Summary: Blackmun's slippery writings on the safety of abortion
Keywords: may be, is, established fact
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science
Date: 26 Aug 92 21:25:42 GMT
Lines: 102

The passage set off by asterisks is from the Opinion of the Court in
Roe v. Wade and
appears in "410 US at 163", legal code for:

_United States Reports_, vol. 410, p. 163

This can be found in many law libraries, including that of the University
of South Carolina law school, where back issues occupy most of a whole
bookshelf and go back to before Sandford v. Dred Scott.  This journal
is the official source for the true text of all Supreme Court decisions.

            ************************

With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in the
health of the mother, the "compelling" point, in the light of present
medical knowledge, is at approximately the end of the first trimester.
This is so because of the now-established medical fact, referred to
above at 149, that until the end of the first trimester mortality in
abortion may be less than mortality in normal childbirth.

            **********************

Now, when this is reprinted, as in the FAQ and a recent otherwise helpful
long post, usually something is substituted for the "at 149" [which means:
"on p. 149"] and this is certainly OK.  What is not OK is the way these
secondary and tertiary sources substitute "is" for the "may be" in the
last line.

    In fairness, the people who made the alteration probably thought
they were doing Harry Blackmun a favor by replacing his (bizarre, in view
of the earlier "now-established medical fact") "may be" with something
that he probably intended to put there in the first place.

    But if you go back to p. 149, you see the same kind of waffling
going on.  I've capitalized one word so you will not miss it.

            *************************

Appellants and various *amici* refer to medical data indicating that
abortion in early pregnancy, that is, prior to the end of the first
trimester, although not without its risk, is now relatively safe. Mortality
rates for women undergoing early abortions, where the procedure is legal,
APPEAR to be as low as or lower than the rates for normal childbirth.

            *************************

There is a footnote here giving a string of references, after
which Blackmun refers the reader to a paper of Lader (that's right, Jerry
Lader, one of the founders of NARAL).  The first reference is to an
article of Malcolm Potts, a doctrinaire pro-choicer
 whom I singled out for criticism in my
long letter in the Spring 1991 issue of ISSUES IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY,
p. 20.  This magazine is brought out nationally by the National Academy
of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine.

The other references are to articles of Tietze, whom I do not at present
know anything about, and a table of Abortion Mortality for New York City.

Now New York City was hardly an unbiased sample.  Bernard Nathanson, who
was a very conscientious physician even in his abortionist days, did
a Herculean job of cleaning up an abortion clinic that he reluctantly
inherited and turned it, as much as he was able, into a medically
responsible facility.  His trials and
tribulations are recounted in _Aborting America_, the first half of
which should actually be of quite a bit of interest to pro-choice
readers since Nathanson does not apply much hindsight to his account
but really tries to show the reader the way he saw things at the time.

Other places had a different experiences.  Oregon, operating under
similarly liberal laws, reported 13.9 abortion deaths per 100,000
legal abortions but only 8.4 per 100,000 live births.  Maryland
reported 40.5 deaths per 100,000 legal abortions vs. 23.1 per
100,000.

According to David Reardon (_Aborted Women, Silent No More_, p.112)
the ONLY state which claimed an abortion mortality rate lower
than the maternal was--wouldn't you guess it--New York.

And even there, the methodology is seriously questioned by Reardon,
who cites, via Hilgers in
"Medical Hazards of Abortion,"
_Abortion and Social Justice_, by Hilgers and Horan, p. 63, a
1971 study done by Dr. Joseph J. Rovinsky, concluding that the
actual abortion mortality rate in New York was 38 per 100,000.

Similar rates, all higher than maternal mortality, are given from
Sweden and Denmark, which even then had a higher standard of medical
care than the United States.

----------------------

Epilogue:  Reardon was apparently in a hurry to finish his book, for
very understandable reasons, and almost all his citations are to
secondary or tertiary sources.  Unfortunately I will not have time
to chase down the primary sources for a month or so and would be
grateful to anyone who does so.

It will take me very much longer to get a clear picture of what
mortality rates are really like today, as opposed to official
figures of the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute.  But that's one reason I am
on this net, to report to you from time to time on what I learn.