Abortion panel an embarrassing waste

An open letter to Gov. Matt Blunt: I am writing to express outrage at your violation of the public trust through convening a committee of ideologues who will support your belief that abortion is harmful to women and children, beliefs that are not supported by credible scientific research. I am not alone in this outrage. The American public is tired of public officials putting ideology before science and appointing unqualified people to make scientific decisions. As governor, you have an obligation to all of the people of Missouri, not just your fundamentalist base.

Calling the committee you have convened "scientific" adds insult to injury. The committee consists of members who are not only biased but also unqualified to assess research methodologies. Some research does claim abortion is harmful to women. For example, your committee is likely familiar with the Elliot Institute and its director, "Doctor" Michael Reardon, who claims abortion causes serious health problems despite research to the contrary by the American Medical Association and the American Psychiatric Association. It’s important to consider that Reardon received his "doctorate" through an online diploma mill called Pacific Western University, which was investigated by the Government Accounting Office as one of four "diploma mills and unaccredited schools" that the federal government should not fund. Reardon did not labor through six to eight years of post-graduate education to gain expertise in research methodologies - nor did he pay the expenses. This is not just a question of scholars making differing arguments about the impact of abortion, but one of the quality and credibility of scholars and the research they produce.

The most extensive research done to date on abortion was the Koop report funded by the Reagan administration with the hope of proving the harmful effects of abortion. State officials told the news media the outcome of the research was inconclusive. This was not true. In 1989, the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations held an investigative hearing to review the findings of the report. The review indicated the report had concluded that "abortion is medically safer than pregnancy and childbirth, both in terms of mortality and morbidity," and that "delays in obtaining an abortion, for whatever reason, jeopardize the physical and mental health of the mother." Koop, who opposed a woman’s right to abortion, also commented on his disappointment with the "poor quality" of research produced by the anti-women’s rights groups.

Koop was a person of integrity who refused to prostitute his professional standards for ideological correctness. Can the same be said of the committee you have convened? To guard against "poor quality" research, it is imperative to convene a committee of members with expertise in different research methodologies and who have differing views on abortion to critically analyze all research claims.

In his testimony, Surgeon General Koop also said "psychological problems from abortion are rare and not significant from a public health viewpoint." When you study the research on "post-abortion syndrome," be sure to include the research of the incoming president of the American Psychiatric Association, Nada Stotland, who concludes it is not a serious health-care problem. Carole Joffe, a sociologist who studies reproductive health care and the abortion issue at the University of California at Davis, has similarly said, "The repeated attempts by opponents of abortion to allege negative mental health effects of abortion - so-called ‘post abortion syndrome’ as well as negative physical effects, such as a link between abortion and breast cancer - have been discredited as ‘junk science.’ The alleged link between abortion and breast cancer was repudiated by a consensus conference called by the National Cancer Institute. If opponents have moral objections to abortion, they should state those. They should not rely on false statements to make their case. "Readers can go to the American Cancer Society’s Web site to find its conclusion that "Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer." The ACS also discusses the "bias" in earlier studies that led to this conclusion.

It is obvious this committee has been convened to support the denominational doctrine of its members, who not only oppose abortion but sex education and birth control. The international research of the World Health Organization concludes, however, that providing accessible birth control reduces the number of abortions. The reduction in abortion rates with access to birth control is evident in Eastern Europe, especially Russia, where very high abortion rates have been decreasing over the last decade as birth control options have become available. Making abortion inaccessible will not stop it. It didn’t in the United States before its decriminalization. Right now in Brazil, a mostly Catholic nation where abortion is illegal, there are 800,000 illegal abortions annually. About 4,000 women die as a result of those illegal abortions, making it the fourth leading cause of maternal death in Brazil.

Convening this committee is disingenuous and an embarrassment to the state of Missouri. How about using taxpayer money to convene a committee about post-traumatic stress syndrome among Iraq veterans or battered women and children? How about finding out how those women and children whom you have cut off of Medicaid are doing? We need role models in political office who demonstrate respect for science, religious pluralism and the public good. How dare you sacrifice the health of Missouri’s women and children on the altar of political expediency, ignorance and religious intolerance?

Victoria Johnson is a faculty member in the Sociology Department at the University of Missouri and a member of Faculty, Staff and Students Concerned about Democracy and Public Knowledge.