Anti-abortionists continue to ignore all the
evidence
Re: Gossip isn’t proof
Andrea Mrozek’s and Rebecca Walberg’s extremely weak attempt to rebut my July 8
op-ed (on how researchers calculate unsafe abortion numbers) was given
pride of place on the Post’s Letters page yesterday, even though it didn’t refute a single thing I
wrote.
They belittle the estimates of unsafe abortion
by criticizing researchers’ "caveats, qualifiers, and disclaimers." But
such cautionary steps and uncertainties are a normal and integral part
of science – especially when calculating the incidence of unsafe
abortion in the face of anti-abortion laws and inadequate medical
records. It’s not my problem if Mrozek and Walberg don’t understand how
science works.
Their singular focus on one example I cited (a community
study done in the Congo)
is telling. It’s like they’re complaining about the existence of one
tree while standing in the middle of a forest they cannot see. They've chosen to simply dismiss the
overwhelming evidence that current
estimates of deaths from unsafe, illegal abortion are as accurate as possible given the available
evidence - of which
there’s a lot from many sources. Meanwhile, their own peculiar notion
that the numbers are vastly overestimated is an article of faith – i.e., belief in something despite
the evidence.
Oddly, Mrozek and Walberg try to claim that
overall maternal mortality (from
childbirth etc.) is an
“elephant in the room,” even though it's been discussed endlessly in
the international press for the last 6 months. It's abortion that keeps
getting left off the table because of anti-choice politics and controversy.
Unfortunately, even the UN, the Lancet journal, and
Bill and Melinda Gates are guilty of this. But ignoring unsafe abortion will not
make it go away, and dismissing the evidence just abandons women to
their deaths.
- Joyce Arthur, Coordinator, Abortion Rights Coalition of Canada