Abortion safer than giving birth, study says

[yardwork]

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/01/24/abortion-safer-than-giving-birth-study-says/

Getting a legal abortion is much safer than giving birth, suggests a new U.S. study published Monday.
Researchers found that women were about 14 times more likely to die during or after giving birth to a live baby than to die from complications of an abortion.
Experts say the findings, though not unexpected, contradict some state laws that suggest abortions are high-risk procedures.


Watch out for exploding heads in the comments.

[MarkCharles]

1. Surprising that it was published on Fox's site!

Yes, heads will explode. I predict the article will be pulled shortly.

[yardwork]

3. I was astounded that Fox published it. It's a Reuter's report, but still.....

I read the whole thing looking for Faux News spin and found nothing. You have to read the comments. Priceless.

[MarkCharles]

4. Do I have to register there to see them? I don't see how

to get to them. Perhaps it's just me, but if I have to register with Fox in order to see them, I don't want to.

[yardwork]

6. lordy may! I would never register with Fox. Look for the "comments" in tiny print, left-hand column.

Look in the left-hand column at the top of the page. Click on "comments." There are six so far, and boy are they upset.

[MarkCharles]

8. Sorry, my ad blocker or something is not allowing me to see any when..

I click on that link. I saw it say 6, and then I clicked, and nothing happened.

[yardwork]

11. Well, you're not really missing anything. Just the usual.

[sinkingfeeling]

2. The RW's solution to that is easy: take abortion back to dirty alleys!

[calimary]

7. Why of course! Then all those annoying demanding women can die quickly!

Then it will properly comply with their ideal health care "plan"!

[CountAllVotes]

5. ...

[BlueCaliDem]

9. As a woman who gave natural birth three times

I totally agree. Each time I gave birth, I felt as if I were on the precipice of, well, death. I mean this.

Anyway, I'm personally against abortion, but I'm pro women's right to choose for themselves. If abortion is what they need to do, then I want them to do it in a safe and clean place by a professional, and I'd want my tax dollars to help pay for that.

Anyway, the only reason why the abortion issue is being trumpeted again is because the Republicans have nothing else to run on. Economy? Heck no. Jobs? Who do they think they're kidding. Balanced budgets? Bwahahaha. Cutting MIC budget. Hah!

What do they really have? Ah yes. Red meat. Abortion!

[Pachamama]

10. Be curious how this compares in vaginal birth vs cesarean birth....

Last edited Tue Jan 24, 2012, 05:45 PM - Edit history (1)

Reality is that the vast majority of abortions are done in 1st trimester and non-surgical if involving RU-486. But cesarean is major surgery and people forget this and I would be curious to know how many of the deaths are in cesareans and also in births involving a second birth where after a cesarean had been performed and due to a condition involving scar tissue & where the placenta attaches that there is the risk of hemmorraging to death during the second delivery. Listened to a heartbreaking story on NPR a few years back where due to the increase in elective c-sections, there were some complications happening (forget the name of the condition) in which hospitals who used to see maybe a few times a year are seeing it monthly instead. It involves scar tissue forming in the uterine section where the c-section incision was performed, then scar tissue formed and on a second pregnancy the placenta and major arterial connections grow in or around the scar tissue area and the doctors dont see it and then upon the second c- section being performed, the women tragically bleeds to death during surgery.

In any event, the news in this report showing abortions are 14 times safer than childbirth doesnt surprise me....people forget that even in modern medicine, pregnancy & labor can be very hard on a woman's body and now w/ the increase in surgeries etc that there is still maternal death in child labor.

Yet as another poster pointed out, the "Pro-life" segment out there would rather we return to the time of Back-alley abortions resulting in more women dying. Or how about ectopic pregnancies? Would they rather see a woman die of sepsis if the ectopic pregnancy is left untreated? Oh yeah, I love how some of the anti-abortion folks will say that ending an ectopic pregnancy is "different" and not an abortion....WRONG! Its abortion too....a medical procedure determined by a doctor for the patient to help end a pregnancy that will endanger the womans life and can never be viable. But all these "Personhood" advocates that believe life begins at the moment sperm & egg meet & form some cells that terminating that is murder. But the hippocrates I know who talk a good game of being anti- abortion/pro-life (especially men) when confronted with their mother, sister, wife or daughter having an ectopic pregnancy that will never be viable (yet is a mass of dividing cells, a zygote even possibly embryo status that has embedded itself somewhere other than the uterus) and endanger this woman's life, well, those same people wont call that abortion and say thats okay. And if they say its not okay, its just leaving it to God to decide if the woman should die? really?

I hate hypocrites.... And I am tired of men, especially hypocritical men who want to run around sticking their penises in vaginas (even if they are married) who dont believe in birth control and yet want to control a womans body.

Make birthcontol available, prevent unwanted pregnancies and make healthcare and reproductive care for pregnancies available for healthy pregnancies and deliveries and make sure abortions are legal and a decision for a woman and her doctor and available and safe.

[JDPriestly]

14. "elective cesareans"?

As one who was carted kicking and screaming into two cesareans, I really resent the assumption that phrase hides.

And I have to advise young women facing childbirth -- "You don't want a cesarean." The recovery from a cesarean is more painful than and from natural childbirth and it lasts really long. You don't just have scars outside. You also have them inside, and they can cause problems when you get older.

Natural birth is better. It is often more risky for the baby. That is why doctors often advise it when the birth slows down and the baby seems to be headed for trouble.

We have more cesareans now than we did years ago because women are having their babies at a later age. That's my theory. Most of the women I know who had cesareans had their first child above the age of 30.

[Pachamama]

18. There are two kinds of cesareans: 1) Emergency 2) Elective

JD- I am sorry if you took offense that because I referred to one of the type of cesareans (elective) that you think you were being targeted or accused of this election. Clearly from your description of yourself being "carted kicking and screaming into two cesareans" this was not elective on your part but rather the doctor. Your doctor may have declared it an emergency or his or her elective due to concerns for it being hi-risk or their own fear of malpractice should a vaginal birth pose a higher risk in their opinion. Sadly even because it may fit their schedule better.

But the reality is that the United States has one of the highest rates of cesareans and they are not all emergency, but rather on a large scale elective. Elective mostly by the doctor but yes, also in many cases there are women who "elect" and schedule a c-section. I know women like this in the Bay Area. They want it to fit their schedule. One woman I know had a 9lbs baby who had been 2 weeks late so when the 2nd baby was due, she "elected" to schedule the c-section on her due date so she had a 7 lbs baby. She wasnt considered hi- risk, she chose to do it. I even know a few gals who "elected" it because they wanted to "keep their vaginas" tight and no sexual problems or urinary problems and not be stretched due to vaginal birth, tearing & episotomies.

Yours was not elected by you, but yes, there are many elective c-sections made hourly across the country & even for the reasons that i stated that were not made by a doctor for emergency or hi-risk scenarios.

[JDPriestly]

19. Women should talk to other women who have had cesareans before "electing" to have them.

It may be easy for some women, but it sure wasn't for me.

[Pachamama]

20. I agree....

I am truly sorry your birth experiences had to be this way....i just hope you have healthy children to make up for the experience....

Sadly, i feel so many women are afraid of the pain of childbirth and therefore scare each other about it and make either a c-section sound easier when once again, its major surgery with real risk.

[JDPriestly]

26. My children are just wonderful and healthy.

I agree with you. Natural childbirth is the best choice. I didn't even read the chapter in my book on cesareans. I took a natural childbirth class. But there I was. I was not in the US for either birth.

I think the statistics reveal the fact that so many women are having their first babies in their 30s and even 40s.

[laundry_queen]

37. I had an 'elective'

but as you said, I was dragged into them. Well, not the first one - the first one was unplanned but due to numerous interventions I ended up with one. I had a VBAC with my second. WHAT a difference. I went home less than 12 hours later. I figured - since I did it once, no more c-sections for me! But that's not how it ended up. My third child was late - 2 weeks late (way late for me, I was 2 weeks early for my 2nd, on time with my 1st), and I had mild hypertension and gestational diabetes. My doctor was already pushing it b/c of the gestational diabetes. Most women with GD are advised to have their baby at 38 weeks or so. I refused, so I went in for non-stress tests constantly during the last month and did kick charts galore. My doctor was against inducing me (and I was against being induced) because of my previous c-section. We tried every 'natural' way to induce labour possible - my doctor was a trained accupuncturist and told me he'd never had someone NOT respond to his treatment by going into labour, until I came along, lol. Anyhow, I was in a remote community and my doctor was going out of town which meant no maternity services while he was gone - everyone would get flown out. Seeing as I was already 2 weeks 'overdue', I chose a c-section over getting flown out far away in some tiny airplane while I was in labour, to be under the care of a doctor I'd never met who would probably give me a c-section anyway given my history. So yeah, I actually chose it.

I chose it with the knowledge of how horrible it would be afterwards, but it turned out to be a healing experience. The recovery was still horrible compared to a vaginal birth (well, there really isn't a comparison. It's like the difference between a paper cut and a compound fracture) but my doctor made sure I called the shots during the whole thing.

I ended up having another 'elective' c-section with my 4th because I couldn't find anyone who was okay with me trying for a vbac again (not the same town so my old doctor couldn't help me). It was not as good of an experience as with my 3rd, I missed my daughter's whole first day because I was in and out of consciousness for quite some time and in retrospect I wish I'd have pushed harder to try for a natural birth. C-sections are major surgery, you lose twice as much blood on average as a natural birth and the risk of infection is extremely high. Why anyone would chose them for a first birth is beyond me. I don't think it's easy for anyone, but I think those women who said it was 'easy' either have nothing else to compare it too, or their doctors were generous with the pain meds for the first few days and they just don't remember.

[JDPriestly]

39. Beautifully said. People love to diss women who have cesareans.

Most of us would prefer to have natural childbirth. Who in the world would choose to have major surgery if it wasn't necessary? Not me.

[yardwork]

23. I was lucky not to have an "emergency" cesarean with my first.

I would have, they told me, except midwives delivered my baby, and the OBs in the hospital as backup were busy with other emergency cesareans that day and night and next day. The midwives had the patience to work with me and eventually my child was born, healthy and all was well. And because of that, I had a vaginal delivery with my second child, whereas if I had had that cesarean the first time, I would have had to choose a v-back or another cesarean.

I mention this as another example of how an "emergency" cesarean may not really be an emergency, as long as the mother and baby are being monitored and everything is generally ok. We're much too quick in the U.S. to go to the cesarean option.

Thanks for your post.

[Sgent]

32. Elected

in medicine usually just means that the surgery was scheduled and not emergent.

A lady who medically should have a cesarean would be considered elective unless she was already in labor.

A major reason (even if its not as widespread as people say) that we have such a high rate of sections is the malpractice environment. I agree that this fear is overblown in a lot of cases, but very rarely is a doctor sued due to a section compared to a natural birth gone wrong.

For instance, try to get a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) in any non-major medical center -- it won't happen and that's due to malpractice insurers requiring both an open operating room, surgeon, and anethesia on site until delivery.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

38. My caesarean was NECESSARY to save my life, NOT "elective" or "emergency".

My doctor told me I would have to have a C-section because the hole in my pelvis is less than 4 inches in diameter. He figured this out long before delivery.

I went into labor on time and had NO dilation and NO dropping, because there was not room for the baby's head to drop. I have never heard of a woman with NO dilation and No dropping, although I am sure it has happened to other women. It was very simple. I had an eight pounder who was jammed in my uterus diagonally. She couldn't kick me because there was no room. I am a small woman with small bones. I do NOT have a deformed pelvis. I have a normal pelvis; it's just small.

It is NOT true that every woman can have a vaginal delivery. It's a simple mechanical problem. Unfortunately, the home birth advocates have this misguided idea that if you could only "turn the baby" that you could have a vaginal delivery. This is not true.

I had a very good childbirth experience with spinal anesthesia, and I will never let anyone try to make me feel like an inferior mother because I could not have a vaginal delivery.

I am healthy and my now grown daughter is healthy and that is what matters. Otherwise, we both would have died. Childbirth is very dangerous and the people who think everyone can have a vaginal delivery are quite misguided.

[LadyHawkAZ]

12. Anyone who could read the CDC website already knew this

years ago.

The comments have already started, "butbutbut THE BABY!!! HOLOCAUST!! MURDER!!!" from the mixed nuts in the Faux peanut gallery.

[azurnoir]

21. studies have been showing this since shortly after abortion was legalized

and as someone who has given birth 4 times 3 vaginally and one C-section that was both elective and emergency, I have no doubt its true

[JDPriestly]

13. Utterly true.

I and my baby just escaped death in childbirth.

I didn't want an abortion and am so, so, so glad I didn't even think of it, but certainly it would have been far safer.

It used to be that many, many women died in childbirth. It isn't so common now, but it still happens.

Legal abortions are much safer than childbirth.

But that fact will never, never stop those of us who love children from having them. Not to worry.

[avaistheone1]

15. True, this is a well known fact for many years

among the medical community. Too bad it is isn't better known by the general public.

[Taverner]

17. From the "no shit" department...

[HockeyMom]

22. Having had a breech birth, ectopic, and an induction

All of those without modern medicine could have killed me, and my kids.

[yardwork]

24. One of the reasons I posted this is because of the myth that abortion causes breast cancer.

I've even heard doctors repeat this incredible lie - that having an abortion greatly increases women's chances of getting breast cancer. It's nonsense.

I saw here on DU the other day a poster state that the morning after pill causes "severe bleeding" and can cause death. Ahem. It's the morning after pill. It's taken within hours or even minutes of pregnancy. There isn't a placenta yet.

[Nikia]

27. They must have mistaken it for RU-486

I have heard contradictory data about whether or not is more dangerous than surgical abortions. It seems like with that method, the woman taking it and going through the induced miscarriage needs to be aware of what is normal and when she should see medical attention. I suppose that the same is true for non induced miscarriages and surgical abortions though.
With the morning after pill, feeling ill is the biggest risk and women taking it should probably be prepared for that possibility and chill out at home if possible. It is not dangerous though.

[yardwork]

28. Yes, RU-486 causes an abortion, so it can cause complications.

The morning after pill is completely different, of course. It prevents the fertilized cell from being implanted, and thus prevents pregnancy.

[Tumbulu]

25. And this is the basis of Roe V Wade

Everyone needs to read that decision.

In a nutshell I believe that it went like this ( I read and studied this decision something like 3o years ago, so please forgive any errors in my memory):

1. In the US among the major organized religions there is no agreement when human life begins. The range is from conception to after birth.

2. The mortality rate among women giving birth is significantly higher than the mortality rate for an abortion up until the third trimester. After this point the mortality is higher for a woman having an abortion vs giving birth.

3. The court ruled that it had to rule on the safety of the mother. And therefore only with a doctors permission can abortions be performed when the risk of death to the mother exceeds the risk of death giving birth.

The whole decision is based upon how the US Government cannot force a woman to take risks with her life for something that not one of the major organized US religions will agree upon.

[iverglas]

35. I don't disagree with the sentiment

But actually, Roe v. Wade didn't say any of that.

The state asserted without substantiating, and the Court found without giving reasons, that the state has an interest in "the potentiality of human life".

The Court found that in approx the first trimester, the woman's privacy interest outweighs that state interest; in the second, the state could intervene but only in the interests of women's health; and in the third, the state could prohibit abortion if it wanted.

The actual fact is that the interest of the woman that is at stake (as well as liberty, of course) is life, and the right thereto.

Compelling a woman to continue a pregnancy means compelling her to assume a risk of injury and death. And these statistics just underscore that fact.

Like another poster in this thread, my sister is one of the women who would be in a little double grave had she lived 100 years ago or in another place; she was instead in a hospital in a major Canadian city in the last two decades, and was able to deliver a baby whose head size would have made it impossible in nature. The woman in the next room was trying very hard to bleed to death from an episiotomy when her blood would not clot. And later that year, the niece of a friend of mine died in West Africa of post partum haemorrhage. Nobody can predict what will happen in the delivery room. (Just as no fetus is anything more than hypothetically viable at any point up until it is successfully delivered and lives.)

I have never yet got an answer to the question of what interest the state could assert that outweighed a woman's right to life.


typos ...

[Tumbulu]

40. well, I read Justice Blackmun's opinion differently

I have read Justice Blackmun's majority opinion a few times now and that is what I take from the reading.

Now perhaps you are a legal scholar and I am just an entomologist/plant breeder/farmer. But that is what stays in my mind. Back when I took a Constitutional Law class I remember reading all of the opinions of each Justice in the legal library and the elegance of the writing and the logic of it was so clean and refreshing compared to all the hullaballoo that was being raised about it.

My reading of his opinion : He only agrees that the state has an interest in protecting a fetus and not an embryo. He gives a long history of abortion in western civilization- complete with the new to me info about the small clique that Hippocrates was in and goes through English common law on the matter. Then discusses the advancement in safety to the woman in having an abortion. Apparently the reason for regulating it in the 1850's had to do with regulating practices that resulted in a higher mortality for the woman vs a live birth- which indeed had been the case up until modern sanitation and antibiotics.

I still conclude in reading his opinion that the ruling is more about the state having the obligation to protect the life of the woman up until the fetus is of an age that it could be considered viable by the medical community. And I was unaware until reading his opinion that there was such disagreement in the different religions about when life began.

The risk of death at childbirth is no small matter. My goodness, your post is so chilling. I have been comparing the risk of dying at childbirth to that of firefighters, infantrymen, police officers and sheriff's deputies and the so far even in the US one is more likely to die giving birth (24/ 100,000) than fighting in Iraq (7 / 100,000 rotations), putting out fires (2.4/ 100,000 incidents), or policing people (18/ 100,000 year). The only situation more deadly than having a baby was serving in the infantry in Afghanistan. My goodness, I wonder why these things are not discussed more often? Let alone in Africa or so far the worst place for childbirth- Afghanistan, again. In fact a woman giving birth in Afghanistan has a 1800 / 100,000 chance of dying while the infantryman there has a 85 / 100,000 chance.......

Next I am going to look at roofers, farmers, underwater welders and any other high risk professions and see how they compare.

[iverglas]

41. just for info and the record

(and yes, it is truly chilling to know what women all over the world are still subject to, in terms of the dangers of pregnancy and childbirth, not to mention of unsafe abortions)

Blackmun's summary:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO.html

To summarize and to repeat:

1. A state criminal abortion statute of the current Texas type, that excepts from criminality only a lifesaving procedure on behalf of the mother, without regard to pregnancy stage and without recognition of the other interests involved, is violative of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

2. The State may define the term "physician," as it has been employed in the preceding paragraphs of this Part XI of this opinion, to mean only a physician currently licensed by the State, and may proscribe any abortion by a person who is not a physician as so defined.

In Doe v. Bolton, post, p. 179, procedural requirements contained in one of the modern abortion statutes are considered. That opinion and this one, of course, are to be read together.

This holding, we feel, is consistent with the relative weights of the respective interests involved, with the lessons and examples of medical and legal history, with the lenity of the common law, and with the demands of the profound problems of the present day. The decision leaves the State free to place increasing restrictions on abortion as the period of pregnancy lengthens, so long as those restrictions are tailored to the recognized state interests. The decision vindicates the right of the physician to administer medical treatment according to his professional judgment up to the points where important state interests provide compelling justifications for intervention. Up to those points, the abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision, and basic responsibility for it must rest with the physician. If an individual practitioner abuses the privilege of exercising proper medical judgment, the usual remedies, judicial and intra-professional, are available.

When a human being is present isn't a matter for either religion or science to tell us.

And if you read through, you will see that these "important state interests" are just never defined or proved. On the other hand, we know what the woman's interests are: life and liberty. How the state interests, whatever they are, could outweigh those interests, I have never had explained.

[Tumbulu]

42. Thanks for posting the summary,

but in the many pages of opinion, which I find so elegant and interesting, the issues are elaborated- this is what I am talking about. It took me a long time to find the full opinion online the other night, and this evening I could only find summaries of each page. I guess I am tired.

And I could only find Justice Blackmun's opinion and not the other assenting Justices additional comments, which I remember being so impressed with as well.

I loved taking that course on Constitutional law course 36 years ago- that opinion was still new then.

[dipsydoodle]

29. K & R

.

[Dreamer Tatum]

30. What a ridiculous, heartless, inhuman study.

Ask a woman who intends to carry a child to term what her notion of 'risk' is as regards her pregnancy. I would venture that 99,999 out of 100,000 women would say, "Something happening to my baby," not "Something happening to me."

The two risks cannot therefore be meaningfully compared.

[yardwork]

33. What? I really don't understand your comment.

The study is not based on women being asked their opinion of risk. The study analyzed data related to birth outcomes and complications. It isn't heartless to find out how many pregnancies caused complications for the mother. Nor it is heartless to determine how many abortions caused complications. Having that information can lead to better healthcare. How is that inhuman?

I am genuinely puzzled by your post.

[iverglas]

36. "The two risks cannot therefore be meaningfully compared."

They bloody well can when there are people trying to compel women to assume one set of risks against their will.

Any rational woman is concerned about "something happening to me" during pregnancy: hypertension and diabetes are just two common somethings that all women need to think about. And women choose to deliver in hospital, or at the very least with a proper attendant, not just because of the risks to their potential babies, but obviously because of the risks to themselves.

Choosing to assume the many risks of full-term pregnancy and delivery is not a problem and no one suggests that anyone should not do so. Compelling someone to assume those risks is what is truly heartless and inhuman, don't you think?


more typos ...

[Found in Yonkers]

31. DR

There are many, many risks associated with pregnancy.

[ZombieHorde]

34. Where is the comment section for that article? nt