Reaction to RU-486 study: Omission of non-abortive women taints final results

Reaction to RU-486 study: Omission of non-abortive women taints final results

Two pro-life groups in Washington, DC, are taking issue with a recent study on the risks to future pregnancies in women who have chosen to kill their unborn child via either surgical or medical abortion.

A study published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine compared women who underwent medical abortions, such as the abortion pill RU-486, and women who had surgical abortions. Researchers concluded from the study only that the risk of future miscarriages remained the same for women regardless if they had used RU-486 or had a surgical abortion. However, media reports of the results carried misleading headlines such as "Study Finds Abortion Pill Safe" (TIME Magazine).

A leading women's pro-life group notes that the study did not include a comparison of women who have not had any type of abortion. Consequently, says Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America (CWA), the study might lead someone to the false conclusion that one method of abortion is safer than another.

"This is like comparing whether it is worse to burn your hand on a gas stove or [on] an electric stove?" the CWA president offers. "You're still going to have a burned hand [either way]. In this case, women still suffer complications, regardless of the technique that is used, whether it's chemical abortion, like RU-486, or surgical abortion."

In a press release, Wright notes that evidence from other studies suggests that women who have not had any abortions have safer pregnancy outcomes than do women who have had either surgical or medical abortions. She contends there is a reason the study left out women who have never had an abortion. "It's to try and claim that abortion itself is safe," she says.

Tony Perkins with Family Research Council (FRC) notes the same deficiency in the study, saying that a comparison of future pregnancy outcomes for users of RU-486 with women who have never had an abortion would a "true measure" of the long-term safety issues associated with the medical abortion regimen.

Perkins shares the "unbelievable spin" offered by one National Institutes of Health scientist in explaining the omission, who stated: "... women who have never had an abortion tend to have a different pattern of income, smoking rates, and other health-related behaviors that would make a comparison difficult."

Wright says if non-abortive women were included in the study, it would be painfully obvious that abortion not only kills the unborn child, but seriously injures and sometimes kills women. The FRC president comes to the same conclusion as Wright.

"More likely -- but not politically correct," says Perkins, "is that women who have abortions have a higher risk of future negative pregnancy outcomes." He is encouraging the Department of Health and Human Services to have the study re-done -- this time using proper methodology and "unbiased scientists."