If any evidence were needed that the scientific counterculture, created by religious conservatives, was alive and well, it was provided by the recent claims of two personalities.
Firstly, we had the implication by the Bishop of Gozo that condom use is ineffective in the control of the spread of sexually-transmitted disease. Then, we had Jacqueline Calleja (December 4) discussing the physical and psychological hazards of abortion.
It is true that abortion, like any other medical or surgical intervention, carries a certain risk of complication. However, this is very low in areas where the standards of professional care and sanitation are high. The US Centre for Disease Control and Prevention has reported that, in 1999, four deaths were attributed to induced legal abortion, 10 to miscarriage and 525 to pregnancy-related complications. "In 1998 and 1999, as in previous years, deaths related to legally-induced abortions occurred rarely (less than one death per 100,000 abortions)" whereas, between 1991 and 1999, "about 12 pregnancy-related deaths occurred for every 100,000 live births".
These figures contrast dramatically with the figures for unsafe, back-street abortion. WHO estimates that 19 million such abortions are performed, globally, every year and that these result in the death of 68,000 women - 358 deaths per 100,000 abortions.
The abortion/breast cancer hypothesis has long been rejected by the scientific community. In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute convened the Early Reproductive Events And Breast Cancer Workshop to "provide an integrated scientific assessment of the association between reproductive events and the risk of breast cancer". After reviewing the body of scientific literature, NCI concluded that "Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk".
In August 2003, after conducting its own review of the scientific literature, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists issued a committee opinion, which concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodological considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk".
The relationship between abortion and psychological disorders is more difficult to quantify and the scientific literature is replete with studies, which demonstrate a statistical relationship between the two. However, there is as yet no study which, conclusively, demonstrates a causal relationship and many studies cite the pre-existence of depression and stress in many women who seek abortion.
The former US Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop, an opponent of abortion, conducted a review, in 1989, of over 250 studies pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion but told a congressional committee in 1999 that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion on women and that a reliable scientific report was not possible.
A New Zealand study, by Fergusson, Horwood and Riddler, published in 2006 in The Journal Of Child Psychology And Psychiatry, stated that "Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors. The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems".
This research was rebutted by the powerful, pro-choice American Psychological Association. Nancy Russo explained that "pre-existing mental health problems, relationship quality, and whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted are key factors determining post-abortion mental distress, not the abortion itself".
Dr Russo also stated that "There has yet to be a well-designed study that finds that abortion itself contributes to increased risk for mental health problems" and noted that feelings of guilt and shame after abortion may result from social disapproval and efforts to cast abortion as a moral failing, rather than from the procedure itself.
Fergusson, a self-described pro-choice atheist, argued that better research was needed but wisely observed that "... the abortion debate and its implications drive out the science".