The deVeber Institute
for Bioethics and Social Research

If a woman has a surgical abortion, does she increase her future risk of a premature delivery or, more importantly, does she boost her later odds of a very preterm birth (under 33 weeks' gestation)?  Preterm newborn children have a higher risk of the 'MACE' disorders (Mental retardation, Autism, Cerebral palsy, Epilepsy) and other risks (blindness, deafness, lung injury, 'gut' problems, serious infections, etc.).

The average doctor can not be expected to keep track of the over 130 published studies of the abortion-preemie risk, but he/she can read abortion-preemie extensive review studies.  In the 21^st century there have been three such studies.

In 2003 both the Dr. John Thorp et al. extensive review[1] and the Rooney/Calhoun very extensive review[2] strongly confirmed the abortion-preemie risk.  Defenders of abortion 'safety' wanted to see a 'meta-analysis' of this purported risk to see if prior induced abortions decreased or increased preterm risk and by how much.  Demanding a meta-analysis can be a delaying tactic, since such an analysis can take well over a year to complete in a competent fashion.  In March 2009 Dr. Swingle and colleagues delivered the first ever abortion-preemie review and meta-analysis in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine[3].

A key and significant result from the Swingle meta-analysis is that women with prior induced abortions had 64% higher relative odds of delivering a very preterm baby than women with zero prior induced abortions.  [OR of 1.64 (95% CI 1.38-1.91)]

Activists who did not like the results of the 2003 Rooney/Calhoun review thought name-calling directed at the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons was a clever way to cast doubt on that review.  Let's see if they try to play the same gambit with the Journal of Reproductive Medicine.

In hockey, a player who scores three goals in one game has 'notched' a 'hat trick' on his 'belt' and exuberant fans will throw their hats onto the ice surface.  In the 21st century there is a 'hat trick' (i.e. 3) of extensive reviews confirming the abortion-preemie risk.  Opposed are a grand total of zero (i.e. a 'zilch trick') extensive reviews finding no abortion-preemie risk.