Ever since the United States Supreme Court published Roe v. Wade in 1973, the lead case which legalized abortion across the nation, American law has struggled to bring clarity to abortion legislation. Significant to that struggle is whether law should include exceptions for rape-related pregnancy.
In arguing that there is no need for a rape exception, anti-abortion groups have argued that a woman's body has ways to shut down this kind of pregnancy. If this were true, then of course the need for an exception would disappear. And this would tend to support a ban on abortion, as opposed to a limitation on its availability.
On the other hand, if a woman had no internal defenses to a rape-related pregnancy, the need for the exception might be seen as relevant, if not necessary, to well-drafted law. And perhaps, it would garner national support. Both sides thus need clarity in order to engage in a constructive national dialogue about abortion legislation.
Clarity comes from understanding well-respected science. And so, the question is asked: what scientific research exists to address whether a woman's body can shut down a rape-related pregnancy?
Fourteen years ago, in 1998, the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology published a study that sampled 4008 adult American women to determine the national rape-related pregnancy rate and provide descriptive characteristics of pregnancies that result from rape. The study involved a 3 year survey that assessed the prevalence and incidence of rape and related physical and mental health outcomes.
The results of the study showed some significant findings. It concluded that the national rape-related pregnancy rate is 5.0% per rape among victims of reproductive age (aged 12 to 45). And perhaps most shocking of all, it found that an estimated 32,101 pregnancies result from rape each year among adult women. The authors of the study concluded that rape-related pregnancy occurs with "significant frequency." They urged the need for greater attention and effort aimed at preventing and identifying unwanted pregnancies that result from sexual victimization.
But the 1998 study does not stand alone. It enjoys company with observations published more recently in the American Journal of Preventative Medicine. In November 2000, the Journal noted that pregnancy after rape is a serious public health concern. They estimated that the 333,000 sexual assaults and rapes reported in 1998, along with many more unreported, "were responsible for 25,000 pregnancies."
Extrapolating from the data they had at the time, the authors surmised as many as 22,000 rape-related pregnancies could be prevented if all women who were raped received prompt medical services, and if not already protected against pregnancy, were provided with emergency contraceptive treatment.
Then, In 2003, researchers from St. Lawrence University published "Are Per-Incident Rape-Pregnancy Rates Higher Than Per-Incident Consensual Pregnancy Rates?" Jonathan A. Gottschall and Tiffani A. Gottschall asked this question: "Is a given instance of rape more likely to result in pregnancy than a given instance of consensual sex?" Analyzing the data they had collected, they concluded that per-incident rape-pregnancy rates exceed per-incident consensual pregnancy rates by a big margin, even before one considers and adjusts for the use of birth control.
And so, given the data that is already out there, it is amazing to find individuals who blindly adhere to the idea that a woman's body can shut down a rape-related pregnancy. In response to national discussion about this subject that emerged in August 2012, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the nation's leading group of physicians providing health care for women, noted that each year in the United States 10,000-15,000 abortions occur among women whose pregnancies are a result of reported rape or incest. They conceded that an unknown number of pregnancies resulting from rape are carried to term. But to the point at hand, they observed: "There is absolutely no veracity to the claim that 'If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to shut that whole thing down.' A woman who is raped has no control over ovulation, fertilization, or implantation of a fertilized egg (i.e., pregnancy). To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths."
In the end the above-cited research destroys the notion that a woman's body can suppress a rape-related pregnancy. And it establishes that those who advance such a position are either fooling themselves or spreading lies in the face of science and biology.
Now, it is one thing for an ordinary citizen to be ignorant to this information. Matters of reproduction are touchy subjects, and how we learn about the "birds and the bees" is not exactly an easy education. But for those who would lead us in matters of government or national policy, there is a higher burden and greater responsibility to know the truth. It is extremely important that Americans elect leaders to draft legislation that avoids extreme, unfounded, and frankly irrational views. We need law in America that is not bent by witchcraft, junk science, misconceptions and misapplications of moral law, or adherence to vapid party platforms. That kind of law is a menace to good government.
It is clear. Research destroys the notion that a woman's body can self-terminate a rape-induced pregnancy. And it establishes that those who advance such a position are either fooling themselves or spreading lies in the face of science and biology.
0 comments:
Post a Comment