Is Abortion Safe for Mothers? (part 2 of 3)
- John Ferrer, Ph.D.
- Jun 8
- 16 min read
Updated: 3 days ago
The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Abortion Museum. However, we do post content from both sides of the issue in order to foster intelligent discourse.
Abortion-choice advocates often say, “Abortion is safe.” They believe it’s safe for the mother and some even say it’s safer than childbirth. In this three-part series we address each of these questions: (1) Is abortion safe? (2) Is abortion safe for the mother? And, (3) is abortion safer than childbirth?
In part 1, “Is Abortion Safe?”, we saw how abortion isn’t safe in the general sense of the word. It’s not safe for the family, for motherhood, for society, for culture, and it’s definitely not safe for children-in-utero. But for many abortion-choice advocates “safe” abortion isn’t about those other things. They aren’t talking about safety generally, they are only talking about the mother’s safety. For abortion-choice advocates, “safe abortion” means that when a woman chooses to have an abortion she can have a low-risk abortion free from dangerous outside interference.
Is abortion safe in this narrow sense where only the mother’s safety is in view?
Therapeutic vs. Elective Abortion
This question has two answers, depending on what you mean by “abortion.” Without getting into a long definitional debate about abortion, we still need to distinguish between therapeutic and elective abortion.
Therapeutic abortion refers to those cases where pregnant women need an induced abortion to save them from serious injury or death. Elective abortion refers to all the other cases, where abortion isn’t “medically necessary.” Therapeutic abortion, generally understood, serves the health and well-being of the mother. It is “safe” in the sense of protecting her from worse health outcomes. Elective abortion, however, is not protecting the mother from worse health outcomes. Elective abortion, in general, multiplies risk for the mother rather than preserving safety intact.
So, therapeutic abortion can be safe in the sense that it’s preventing a worse health outcome (namely, saving one life is better than saving none). But elective abortion is not “safe” in that sense, because it’s not protecting the mother from worse health outcomes while it’s introducing all the health risks that come with the invasive, elective procedure that is abortion.
“Medically Necessary Abortion”
Besides “therapeutic abortion,” another phrase circulating in the abortion debate is: “medically necessary abortion.” The phrase is common enough, but it’s not always clear what people mean by that phrase. We can admit, with therapeutic abortions in view, that when serious pregnancy complications arise, it’s not always possible to save both the child and the pregnant mother. In that event, a perilous pregnancy will kill the mother unless she has a “medically necessary abortion.” That would be an example of therapeutic abortion, since it’s saving the mother’s life. As it is saving her life, it can be justified on the grounds of self-defense, even from a pro-life perspective, since it’s better (in general) to save at least one life when both lives can’t be saved. When “medically necessary abortion” means “therapeutic abortion” and the mother’s life is seriously threatened in a perilous pregnancy, then abortive action can be a life-saving intervention.[i] Many pro-lifers and pro-choicers can agree on these grounds.
Unfortunately, the phrase “medically necessary abortions” can be stretched thinner than truth is thick. Ever since the Dobbs decision (2022-Current) overturned Roe (1973-2022), many states have been restricting and banning elective abortion. Yet therapeutic abortion remains legal in every state in America. Therapeutic abortion has been legal before Roe, during Roe, and after Roe. So, pro-choice advocates have a strategic reason to recast all elective abortion as “medically necessary”. It’s a way to legalize abortion in states that would otherwise ban it.
The stretching technique can be done by redefining “medically necessary” to include any emotional, or social preference under the banner of “serious” health concern. Or it could mean stretching the phrase “medically necessary abortion” to cover a wide range of complications from serious to trivial. If mild-nausea “feels” like a serious setback for a woman, then – by this logic – it’s a “medically necessary abortion.” Or this tactic could mean coaching pregnant women into letting manageable conditions – like hypertension or gestational diabetes – get out of hand till abortion is the only treatment option remaining. Or it could mean conducting an at-home pill-abortion for purely elective reasons, and if the pill-abortion requires an ER visit for excessive bleeding, anemia, and infection, then just tell the doctor it’s all from a miscarriage. In this way, her abortion-related complication is registered as a “pregnancy complication”, and if she dies from it, that fatality will also be attributed to pregnancy/childbirth and not to abortion. This kind of statistical manipulation makes childbirth look more dangerous than it is, and abortion looks safer than it really is. In this way, fraudulent stats broaden the field of play for abortion-choice advocates to claim “medically necessary abortion.” Women need abortions, by this logic, to protect themselves from deadly pregnancy complications (caused by back-alley/illegal/secret abortions). The point here is that while “medically necessary abortion” can be synonym for “therapeutic abortion” but it can also be a rhetorical trick, blurring elective and therapeutic abortion, so abortion-choice advocates can sneak elective abortion services into anti-abortion states.
Non-Serious Complications
Fortunately, most pregnancy complications aren’t “serious”, meaning most complications can be treated with reasonable measures like bedrest, diet, doctor’s visits, and antibiotics. And, of course, the pregnancy itself is not a disease to be cured, but a natural process to be accommodated.[ii] So the normal side effects that pregnancy like soreness, discomfort, nausea, vomiting, headaches, etc., are not symptoms of a disease.
Pregnancy complications are common. Most of these can be managed with minor lifestyle changes, monitoring symptoms, and with medical checkups. The most common complications, fortunately, are quite treatable, without abortion.[iii]
Of course, even “manageable” symptoms can become life-threatening if left untreated. But, as long as bed rest and antibiotics (for example) can solve the problem, then the patient should take the moral measures so they don’t, later, have to resort to immoral measures (i.e., abortion). Medically speaking, surgical abortion and pill abortion bring unnecessary risks that could be avoided if the women rested and took antibiotics. By analogy, you can treat an ingrown toenail by cutting off the foot, but that extreme measure isn’t medically “better” than clipping the toenail. Likewise, abortion Is not medically justified when safer, simpler treatment plans are available – especially when someone else’s life is on the line.
While complications are common, perilous pregnancies are rare. Only about 1.5% of pregnant women (146.6 per 10,000) experience severe complications (i.e., high risk of serious injury or death).[iv] And only a fraction of these severe complication cases would require abortion as opposed to, the generally safer option of, inducing early delivery.[v]
In those difficult cases, where either the child dies or both of them die, pro-lifers are justified in supporting protective measures for the only lives that can be saved.[vi] Pro-lifers are pro-life not just pro-child, but pro-life – mother and child alike. Their opposition to abortion is intended as pro-woman and pro-child position, because abortion is a fatal threat to the child, and a multi-faceted threat to the mother. So, supporting women’s health and well-being, overall, includes opposing abortion.[vii]
Perilous pregnancies are real. They’re tough. And they’re a serious issue for pro-lifers to wade through. But they don’t prove that abortion is safe for the mother. They might prove that abortion, on rare occasion, can be safer than the alternative. But, a tornado might be safer than a hurricane, yet neither of them are safe. Comparative “safety” can only go so far before the comparison breaks down. Abortion is not generally safe, if that “safety” refers to cases pregnancies where there are (1) serious pregnancy complications to the point of (2) a perilous pregnancy, and symptoms are so advanced that the only remaining option for saving her life is (3) therapeutic abortion. If that’s what it takes for abortion to be safe, then abortion isn’t “safe” except for less than 2% of cases.
So, we are left with the vast majority of pregnancies where abortion doesn’t save her life, and therapeutic doesn’t really apply. If abortion is safe in these other, elective abortion, cases then perhaps abortion can be generally “safe” in that qualified sense.
Is Abortion Generally Safe for Mothers?
It turns out that even when there aren’t any serious complications in pregnancy, abortion still isn’t very safe for the mother.
1. Abortion doesn’t cure anything, so the health risks aren’t necessary in most cases. Pregnancy isn’t a disease. It falls within the normal, healthy, range of natural processes for healthy human beings. So, the risks involved in elective abortion don’t cure anything. Additionally, being an elective procedure, all its risks are elective too. Aside from the 1.5% of pregnancies that have serious complications, the mother doesn’t physically need an abortion to help her achieve health.
2. Surgical abortion is inherently risky All abortions carry risks. Besides routine side effects like bleeding, cramping, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and diarrhea, which all occur in pill and surgical abortions alike, there is also the risk of serious complications. According to one study, 2.1% or around 21,000 abortion patients per year experience serious complications relating to their abortion.[viii] Compare this to pregnancy and childbirth where, according to another study only 1.47% of pregnant mothers experience serious complications.[ix] Many more studies could be cited, and they do not all agree, but it should be clear that abortion has inherent risks.
Abortion-related complications can stem from the tools involved in the procedure. Surgical abortion has tools for cutting, tearing, sucking, pulling, and stretching. So, abortion risks include slicing, punctures, tears, scrapes, bruises, muscle and ligament damage, and severe bleeding. And if any fetal tissue is left behind, that can cause further internal damage. Any wounds and blood transfer can get infected causing new complications. More serious complications include organ damage, sepsis, scarring and disfigurement, permanent damage to the cervix, and even death.
3. Pill-abortion is even riskier
Pill Abortions might seem less risky, since pills are less invasive than surgery but, in reality, they are about 350-400% riskier.[x] This is because patients conduct these abortions at home, without close medical supervision. Yet those women don’t always know how much pain or bleeding is too much or whether their side-effects are normal. With pill abortions minor problems can become life-threatening risks very quickly.
4. Abortion is psychologically traumatic
Women after abortions also have a much higher risk of depression, anxiety, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and similar problem.[xi] Scholars debate whether abortion causes those things or if it’s just an effect (i.e., correlation versus causation). Nevertheless, many women testify that their abortion experience was deeply traumatic and motivated a lot of bad choices and negative outcomes including alcoholism, drug addiction, relational struggles, domestic abuse, trust issues, divorce, suicide-attempts, etc. When the women themselves, with nothing to gain from this admission, testify that their abortion fueled psychological problems, we should probably take them at their word. Additionally, as many as 64% of women report that they felt coerced (forced) into having an abortion, and up to 84% say they didn’t receive adequate counseling about the procedure before the abortion.[xii]
5. Abortion has long-term risks that we’re still discovering Besides the short-term effects and psychological trauma involved in abortion, abortion has also been tied to long-term side effects. Women who’ve had an abortion are more likely, in future pregnancies, to experience placenta previa,[xiii] stillbirth,[xiv] miscarriage, neo-natal death,[xv] and premature birth along with a lower birth weight and higher rates of infant handicaps.[xvi] Women who’ve had abortions also show a higher rate of pelvic inflammatory disease (PID),[xvii] endometritis,[xviii] ectopic pregnancy,[xix] as well as higher rates of cervical, ovarian, liver and breast cancer.[xx] Additionally, abortion has been tied to long-term infertility.[xxi]
6. Abortion hurts motherhood
Abortion is also a direct threat to motherhood. Traditionally, motherhood is the iconic example of tender loving care. There is no more delicate and beautiful image of caregiving than a mother holding and nursing her young. Abortion-choice ideology, however, redefines motherhood to include the privilege of killing one’s own child-in-utero. Those two scenes don’t fit together. The model example of caregiving is incompatible with deliberately killing one’s own innocent non-threatening child in the womb.
Of course, not every woman wants to be a mother. And that’s fine. But many women do. And many other women just want to keep that option open in the future. So, it’s important to preserve and protect the cultural status of “mother” so that women who do want to become mothers one day have plenty of freedom, support, and social acceptance when they do. It’s important, for their sake, that the role of motherhood doesn’t shrivel down to something strange and forsaken. Abortion choice ideology, however, lacks the practical reinforcements to help protect and preserve motherhood as a positive fixture in society. The financial incentive, in the abortion industry, isn’t in reproductive motherhood but in abortive singlehood.
Conventionally, one of the most common protective measures for motherhood has been traditional husband-wife marriage. That way, if the wife gets pregnant the husband has some legal obligation to keep him from abandoning her. He’s legally responsible to her and to their child. Plus, with a gainfully employed supportive husband, the wife can be free to take maternity leave, revert to part-time status, or maybe even stay at home for the sake of the baby. Homemaking isn’t a perfect solution, but it does help establish layers of protection for the role of “mother.” But in 1963, Betty Friedan published Feminine Mystique, which set a new tone for that conversation about marriage, family, and child-rearing. As a committed communist, Friedan had written extensively for Marxist magazines, advocating for fewer family constraints, fewer marriages, and more women in the workforce.[xxii] Speaking for modern pro-choice feminism she often disparaged traditional family-focused maternal roles saying “women have outgrown the housewife role,” and homemaking and motherhood are “dehumanizing” and a “comfortable concentration camp.“[xxiii] Not surprisingly, the marriage rate has been declining for many years now: “For the first time in American history,” says psychologist Steven Fritz, “a majority of adults now live outside of marriage—as single parents, as partners in a cohabitating relationship, or as singles.”[xxiv] Fritz goes on to admit that this trend bodes poorly for motherhood, child-rearing, and family. If mothers are going to have the freedom to succeed as mothers, they need more support than single-parenthood offers, more relational security than cohabitation can offer, and they can’t be relegated to singlehood forever.
To be sure, many pro-choicers view homemaking and motherhood in a positive light. But pro-choice culture, overall, hasn’t necessarily strengthened or reinforced the role of motherhood in society. Recent studies have verified this suspicion showing that, compared to pro-lifers, pro-choicers have a more negative view of motherhood,[xxv] and of smaller families.[xxvi] Former abortion-choice activist, Frederica Mathewes-Green helps explain this unsettling perspective.
“This issue [of motherhood] gets presented as if it’s a tug of war between the woman and the baby. We see them as mortal enemies, locked in a fight to the death. But that’s a strange idea, isn’t it? It must be the first time in history when mothers and their own children have been assumed to be at war. We’re supposed to picture the child attacking her, trying to destroy her hopes and plans, and picture the woman grateful for the abortion, since it rescued her from the clutches of her child.”[xxvii]
She goes on to say that when women face an unwanted pregnancy, we shouldn’t assume the child-in-utero is the problem and abortion is the cure; instead, “something must be really wrong in this environment. Something is creating intolerable stress, so much so that [they] would rather destroy their own offspring than bring them into the world.”[xxviii]
Instead of reinforcing a positive role for motherhood in society, abortion-choice culture pulls the other way. When pro-choice advocates describe the child-in-utero as a “parasite,” “burden,” “punishment,” or “disease”, how else can we interpret their view of motherhood except that motherhood is sickening burdensome punishment?
Abortion isn’t safe for Mothers
In parts 1 and 2 of this series, we’ve seen how abortion is dangerous on many levels, so that we cannot grant that abortion is generally safe or that it’s safe for mothers. Abortion procedures may be safer in some regards than they were before Roe v. Wade in 1973. But, overall, abortion is dangerous for the family, for motherhood, for society, for culture, and it is looming death for children-in-utero. Nor does abortion generally promote women’s health and well-inbeing except in the rare case of perilous pregnancies. In more than 98% of cases, however, abortion carries a host of unnecessary risks for women, both long-term and short-term risks, threatening women’s health, psychologically, physically, and relationally. We cannot honestly conclude that abortion is generally safe for mothers.
This blogpost is revised and reposted from its original source at:
[i] Even still, there are better and worse ways to conduct a “medically necessary abortion.” If abortive action is necessary to save the mother’s life, effort should still be taken to dignify all lives involved mother and child alike. That means taking reasonable measures to allow a “fighting chance” for both mother and child, and to avoid direct, active, killing wherever possible. For example, if the best overall option is to induce early delivery, at 19weeks, the child will not likely be viable, but there’s no need to tear him or her apart either (D&E abortion). The parents could have a few minutes to say goodbye and pray over their dying child. If the child is born alive, doctors can provide neo-natal care. If viability is out of the question, then neo-natal hospice is in order. The point here is that even if the child can’t survive, there’s a greater medical ethic, and humanitarian basis for honoring that human life who was cut-short. In so doing, we’re affirming the sanctity of human life, showing compassion to the mother and family who lost a child, and honoring humanity entire by paying respects to the vulnerable members of the human race.
[ii] Being a physical process, pregnancy, just like other bodily processes such as digestion and respiration, can be a healthy normal part of life. Abortion, meaning induced elective abortion, constitutes a profoundly intrusive, unnatural, interruption of that bodily process. If we were to interrupt digestion or respiration in an equally violent and intrusive manner, we can reasonably expect side-effects from that. So, it should be no surprise when induced abortion generates related health risks, as explained in the course of this blogpost.
[iii] The most common complications include high blood pressure (hypertension), low blood count (anemia), gestational diabetes, infections, and excessive nausea and vomiting
[iv] Regarding complicated pregnancies where serious intervention is required, neonatalogist, Kendra Kolb distinguishes between direct intentional abortion vs. indirect and unintentional killing when she says, “there is no medical reason why the life of the child must be directly and intentionally ended with an abortion procedure.” See, Kendra Kolb, “the Pro-Life Reply to ‘Abortion Can Be Medically Necessary,” [Video] LiveAction (30 July 2019), 0:45, at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TmomK2RB2A. Strictly speaking, both categories – (1) direct-intentional and (2) indirect-unintentional – could qualify as abortion as they bring about the demise of the fetal human. But the more common use of “abortion” refers to terminating the pregnancy by directly and intentionally killing the fetal human through a conventional method of abortion (ex., vacuum-aspiration, dilation and evacuation, induction, etc.).
[v] As of 2015, Severe complications occurred in 146.6 pregnancies per 10,000; up from 101.3 in 2006. Researchers suspect that key factors include (1) later birthing age (<40yrs old), and (2) obesity. See, Cathryn Fingar, et al., “Statistical Brief #243: Trends and Disparities in Delivery Hospitalizations Involving Severe Maternal Morbidity, 2006-2015” Healthcare Cost and Utilitization Project, Statistical Brief 243 (Sept 2018), figure 1.
[vi] Not all pro-lifers and anti-abortionists agree abortion can be justified on the grounds of self-defense. But many do agree on that exception.
[vii] The course of this blog series unpacks the many ways that abortion can be dangerous to women. So, if you disagree with that claim, please keep reading.
[viii] The complication rate refers to total abortion related complications resulting in an ER or an additional abortion clinical visit. See, Fingar, 2018, fig. 1; Ushma Upadyay, et al., “Incidence of Emergency Department Visits and Complications After Abortion,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 125, no. 1, (Jan 2015), 175-183, https://journals.lww.com/greenjournal/Fulltext/2015/01000/Incidence_of_Emergency_Department_Visits_and.29.aspx.
[ix] Upadyay 2015, 175-83.
[x] The total rate of abortion related complications for pill abortions is 5.2% compared to surgical abortions which range from 1.3-1.5%, see Upadyay 2015.
[xi] David Reardon, “The Abortion and Mental Health Controversy,” Elliot Institute, 6 (1 Jan 2018), at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2050312118807624, https://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/RecentResearch.pdf
[xii] VM Rue, et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10, no. 10, SR5-16 (2004), at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15448616
[xiii] Barrett, et al., “Induced Abortion: A Risk Factor for Placenta Previa”, American Journal of Ob-Gyn. 141, no. 7 (1981).
[xiv] BC Calhoun, “Maternal and Neonatal Health and Abortion: 40 Year Trends in Great Britain and Ireland,” Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, 18, no. 2 (Summer 2013), 42-46.
[xv] Hogue, Cates and Tietze, “Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review”, Family Planning Perspectives 15(3), May-June 1983.
[xvi] Hogue, Cates and Tietze, “Impact of Vacuum Aspiration Abortion on Future Childbearing: A Review,” Family Planning Perspectives 15, no. 3 (May-June 1983); B. Jacobsson, G. Hagberg, B. Hagberg, L. Ladfors, A. Niklasson, A. Hagberg, “Cerebral Palsy in preterm infants: a population-based case-control study of antenatal and intrapartal risk factors. Acta Paediatrica 91 (2002), 946-951; B.C. Calhoun, E. Shadigian, B. Rooney, “Cost consequences of induced abortion as an attributable risk for preterm birth and informed consent,” J Reprod Med 52 (2007), 929-939.
[xvii] Radberg, et al., “Chlamydia Trachomatis in Relation to Infections Following First Trimester Abortions,” Acta Obstricia Gynoecological (Supp. 93), 54, no. 478 (1980); L. Westergaard, “Significance of Cervical Chlamydia Trachomatis Infection in Post-abortal Pelvic Inflammatory Disease,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 60, no. 3 (1982), 322-325; M. Chacko, et al., “Chlamydia Trachomatosis Infection in Sexually Active Adolescents: Prevalence and Risk Factors,” Pediatrics, 73, no. 6 (1984); M. Barbacci, et al., “Post- Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Obstetrics and Gynecology, 68, no. 5 (1986), 668-690; S. Duthrie, et al., “Morbidity After Termination of Pregnancy in First-Trimester,” Genitourinary Medicine 63, no. 3 (1987), 182-187.
[xviii] Burkman, et al., “Morbidity Risk Among Young Adolescents Undergoing Elective Abortion” Contraception, 30 (1984), 99-105; Marguerite B. Barbacci, et al., “Post-Abortal Endometritis and Isolation of Chlamydia Trachomatis,” Obstetrics and Gynecology 68, no. 5 (1986), 686-690.
[xix] A.A. Levin, et al., “Ectopic Pregnancy and Prior Induced Abortion,” American Journal of Public Health 72 (1982), 253; C.S. Chung, “Induced Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy in Subsequent Pregnancies,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 115, no. 6 (1982), 879-887.
[xx] M.G. Le, et al., “Oral Contraceptive Use and Breast or Cervical Cancer: Preliminary Results of a French Case Control Study,” in Hormones and Sexual Factors in Human Cancer Etiology, edited by J.P. Wolffe, (New York: Excerpta Medica,1984), 139-147; F. Parazzini, et al., “Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Invasive and Intraepithelial Cervical Neoplasia,” British Journal of Cancer, 59 (1989), 805-9; H.L. Stewart, et al., “Epidemiology of Cancers of the Uterine Cervix and Corpus, Breast and Ovary in Israel and New York City,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 37, no. 1 (1966), 1-96; I. Fujimoto, et al., “Epidemiologic Study of Carcinoma in Situ of the Cervix,” Journal of Reproductive Medicine 30, no. 7 (July 1985), 535; N. Weiss, “Events of Reproductive Life and the Incidence of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer,” American Journal of Epidemiology, 117, no. 2 (1983), 128-39; V. Beral, et al., “Does Pregnancy Protect Against Ovarian Cancer,” The Lancet (20 May1978), 1083-7; C. LaVecchia, et al., “Reproductive Factors and the Risk of Hepatocellular Carcinoma in Women,” International Journal of Cancer, 52, no. 351 (1992). This resource list is from footnote 3 in David Reardon, “Major Physical Effects of Related to Abortion,” AbortionFacts.com (N.D.), at: https://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/major-physical-affects-related-to-abortion#3
[xxi] N. Naftolin, “A bone of contention: an unusual case of secondary infertility,” British Journal of Ob-Gyn 106, no. 10 (November 1999), 1098-9; M. Chandra, et al., “Latrogenic secondary infertility caused by residual intrauterine fetal bone after midtrimester abortion,” American Journal of Ob-Gyn, 176 (1997), 269-70; O. Graham, et al., “The ultrasound diagnosis of retained fetal bones in West African patients complaining of infertility,” BJOG, 107, no. 1 (Jan. 2000), 122-4.; Fertility and Sterility, 79, no. 4, (April 2003), Jan Asplund, ed., Acta Obstetricia and Gynecologica Scandinavica [Journal], 58 (1979), 539-42 (1979), see also, N.A., “Abortion and Infertility,” Life Resources Charitable Trust (New Zealand, N.D.), at: http://www.life.org.nz/abortion/abortionkeyissues/futurefertility/
[xxii] Norman Markowitz, “A Few of the Communist Women who Shaped U.S. History,” [online] Communist Party USA (3 March 2023), para. 20ff at: https://www.cpusa.org/article/a-few-of-the-communist-women-who-shaped-u-s-history/
[xxiii] Betty Friedan, Feminine Mystique (NY: W.W. Norton & Co., 1963), 308-9.
[xxiv] Steven Mintz, “Is Marriage in Decline?” Psychology Today (7 March 2015), para. 4, at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-prime-life/201503/is-marriage-in-decline
[xxv] Tamney, Joseph B., Stephen D. Johnson, and Ronald Burton. “The Abortion Controversy: Conflicting Beliefs and Values in American Society.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 31, no. 1 (1992): 32–46. https://doi.org/10.2307/1386830, at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1386830?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
[xxvi] See, J. Kevern, and Jeremy Freese, “Differential Fertility as a Determinant of Trends in Public Opinion about Abortion in the United States,” SSRN (July 7, 2014), 35pgs., at https://ssrn.com/abstract=2463472
[xxvii] Frederica Mathewes-Green, “When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense,” National Review, 22 January 2016, para. 10, at https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/01/abortion-roe-v-wade-unborn-children-women-feminism-march-life/.
Comments