Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007 | 7:36 a.m.
George Will, in a column published in the Oct. 28 Las Vegas Sun, writes that it does not matter what the presidential candidates think about abortion because even if Roe v. Wade were overturned, it would only "restore abortion as a practice to state regulation." It seems to me that would make it likely for some states to suppress safe, legal abortions. Perhaps wealthy women could go to more progressive states for the procedure, but once again the poor and public health would suffer.
The Lancet article "Unsafe abortion: The preventable pandemic" (November 2006) points out that prohibition of abortion does not reduce the number of abortions but only the safety of them. The Lancet article states that " increasing legal access to abortion is associated with sexual and reproductive health." Among the costs of restricting legal abortions are the overall medical costs to a country, the productivity of the mother and the quality of life for the surviving children should the mother die. An estimated 220,000 children worldwide lose their mothers every year to unsafe abortion-related deaths.
I believe that it does make a difference what our presidential candidates think about abortion. As The Lancet concludes from its study, the root causes of deaths and injuries from unsafe abortions are "apathy and disdain toward women." Good health care should be a national policy.
Jerry Bitts, Las Vegas
archive
