Washington Post give Planned Parenthood president's claims "Four Pinocchios"

[TitanTiger 20,471]

Planned Parenthood’s false stat: ‘Thousands’ of women died every year before Roe

“We face a real situation where Roe could be overturned. And we know what will happen, which is that women will die. Thousands of women died every year pre-Roe.”

— Leana Wen, president of Planned Parenthood, in an interview with WFAA of Dallas, March 6, 2019

“Before Roe v. Wade, thousands of women died every year — and because of extreme attacks on safe, legal abortion care, this could happen again right here in America.”

— Wen, in a tweet, April 24

“We’re not going to go back in time to a time before Roe when thousands of women died every year because they didn’t have access to essential health care.”

— Wen, interview on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” May 22
 

A reader asked us to investigate this repeated claim by the president of Planned Parenthood — that “thousands of women” died every year from botched abortions before the Supreme Court in 1973 nullified antiabortion laws across the United States in Roe v. Wade.

This turned out to be an interesting inquiry, taking The Fact Checker through a tour of decades of musty academic literature. Statisticians had tried to parse data on what was, for the most part, an illegal act. Unplanned pregnancy and abortions were deeply shameful at the time, so the official statistics were not necessarily reliable indicators of mortality rates from abortion.

Still, by the time Roe was issued, 17 states had liberalized their abortion laws, and the Centers for Disease Control was collecting solid data on abortion mortality. If Roe is overturned, a significant number of states, such as California and New York, are expected to still permit abortions, so the situation would be more akin to the period immediately before Roe.

The problem with Wen’s claim is that is derived from data that is decades old. Let’s explore.

The Facts

Erica Sackin, a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman, directed us to a 2014 policy statement issued by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG): “It is estimated that before 1973, 1.2 million U.S. women resorted to illegal abortion each year and that unsafe abortions caused as many as 5,000 annual deaths.”

There is no citation in the statement for the estimate of “as many as 5,000 annual deaths,” even though many of the other sentences are carefully documented. None of the citations around this sentence supports the figure, and there is no explanation about how it was calculated.

Kate Connors, an ACOG spokeswoman, initially referred us to a 1958 report that said “a plausible estimate of the frequency of induced abortion in the United States could be as low as 200,000 and as high as 1,200,000 per year,” adding that “there is no objective basis for the selection of a particular figure between these two estimates.”

That’s quite a range for the number of illegal abortions, indicating how fuzzy the numbers are. The ACOG took the high-end estimate for its statement. But this report contained no mortality rates or an explanation of the 5,000-death estimate, nor did any of the other material sent by Connors.

Meanwhile, Sackin also sent a variety of reports, many of which were referenced in a footnote in a document published by NARAL Pro-Choice America. One of the citations especially caught our eye: Frederick Taussig, “Abortion Spontaneous and Induced: Medical and Social Aspects,” (1936).

Why was a study from 1936 being referenced?

Taussig, who died in 1943, was a gynecologist and influential advocate of legalized abortion. In his book, he calculated that the number of deaths from abortion was between 8,000 and 10,000 a year. But it was not a very rigorous calculation, based on a mix of theory and data from the United States and Germany. Just 13 states recorded such data in 1927 and 15 in 1928. That added up to 912 deaths from abortion a year. Because the states represented 26 percent of the birth registration of the United States, Taussig multiplied it to come up with 3,508 a year. He then rounded it up to 4,000 to account for oversampling of rural areas. Then he assumed half of the deaths were concealed, so he doubled it to 8,000 and concluded it was no more than 10,000.

But he admitted that just five years earlier, he had estimated 15,000 deaths in another paper. “I am convinced my previous estimates were too high,” he wrote. A few years later, in 1942, he revised the figure yet again, down to 5,000.

The advent of antibiotics such as penicillin and improved medical procedures suddenly made abortion less risky. Another prominent researcher, Christopher Tietze, argued in a 1948 paper that the number of deaths from abortion was rapidly declining because of three reasons: contraceptive methods had improved so fewer women were getting pregnant, abortion providers were getting better at avoiding infections, and many lives had been saved because of the introduction of sulfa drugs and penicillin.

“It is felt, however, that the official statistics include the great majority of all deaths from abortion,” he wrote. “The outstanding fact about mortality from abortion is the steady and sometimes precipitous decline which has been observed almost everywhere. The reality of this decline cannot be doubted, and the extent of the fall is in all likelihood understated by the official statistics.”

The data collected by Tietze showed 2,677 deaths from abortion in 1933, compared with 888 in 1945, with much of the decline in septic cases associated with illegal abortions. (The numbers also include deaths from “therapeutic abortions,” permitted by law, and “spontaneous abortions.”)

By 1959, a leading researcher wrote: “Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physicians. In 1957, there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind. In New York City in 1921, there were 144 abortion deaths, in 1951 there were only 15.”

The writer was Mary Steichen Calderone, at the time medical director of Planned Parenthood. She attributed the decline in the mortality rate to antibiotics and the fact that 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by trained physicians.

The stigma associated with abortion does mean the numbers must be treated with caution. Misreporting on death certificates was possible, but the problem is said to have improved during the 1960s as public debate about abortion intensified.

“Some 30 years ago it was judged that such deaths might number 5,000 to 10,000 per year, but this rate, even if it was approximately correct at the time, cannot be anywhere near the true rate now,” Tietze and Sarah Lewit wrote in Scientific American magazine in 1969. “The total number of deaths from all causes among women of reproductive age in the U.S. is not more than about 50,000 per year. The National Center for Health Statistics listed 235 deaths from abortion in 1965. Total mortality from illegal abortions was undoubtedly larger than that figure, but in all likelihood it was under 1,000.”

Tietze and Lewit, his spouse, were honored by Planned Parenthood in 1973 with the Margaret Sanger award, the organization’s highest honor, for their research, including “identifying the effects of abortion policy on maternal health.” He died in 1984.

A 1978 study found that deaths from abortion declined even more rapidly after 1965 because of more effective forms of contraception and increased availability of legal abortion.

The CDC began collecting data on abortion mortality in 1972, the year before Roe was decided. In 1972, the number of deaths in the United States from legal abortions was 24 and from illegal abortions 39, according to the CDC.

Stanley Henshaw, who from 1979 to 2013 researched abortion statistics at the Guttmacher Institute, which favors abortion rights, said he agreed with Tietze’s assessment in 1969.

“In the 1960s, the officially recorded number of deaths from illegal induced abortion was under 300 per year. While there were undoubtedly other unreported abortion deaths, it is unlikely that the actual number was over 1,000. The figure of 5,000 to 10,000 is reasonable for the 1930s, when there were probably more abortions and less effective treatment of complications,” he said. “In my opinion, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, women would turn to relatively safe medications that can be purchased over the Internet. There would be some deaths but probably not as many as there were in the 1960s.”

“While stigma, fear, and poor tracking mean we can never know the exact number who suffered before Roe v Wade was decided, what we do know is that even one woman’s death from abortion before it was legal is one too many," Sackin, of Planned Parenthood, said in a statement. "Abortion is health care, and it is one of the safest medical procedures there is -- there is no reason anyone’s health or life should be endangered by politicians hell-bent on keeping people from accessing this basic health care. Yet far too many politicians seem determined to take us back to the days before Roe was decided -- where abortion was virtually inaccessible and all those who could become pregnant paid the price.”

The ACOG’s Connors urged The Fact Checker to contact David Grimes, a retired abortion doctor and researcher at the University of North Carolina’s medical school. “Tietze, whom I knew, readily acknowledged that his mortality estimates were just that: crude estimates. There is no way to confirm or refute them. Stated alternatively, there are no facts to be checked, only estimates, the usefulness of which can be debated,” Grimes said. “Whether the numbers of deaths pre-Roe were in the hundreds or in the thousands per year, the message for your readers is that nearly all of these deaths were entirely preventable.”

The Pinocchio Test

Wen is a doctor, and the ACOG is made up of doctors. They should know better than to peddle statistics based on data that predates the advent of antibiotics. Even given the fuzzy nature of the data and estimates, there is no evidence that in the years immediately preceding the Supreme Court’s decision, thousands of women died every year in the United States from illegal abortions.

Wen’s repeated use of this number reminds us of the shoddy data used by human trafficking opponents. Unsafe abortion is certainly a serious issue, especially in countries with inadequate medical facilities. But advocates hurt their cause when they use figures that do not withstand scrutiny. These numbers were debunked in 1969 — 50 years ago — by a statistician celebrated by Planned Parenthood. There’s no reason to use them today.

Four Pinocchios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/planned-parenthoods-false-stat-thousands-women-died-every-year-before-roe/

[DKW 86 7,413]

And the vitriolic venom begins in 3....2...1....

[homersapien 11,354]

How about we just treat research on victims of illegal abortions like we do on gun deaths?

Don't look at it.

[DKW 86 7,413]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

How about we just treat research on illegal abortions like we do those on gun deaths?

Don't look at it.

And right on queue...

 

[AU64 10,122]

I still love the argument that abortion saves lives ..prevents death of mothers during child birth....as if the aborted baby does or did not exist.

Complicated issue and proponents on both sides probably stretch the truth to defend their positions.   Do we have any stats on the number of women who die during legal abortions?  

 https://www.christianpost.com/news/abortion-death-women-health-risks-planned-parenthood-clinics-roe-v-wade-march-for-life-155594/

So...let's just ignore that too.....don't keep records and then you have nothing to explain....

but it's hard to believe that no doctor screws up.....and that no young female fails to take proper care after the abortion to prevent infections. 

[KolchakAU85 430]

On 5/31/2019 at 1:26 PM, homersapien said:

How about we just treat research on victims of illegal abortions like we do on gun deaths?

Don't look at it.

Ownership of guns is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Also is the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, by the Declaration of Independence.  Which extends to the unborn.

[homersapien 11,354]

On 7/9/2019 at 9:08 PM, KolchakAU85 said:

Ownership of guns is guaranteed by the Constitution.

Also is the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness, by the Declaration of Independence.  Which extends to the unborn.

Could you please quote that part for me?  I must have overlooked it.

[aubiefifty 16,720]

i do not like abortion but what happens when you give up certain rights to ones own bodies? i am not even looking for a fight. but you have a few preachers saying masturbation is murder. you have folks claiming that if it has a heartbeat it is alive. i was one of those cats. but everyday folks pull the plug on someone with a heartbeat because they are brain dead. so when is science right and when is it wrong? what are the real facts? the right has clearly hired scientists to make horrible and false statements about abortion including video that would enrage any normal  person with a heart. and then real doctors step up and say these shock video's are outright lies. from what i understand of doctors tearing off an arm and removing it and then a leg and then something else. and now we want eleven year old children to carry the child of a rapist? how can anyone claim moral high ground when lies are being spread about abortion? i think many that are against abortion have blood on their hands because they become a problem as well as some like pp. the fact is most are not pro abortion but pro choice. most of the women i know and grew up around have always loved and wanted babies. so how do you come together and agree on anything anymore with so much false information out there? what happens to the mothers right to live if something goes wrong medically? we can bash each other back and forth but how do we move forward without hurting one side or the other? someone explain this to me. i will read your answers.

[Grumps 3,693]

My plan would be that if a woman is to have the right to have her fetus removed from her body then she can have that right, but she should not necessarily get to decide how the fetus is removed. Then, the woman can control her body by having a fetus removed, but, if the fetus is viable then it can be saved and be adopted, with the uterus provider having to legal responsibility to care for the viable fetus/baby. See.....compromise is possible.

[KolchakAU85 430]

13 hours ago, homersapien said:

Could you please quote that part for me.  I must have overlooked it.

By reasonable implication.  You obviously overlooked it.  But I'll give you a pass, granted that you suck it up and be realistic from now on.  If you are open to it.

[KolchakAU85 430]

Abortion is killing a fetus.  There is no question for debate.  I would never entertain the company of anyone who would kill their own child, either born or unborn.  I feel sorry for you if you would.  And I mean that.  No apologies.

Hey, is this board open to conservative debate?  If not, then I'll respectfully take my opinions elsewhere.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

My plan would be that if a woman is to have the right to have her fetus removed from her body then she can have that right, but she should not necessarily get to decide how the fetus is removed. Then, the woman can control her body by having a fetus removed, but, if the fetus is viable then it can be saved and be adopted, with the uterus provider having to legal responsibility to care for the viable fetus/baby. See.....compromise is possible.

But then you aren't really giving her control over her body if someone else gets to choose how a fetus is removed.  That's a pretty intrusive process and I would think a woman wanting an abortion would like to have a say in how the procedure is done, especially if she's paying for it.

[KolchakAU85 430]

7 minutes ago, KolchakAU85 said:

By reasonable implication.  You obviously overlooked it.  But I'll give you a pass, granted that you suck it up and be realistic from now on.  If you are open to it.

 

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

But then you aren't really giving her control over her body if someone else gets to choose how a fetus is removed.  That's a pretty intrusive process and I would think a woman wanting an abortion would like to have a say in how the procedure is done, especially if she's paying for it.

Paying for it?  Then the killing of an unborn child is reducued to "A Few Dollars".  Which is the title to one of my favorite movies.

I'd wager that most women wanting an abortion are those who can't remember who've they slept with past 3 months.

But would they be better off having those unwanted children?  Maybe not.  I guess that goes against my support of having them in the first place.

Is there a good answer?  I guess not.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

10 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

But then you aren't really giving her control over her body if someone else gets to choose how a fetus is removed.  That's a pretty intrusive process and I would think a woman wanting an abortion would like to have a say in how the procedure is done, especially if she's paying for it.

What if Billy Bob would like to have a say in how his open heart surgery is done? (Lol or a procedure commensurate with an abortion)

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

@KolchakAU85

Yes, paying for it.  As we do with all medical procedures.  There is a cost involved and a monetary transaction takes place.

Look man, if you're looking for a guy to argue about abortion with, look elsewhere.  Honestly think it's a tired issue and we have way bigger things in this country to fix.  I'm just trying to give a different perspective to an idea that Grumps posed.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

4 minutes ago, KolchakAU85 said:

 

Paying for it?  Then the killing of an unborn child is reducued to "A Few Dollars".  Which is the title to one of my favorite movies.

I'd wager that most women wanting an abortion are those who can't remember who've they slept with past 3 months.

But would they be better off having those unwanted children?  Maybe not.  I guess that goes against my support of having them in the first place.

Is there a good answer?  I guess not.

Blanket assertions of unfounded generalizations..... not how you persuade your fellow-citizen.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

What if Billy Bob would like to have a say in how his open heart surgery is done? (Lol or a procedure commensurate with an abortion)

 

Well, assuming it's non-emergency, he does likely get informed of how the procedure would go down and gets to pose any concerns and at least have the Dr look for an alternative way.  My wife has had many procedures done for her conditions and if we ever have a worry, we will straight up ask for that part to change or have another way done.

[KolchakAU85 430]

4 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yes, paying for it.  As we do with all medical procedures.  There is a cost involved and a monetary transaction takes place.

Look man, if you're looking for a guy to argue about abortion with, look elsewhere.  Honestly think it's a tired issue and we have way bigger things in this country to fix.  I'm just trying to give a different perspective to an idea that Grumps posed.

This a forum open for debate.  I'm debating, and aside from that, I'm right.  Deal with it.

[KolchakAU85 430]

7 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Blanket assertions of unfounded generalizations..... not how you persuade your fellow-citizen.

Not trying to persuade my "fellow citizens".  Just trying to counter the BS perpetuated by liberals.  And succeeding.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, KolchakAU85 said:

This a forum open for debate.  I'm debating, and aside from that, I'm right.  Deal with it.

You can only be right about a point of fact.  Your opinion on abortion, besides a baby being a fetus, is not factual.

And you aren't debating.  You're yelling like an old man shaking his fist at the sky.

[AUDub 11,132]

Just now, Brad_ATX said:

You can only be right about a point of fact.  Your opinion on abortion, besides a baby being a fetus, is not factual.

And you aren't debating.  You're yelling like an old man shaking his fist at the sky.

:oldmanyellsatcloudmeme.jpg:

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

2 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

Well, assuming it's non-emergency, he does likely get informed of how the procedure would go down and gets to pose any concerns and at least have the Dr look for an alternative way.  My wife has had many procedures done for her conditions and if we ever have a worry, we will straight up ask for that part to change or have another way done.

I know you were merely responding to another poster. Understood.

 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

Just now, NolaAuTiger said:

I know you were merely responding to another poster. Understood.

 

Oh you're good man.  Always enjoy engaging with you my friend.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

3 minutes ago, Brad_ATX said:

You can only be right about a point of fact.  Your opinion on abortion, besides a baby being a fetus, is not factual.

And you aren't debating.  You're yelling like an old man shaking his fist at the sky.

When he said he was right, I think he was talking about “on the political spectrum.” In that case, I would say he is beyond right.

see what I did there?

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 minute ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When he said he was right, I think he was talking about “on the political spectrum.” In that case, I would say he is beyond right.

see what I did there?