Let’s talk about abortion. One of the most complex and controversial topics up for debate in many states, there has been constant back and forth between legislators and scientists on the lack of practicality displayed in many abortion laws.
The most recent abortion ban in Texas, commonly known as SB8, is a prime example of the lack of understanding in science displayed by the policymakers and lobbyists advocating for tighter restrictions on abortion. SB8 states, “a physician may not knowingly perform or induce an abortion on a pregnant woman if the physician detected a fetal heartbeat for the unborn child,” [1]. The law prohibits abortion after 6 weeks of gestational age, which is before most women know that they are pregnant. Additionally, the bill allows private citizens to bring civil lawsuits not only against physicians but against anyone who “knowingly engages in conduct that aids or abets the performance or inducement of an abortion” [1].
The wording of the law is so broad that it implies that SB8 could incriminate a clinician or friend who counsels a woman or even a driver who knowingly transports her to an abortion clinic, according to JAMA (the Journal of the American Medical Association). In response to this, both Uber and Lyft issued statements that they would cover legal fees for any Texas driver sued due to this law.
However, in recent weeks, the law was overturned by the US supreme court, deeming it “unconstitutional”. U.S. District Court Judge Robert Pitman said that from the moment SB8 went into effect last month, "women have been unlawfully prevented from exercising control over their lives in ways that are protected by the Constitution." U.S. Attorney General Andrew Garland agreed with this block, saying in a statement that "It is the foremost responsibility of the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution. We will continue to protect constitutional rights against all who would seek to undermine them"[8]. SB8 is just the latest in a series of laws enacted throughout the country to trigger a legal challenge to Roe v. Wade in the conservative-leaning U.S. Supreme Court.
Thirteen states have enacted “fetal heartbeat laws” which essentially ban abortions once embryonic cardiac activity can be detected. Georgia’s “heartbeat bill”, for example, proposes that the presence of an embryo’s heartbeat, rather than a fetus’s “viability outside of the womb,” was the point at which life begins in the eyes of Georgia’s legislature. Given the current state of heartbeat-detection technology, the bill would ban abortions about six weeks into a pregnancy (for a person with regular ovulation and menstrual cycles, that’s two weeks after the first day of a missed period) [3]. As most people who experience menstruation would know, this is clearly not enough time for anyone to confirm their pregnancy and find access to an abortion clinic, methods to pay for their abortion, etc. In a study conducted in 2018, the CDC found that only 36% of abortions performed were at or before the 6 week marker. [5]. Georgia’s law, among many others including SB8, would prohibit the abortion at a point when almost two-thirds of people who would have sought an abortion haven’t yet terminated their pregnancy.
In 2019, Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey approved one of the country’s most repressive restrictions on women’s health care: a total ban on abortion with no exceptions for cases of rape or incest. [2] Sen. Clyde Chambliss of Alabama made the following statement when debating with Democrats about the bill: “I’m not trained medically, so I don’t know all the proper medical terminology and timelines and that sort of thing,” he said, “but from what I’ve read, what I’ve been told, there’s some period of time before you can know that a woman is pregnant. … It takes some time for all those chromosomes and all that.” [2] It's very clear that he is not literate in this subject. This underqualified politician supports the need for scientists literate in the processes of interest to be the ones backing up these policies.
This phenomenon has occurred in many other states as well. Ohio state Rep. John Becker, a Republican, proposed a bill that would curb insurance coverage of all abortion care provided under non-life-threatening circumstances. When journalists and health care practitioners noted that the bill would also ban coverage of contraception devices, including certain IUDs that prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs, Becker's response was: “That’s clearly not my area of expertise,” he said. He then suggested that pharmaceutical companies could simply “reformulate” their contraceptives to work differently, somehow, to comply with his legislation. Under Becker’s bill, if a woman experiences an ectopic pregnancy—a life-threatening event wherein a fertilized egg attaches somewhere other than inside the uterus—insurance companies would be permitted to cover a procedure to “reimplant the fertilized ovum into the pregnant woman’s uterus.” [2]. There is no such procedure in existence, a fact that Becker is clearly not aware of. To many, it is unclear how these ideas came into these legislators’ heads. It is clear that they lack the basic understanding of the human body needed to write comprehensive legislation on abortion.
It is important to keep in mind that banning abortions does not lead to fewer abortions. Rather, abortions rates are actually four times higher in low-income countries where abortion is prohibited than in high-income countries where it is legal. A study from the Guttmacher Institute found that during the same period, abortion rates in the most restrictive countries were roughly similar to abortion rates in the least restrictive countries[7]. Banning abortions makes them much more dangerous. An unsafe abortion can be defined as a procedure for terminating an unwanted pregancy either by people lacking in the necessary skills, in an environment lacking minimal medical standards, or both. The annual cost of treating major complications from unsafe abortions is estimated to be $533 million. What’s worse is that approximately 68,000 women die of unsafe abortion annually, making it one of the leading causes of maternal mortality (13%) [6].
In conclusion, policy makers have a complete lack of regard for the science behind the bills they are proposing. Just about every public policy issue has a scientific component, whether it's hidden or obvious; but the facts and insights science brings to light can often go unaddressed. This happens because elected officials tend to shy away from science and because scientists shy away from politics with the end result being laws based on incomplete information. Whether it is climate change, vaccines, urban development, abortion, or many other issues, emphasis needs to be placed on the importance of the convergence between science and policy.
References
Cohen IG, Adashi EY, Gostin LO. The Supreme Court, the Texas Abortion Law (SB8), and the Beginning of the End of Roe v Wade? JAMA. 2021;326(15):1473–1474. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.17639
Cauterucci, C. (2019, May 15). GOP lawmakers think they don't have to understand women's bodies to police them. Slate Magazine. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/05/alabama-abortion-law-republican-ignorance-female-reproduction.html
G. C., By, Chapman, G., -, & Shalhoup, M. (2019, March 29). WHO stands to lose the most under Georgia's anti-abortion Bill? Atlanta Magazine. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://www.atlantamagazine.com/news-culture-articles/who-stands-to-lose-the-most-under-georgias-anti-abortion-bill/.
Baran, N. M. (2019, August 21). Abortion bans based on so-called "Science" are fraudulent. Scientific American Blog Network. Retrieved October 20, 2021, from https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/abortion-bans-based-on-so-called-science-are-fraudulent/#.
Kortsmit K, Jatlaoui TC, Mandel MG, et al. Abortion Surveillance — United States, 2018. MMWR Surveill Summ 2020;69(No. SS-7):1–29. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.ss6907a1external icon
Haddad LB, Nour NM. Unsafe abortion: unnecessary maternal mortality. Rev Obstet Gynecol. 2009;2(2):122-126.
Remez, L., Sedgh, G., Singh, S., Kwok, L., & Onda, T. (2017). Abortion Worldwide 2017: Uneven Progress and Unequal Access. Guttmacher Institute. https://guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/abortion-worldwide-2017.pdf
Lucas, R. (2021, October 7). A U.S. judge Blocks Enforcement of Texas' controversial New Abortion Law. NPR. Retrieved October 27, 2021, from https://www.npr.org/2021/10/06/1040221171/a-u-s-judge-blocks-enforcement-of-texas-controversial-new-abortion-law.