(LifeSiteNews) – The Biden administration is paying the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute more than half a million dollars to conduct a study on the “impact of new state restrictions on abortion incidence and safety,” the conclusion of which is a foregone conclusion given the biases of all involved.
The National
Institutes of Health (NIH) project,
titled “The impact of new state restrictions on abortion incidence and safety
in the United States,” says the “abrupt changes in access to abortion” as a
result of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last
year “are without precedent in terms of the number of individuals who are
affected and the number of states in which there remains substantial
uncertainty around enactment of further restrictions in the near future.”
The project,
slated to last until August 2024, claims it will deliver “baseline data to
capture the impact of state abortion restrictions expected over the coming
months on the health of pregnant people as well as the need for high-quality
estimates of abortion incidence both within and outside of the formal health
care system,” and compile data on both “facility-based and self-managed
abortions to estimate the national incidence of abortion and abortion-related
health outcomes.”
Funding for
the project, awarded on September 5, amounts to $594,163. The project lead is
Elizabeth Anne Sulley, senior research scientist at Guttmacher, which began
life as the research arm of Planned Parenthood.
Though
Guttmacher is widely quoted in the mainstream media as an authority on a
multitude of abortion and contraception stories, pro-lifers have criticized it
for pushing deceptive
research on topics such as the safety of abortion procedures and the
effectiveness of pro-life laws. At the same time, both sides use Guttmacher’s
data in various reports, such as on the number
and types of abortion-related laws in effect, which both sides need to
know for their respective purposes.
Given the
organization’s biases, the final report will likely “determine” that pro-life
laws are both harmful to women and ineffective at reducing abortion rates,
common contentions among pro-abortion “experts” that pro-lifers have refuted at length.
Fourteen
states currently ban all or most abortions, thanks to the Supreme
Court Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe and
allowed states to directly ban abortion for the first time in half a century.
These direct bans and hundreds of other pro-life laws have been estimated to
prevent 200,000 abortions per year, LifeSite has previously
reported.
In response,
abortion allies pursue a variety of tactics to preserve abortion “access,” such
as easy
access to abortion pills, legal protection and financial support of interstate
abortion travel, attempting to enshrine
“rights” to the practice in state constitutions rather than the U.S.
Constitution, constructing
new abortion facilities near borders shared by pro-life and
pro-abortion states, and making
liberal states sanctuaries for those who want to evade or violate the
laws of more pro-life neighbors.
President
Joe Biden, who boasts that his administration has launched a “launched a
whole-of-government effort to protect reproductive rights” (a popular euphemism
for legal abortion on demand), has called on
Congress to codify a “right” to abortion in federal law, which would not only
restore but expand the Roe status quo by making it illegal for
states to pass virtually any pro-life laws. The 2024 elections will determine
whether Democrats retain the White House and keep or gain enough seats in
Congress to make that happen.
No comments:
Post a Comment