PTB & Abortion Distortion

Dear ProLife Colleague; The AAPLOG CME meeting on January 29 was loaded with very important educational information for you as a prolife physician. We will address some of the topics in upcoming letters. Additionally, within the next few weeks, we will have an MP3 file for each speaker available for you to download from our website. Load up your ipod and listen on the way to school/work. We’ll give you a heads up when these are available. One of the most egregious educational omissions from current medical education/residency program, or just plain from the American medical literature in general, is the association of induced abortion to subsequent preterm birth. It is a kind of “denial by silence.’ There are at least 119 articles in the world literature attesting to this association, and very few indeed that contest the association. (see https://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-pre-term-birth/ ) And even the admission of the association is trivialized. Iams, a MFM Professor from Ohio State, allows that abortion is followed by “a very small but apparently real increase in the risk of subsequent spontaneous preterm birth (PTB). “Apparently real” is an interesting way to say “119 studies, and all of the recent major studies.” Do we believe in evidence based medicine? “Very small”— (and here Iams refrences the 2009 BJOG Shaw study that found a 36% increase in PTB subsequent to abortion)—how big is “very small?” With nearly any other serious complication, a 36% increase with one exposure (in this case, to abortion) would be extremely significant. Not so, here. Rather, it is a “very small” association. And-same Shaw study- women with more than one prior abortion raised their ‘preemie’ delivery risk by 93% – a HUGE increase (almost double the ‘preemie’ risk when compared to women with zero prior abortions). See our analysis of Iams article at https://www.aaplog.org/complications-of-induced-abortion/induced-abortion-and-pre-term-birth/2010-iams-review/ We see here an example of a new principle, the “abortion distortion.” In legal, and medical, and societal, and governmental arenas-(as in “Philadelphia Dept of Public Health)-, the rules and standards change when the topic is abortion. Overwhelming medical evidence becomes “apparently real,’ a 36% increase becomes a “very small” increase, Philadelphia public health department responsibilities to women’s health become a joke. Worse. An unspeakable travesty. Responsible medical care becomes an on-line video game (as in Iowa, with internet abortion services.) It is the “abortion distortion” in action—coming to a venue near you, soon—if not already there. Jdc/aaplog