Sir, – William Reville argues that science is silent on the ethics of abortion and that leading scientific journals cannot present “science’s position on abortion – science has no position” (“Why science remains silent on the morality of abortion”, Science, October 21st). He suggests that, following the overturning of Roe v Wade by the US supreme court earlier this year, it is a function of democracy that, “For almost 50 years American conservatives lived with universal access to abortion. Now American liberals must live with restricted access to abortion.”
It is American women and girls, both conservative and liberal, who must now live with the dangers of restricted access to safe and legal abortion. Moreover, science, in the form of evidence-based research and data, is far from silent on the adverse consequences for women of restrictive abortion laws. The science is clear that such laws do not result in fewer abortions, but instead put the lives and health of women at greater risk by compelling them to depend on unsafe and illegal abortion.
Science is also clear on the adverse consequences of restricted access to safe abortion on women’s educational attainment, workforce participation and related lifelong socioeconomic outcomes. According to World Health Organisation data, 23,000 women die from unsafe abortions each year and tens of thousands more experience significant health complications globally. Prior to the overturning of Roe v Wade, 97 per cent of unsafe abortions took place in developing countries. Inevitably, unsafe abortion will now increase in the world’s richest country. This will disproportionately affect poorer and more vulnerable women.
On the issue of ethics, any woman or doctor conscientiously opposed to abortion can refuse to have or perform the procedure. Obstetric colleagues from countries such as El Salvador and Morocco have told me how they put aside personal ethical difficulties with abortion in order to advocate for its introduction in their countries because they could no longer stand by and watch women die or be harmed by lack of access to safe and legal abortion. I have also met women whose views altered in the face of difficult personal circumstances.
Protestant churches face a day of reckoning with North’s inquiry into mother and baby homes
Pat Leahy: Smart people still insist the truth of a patent absurdity – that Gerry Adams was never in the IRA
The top 25 women’s sporting moments of the year: 25-6 revealed with Mona McSharry, Rachael Blackmore and relay team featuring
Former Tory minister Steve Baker: ‘Ireland has been treated badly by the UK. It’s f**king shaming’
In Ireland we are all too familiar with the awful consequences of our restrictive abortion laws prior to repeal of the Eighth Amendment. For too long, women were anonymised in legal cases and data as X, A, B, C, D, Y, P. The tragic death of Savita Halapannavar 10 years ago crystallised our understanding of the consequences of Ireland’s near-total ban on abortion. As was observed during the 2018 repeal campaign, the choice is between abortion that is safe and legal or unsafe and illegal. Science permits us to understand how and why the first of these choices is overwhelmingly the better and safer one for women, and, I suggest, the better moral choice. – Yours, etc,
Dr PETER BOYLAN,
Dublin 6.