Secular Pro-Life
  • Home
  • About
    • Meet The Team
    • Mission and Vision
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Stances
      • Abortion
      • Religion
      • Contraception
      • The Rape Exception
    • Terms and Conditions
      • Opt-out preferences
  • Content
    • Index
    • Blog
    • Presentations
      • A Secular Case Against Abortion
      • Building Bridges
      • Deconstructing Three Pro-Choice Myths
      • Overlooked Findings of the Turnaway Study
    • Research
      • Abortion Law and Abortion Rates
      • Abortion Law and Pregnancy Rates
      • Later Abortion
      • Embryonic Hearts
    • Collections
      • Becoming Pro-Life
      • They can hear you
      • Parents can hear you
      • Our children’s heartbeats
      • Ask An Atheist
      • LGBTQ and Pro-Life
      • Fixed that meme for you
      • For the biology textbook tells me so
    • Print Materials
      • 100 Pro-Life Sign Ideas
      • Overview of SPL
      • 3 Reasons to tell people you’re pro-life
      • How to talk (not fight) about abortion
      • Bridges PRC Curriculum
      • Fetal Remains Disposition Protocol
      • FAQ handout
      • Presentations overview card
    • Store
  • Contact
  • Get Involved
    • Why support SPL?
    • Donor Opportunities
    • Volunteer Opportunities
    • Volunteer Survey
    • More Surveys
      • Why do you support SPL?
      • Best and Worst Abortion Arguments
      • “Ask An Atheist” Interview
      • Non-Traditional Pro-Life Survey
      • LGBT Pro-Life Survey
      • Parents experiences with prenatal screening
      • Your experiences with adoption
      • Your experiences with processing abortion
  • Donate
  • Search
  • Menu Menu

Examples of the blatant deceit of the abortion lobby

January 3, 2024/in Research, Uncategorized /by Calum Miller
Photo Credit: Marten Newhall on Unsplash

[Today’s post is based on two Tweet threads here and here.]

Below are two particularly wild examples of the blatant deceit (or maybe academic incompetence) of the abortion lobby, including their ‘respected academic think tanks’ like the Guttmacher Institute or the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).


Example 1: Maternal deaths in Nigeria from unsafe abortion

In 2008, Guttmacher stated that as many as 40% of maternal deaths in Nigeria may be from unsafe abortion. Their source was a 2008 paper by Henshaw et al claiming the same.

Only one of Henshaw’s three sources actually supports this claim: Oye-Adeniran’s 2002 paper. Ove-Adeniran’s sources go back to a 1999 paper by Okonofua et al. which says that abortion may be responsible for 40% of deaths in Nigeria. But Okonofua’s only citation which supports this claim is Ladipo et al. 1989. Ladipo does indeed say that abortion causes 30-40% of maternal deaths. The problem is that the paper Ladipo cites is Liskin 1980 and is talking about not Nigeria but Latin America. The Liskin paper itself is too old to find online, but is using data from the 1970s at latest.

Most remarkable about this is that 40% of maternal deaths in Chile around that time were indeed due to abortion. The problem is that abortion was legal in Chile-and once it was prohibited in 1989 abortion deaths fell dramatically: by 94.2% in 11 years.

Example 2: Maternal deaths in Malawi from unsafe abortion

A Telegraph article published February 2021 claimed that 12,000 women died annually from backstreet abortions in Malawi. It relied on a report produced by the Centre for Reproductive Health at the University of Malawi College of Medicine and Guttmacher Institute. This report estimates approximately 141,000 abortions take place annually in Malawi. This figure was also cited by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG).

In February 2022, the Telegraph retracted the article after I published a report summarizing contradicting evidence.

The report explains that recent figures from World Health Organization (WHO) and Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimate total maternal deaths in Malawi (meaning maternal deaths from all causes, not just unsafe abortion) are between 1,150 and 2,100. Of those total maternal deaths, best estimates suggest that, at most, 150 are attributable to unsafe abortion. The Telegraph claimed Malawi maternal deaths from unsafe abortion were approximately 80x higher than evidence can empirically justify.


These examples are why it’s so important to check your sources, even if they come from “reputable institutions” like the Guttmacher Institute. Don’t listen without investigating the facts yourself.

Related Posts

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://i0.wp.com/secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/marten-newhall-uAFjFsMS3YY-unsplash-scaled.jpg?fit=2560%2C1707&ssl=1 1707 2560 Calum Miller https://secularprolife.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SecularProlife2.png Calum Miller2024-01-03 04:11:002023-12-17 14:12:52Examples of the blatant deceit of the abortion lobby

Follow via Email

* indicates required

Categories

  • Ableism
  • Abortion pills
  • Administrative
  • Adoption & Foster Care
  • Biology
  • Bodily Rights
  • Dialogue strategy
  • en español
  • Later Abortion
  • Legislation, laws, & court cases
  • Miscarriage & Pregnancy Loss
  • Personhood
  • Philosophy
  • Pro-Life Demographics
  • Rape Exception
  • Religion
  • Research
  • Speeches, Discussions, Presentations
  • SPL Emails
  • They Can Hear You
  • Top SPL Articles
  • Top SPL Graphics
  • Uncategorized
  • We Asked You Answered
  • Year In Review
  • Your Stories

Archive

It’s crucial that we demonstrate that anyone can–and everyone should–oppose abortion. Thanks to you, we are working to change minds, transform our culture, and protect our prenatal children. Every donation supports our ability to provide nonsectarian, nonpartisan arguments against abortion. Read more details here. Please donate today.

DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
© Copyright 2025 Secular Pro-Life. All rights reserved. Website Design by TandarichGroup

Related Posts

We Asked, You Answered: New Year’s Resolutions Ask a Pro-Life Atheist: Michelle Buenrostro
Scroll to top
Manage Consent

To provide the best experience, we use technologies like cookies to store and/or access device information. Consenting to these technologies will allow us to process data such as browsing behavior or unique IDs on this site. Not consenting or withdrawing consent may adversely affect certain features and functions.

Functional Always active
The technical storage or access is strictly necessary for the legitimate purpose of enabling the use of a specific service explicitly requested by the subscriber or user, or for the sole purpose of carrying out the transmission of a communication over an electronic communications network.
Preferences
The technical storage or access is necessary for the legitimate purpose of storing preferences that are not requested by the subscriber or user.
Statistics
The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for statistical purposes. The technical storage or access that is used exclusively for anonymous statistical purposes. Without a subpoena, voluntary compliance on the part of your Internet Service Provider, or additional records from a third party, information stored or retrieved for this purpose alone cannot usually be used to identify you.
Marketing
The technical storage or access is required to create user profiles to send advertising, or to track the user on a website or across several websites for similar marketing purposes.
Manage options Manage services Manage {vendor_count} vendors Read more about these purposes
View preferences
{title} {title} {title}

Subscribe for Livestream Updates and More

* indicates required

Interests

Want to receive our email newsletter?

We’d be happy to keep in touch. Subscribe for access to our newsletter and other updates.