Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: THURSDAY, February 14, 1991 TAG: 9102140494
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-6 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ELYSSA S. WRIGHT
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
Minnesota's law is a good example. For 1975-80, the six years before the law was enacted, the pregnancy rate among 10- through 17-year-olds rose by 22.8 percent, the abortion rate rose by 71.4 percent, and the birth rate dropped 7.7 percent.
For 1981-86, the six years after the law was enacted, those rates dropped by 20.5, 27.4 and 12.5 percent, respectively. Prior to the law, only the birth rate declined, and that was because of the large increase in the abortion rate.
Minnesota officials were surprised by the results (though pro-family activists were not). Paul Gunderson, the chief of statistics for the health department, was quoted in the Minneapolis Star and Tribune as saying, "It would appear that women under age 18 are reducing their risk of pregnancy." Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and other states have experienced similar results.
The principal argument against the legislation is that it is dangerous to teens. Since there is no evidence for this claim, opponents of the legislation have hyped the case of Becky Bell, an Indiana teen who, they say, died as the result of an abortion she gave herself rather than tell her parents about her pregnancy.
The main problem with this tale is that, according to the autopsy report, Becky Bell died of bacterial pneumonia. She had, in fact, been pregnant and, apparently, miscarried. Her cervix, however, had not been forcibly dilated, so she had not had an induced abortion. And the bacteria that killed her were not present in or outside of her uterus, so they were introduced into her body through a contaminated abortion procedure, legal or otherwise.
There is far more evidence to indicate that the real danger to teens comes from permitting them to get abortions without the involvement of their parents. Eileen Roberts of Fredericksburg founded Mothers Against Minors' Abortions because of her family's experience. Since their daughter's abortion, the Robertses have paid more than $23,000 for treatment of the physical and psychiatric problems that resulted. They were excluded from the decision but not from the consequences.
The Robertses are evidently a loving and supportive family. Nevertheless, their daughter, like most teens in her situation, decided in the confusion of the moment to have an abortion to try hiding her pregnancy from the very people who were best able to help her deal with the crisis.
by CNB