The Corner

Law & the Courts

Pro-Life Laws Do Not Lead to Poor Public Health

This week, the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) and IBIS Reproductive Health released a study on pro-life laws and public-health outcomes.  It purports to show that the states most active in enacting pro-life policies fare poorly on a range of public-health metrics. Specifically, it claims the states that have enacted the most pieces of pro-life legislation score worse on separate metrics designed to measure both women’s and children’s overall health. This is the latest in a long line of studies attempting to show that pro-life laws adversely affect public-health outcomes. It has received sympathetic coverage from a number of media outlets including Mother Jones and HuffPost.

In reality, the CRR-IBIS study suffers from two significant methodological problems. First, this study analyzes just one year of data. As a result, it provides no evidence of how changes in pro-life policy affect various metrics of public health over time. Second, the study does not hold constant any confounding variables. For example, in recent years, the states most active in passing pro-life laws have been largely located in the South. Southern states tend to have high poverty rates, which are often correlated with poor public-health outcomes. It is therefore likely that those high rates of poverty — and not pro-life laws — are primarily responsible for these below-average public-health metrics. 

The defunding of Planned Parenthood in Texas in 2011 created a veritable cottage industry of researchers trying to find evidence that pro-life laws cause public-health problems. Some of the research — such as the 2016 New England Journal of Medicine study on Medicaid births and the recent Journal of Public Health study on teen births and teen abortions — has been analytically rigorous. Unfortunately, media coverage of such studies is often misleading. Additionally, in some cases, researchers have overstated the effect of slight changes in public-health trends. In this case, because of its methodological weaknesses, the CRR-IBIS study provides absolutely no value to anyone interested in the way in which pro-life policies and legislation actually affect public-health trends.

Michael J. New is a visiting assistant professor of social research and political science at the Catholic University of America and an associate scholar at the Charlotte Lozier Institute in Washington, D.C.

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

Fox News Anchor Shepard Smith Resigns

Fox News Channel's chief anchor, Shepard Smith, announced on air Friday that he would be resigning from his post after 23 years with the network. “This is my last newscast here,” said Smith. “Recently, I asked the company to allow me to leave Fox News. After requesting that I stay, they obliged.” He ... Read More
NR Webathon

Don’t Let Michael Mann Succeed

I  enjoyed the running joke of Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in the great Dickens novel Bleak House, back when I first read it. Little did I know that one day I and the magazine that I love would effectively be caught up in a version of that interminable case, courtesy of a litigious climate scientist with zero regard ... Read More
White House

What Is Impeachment For?

W hat is impeachment for? Seems like a simple question. Constitutionally speaking, it also appears to have a simple answer: to cite and remove from power a president guilty of wrongdoing. Aye, there’s the rub. What sort of wrongdoing warrants removal from power? I’d wager that the flames of ... Read More
Elections

Beto Proposes to Oppress Church with State

Beto O’Rourke’s presidential campaign is within the margin of error of non-existence, but in his failure he has found a purpose: expressing the Democratic id. His latest bid for left-wing love came at a CNN forum on gay rights, where he said that churches that oppose same-sex marriage should have to pay ... Read More