LJ_Reloaded
バクスター の
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2010
- Posts
- 21,217
If your reason for being pro-life was to protect the baby and not wage war on women, this study would be a flat out lie on its face.
Unfortunately it's not.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24245932/
Abstract
In the United States, pro-choice supporters contend that the desire of pro-life supporters to protect the life of the fetus ends at birth and that thereafter they ignore the health and well-being of infants and children. This study examines the question of whether infants and children fare better in U.S. states that have the most restrictive abortion laws. Eighteen indicators of infant/child health, family, economic, and educational status are analyzed. The empirical evidence finds that states with the most antiabortion policies are also the same states that have significantly lower indicators of infant/child well-being. This supports the contention by pro-choice supporters that efforts by pro-life supporters to protect the life of the fetus end at birth.
Unfortunately it's not.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/24245932/
Abstract
In the United States, pro-choice supporters contend that the desire of pro-life supporters to protect the life of the fetus ends at birth and that thereafter they ignore the health and well-being of infants and children. This study examines the question of whether infants and children fare better in U.S. states that have the most restrictive abortion laws. Eighteen indicators of infant/child health, family, economic, and educational status are analyzed. The empirical evidence finds that states with the most antiabortion policies are also the same states that have significantly lower indicators of infant/child well-being. This supports the contention by pro-choice supporters that efforts by pro-life supporters to protect the life of the fetus end at birth.