Abortion and Infant Mortality
Termination Does Not Prevent Death
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 22431066 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Nicholas Colgrove (0000-0003-0506-353X, Augusta University Health, corresponding author), Monica Snyder (Film Independent) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Volume | 32 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 1-13 |
| Publication date | 2026-01-02 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | The New Bioethics (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2050-2877 • E-ISSN: 2050-2885 |
| Publisher | Informa UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1080/20502877.2025.2589634 |
| PMID | 41548100 |
| OpenAlex | W7124559967 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 22 |
Alison Gemmill et al. claim that infant mortality in Texas increased following its 2021 abortion restrictions, and several sources reported that abortion restrictions harm infants. This is misleading. Gemmill et al.'s findings show that infant deaths increased primarily because abortion for “congenital anomalies” decreased, and a subset of those subjects died in infancy. In other words, infant mortality rose because fetal mortality fell. By analogy, one can reduce teenage deaths by causing deaths before age thirteen, but this does not save lives. Likewise, abortion restrictions may lead to more infants dying (since fewer subjects are aborted), but this does not imply that abortion restrictions harm infants. The opposite seems true. We argue that it is reasonable to regard Texas's abortion restrictions as a net benefit for infants. We also highlight ableist assumptions surrounding Gemmill et al.'s study and call for bipartisan efforts to support people with disabilities and their families.
Abortion · Developed country · Family planning · Harm · Infant mortality · Pregnancy · Ethics and Legal Issues in Pediatric Healthcare · Reproductive Health and Contraception · Reproductive Health and Technologies
| Citation velocity | historical |
|---|---|
| Highly cited | No |