If abortion were made illegal all over the world, that 80,000 would easily top your 100,000 figure. And feminists everywhere would rejoice, because they would have a shot at convincing Pablo!

My mum had an abortion, and damn right, it improved her life, my life, my dad’s life and that of all my siblings too. I certainly won’t be quibbling with the figures given.

Water is essential to life. Abortion is not. You are correct. And that changes nothing.

A life lost to illegal abortion is not a life saved by legal abortion. You are correct.

A life lost to an illegal, unsafe, and unregulated abortion is a life saved by legal, safe, and regulated abortion.

But enough about abortion. The issue is academic freedom, university transparency, and the Pope.

I hope there’s a middle ground, because I am certain that Georgetown will suffer the most from this.

1. 80,000 is not hundreds of thousands. It’s 80,000.

2. A life lost to illegal abortion is not a life saved by legal abortion. You’re talking about places where millions die of dirty water. However, water is not optional. Abortion is.

I think a flood of letters may be helpful — but I’m not on LSFC’s board, so I don’t really know. Ask Joy at http://unequaljustice.livejournal.com.

Apologies if this has been covered in this or the Anti-Choice Hypocrisy thread. I’m going to play the just-had-surgery card and blame the drugs.

Abortion saves hundreds of thousands of lives a year and improves the health of millions more?

Did you just make that up, Jill, or is there some scientific basis for that claim?

Legal abortion saves hundreds of thousands of lives a year and improves the health of millions more. No, I did not just make that up. 80,000 women die every year from unsafe illegal abortions — many, many more are maimed and injured. The number of hospitalizations from illegal abortion in just a few countries:

Bangladesh: 71,800
Brazil: 288,700
Chile: 31,900
Colombia: 57,700
Dominican Republic: 16,500
Egypt: 216,000
Mexico: 106,500
Nigeria: 142,200
Peru: 54,200
The Philippines: 80,100

Illegal abortion is the cause of 25% of all maternal deaths in Latin America, 12% in Asia, and 13% in sub-Saharan Africa.

Legal abortion is safer than childbirth. And there is no correlation between legality and abortion rates — many countries where abortion is outlawed have higher abortion rates than the U.S. (see Brazil, Chile, Bangladesh, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Egypt, Mexico, Nigeria, Peru, and the Philippines). The difference is that those countries also have significantly higher numbers of abortion-related deaths and injuries.

So did I make that up? No. There is a very strong scientific basis for the fact that when abortion is illegal, women die and women are injured. Also see South Africa, where deaths from abortion have dropped 91% since the procedure was legalized there.

(sorry for the double post!)

Huh – I didn’t know that was the funding situation. Thanks for letting me know. (Not sure how that affects the status of EJF as an affiliate of EJW, which is the portion of my comment that you seem to be responding to, but good to know.)

I guess the question is, then, to what extent does GULC’s money carry this kind of string? I mean, are they going to start telling ACS and NLG that they can’t advocate for queer rights or repro rights (which is what Notre Dame does)? or will they tell the various religious affiliation groups on campus – the Jewish Law Students Association and Muslim Law Students Association – that they can only get funding if they adhere to Catholic doctrine?

It’s inconsistent, to say the least.

The long answer is as follows. The public interest program in question is called Equal Justice Foundation. It is a student group at GULC that raises its own money; it is an affiliate of Equal Justice Works, a national public interest organization of which most (nearly all) accredited law schools in the US are members.

Not to critique your conclusion, but I am not entirely sure this premise is correct. I have read and heard elsewhere that the school itself contributes to EJF to the tune of approximately $100,000 per year. Also, EJF would be severely handicapped in its fundraising efforts if it did not enjoy the support of the Law Center’s development office, which furnishes EJF with support, mostly in the form of “leads” to cold-call during its fund drive.

I may be wrong on these points and, ultimately, the University’s funding role does not change my opinion that this was an awful policy choice. Nonetheless, I think it is important to get the facts right so as to put forward more compelling arguments.