(LifeSiteNews) – The Biden administration is paying the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute more than half a million dollars to conduct a study on the “impact of new state restrictions on abortion incidence and safety,” the conclusion of which is a foregone conclusion given the biases of all involved.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) project, titled “The impact of new state restrictions on abortion incidence and safety in the United States,” says the “abrupt changes in access to abortion” as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade last year “are without precedent in terms of the number of individuals who are affected and the number of states in which there remains substantial uncertainty around enactment of further restrictions in the near future.”
The project, slated to last until August 2024, claims it will deliver “baseline data to capture the impact of state abortion restrictions expected over the coming months on the health of pregnant people as well as the need for high-quality estimates of abortion incidence both within and outside of the formal health care system,” and compile data on both “facility-based and self-managed abortions to estimate the national incidence of abortion and abortion-related health outcomes.”
Funding for the project, awarded on September 5, amounts to $594,163. The project lead is Elizabeth Anne Sulley, senior research scientist at Guttmacher, which began life as the research arm of Planned Parenthood.
Though Guttmacher is widely quoted in the mainstream media as an authority on a multitude of abortion and contraception stories, pro-lifers have criticized it for pushing deceptive research on topics such as the safety of abortion procedures and the effectiveness of pro-life laws. At the same time, both sides use Guttmacher’s data in various reports, such as on the number and types of abortion-related laws in effect, which both sides need to know for their respective purposes.
Given the organization’s biases, the final report will likely “determine” that pro-life laws are both harmful to women and ineffective at reducing abortion rates, common contentions among pro-abortion “experts” that pro-lifers have refuted at length.
Fourteen states currently ban all or most abortions, thanks to the Supreme Court Dobbs ruling that overturned Roe and allowed states to directly ban abortion for the first time in half a century. These direct bans and hundreds of other pro-life laws have been estimated to prevent 200,000 abortions per year, LifeSite has previously reported.
In response, abortion allies pursue a variety of tactics to preserve abortion “access,” such as easy access to abortion pills, legal protection and financial support of interstate abortion travel, attempting to enshrine “rights” to the practice in state constitutions rather than the U.S. Constitution, constructing new abortion facilities near borders shared by pro-life and pro-abortion states, and making liberal states sanctuaries for those who want to evade or violate the laws of more pro-life neighbors.
President Joe Biden, who boasts that his administration has launched a “launched a whole-of-government effort to protect reproductive rights” (a popular euphemism for legal abortion on demand), has called on Congress to codify a “right” to abortion in federal law, which would not only restore but expand the Roe status quo by making it illegal for states to pass virtually any pro-life laws. The 2024 elections will determine whether Democrats retain the White House and keep or gain enough seats in Congress to make that happen.