Published research studies have established a statistically significant increased risk of premature birth and low birth weight deliveries among women with a history of abortion. Other medical research has found a higher incidence of cerebral palsy associated with low birth weight newborns. Given these results, why is the March of Dimes claiming that the 27% rise in premature births over the last few decades “is a mystery?”

The Elliot Institute researches the physical and psychological effects of abortion. David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute, says at least 50 published studies have shown significantly higher risk of premature birth and low birth weight deliveries for later pregnancies after abortion. One of the best, a Danish record based study, found the risk doubled after just one abortion. Multiple abortions increase the risk even more. Reardon says a doubling of risk among an estimated one-fourth of delivering women who have a prior history of abortion would result in a 25% rise overall.

The March of Dimes, whose mission is to eliminate handicaps in children, is ignoring this established link between abortion and premature births. The Elliot Institute accuses the March of Dimes of trying to cover up the fact that women who have had abortions need to be especially vigilant in receiving adequate prenatal care in subsequent pregnancies.

The March of Dimes has removed information from its website about the risk of premature birth following abortion. Previously, the website had included a statement that women with a history of three or more miscarriages or abortions may be at higher risk of premature delivery. Since the risk of premature birth increases after only one induced abortion, this was at best an incomplete statement. However, rather than changing its website to include the more accurate information, the March of Dimes eliminated mention of the risk entirely.

Officially, the March of Dimes maintains a neutral stance on abortion. Nevertheless, Pro-Life groups such as Life Issues Institute have encouraged a boycott of the organization, noting that the March of Dimes appears to take positions that can be construed as anti-life. Wouldn’t a neutral image demand that more information be provided to allow mothers to make more informed decisions?

For instance, a March of Dimes booklet offers no statement condemning abortion as an unacceptable “solution” to the problem of birth defects. Rather, the booklet includes this comment: “When a birth defect is diagnosed, genetic counselors provide emotional support and understanding during what can be a very difficult time. If there are decisions to be made—about the pregnancy, the care of a child, having more children, or about the ability of the family to cope with ongoing problems—the parents can make more informed choices with the facts in hand.”

In fact, March of Dimes has given grants for research on genetic problems that might encourage doctors to suggest abortions. March of Dimes policy states that the organization “supports the use of fetal tissue research as one technique to broaden understanding of human biology and pregnancy outcome.”

The March of Dimes has also had pro-abortion advocates in leadership positions. Henry Foster, who was rejected by the Senate as President Clinton’s nominee for Surgeon General, served on their Medical Service Advisory Committee. While on the committee, Foster admitted doing nearly 700 abortions following the results of amniocentesis.

Just recently, the March of Dimes was identified as supporting an Indiana bill to provide medicaid funding for the morning-after pill, which is clearly abortifacient. It seems that the March of Dimes “neutral stance” on abortion is a facade.