A prominent pro-life group is suspicious of results of a survey on webcam abortions, arguing the survey seems to minimize complications on the abortions.
The study was conducted by Daniel Grossman and Kate Grindlay of the University of California-San Francisco. UCSF has continued to produce studies generally in support of abortion, but those studies have repeatedly proven to be highly flawed, according to Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon of the National Right to Life Committee.
O'Bannon tells OneNewsNow that in the UCSF group's latest research, the authors checked hospital emergency rooms for women suffering complications from webcam abortions.
"With data from all the emergency rooms, they should have been able to find out if a woman showed up at the emergency room with hemorrhaging, an infection, or something like that," he explains. "But only about a third of the ERs responded to their survey. So they're missing data from a whole lot of them, raising a lot of issues."
O'Bannon further explains that webcam abortions are largely available for women in rural areas, but this study obtained few responses from ERs in those areas. In O'Bannon's eyes, the flawed study was designed to gloss over the process and the webcam method.
"Women saw what surgical abortion was," O'Bannon argues. "They didn't like it, they're terrified of it – and then here comes the abortion industry with this new and improved sort of 'product.' [Women] also find out after they've gone through this new process just how awful and terrible it is."
According to pro-life spokesman, the study ignored or minimized the known serious complications from chemical abortions, the lack of medical oversight through webcam abortions, and the known deaths that have occurred.