World Abortion Estimates: An Audit.(World Health Organization's gathering of statistics on abortion)

Part II--Estimating Abortion in the Developing World: Assumptions and "Adjustments"

In Part I of this series, we presented estimates of worldwide abortions, unsafe abortions, and abortion-related deaths from the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Alan Guttmacher Institute (AGI). We also noted that regions with the highest totals of unsafe abortions and abortion-related deaths tend to be the most lacking in reliable data.

This issue will explain how WHO builds its "unsafe abortion database" and begin a discussion of the specific types of studies in the database and the methods used by WHO to estimate abortions with these data. Additionally, this article reveals two crucial assumptions that drive the high reported estimates of unsafe abortions and abortion-related deaths: (1) the presumption that nearly every data source "under-reports" abortions; and (2) counting every illegal abortion as an unsafe abortion, even if "technically safe."

WHO's "Unsafe Abortion Database"

To construct estimates in the absence of any extensive national abortion data, WHO researchers appeal to the judgment of "experts," rely on a hodgepodge of community-based or individual hospital studies, and do special extrapolations based on theoretical models. This automatically opens the door to possible bias, non-representative samples, and magnified miscalculations, any of which could severely skew any estimation.

The World Health Organization's own description of how and where it obtains the data it uses in its "unsafe abortion" database raises a lot of red flags. WHO says, "Reports included in the data listing were identified through a search of library databases and by tracing references. Not all articles identified could be traced and the compilation is based on sources available at the headquarters of the World Health Organization, in Swiss libraries and in other reference centers. In addition, data from WHO supported country studies, studies supported by other United Nations agencies and NGOs, papers presented at meetings, unpublished reports as well as information provided by national authorities, other agencies and colleagues around the world are included. [emphasis added].

One can only imagine who these "NGOs" (non-governmental organizations, such as International Planned Parenthood, British-based abortion and family planning agency Marie Stopes International, etc.), "national authorities," "other agencies," and "colleagues" of the pro-abortion World Health Organization might include. WHO, in fact, invites contributions to its database, apparently indiscriminately: