Last month, the University of Utah Health Department published a press release promoting its study claiming "long-term economic gains" for men whose partners have abortions. Not only is this a disgusting claim on its face, but it is proven false in the study itself. Here is Pro-Life Utah's full response to the study:
1. “The promise of future income to men is a morally reprehensible argument for the intentional killing of a human being.” (Quote Deanna Holland, Vice President of Pro-Life Utah)
Pro-Life Utah believes you cannot place a price tag on a life. No amount of money justifies killing a child.
2. "Co-authors of the study are Kyl Myers, Jessica N. Sanders, and David K. Turok"
David Turok is the abortion provider and medical director at Planned Parenthood of Utah, and is married to their Director of Education.
Kyl Meyers has stated her pro-abortion stance in a speech to a group of students at Westminster College. Jessica Sanders has testified against pro-life legislation up on Capitol Hill. As such, Pro-Life Utah feels there is clear bias on the part of the researchers.
3. The study indicates that men who conceived while teens but whose child was aborted were more likely to complete post high school education and college than men whose conception resulted in a live birth. However, they were comparable in income levels with the men who stayed with their children and did not abandon them.
The study goes on to ASSUME the post abortive fathers will have a higher income stating "Given what we know about the links between education and future income, it is likely that the wage gap will widen as these men age, allowing men whose partners reported abortions to continue to reap financial benefits from access to abortion"
This study disproves its own claim and only makes a conclusion to the contrary based on assumed future results.
What the study does find is that men who conceived while teenagers and abandoned their partner and her child, suffered financially later in life. Men who stayed with their child fared well. This study would seem to support the benefits of a nuclear family, and that supporting the family unit helps communities.
4. The study clearly states it is unable to "provide prevalence estimates or generalizable inferences about the effects of abortion to a broader population."
This makes sense because the income reported from the teen fathers was from a one year snapshot in time.