(LifeSiteNews) — Laws that protect preborn babies from being killed in the womb are not connected to a lack of medical providers, a new Charlotte Lozier Institute brief says.

“Pro-life states continue to train medical students, recruit future doctors, and position themselves for further growth,” Charlotte Lozier Institute (CLI) found. “Recent data from the Association of American Medical Colleges shows that across the country, total medical school enrollment has increased over the past five years – including in pro-life states.”

Furthermore, individual cases of drops in residency applications into some states with protections for preborn babies can miss the overall picture that a lot of residents are competing for few spots. So even a 25 percent drop does not make a difference when there are still 200 more applicants than there are openings.

For example, the Flatwater Free Press suggested Nebraska’s 12-week abortion ban played a role in “the number of people applying to OB-GYN programs … dropping 25% in the past year (from 253 applicants to 191) even as OB-GYN medical residency applicants ticked up slightly nationwide.”

However, as CLI points out, there are only “eight OB-GYN residency spots available in Nebraska each year,” meaning the 191 applicants were more than enough to fill those openings.

The Flatwater Free Press reported that the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s total applications are up and other residency slots have been filled without issue.

The CLI report, written by Dr. Ingrid Skop and Tessa Cox, also looked at a February 2024 paper in JAMA Network Open. The academic paper “found that there was no significant difference in ‘signaling’ – part of the application process by which applicants express strong interest in a given program – between pro-life and pro-abortion states.”

“Since doctors may apply to a large number of programs to increase their chances of matching, ‘signaling’ gives them the option to indicate their interest in the residency programs they would most prefer,” CLI researchers wrote in their analysis. “Residency applicants had the same level of interest in programs in pro-life states as they did in programs in pro-abortion states.”

“There has been no substantial shift in the share of future doctors studying in pro-life states,” the research paper concluded.

Protections for preborn babies not leading to hospital closures

Pro-life laws are not creating “maternity care deserts” either, according to the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

“After an Idaho hospital closed its labor and delivery ward, citing Idaho’s pro-life law as a factor, some argued that pro-life laws would lead to hospital closures throughout pro-life states,” the research brief states.

“However, the closure of hospitals across the country is a long-term problem that began well before Dobbs, and even the Idaho hospital acknowledged abortion laws (from its perspective) are just one reason among many that contributed to the unsustainability of its childbirth services,” the brief states, with reference to Bonner General Hospital.

For example, too few births also contributed to the labor and delivery ward closing. The area also has an aging population which will not lead to more births.

Rural hospitals are also at particular risk due to being “chronically underfunded,” according to the pro-life think tank.

The research brief stated:

The Sheps Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill tracks rural hospital closures. Their data shows that in 2023, these closures were evenly split between pro-life and pro-abortion states: Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Texas. A review of press releases and media coverage around each closure shows that the hospitals shut down due to factors like financial problems and declining patient volumes, not abortion policy.

States should work to improve access to maternal healthcare, but abortion is not a solution, the brief argues. It also makes the point that doctors might be attracted to states for a variety of reasons, such as taxes and malpractice laws.

Pro-abortion talking points continue to face scrutiny

The Charlotte Lozier Institute brief is not the first time a pro-abortion talking point has fallen apart upon closer examination.

For example, soon after the Dobbs decision, the media began running with a narrative that some medicine for chronic illnesses would be hard to access. The theory proposed that medical professionals would be wary about prescribing the medicine due to concerns women would illicitly use it to have an abortion.

One woman, an abortion activist, suggested her problems getting medicine were linked to the Dobbs decision. In reality, she regularly had to battle with pharmacies to access her medicine prior to Dobbs, as a LifeSiteNews analysis found.

Pro-life expert Michael New has also debunked the claim that abortion restrictions are linked to maternal deaths, LifeSiteNews reported in July.