(LifeSiteNews) — Pro-life laws are not leading to a doctor shortage in states that adopt them, despite a study purporting to show pro-abortion states enjoying a disproportionate uptick in medical residency applications.

The study, published in March by JAMA Network Open, examines residency application data from more than 4,000 residency programs, representing more than 22 million complete applications, “across all medical and surgical specialties” from 2019 to 2023, to compare application cycles before and after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in 2022.

It found the “Dobbs decision was associated with a significant decrease in residency applications in abortion-restricted states compared with nonrestricted states among both women and men.” This, the authors claimed, provides “evidence that Dobbs may contribute to state-level disparities in the overall health care training pipeline and workforce.”

However, The College Fix spoke with acclaimed pro-life researcher Prof. Michael New, who examined the data and cast doubt on the study’s conclusions and their significance.

“Looking at the data, residency applications increased everywhere, but there does appear to be a slightly larger increase in states with permissive abortion policies,” New said. “That said[,] medical residency programs are competitive and most residency programs had considerably more applications than openings. There is no evidence that there is a physician shortage in pro-life states.”

He cited recent data from the National Resident Matching Program, which showed no meaningful statistical difference between pro-life and pro-abortion states, with the 18 “most restrictive” states filling 99.13 percent of total OB/GYN residency slots, compared to the rest of the states filling 99.31 percent.

“In fact, Texas filled a higher percentage of its OBGYN residency spots than did New York,” New noted, adding that “even if there were more residency applications in states with permissive abortion policies — that would not justify the legality of abortion.”

While whatever disparity exists may indicate a bias that elite medical institutions are transmitting to the latest crop of medical students, the evidence does not indicate that it is translating to a doctor shortage in pro-life states, and abortion itself has long been an outlier in the medical profession, despite doctors’ views about banning it.

In 2019, University of Chicago Department of Comparative Human Development graduate Steve Jacobs found that 96 percent of more than 5,500 biologists he surveyed agreed that human life begins at fertilization, despite overwhelmingly identifying as “liberal,” “pro-choice,” and Democrats, and a majority identifying as “non-religious.” Further, over the years, numerous abortionists, such as Warren Hern, Morris Wortman, and Susan Robinson, have admitted that most of the medical profession looks on their activities with disdain.

Thirteen states ban most abortions starting at conception; another five ban it at around six weeks, with additional states imposing a range of later restrictions.

But the abortion lobby works feverishly to preserve abortion “access” via deregulated interstate distribution of abortion pills, legal protection and financial support of interstate abortion travel, constructing new abortion facilities near borders shared by pro-life and pro-abortion states, making liberal states havens for those who want to evade or violate the laws of more pro-life neighbors, and embedding abortion “rights” in state constitutions, whether via activist lawsuits or state constitutional amendments.