While I doubt the veracity fo the study as it is counter-intuitive as well as so much anecdotal evidence saying otherwise, I do think there is a valid point here.
I have never been comfortable with all of the tangential arguments (despite personally agreeing with most of them) for outlawing abortion except the primary one- it is the killing of another human being. This is the only argument for which there is no real counter-argument (or at least of diminishing veracity). When Roe v. Wade was decreed, there was conflicting scientific arguments about when it becomes human (quickening, ability to feel pain, viability). However, as scientific information has become available in the past three decades (especially the information regarding DNA/RNA and the Human Genome Project), the argument that it isn’t human at conception is harder to deny.
All the other arguments open up counter-arguments of woman’s undue burden to bear a child to term, morality/religion, etc. These are areas which people are bound to have differences. However, once we get people to admit it is human life, the debate will now be fought entirely on our turf- Government has a legitimate right (in fact obligation if the Preamble of the Declaration of Independence (Right to Life, Liberty . . .) and Constitution (secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity . . . ) means anything) to protect life, especially defenseless life.