Abortion Risks - User contributions [en]

User:FloraReid

2011-05-29T03:39:50Z

Spam cleanup script: All revisions matched the spam blacklist (www.online-poker-spielen.biz), blanking

User:EllaRedding

2011-05-29T03:39:49Z

Spam cleanup script: All revisions matched the spam blacklist (www.besttermpaper.com), blanking

User talk:GianMoore

2011-05-29T03:39:48Z

Spam cleanup script: All revisions matched the spam blacklist (www.superiorpapers.com), blanking

User talk:MaurySmith

2011-05-29T03:39:48Z

Spam cleanup script: All revisions matched the spam blacklist (www.rushessay.com), blanking

Charles et al

2011-05-29T03:39:47Z

Spam cleanup script: Cleaning up links to www.merchantos.com

'''Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence.'''

Authors: Vignetta E. Charles, Chelsea B. Polis, Srinivas K. Sridhara, Robert W. Blum

Journal: ''Contraception'' 78(2008) 436-450

== Author's Conclusions ==

:"A clear trend emerges from this systematic review: the highest quality studies had findings that were mostly neutral, suggesting few, if any, differences between women who had abortions and their respective comparison groups in terms of mental health sequelae. Conversely, studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion." 

== Presumption -- Neutral is good enough ==

An underlying presumption of the authors is that abortion is good medical practice as long as it cannot be proven that it causes widespread harm. Therefore, the thrust of their argument is that the "best studies" indicate that there is no effect on mental health . . . or abortion has a "neutral" effect.

In fact, however, it is the obligation of doctors performing abortions, particularly in the UK and many Commonwealth countries, to only perform abortions when the risks associated with abortion are LESS THAN the risks associated with childbirth. Not the SAME AS the risks associated with childbirth, but LESS THAN. In other words, there must be some medical benefit to abortion as opposed to simply letting the pregnancy continue its natural course.

Even with it's selective reporting, obsufication, concealment and stretching of facts and logic, the ''Contraception'' review does not even attempt to document any benefit from abortion, because there is no evidence for that position. At best, it seeks to claim that the effects of abortion are likely neutral and that reports of negative reactions are exaggerated.

In the most recent study, now THE best study, which was not reviewed in the ''Contraception'' review, Fergusson states in his conclusions:

:In general, there is no evidence in the literature on abortion and mental health that suggests that abortion reduces the mental

health risks of unwanted or mistimed pregnancy. Although some studies have concluded that abortion has neutral effects on mental health, no study has reported that exposure to abortion reduces mental health risks.

This echoes the a point well articulated by Dr. Philip Ney:

We should remember that in the science of medicine, the onus of proof lies with those who perform or support any medical or surgical procedure to show beyond reasonable doubt that the procedure is both safe and therapeutic. There are no proven psychiatric indications for abortion. The best evidence shows abortion is contraindicated in major psychiatric illness. There is no good evidence that abortion is therapeutic for any medical conditions with possible rare exceptions. In fact, there are no proven medical, psychological, or social benefits. . . . If abortion was a drug or any other surgical procedure about which so many doubts have been raised regarding its safety and therapeutic effectiveness, it would have been taken off the market long ago.

<br> In analzying all of the literature on abortion, these three distinct points should always be kept in mind

1. There are no statistically validated mental health benefits from abortion for women in general nor for any identified group of women, including rape and incest victims)

2. Abortion involves inherent mental health risks, at least for a minority of women, and

3. There are well established, indisputable risk factors that identify which women are at greatest risk of negative psychological reactions and doctors should screen for these.

<br>

<br>

== Some Preliminary Criticisms ==

At first glance the findings of the recently published “systematic” review by Charles et al. published in Contraception represents a more sophisticated attempt to evaluate the literature than that of the APA’s Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health. However, a careful reading indicates that these Johns Hopkins researchers are guilty of only slightly more crafty deception. Although there are numerous shortcomings of this review including avoidance of quantification of effects, the findings lack credibility entirely for the four key reasons detailed below.

1) The review neglects to cover numerous studies that have linked abortion to substance abuse problems, one of the major mental health concerns of women who have aborted and for women in general. No explanation is provided for this blatant omission.

2) The ranking system employed ignores two of the most central methodological considerations when conducting reviews of prospective research designs: 1) the percent consenting to participate at baseline (information was not even provided by the authors of one study, Gilchrist et al., that this team ranked as “Very Good”); and 2) retention of subjects over time. Obviously when women are more harmed by an abortion they are less inclined to want to continue to participate. Further, women who are suffering from an abortion are likely to have less stable lives and are therefore more likely to be unavailable to be assessed. If the sample suffers from high attrition rates (in excess of 20-30%), then the results can not be applied to the general population.

3) Five quality indicators were employed to derive the ratings of each study from “Excellent” to “Very Poor”. These indicators were each deemed met or not met by the raters of the studies. However, no explanation is given for the extent to which evidence of the indicator had to be present in order to be marked as “met”. This leaves the evaluation method open to considerable bias. There is no way that several of the studies listed as “Very Good” would have met 4 out of 5 of the quality indicators necessary for the rating if rated by an objective evaluator who was not invested in deriving a conclusion that is consonant with pro-choice ideology. Similarly, studies rated as “Fair” such as the one by Fergusson and colleagues published in 2006 would have been rated higher by an objective evaluator.

4) The review “missed” numerous high quality studies that meet their inclusion criteria. The result is an extremely biased selection. A sampling of the ignored studies is provided below.

*Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of Unwanted Pregnancy During Adolescence Through Abortion versus Childbirth: Individual and Family Predictors and Consequences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 903-911.

*Henshaw, R., Naji, S., Russell, I., & Templeton, A. (1994). Psychological responses following medical abortion (using mifepristone and gemeprost) and surgical vacuum aspiration: A patient-centered, partially randomized prospective study. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 73, 812-818.

*Lauzon, P., Roger-Achim, D., Achim, A., & Boyer, R. (2000). Emotional distress among couples. involved in first trimester abortions. Canadian Family Physician, 46, 2033-2040.

*Lyndon, J., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Cohan, C. L., & Pierce, T. (1996). Pregnancy decision making as a significant life event: A commitment approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151.

*Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper, M.L., Zubek, J., Richards C., Wilhite, M., & Gramzow, R.H. (2000). Psychological responses of women after first trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-84.

*Major, B. Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, A. M., Cooper, M. L., Testa, M., & Mueller, P. M. (1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 186-197.

*Miller, W. B. (1992). An empirical study of the psychological antecedents and consequences of induced abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 67-93.

*Miller, W. B., Pasta, D. J., & Dean, C. L. (1998). Testing a model of the psychological consequences of abortion. In L. J. Beckman and S. M. Harvey (eds.), The new civil war: The psychology, culture, and politics of abortion. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

*Reardon, D.C., & Coleman, P. K. (2006). Relative Treatment Rates for Sleep Disorders Following Abortion and Childbirth: A Prospective Record-Based Study. Sleep, 29, 105-106.

*Slade, P., Heke, S., Fletcher, J., & Stewart, P. (1998). A comparison of medical and surgical methods of termination of pregnancy: Choice, psychological consequences, and satisfaction with care. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 105, 1288-1295.

== Bias of the journal ''Contraception'' ==

''Contraception'' has numerous abortion providers as editors, including David Grimes and Philip Darney. It’s the equivalent of the Guttmacher Institute’s Perspective on Sexual & Reproductive Health for the family planning crowd.

Contraception was founded by Alan Guttmacher in 1963 as the official journal of the Association of Reproductive Health Professionals (ARHP), which was formed as the educational arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America. The following is taken directly from the official Position Statements of ARHP:

:ABORTION

:Abortion care is a critical component of comprehensive reproductive health care. ARHP supports a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, just as we support her right to choose to become a parent or to carry an unintended pregnancy to term and choose adoption. The topic areas below represent ARHP’s positions on the range of ways in which a woman’s access to abortion care can be affected.

:Medical Misinformation about Abortion

:ARHP is foremost governed by evidence-based information and practices. We are troubled by the anti-choice movement’s continued dissemination of medical misinformation about abortion. In addition to spreading misinformation through organizational materials and public websites, the anti-choice movement has been successful in inserting medical misinformation into required patient materials under mandatory counseling laws. The spread of medical misinformation about risks associated with abortion and specific abortion procedures is a dishonest attempt to bolster legal and legislative efforts to restrict access to abortion. The anti-choice movement often advertises abortion myths under the guise of “protecting women from abortion” but, in reality, perpetuating misinformation about abortion only puts women at risk.

:Because medical misinformation about abortion is so widespread, and sometimes even distributed by state and federal government agencies, ARHP applauds efforts by the media to dispel myths about abortion. We encourage members of the press to commit to evidence-based reporting about abortion given the vigorous and deliberate efforts by the anti-choice movement to confuse and distort medical information about abortion in the public’s eye.

:To learn more about recurring myths about abortion put forward by the anti-choice movement, click here .

:Legal Access to Abortion and Abortion Policy

:ARHP supports the legal right of a woman to obtain an abortion. ARHP supports the United States Supreme Court decision, Roe v. Wade, and opposes any legislation, regulation, or Constitutional amendment that weakens this decision and/or intervenes in medical decision-making regarding abortion. Roe v. Wade made it legal, and therefore safe, for a woman to choose abortion. Prior to Roe v. Wade, women successfully obtained abortions on a regular basis, but often at the expense of her own health and life. Today, in countries where abortion is illegal, women continue to obtain abortions at high rates and often under unsafe circumstances. Abortion has always taken place regardless of its legal status; legalization simply allows a woman to obtain her abortion in a medical setting under safe circumstances.

:The anti-choice movement continues its campaign of restricting access to abortion and ultimately eliminating the laws that protect a woman’s right to choose.”

:ARHP’s Position Statement on abortion was modified and approved by Policy Committee, May 2008

:http://www.arhp.org/about-us/position-statements#1

Thus, with such obvious bias and advocacy orientation, the Charles et al. piece could hardly be considered objectively “peer-reviewed” and its “conclusions” should be considered suspect.

== Bias of Authors ==

As many acquainted with this Johns Hopkins research team can attest, there is much more to "Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence" than meets the eye. The university department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, where three of the four study authors hail from, is funded by Planned Parenthood of Maryland. Raising more suspicions about the validity of the study is the presence of co-author Robert Blum, who heads up one of the most heavily funded population control programs in the world -- worth roughly $1 billion. Blum has been a long-time supporter of unrestricted abortion, including his service on the Guttmacher Institute's Board of Directors from 1989 to present and as Chair from 1999-2002. He has testified in several statutory challenges against any parental involvement in a minor child's abortion decision.

Not surprisingly, the Hopkins study is severely tainted by the team's pro-abortion bias. As our experts have been quick to point out, Blum's review of 21 surveys conveniently omitted the stacks of research published in peer-reviewed journals that showed an association between abortion and negative mental health effects. He and the other authors claim that any studies showing a link between abortion and depression are politically motivated, but considering the Department's ties to Planned Parenthood, theirs is living proof!

As more evidence pours in contradicting Blum and company, this is just poor science. Just this week, two new articles add to the body of research demonstrating that abortion is associated with increased risk of adverse mental health effects. The two peer-reviewed papers were published in the British Journal of Psychiatry and the Journal of Psychiatric Research. Both had strong methodology and controls for confounding or alternate variables.

<br> See also [[Nada L. Stotland]]

[[Category:Critique]][[Category:Commentary]]

Rachel's Hope

2011-05-29T03:39:46Z

Spam cleanup script: Cleaning up links to www.superiorpapers.com

'''Face the secret?'''
An abortion usually becomes "the deep dark secret" that imprints upon the psyche like a photograph frozen in time, with all associated feelings related to that event. The memory of the secret, may go deep into "repressed mode", but the psyche has not lost track of the painful experience. An emotional eruption can occur like a volcano anywhere in time, and often over issues unrelated to a past abortion experience, or so it seems. Unless an abortion is faced head-on and related issues dealt with, there's a much greater chance for current and future relational failures, and the quality of life diminished. (Jim Benefield MFT)
At a Rachel's Hope retreat, each woman hears about how others have experienced some similar feelings associated with an abortion, how often relationships dissolve afterwards, and how each tried to cope with their loss, shame and guilt. Each discover they are not alone, and that others can understand their pain. A group retreat is much more cost-effective than individual therapy. Although, there are some who feel they cannot process their pain in a group setting and would rather opt for individual psychotherapy with a therapist trained in post-aborton recovery. (Jim Benefield MFT on staff at Rachel's Hope)
Often life-long friends evolve from the retreat. Initially, most men and women (separate groups) express their fears of the retreat, but afterwards say they are glad they didn't give way to their fears.
'''Ask yourself:'''
Was I generally a much happier person before the abortion? Will I ever experience that joy in living again? Will the secrecy of abortion continue to reinforce a lifestyle of deception with my spouse, with others? Will I bring into relationships any unexplained sadness and displace any of my self-hate, self-anger, self-loathing onto current or future relationships, my children, on family members, resulting in breakups, distancing and isolation? Do I avoid going to church because I do not feel "worthy"? Do I avoid relationships because of fear & pain, shame & guilt? Do I need antidepressant medication to keep me from going "crazy"? If you answered yes on any of these you would benefit from a retreat. (858) 581-3022

Brenda Major

2011-05-29T03:39:44Z

Spam cleanup script: Cleaning up links to www.merchantos.com

== Biography ==

*Brenda N. Major is a professor of psychology at UC Santa Barbara[http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/people/faculty/major/] and was the chair of the [[APA Abortion Report|APA's Task Force on Abotion and Mental Health]] and lead author of that report. [[Nancy Russo]] was also a member of the APA Task Force.

*She is also a member of the APA "Society for the Psychology of Women (Division 35)<ref name="Bvitae">http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/~major/lab/vita.html Curriculum Vitae Brenda Major, Ph.D.]</ref> which describes its mission as serving the ideological ends of feminism by means of providing "an organizational base for all feminists, women and men of all national origins, who are interested in teaching, research, or practice in the psychology of women."[http://www.apa.org/about/division/div35.html]

*She is also an advisor to the post-abortion counseling group called Exhale<ref name="Bvitae" /> which has served 15,000 women seeking post-abortion counseling.[http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_abortion_counseling_conundrum]

:Exhale receives funding it from two politically pro-choice donors. The Women's Foundation of California "work(s) to strengthen the capacity of reproductive health and rights organizations in California, protect existing reproductive rights, [and] promote policies that increase access to care and to abortion." The Third Wave Foundation also found the hotline met their criteria for "award[ing] grants to support the training of new abortion providers, increasing access to reproductive healthcare services…and reproductive…education."<ref>http://www.womensfoundca.org/grantmaking_programs.htmlfckLRhttp://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/899 fckLRhttp://www.thirdwavefoundation.org/programs/repro_rights.html </ref>

:Women's eNewsletter wrote that Exhale’s "monthly budget [is] "$500…for phones, brochures and office space," but their annual operating budget is either “$200,000” or "$250,000"<ref>http://www.insidebayarea.com/dailyreview/localnews/ci_2769183</ref>

*Major has published a number of studies on abortion with an emphasis on attributing negative psychological effects of abortion with lack of social support and stigma caused by anti-abortion protests. In violation of APA ethics rules on data sharing, however, she has refused to allow other researchers to examine her data despite accusations that she has misrepresented and selectively reported her findings.<ref name="ertelt1"> Steven Ertelt &lt;http://www.lifenews.com/nat4135.html Researcher: APA Chair Withholding Info on Abortion's Mental Health Risks&gt; LifeNews.com August 15, 2008</ref>

== List of Major's Studies Regarding Abortion and Mental Health ==

*Major B, Mueller P, Hildebrandt K. Attributions, expectations, and coping with abortion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985;48:585-599.

*Major, B. et al. (1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 186-197.

*Major, B., & Cozzarelli, C. (1992). Psychological predictors of adjustment to abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 121-142.

*Major, B., Zubek, J. M., Cooper, M. L., Cozzarelli, C., & Richards, C. (1997). Mixed Messages: Implications of social conflict and social support within close relationships for adjustment to a stressful life event. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1349-1363.

*Major B, Richards C, Cooper ML et al: Personal resilience, cognitive appraisals, and coping: An integrative model of adjustment to abortion. J Person Soc Psychol, 1998; 74: 735752

*Major, B. & Gramzow, R.H. (1999). Abortion as a stigma: Cognitive and emotional implications of concealment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(4), 735-745.

*Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper, M.L., Zubek, J., Richards, C., Wilhite, M., & Gramzow, R.H. (2000). [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10920466?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion.] Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(8), 777-84. [http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/57/8/777 Full Text]

== Criticism of Major's Spin on Her Findings ==

Quote from Reardon Letter regarding Study by Brenda Major.<ref>David Reardon. [http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38623.532384.55v1 Study Fails to Address Our Previous Findings and Subject to Misleading Interpretations] BMJ.com (1 November 2005) fckLR</ref>

:This brings me back to the original purpose of our study which was to investigate the hypothesis [of Brenda Major] that the previously observed increased risk of depression following abortion might be inconsequential compared to equal or higher rates of depression that might be associated with giving birth to an unintended child..<ref name="four" /> While our original short report did not provide room for this discussion, I will offer it here.

:In a follow-up study of 442 women who had abortions, researchers [Brenda Major's team] tracked depression scores using the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI) one hour post-abortion, one month post-abortion, and two years post-abortion.<ref name="four">Major B, Cozzarelli C, Cooper ML et al: Psychological responses of women after first trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psych, 2000; 57(8): 777-84.</ref><ref name="five">Cozzarelli, C., Major, B., Karrasch, A., &amp; Fuegen, K. (2000). Women’s experiences of and reactions to antiabortion picketing. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 2000;22:265-275. </ref> At the two year follow-up, approximately 50% of the women either refused to participate in the follow-up evaluation or could not be contacted. Among those who did participate in the two year post-abortion assessment, depression scores were significantly higher than their one hour post-abortion scores, though higher one hour post-abortion scores were also significantly predictive of higher depression scores two years later.<ref name="five" />

:In addition to these important findings, the researchers found that 24.5% of the women remaining in their sample at the two-year followup had scores above the cutoff for clinical depression on the BSI depression scale.<ref name="five" />

:Curiously, rather than registering alarm, the researchers’ erroneously asserted that the depression rate detected in their study was only slightly over that of American women in general by reference to a study of national prevalence conducted by Blazer, Kessler, McGonagle, and Swartz,<ref name="Blazer" /> which indicated a 20% lifetime prevalence rate of major depression among women 15-35 years of age. The reason this was assertion was erroneous is that the researchers mistakenly compared their scores for depression in the most recent month to Blazer’s findings regarding lifetime prevalence rates. Fortunately, Blazer’s group also reported the prevalence of current (30 day) major depression for females aged 15-24 and 25-34, as 8.2% and 4.3% respectively.<ref name="Blazer">Blazer DG, Kessler RC, McGonagle KA, Swartz MS. The prevalence and distribution of major depression in a national community sample: The National Comorbidity Survey. American Journal of Psychiatry. 1994; 151, 979-986. [http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/151/7/979?ijkey=3f9906ac0d170707f53e1aa2124d6d6c1dd3d2a2&amp;keytype2=tf_ipsecsha Full Copy - Free]</ref> Thus, when the proper comparison is made for most recent month depression rates, these follow-up abortion studies<ref name="four" /><ref name="five" /> [by Brenda Major] actually found that depression rates two years after abortion were 3 to 5 times higher among women who have had an abortion compared to the general population of similarly aged women.

:In my opinion, this finding that one-fourth of women two years after their abortion had high depression scores should have motivated the researchers to encourage more detailed pre-abortion screening and post-abortion counseling. But curiously, the authors appeared to generally dismiss the importance of their own findings on the basis of the hypothesis that giving birth to an unwanted pregnancy would likely incur equal or greater psychological price,<ref name="four" /> a theme echoed by Schmiege and Russo.<ref>Schmiege S, Russo NF. Depression and unwanted first pregnancy: longitudinal cohort study</ref> This is an extremely important hypothesis, but it is also a hypothesis, which up to that point, had never been tested. In the most recent, comprehensive review of the literature on emotional reactions to abortion and future research priorities,<ref>Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Strahan T, Cougle JR. The psychology of abortion: a review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health 2005; 20(2):237-271.</ref> the absence of studies examining psychological adjustment following an unintended pregnancy using control groups (comparing those who abort to those who carry to term) is identified as a major shortcoming of the existing literature. Our original study appears to be the first to employ this very appropriate control group.<ref>Reardon DC, Cougle JR. Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study. British Medical Journal. 2002; 324:151-2. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/324/7330/151 </ref> We have continued to pursue this direction with two other studies that have compared the psychological wellbeing of women who carry unintended pregnancies to term with women who have abortions: one finding higher risk of long-term generalized anxiety disorder among women who abort<ref>Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK. Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: a cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. J Anxiety Disord. 2005;19(1):137-42.</ref> and the other finding higher rates of substance abuse.<ref>Reardon DC, Coleman PK, Cougle JR. Substance use associated with unintended pregnancy outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Am. J. Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2004; 26(1):369 - 383.</ref>

== Brenda Major Dismisses Women's Self-Assessment of Post-Abortion Distress ==

Brenda Major believes the testimonies of thousands of women who attributed their depression, anxiety, or other issues related to abortion can and should be dismissed. This is like saying women who have been raped can't be trusted when they say their psychiatric symptoms are due to their rapes...after all, it could be because they suffered bad potty training at the hands of an unloving mother, and they just wrongly attribute it to rape. See [[Letters to APA Regarding Task Force on Abortion]] for an excellent response to this favorite abortion trauma denier's argument.

Here Brenda Major explaining in her own words why we shouldn't trust women's own explanations for post-abortion grief and trauma:

:First, Reardon falsely implies that “a causal link between abortion and depression is strongly supported [by the self-attribution of women who have been interviewed about their psychological reactions to abortion and also by clinical experience of counselors who have successfully treated post-abortion depression],” and cites studies of women who have been interviewed about their psychological reactions to abortion to support his claim. The studies he cites, however, are not based on representative samples of women who have had abortions, but rather on biased samples of women who have self-identified as feeling depressed resulting from abortion. Responses of these women cannot be generalized to the general population of women who have abortions. ''Even if these samples were representative, however, responses to these interviews would not establish a causal link between abortion and depression. Strong evidence exists that people can perceive a causal connection between events in their lives when none in fact exists. The infamous witchcraft trials of Salem, MA, in which young women came to believe that physical symptoms they were experiencing were caused by witchcraft, provide a compelling example of this fallacy.''<ref> Brenda Major[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/bmj.38623.532384.55v1#125912 Reardon Response to Russo and Schmeige Misleads by Omission and Commission&gt; BMJ (14 January 2006) </ref> (emphasis added)

She doesn't make a distinction between people blaming witches for their nightmares and people blaming their abortions. Major seems to think that both bad witches and bad abortions are figments of one's imagination. Using the same reasoning, the rapist can insist that his victim actually enjoyed it and is just trying to blame her other mental problems on him because she can't '''prove''' the causal connection between the rape and her problems. For the PAS-deniers, this is a great dodge since you can never prove a causal connection between any experience and one's psychological well being.

Furthermore, you will note that Major never acknowledges that it is up to those who favor abortion to demonstrate a ''causal'' connection between abortion and it's hoped for benefits. In fact, other than the vaguely defined feeling of "relief," few if any benefits have been found to be even statistically associated with abortion, much less proven to be benefits 'caused' by abortion.

In addition, Major's lack of concern for accuracy is demonstrated by her very inaccurate description of the studies cited by Reardon in regard to the quote she truncated and criticized. Not even one of the four citations he used were employed "samples of women who have self-identified as feeling depressed resulting from abortion." The Rue study, for example, was based on questionnaires given to women with any history of pregnancy loss and did not employ without self-identification of negative reactions to abortion as part of the selection process nor did it even examine depression.<ref>Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15448616 Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women.] Med Sci Monit, 2004 10(10): SR5-16.</ref> This lack of precision is typical of idealogues for whom the idea is more important than the facts. By ignoring Reardon's citations, and instead attacking the existence of other evidence (self-reports), she is attacking a straw man of her own creation in an effort to promote the ideological idea that the 'only' evidence of negative reactions post-abortions is from self-reports.

== Refusal to Share Data Violates APA Ethics Rules and May Conceal Truth ==

The refusal to share raw data regarding global warming, and the the subsequent "loss" of that data<ref>[http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM= The Dog Ate Global WarmingfckLR]</ref> <ref>[http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece Climate change data dumped] - Times Online Nov 29, 2009 </ref><ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/13/cru_missing/] See also emails regarding the data, [http://michellemalkin.com/2009/06/24/the-climate-change-e-mails-epa-doesnt-want-you-to-see/] and [http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2009/11/25/browner-shrugs-off-hot-debate-on-climate-change-emails/] and [http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response] </ref> points to the problem of how politically motivated scientists may be tempted to protect their interpretation of data by hiding the data from examination by others.

Brenda Major's has similarly refused to share data from her studies even when the data was requested by the Department of Health and Human Services.[http://www.scribd.com/doc/4558993/Brenda-Major-Evades-HHS-Abortion-Data-Request]The withholding of data from other researchers is a violation of APA ethics rule 8.14.[http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#8_14][http://wthrockmorton.com/tag/brenda-major/][http://wthrockmorton.com/tag/apa-mental-health-and-abortion-task-force/][http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/aug/08081307.html][http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=13542]

== Major's Washington Post Editorial ==

Major wrote an editorial for the ''Washington Post'' [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/05/AR2010110507322.html The big lie about abortion and mental health].

===Priscilla Coleman's Response===
Unfathomable Lies and a Naive Public: Abortion and Mental Health
Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D.

On Sunday November 7th, the Washington Post published an opinion by Dr.
Brenda Major titled "The Big Lie about Abortion and Mental Health." I would like to offer
another perspective on dishonesty permeating the scientific study and dissemination
of information pertaining to abortion and mental health.

Dr. Major is absolutely correct; an informed choice regarding abortion must
be based on accurate information. For abortion providers to offer an
unbiased and valid synopsis of the scientific literature on increased risks
of abortion, the information must include depression, substance abuse, and
anxiety disorders, including Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), as well
as suicide ideation and behaviors. Over 30 studies have been published in
just the last 5 years and they add to a body of literature comprised of
hundreds of studies published in major medicine and psychology journals
throughout the world. The list is provided below and the conscientious
reader is encouraged to check the studies out. No lies...just
scientifically derived information that individual academics, several major
professional organizations, and abortion providers have done their best to
hide and distort in recent years.

Like Brenda Major, I too am a tenured, full professor at a well-respected
U.S. University and I too have published peer-reviewed scientific articles
in reputable journals. In fact, my publication record far exceeds that of
Dr. Major on the topic of abortion and mental health. I am not alone in my
opinion, which has been voiced by prominent researchers in Great Britain,
Norway, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa, the U.S., and elsewhere. As a
group of researchers, who in 2008 had published nearly 50 peer-reviewed
articles indicating abortion is associated with negative psychological
outcomes, 6 colleagues and I sent a petition letter to the American
Psychological Association (APA) criticizing their methods and conclusions
as described in their Task Force Report on Abortion and Mental Health.

The opinion piece by Brenda Major following on the heels of the highly
biased APA report is just the latest effort to divert attention from a
tidal wave of sound published data on the emotional consequences of
abortion. The evidence is accumulating despite socio-political agendas to
keep the truth from the academic journals and ultimately from women to
insure that the big business of abortion continues unimpeded. The
literature now echoes the voices of millions of women for whom abortion was
not a liberating, health promoting choice. A conservative estimate from the
best available data is 20 to 30 percent of women who undergo an abortion
will experience serious and/or prolonged negative consequences.

Any interpretation of the available research that does not acknowledge the
strong evidence now available in the professional literature represents a
conscious choice to ignore basic principles of scientific integrity. The
human fallout to such a choice by the APA and like-minded colleagues is
misinformed professionals, millions of women struggling in isolation to
make sense of a past abortion, thousands who will seek an abortion today
without the benefit of known risks, and millions who will make this often
life altering decision tomorrow without the basic right of informed
consent, which is routinely extended for all other elective surgeries in
the U.S. In publishing Major's opinion without soliciting other voices on
the topic, the Washington Post has perpetuated a serious injustice.

* Bradshaw, Z., & Slade, P. (2005). The relationship between induced
abortion, attitudes toward sexuality, and sexual problems. Sexual and
Relationship Therapy, 20, 390-406.
* Brockington, I.F. (2005). Post-abortion psychosis, Archives of
Women's Mental Health 8: 53-54.
* Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2006).
Predictors of anxiety and depression following pregnancy termination: A
longitudinal five-year follow-up study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica
Scandinavica 85: 317-23.
* Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). Reasons
for induced abortion and their relation to women's emotional distress: A
prospective, two-year follow-up study. General Hospital Psychiatry 27:
36-43.
* Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005). The
course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: a
longitudinal, five-year follow-up study. BMC Medicine 3(18).
* Coleman, P. K. (2005). Induced Abortion and increased risk of
substance use: A review of the evidence. Current Women's Health Reviews 1,
21-34.
* Coleman, P. K. (2006). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during
adolescence through abortion versus childbirth: Individual and family
predictors and psychological consequences. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 35, 903-911.
* Coleman, P. K. (2009). The Psychological Pain of Perinatal Loss and
Subsequent Parenting Risks: Could Induced Abortion be more Problematic than
Other Forms of Loss? Current Women's Health Reviews, 5, 88-99.
* Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C. T., & Rue, V.M. (2010). Late-Term Elective
Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms, Journal of
Pregnancy, vol. 2010, Article ID 130519.
* Coleman, P. K., Coyle, C.T., Shuping, M., & Rue, V. (2009), Induced
Abortion and Anxiety, Mood, and Substance Abuse Disorders: Isolating the
Effects of Abortion in the National Comorbidity Survey. Journal of
Psychiatric Research, 43, 770- 776.
* Coleman, P. K., Maxey, C. D., Rue, V. M., & Coyle, C. T. (2005).
Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and
child maltreatment among low-income mothers. Acta Paediatrica, 94
(10),--76-1483.
* Coleman, P. K., & Maxey, D. C., Spence, M. Nixon, C. (2009). The
choice to abort among mothers living under ecologically deprived
conditions: Predictors and consequences. International Journal of Mental
Health and Addiction 7, 405-422.
* Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. R. (2005). Substance use
among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and
desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10 (2),
255-268.
* Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. R. (2005).
The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research.
Psychology and Health, 20, 237-271.
* Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M. & Coyle, C.T. (2009). Induced abortion and
intimate relationship quality in the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey.
Public Health, 123, 331-338.DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2009.01.005.
* Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Coyle, C.T. & Maxey, C.D. (2007). Induced
abortion and child-directed aggression among mothers of maltreated
children. Internet Journal of Pediatrics and Neonatology, 6 (2), ISSN:
1528-8374.
* Coleman, P. K., Rue, V., & Spence, M. (2007). Intrapersonal processes
and post-abortion relationship difficulties: A review and consolidation
of relevant literature. Internet Journal of Mental Health, 4 (2).
* Coleman, P.K., Rue, V.M., Spence, M. & Coyle, C.T. (2008). Abortion
and the sexual lives of men and women: Is casual sexual behavior more
appealing and more common after abortion? International Journal of Health
and Clinical Psychology, 8 (1), 77-91.
* Cougle, J. R., Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2005). Generalized
anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and
abortion: A cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth.
Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142.
* Coyle, C.T., Coleman, P.K. & Rue, V.M. (2010). Inadequate preabortion
counseling and decision conflict as predictors of subsequent relationship
difficulties and psychological stress in men and women. Traumatology, 16
(1), 16-30. DOI:10.1177/1534765609347550.
* Dingle, K., et al. (2008). Pregnancy loss and psychiatric disorders
in young women: An Australian birth cohort study. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 193, 455-460.
* Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Boden, J.M. (2009). Reactions to
abortion and subsequent mental health. The British Journal of Psychiatry,
195, 420-426.
* Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2006). Abortion in
young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 47, 16-24.
* Gissler, M., et al. (2005). Injury deaths, suicides and homicides
associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000. European Journal of Public
Health, 15, 459-463.
* Hemmerling, F., Siedentoff, F., & Kentenich, H. (2005). Emotional
impact and acceptability of medical abortion with mifepristone: A German
experience. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26, 23-31.
* Mota, N.P. et al (2010). Associations between abortion, mental
disorders, and suicidal behaviors in a nationally representative sample.
The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4), 239-246.
* Pedersen, W. (2008). Abortion and depression: A population-based
longitudinal study of young women. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health,
36, No. 4, 424-428.
* Pedersen, W. (2007). Childbirth, abortion and subsequent substance
use in young women: a population-based longitudinal study. Addiction, 102
(12), 1971-78.
* Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2006). Relative treatment for sleep
disorders following abortion and child delivery: A prospective record-based
study. Sleep, 29 (1), 105-106.
* Rees, D. I. & Sabia, J. J. (2007). The Relationship between Abortion
and Depression: New Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing
Study. Medical Science Monitor. 13(10): 430-436.
* Suliman et al. (2007) Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and
psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of
pregnancy under local anaesthesia versus intravenous sedation. BMC
Psychiatry, 7 (24), p.1-9.

== References ==
<div class="references-small" style="-moz-column-count:2; column-count:2;">
<references />
</div>
<br> <references />

[[Category:Commentary]][[Category:Critique]][[Category:Pro-Abortion_Leaders]][[Category:Persons_of_Note]]

It's Not About Choice

2011-05-29T03:39:41Z

Spam cleanup script: Cleaning up links to www.research-service.com

If you're like me, you're tired of people claiming that the abortion debate is about choice. "I have the right to choose!" they cry.

Yes, you do have the right to choose. Everyone has the God-given right to make a choice about anything. But whether you have the right to choose anything is not the issue--the real issue is whether the choice is a valid one, whether it's right or wrong.

I have the right to choose whether or not to steal, or to vandalize someone else's property. I'm sure the vast majority would agree that theft and vandalism are wrong. These things are illegal because these actions infringe on the rights of others.

The same goes for abortion. Sure, you have the right to choose whether or not to kill an innocent unborn human being. But it's never the right choice. It infringes on the right of another person--that child's God-given right to life.

Roe v Wade is unconstitutional because it violates the Fifth and Tenth Amendments. The Fifth Amendment states that one cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process. The Tenth Amendment has to do with states' rights--Roe is basically a federal power grab, striking down states' laws against abortion.

The job of the government is to safeguard people's God-given rights, which are enumerated by the Constitution. This includes the right to life.

--[[User:Alexandra | Alexandra Spears]]