Munk-Olsen et al - Revision history

WikiSysop: /* Criticisms */

2024-04-17T13:32:08Z

Criticisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:32, 17 April 2024
Line 20:		Line 20:

	====Criticisms====		====Criticisms====
			# When the data is reanalyzed to examine the effects over nine to twelve months, the elevated rates of psychiatric treatments following abortion are significantly higher than those prior to the abortion. [https://zenodo.org/records/10786350 This finding was hidden by the authors] by applying their comparisons to only monthly rates instead of cumulative rates.
			# The study was funded by the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, which has a principle interest in [https://www.philanthropyroundtable.org/almanac/buffett-billions-for-abortion/ expanding abortion for purposes of population control].
	# The opening paragraph and last sentence of the abstract underscore that the goal of this study is is to influence abortion politics. This, itself, is a forewarning that the conclusions are overly broad and exceed what is actually reported in the analyses.		# The opening paragraph and last sentence of the abstract underscore that the goal of this study is is to influence abortion politics. This, itself, is a forewarning that the conclusions are overly broad and exceed what is actually reported in the analyses.
	# The study is flawed by the lack of any analysis relative to exposure to miscarriage and other unintended pregnancy losses. Numerous other studies have shown that spontaneous abortion is important bench mark for comparison of outcomes relative to induced abortion.		# The study is flawed by the lack of any analysis relative to exposure to miscarriage and other unintended pregnancy losses. Numerous other studies have shown that spontaneous abortion is important bench mark for comparison of outcomes relative to induced abortion.

WikiSysop: /* References */

2024-02-22T19:09:23Z

References

@@ Line 538: / Line 538: @@
 *Her analysis included tabulations of the number of average number of consultations women had with their physicians displayed over a monthly basis for over three years.  In response to a query for this type of measurement of frequency of contact for psychiatric care after abortion, she had previously claimed it was too hard to do and might be misleading.
 *These criticisms were raised in a [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750743/ letter to the editor which was published].  Munk-Olsen declined the opportunity to respond.
 == References ==
 {{reflist|refs=}}

Barb: /* Anti-Depressants Study */

2019-06-13T18:28:10Z

Anti-Depressants Study

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:28, 13 June 2019
Line 413:		Line 413:
	:CONCLUSION: We found that the prevalence of redeemed prescriptions for antidepressants decreased during pregnancy and increased postpartum. Similar patterns were observed for contacts with private practicing psychiatrists and psychologists.		:CONCLUSION: We found that the prevalence of redeemed prescriptions for antidepressants decreased during pregnancy and increased postpartum. Similar patterns were observed for contacts with private practicing psychiatrists and psychologists.

	:Remarks: This study is deeply flawed by the following major factors: (1) It excludes women under 18; (2) It ignores the effects of multiple abortions; (3) It looks only at first time prescription of antidepressants, thereby failing to investigate the frequency, dosage level, and duration of depressive symptoms, much less how women with a prior history of depression may be made better or worse by exposure to abortion. All it really tells us is that the "type" of woman most likely to have a pregnancy for which she may seek an abortion is more likely than women who do not have abortions to be prone to depression. It does not tell us if abortion worsens or improves her condition. It is only argued (irrationally) that since women who have abortions are more likely to be prone to depression we can ignore the effects of abortion, or more precisely, that abortion therefore CANNOT be a contributing factor to abortion.		:Remarks: This study is deeply flawed by the following major factors: (1) It excludes women under 18; (2) It ignores the effects of multiple abortions; (3) It looks only at first time prescription of antidepressants, thereby failing to investigate the frequency, dosage level, and duration of depressive symptoms, much less how women with a prior history of depression may be made better or worse by exposure to abortion. All it really tells us is that the "type" of woman most likely to have a pregnancy for which she may seek an abortion is more likely than women who do not have abortions to be prone to depression. It does not tell us if abortion worsens or improves her condition. It is only argued (irrationally) that since women who have abortions are more likely to be prone to depression we can ignore the effects of abortion, or more precisely, that abortion therefore CANNOT be a contributing factor to abortion. See additional [[http://abortionrisks.org/index.php?title=Munk-Olsen_et_al#Criticisms detailed listing of problems here.]]

	'''Request for Additional Analysis (Refused)'''		'''Request for Additional Analysis (Refused)'''

Barb: /* Anti-Depressants Study */

2019-06-10T16:54:41Z

Anti-Depressants Study

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:54, 10 June 2019
Line 412:		Line 412:

	:CONCLUSION: We found that the prevalence of redeemed prescriptions for antidepressants decreased during pregnancy and increased postpartum. Similar patterns were observed for contacts with private practicing psychiatrists and psychologists.		:CONCLUSION: We found that the prevalence of redeemed prescriptions for antidepressants decreased during pregnancy and increased postpartum. Similar patterns were observed for contacts with private practicing psychiatrists and psychologists.

			:Remarks: This study is deeply flawed by the following major factors: (1) It excludes women under 18; (2) It ignores the effects of multiple abortions; (3) It looks only at first time prescription of antidepressants, thereby failing to investigate the frequency, dosage level, and duration of depressive symptoms, much less how women with a prior history of depression may be made better or worse by exposure to abortion. All it really tells us is that the "type" of woman most likely to have a pregnancy for which she may seek an abortion is more likely than women who do not have abortions to be prone to depression. It does not tell us if abortion worsens or improves her condition. It is only argued (irrationally) that since women who have abortions are more likely to be prone to depression we can ignore the effects of abortion, or more precisely, that abortion therefore CANNOT be a contributing factor to abortion.

	'''Request for Additional Analysis (Refused)'''		'''Request for Additional Analysis (Refused)'''
Line 447:		Line 449:

	----		----


	===Psychiatric disorders following fetal death: a population-based cohort study.===		===Psychiatric disorders following fetal death: a population-based cohort study.===

Barb: /* Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study */

2018-06-07T16:15:19Z

Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:15, 7 June 2018
Line 378:		Line 378:
	====='''Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study'''=====		====='''Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study'''=====

	Munk-Olsen's failure to account for prior abortion history in this study is underscored by a new study in the ~~Journal~~ of Affective Disorders, in which researchers found that 42.4 percent of the women with bipolar disorders had a history of abortion compared to only 13.5 percent of the control group, with a relative risk of 1.9778 (95% CI, 1.2660-3.0900). (Marengo E, Martino DJ, Igoa A, Scápola M, Fassi G, Baamonde MU, Strejilevich SA. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25827504 Unplanned pregnancies and reproductive health among women with bipolar disorder.] J Affect Disord. 2015 Jun 1;178:201-5.)		Munk-Olsen's failure to account for prior abortion history in this study is underscored by a new study in the J''ournal of Affective Disorders'', in which researchers found that 42.4 percent of the women with bipolar disorders had a history of abortion compared to only 13.5 percent of the control group, with a relative risk of 1.9778 (95% CI, 1.2660-3.0900). (Marengo E, Martino DJ, Igoa A, Scápola M, Fassi G, Baamonde MU, Strejilevich SA. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25827504 Unplanned pregnancies and reproductive health among women with bipolar disorder.] J Affect Disord. 2015 Jun 1;178:201-5.)

Barb: /* Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study */

2018-06-07T16:14:52Z

Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:14, 7 June 2018
Line 378:		Line 378:
	====='''Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study'''=====		====='''Oversight of Bipolar Disorder Link to Abortion Demonstrated by Subsequent 2015 Study'''=====

	Munk-Olsen's failure to account for prior abortion history in this study is underscored by a new study in the Journal of Affective Disorders, in which researchers found that 42.4 percent of the women with bipolar disorders had a history of abortion compared to only 13.5 percent of the control group. (Marengo E, Martino DJ, Igoa A, Scápola M, Fassi G, Baamonde MU, Strejilevich SA. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25827504 Unplanned pregnancies and reproductive health among women with bipolar disorder.] J Affect Disord. 2015 Jun 1;178:201-5.)		Munk-Olsen's failure to account for prior abortion history in this study is underscored by a new study in the Journal of Affective Disorders, in which researchers found that 42.4 percent of the women with bipolar disorders had a history of abortion compared to only 13.5 percent of the control group, with a relative risk of 1.9778 (95% CI, 1.2660-3.0900). (Marengo E, Martino DJ, Igoa A, Scápola M, Fassi G, Baamonde MU, Strejilevich SA. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25827504 Unplanned pregnancies and reproductive health among women with bipolar disorder.] J Affect Disord. 2015 Jun 1;178:201-5.)

Barb: /* Criticisms */

2018-06-06T17:30:32Z

Criticisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:30, 6 June 2018
Line 47:		Line 47:
	# They then write: "Finally, the differences in rates of antidepressant use between women who had an abortion and women who did not have an abortion were substantially reduced when adjusted for earlier mental health conditions, parental mental health conditions, parental educational level, and physical health. This suggests that, compared with women who do not have an abortion, women who have an abortion may be at higher risk of depression after undergoing the procedure because they were at higher risk to begin with." Again, their study was limited to only first time use of antidepressants. But more importantly, even if women having abortions are more prone to experiencing depression due to pre-existing reasons, this does not exclude the possibility, nor justify ignoring the probability, that abortion can trigger, complicate, or prolong mental health issues.		# They then write: "Finally, the differences in rates of antidepressant use between women who had an abortion and women who did not have an abortion were substantially reduced when adjusted for earlier mental health conditions, parental mental health conditions, parental educational level, and physical health. This suggests that, compared with women who do not have an abortion, women who have an abortion may be at higher risk of depression after undergoing the procedure because they were at higher risk to begin with." Again, their study was limited to only first time use of antidepressants. But more importantly, even if women having abortions are more prone to experiencing depression due to pre-existing reasons, this does not exclude the possibility, nor justify ignoring the probability, that abortion can trigger, complicate, or prolong mental health issues.
	# Their last word: "Consequently, policies based on the notion that having an abortion harms women’s mental health may be misinformed." Here, the verb "may" is misplaced. The "the notion that having an abortion ''may'' harm women's mental health" is actually supported by the very limited data reported in this study. This study verifies that women who have abortions experience higher rates of depression compared to delivering and non-pregnant women. Due to the superficial nature of this study, looking at first time antidepressants alone and lacking any breakdown of subsequent mental health changes among the women who did have pre-existing mental health issues, it sheds no light at all on how much abortion may contribute to the increased risk of mental health problems observed following abortion. Indeed, given the incorrect statements made in the conclusion of this paper, and the poor study design, the assertions made by the authors are clearly misleading or misinformed.		# Their last word: "Consequently, policies based on the notion that having an abortion harms women’s mental health may be misinformed." Here, the verb "may" is misplaced. The "the notion that having an abortion ''may'' harm women's mental health" is actually supported by the very limited data reported in this study. This study verifies that women who have abortions experience higher rates of depression compared to delivering and non-pregnant women. Due to the superficial nature of this study, looking at first time antidepressants alone and lacking any breakdown of subsequent mental health changes among the women who did have pre-existing mental health issues, it sheds no light at all on how much abortion may contribute to the increased risk of mental health problems observed following abortion. Indeed, given the incorrect statements made in the conclusion of this paper, and the poor study design, the assertions made by the authors are clearly misleading or misinformed.
			# Notably, the authors cite only two references with data or arguments favoring an association between abortion and depression. One is a metanalysis that is broadly focused and the other is a 1992 paper that obviously did not have access to any of the studies published since 1992. In short, the authors fail to fairly present their study in light of the existing literature and simply ignore evidence that would underscore that their methodology and conclusions are superficial and misleading.

	==Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder.==		==Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder.==

Barb: /* Criticisms */

2018-06-01T18:35:11Z

Criticisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:35, 1 June 2018
Line 20:		Line 20:

	====Criticisms====		====Criticisms====
	# The abstract ~~makes clear~~ that the ~~focus~~ of this study is ~~political~~. As a ~~result,~~ the conclusions are overly broad and exceed the ~~actual analysis and findings support~~.		# The opening paragraph and last sentence of the abstract underscore that the goal of this study is is to influence abortion politics. This, itself, is a forewarning that the conclusions are overly broad and exceed what is actually reported in the analyses.
	# The study is flawed by the lack of an analysis relative to exposure to miscarriage and other unintended pregnancy losses. Numerous other studies have shown that spontaneous abortion is important bench mark for comparison of outcomes relative to induced abortion.		# The study is flawed by the lack of any analysis relative to exposure to miscarriage and other unintended pregnancy losses. Numerous other studies have shown that spontaneous abortion is important bench mark for comparison of outcomes relative to induced abortion.
	# The study is fundamentally flawed by the lack of any analyses regarding the dose effects associated with exposure to multiple abortions . . . and even multiple natural pregnancy losses. Both repeat abortions and miscarriages are associated with higher incidence rates of adverse outcomes. This omission is especially important in regard to longer term analyses, which this study purports to offer by examining first time antidepressant use over five years after a first pregnancy outcome. For example, women who carried a first pregnancy to term, for example, but then had two or three pregnancy losses in the subsequent years, are presented and analyzed as if they had only one pregnancy outcome.		# The study is fundamentally flawed by the lack of any analyses regarding the dose effects associated with exposure to multiple abortions . . . and even multiple natural pregnancy losses. Both repeat abortions and miscarriages are associated with higher incidence rates of adverse outcomes. This omission is especially important in regard to longer term analyses, which this study purports to offer by examining first time antidepressant use over five years after a first pregnancy outcome. For example, women who carried a first pregnancy to term, for example, but then had two or three pregnancy losses in the subsequent years, are presented and analyzed as if they had only one pregnancy outcome.
	# Another fundamental flaw is that the study examines only first time antidepressant use. Clearly, an analysis of how long antidepressants were used, once they began to be used, would provide a better understanding of the duration of depressive symptoms before and after a pregnancy outcome. Such an analysis would be especially important to examine the effects of pregnancy (abortion or delivery) one women whose first use of antidepressants was prior to the abortion or delivery. One would hypothesize that if pregnancy outcome has an effect on mental health, than those who already have depression prior to a pregnancy outcome should be analyzed separately to investigate if their symptoms persist for a longer or shorter period, following the pregnancy outcome.		# Another fundamental flaw is that the study examines only first time antidepressant use. Clearly, an analysis of how long antidepressants were used, once they began to be used, would provide a better understanding of the duration of depressive symptoms before and after a pregnancy outcome. Such an analysis would be especially important to examine the effects of pregnancy (abortion or delivery) one women whose first use of antidepressants was prior to the abortion or delivery. One would hypothesize that if pregnancy outcome has an effect on mental health, than those who already have depression prior to a pregnancy outcome should be analyzed separately to investigate if their symptoms persist for a longer or shorter period, following the pregnancy outcome.

Barb: /* Risk of First Time use of Anti-Depressants after First Abortion or Delivery */

2018-06-01T18:32:19Z

Risk of First Time use of Anti-Depressants after First Abortion or Delivery

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:32, 1 June 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
	<br>		<br>

	==Risk of First Time use of Anti-Depressants after First Abortion or Delivery==		==Risk of First Time use of Anti-Depressants after First Abortion or Delivery (2018)==

Barb: /* Criticisms */

2018-06-01T18:31:55Z

Criticisms

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:31, 1 June 2018
Line 40:		Line 40:
	# A major premise of the authors' analysis is that women neatly fit into two categories: those who abort, those who give birth. More specifically, all women who have abortions are cut from the same cloth. Therefore, a finding of higher first use of antidepressants in the group of women in the year prior to having abortions "proves" that all women having abortions are more prone to depression whether or not they get pregnant and abort. More specifically, the authors are arguing that the elevated rate of first antidepressant use in the first year after an abortion (compared to non-pregnant and delivering women) is entirely explained by pre-existing mental health troubles among women who have abortions. But clearly, this is stretching one small data point into an over generalization. These women are individuals. For example, Ruth and Beth both had abortions. If Ruth first used an antidepressant eight months before her abortion, that tells us nothing about Beth. It certainly doesn't prove that if Beth seeks an antidepressant specifically because she is struggling with unwanted thoughts about her abortion that she is wrong...it is likely she would have sought antidepressants for some other reason because that is the "type of women," like Ruth, that she is. This study is simply too shallow. The analysis would be much more convincing if instead of using a single pre-pregnancy measure (first time use of antidepressants) the authors had used ''all of their mental health measures'', including the CCI score and the annual number of antidepressant prescriptions, to show that while Ruth and Beth had a different start date for their first use of an antidepressant, they had similar CCI scores, for example, and a similar duration for using antidepressants. Even better, the author's should have provided data showing how all of these mental health variables changed over time following each pregnancy outcome (not just first pregnancy outcome, but all subsequent combinations of pregnancy outcomes) in order to help us better judge the duration, complexity, and intensity of subsequent mental health problems associated with pregnancy outcomes.		# A major premise of the authors' analysis is that women neatly fit into two categories: those who abort, those who give birth. More specifically, all women who have abortions are cut from the same cloth. Therefore, a finding of higher first use of antidepressants in the group of women in the year prior to having abortions "proves" that all women having abortions are more prone to depression whether or not they get pregnant and abort. More specifically, the authors are arguing that the elevated rate of first antidepressant use in the first year after an abortion (compared to non-pregnant and delivering women) is entirely explained by pre-existing mental health troubles among women who have abortions. But clearly, this is stretching one small data point into an over generalization. These women are individuals. For example, Ruth and Beth both had abortions. If Ruth first used an antidepressant eight months before her abortion, that tells us nothing about Beth. It certainly doesn't prove that if Beth seeks an antidepressant specifically because she is struggling with unwanted thoughts about her abortion that she is wrong...it is likely she would have sought antidepressants for some other reason because that is the "type of women," like Ruth, that she is. This study is simply too shallow. The analysis would be much more convincing if instead of using a single pre-pregnancy measure (first time use of antidepressants) the authors had used ''all of their mental health measures'', including the CCI score and the annual number of antidepressant prescriptions, to show that while Ruth and Beth had a different start date for their first use of an antidepressant, they had similar CCI scores, for example, and a similar duration for using antidepressants. Even better, the author's should have provided data showing how all of these mental health variables changed over time following each pregnancy outcome (not just first pregnancy outcome, but all subsequent combinations of pregnancy outcomes) in order to help us better judge the duration, complexity, and intensity of subsequent mental health problems associated with pregnancy outcomes.
	# In their discussion, the authors state: "...the risk of depression decreased as more time elapsed after the abortion." In fact, their data only showed a decline in the first time use of antidepressants the farther out one looks from the abortion. But this tells us nothing about the risk of depression over time. If all the women who start using antidepressants following an abortion continue to have depression over two, five or ten years, it is false to assert that "...the risk of depression decreased as more time elapsed after the abortion." In fact, the cumulative number of women who have experienced depression would be always increasing. Only the rate of new cases would be declining, which is quite a different matter. Moreover, it is likely that only a limited percentage of women would be open to taking antidepressants. And others may self medicate with alcohol or drugs. At some point the number of new cases must necessarily decline, but this tells us nothing about he overall incidence rate. That problem could have been easily corrected if the authors had instead used as their outcome variable the number of antidepressants taken per year (or even a measure of dose levels as a proxy for severity). In other words, do women who have a history of abortions take more antidepressant medications per year, on average, (a) compared to women with no history of pregnancy, (b) women who have delivered with no history of abortion, (c) women with a history of miscarriage, and (d) women who have a history of childbirth, abortion, and miscarriage in every combination.		# In their discussion, the authors state: "...the risk of depression decreased as more time elapsed after the abortion." In fact, their data only showed a decline in the first time use of antidepressants the farther out one looks from the abortion. But this tells us nothing about the risk of depression over time. If all the women who start using antidepressants following an abortion continue to have depression over two, five or ten years, it is false to assert that "...the risk of depression decreased as more time elapsed after the abortion." In fact, the cumulative number of women who have experienced depression would be always increasing. Only the rate of new cases would be declining, which is quite a different matter. Moreover, it is likely that only a limited percentage of women would be open to taking antidepressants. And others may self medicate with alcohol or drugs. At some point the number of new cases must necessarily decline, but this tells us nothing about he overall incidence rate. That problem could have been easily corrected if the authors had instead used as their outcome variable the number of antidepressants taken per year (or even a measure of dose levels as a proxy for severity). In other words, do women who have a history of abortions take more antidepressant medications per year, on average, (a) compared to women with no history of pregnancy, (b) women who have delivered with no history of abortion, (c) women with a history of miscarriage, and (d) women who have a history of childbirth, abortion, and miscarriage in every combination.
			# The authors claim: "A close look at the data, however, suggests that the higher rates of antidepressant use had less to do with having an abortion than with other risk factors for depression among women who had an abortion." Again, the data that they have selectively chosen to report does reveal that prior psychiatric illness is a predictor for first time use of antidepressants, but it hardly proves that abortion itself does not also contribute to depression. The plain and evident truth is that their own data proves that women who have abortions will begin to use antidepressants at a much higher rate than women who carry to term and compared to women who did not become pregnant. This finding supports the conclusion that abortion ''may contribute'' to depression rates. Does it prove that abortion is the sole cause of depression in any specific number of case? No. Are other factors, such as prior psychiatric history, likely to be important? Yes. But it is illogical to argue that just because prior psychiatric history is the strongest predictor of first time antidepressant use that abortion never contributes to the onset, duration, or intensity of depression.
			# The authors also claim: "Taking all of these results together, it is possible that mental health problems may lead women to have unintended pregnancies and abortions, as other research has found," citing two studies, neither of which actually prove that the reason women have unintended pregnancies and abortions is due to pre-existing mental health problems. Again, this is a harsh characterization and overgeneralization of the mental health of women seeking abortions. But even if mental health problems contribute to why some women have abortions, these findings do not even begin to address the critical question of whether or not a mentally ill woman who has an abortion is more likely to improve, get worse, or stay the same, much less whether the abortion itself contributes to any positive or negative trends in mental health.
			# The authors also assert that the protective effects of childbirth do not last, noting that the decline in first use of antidepressants in the year following a first delivery disappears in the span between the second and fifth year and beyond. That's an interesting finding, but to be expected. But also, it underscores another weakness in the study, since their analyses do not include subsequent exposure to abortions or miscarriage. Since their own study shows a doubling of the risk of antidepressant use following an abortion, one would expect women who carried a first pregnancy to term but later had an abortion to have an elevated rate of antidepressant use.
			# In their conclusions, the authors write:"if having an abortion is causally related to depression, one would expect a higher rate of first antidepressant use after the procedure than before the procedure, yet rates of antidepressant use were no higher in the year after having an abortion than in the year before an abortion." Actually, since prior mental health problems are common, a better hypothesis would be to expect the rate, duration, and intensity of depressive symptoms to increase after an abortion. But none of these are reported in the authors' study (even though they had relevant data). Instead, they limited their analyses to first time use of antidepressant, severely limiting the scope of any conclusions that can be made.
			# Additionally they conclude: "if there are lagged effects of abortion, one would expect an increase in the rate of depression over time, but rates of antidepressant use decreased as more time elapsed." Here they seriously misrepresent their own findings. The rate of ''first time antidepressant'' use declined. They could have, and should have, reported on the actual rate of antidepressant use (number of doses per year per thousand women exposed to abortion, for example) but they did not.
			# They then write: "Finally, the differences in rates of antidepressant use between women who had an abortion and women who did not have an abortion were substantially reduced when adjusted for earlier mental health conditions, parental mental health conditions, parental educational level, and physical health. This suggests that, compared with women who do not have an abortion, women who have an abortion may be at higher risk of depression after undergoing the procedure because they were at higher risk to begin with." Again, their study was limited to only first time use of antidepressants. But more importantly, even if women having abortions are more prone to experiencing depression due to pre-existing reasons, this does not exclude the possibility, nor justify ignoring the probability, that abortion can trigger, complicate, or prolong mental health issues.
			# Their last word: "Consequently, policies based on the notion that having an abortion harms women’s mental health may be misinformed." Here, the verb "may" is misplaced. The "the notion that having an abortion ''may'' harm women's mental health" is actually supported by the very limited data reported in this study. This study verifies that women who have abortions experience higher rates of depression compared to delivering and non-pregnant women. Due to the superficial nature of this study, looking at first time antidepressants alone and lacking any breakdown of subsequent mental health changes among the women who did have pre-existing mental health issues, it sheds no light at all on how much abortion may contribute to the increased risk of mental health problems observed following abortion. Indeed, given the incorrect statements made in the conclusion of this paper, and the poor study design, the assertions made by the authors are clearly misleading or misinformed.

	==Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder.==		==Induced First-Trimester Abortion and Risk of Mental Disorder.==