Brenda Major

Biography

• Brenda N. Major is a professor of psychology at UC Santa Barbara[5] and was the chair of the APA's Task Force on Abotion and Mental Health and lead author of that report.

• She is also a member of the APA "Society for the Psychology of Women (Division 35) which describes its mission as that 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."[6]

• She is also an advisor to the post-abortion counseling group called Exhale which has served 15,000 women seeking post-abortion counseling.[7]

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."

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"

• 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.

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). Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57(8), 777-84. Full Text

Criticism of Major's Spin on Her Findings

Quote from Reardon Letter regarding Study by Brenda Major.

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.. 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. 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.

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.

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, 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. Thus, when the proper comparison is made for most recent month depression rates, these follow-up abortion studies [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, a theme echoed by Schmiege and Russo. 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, 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. 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 and the other finding higher rates of substance abuse.

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. (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. Benefits are just assumed, though none have even been demonstrated by statistical association, much less causal connections.

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 trucated 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. This lack of precision is typical of idealogues for whom the idea is more important than the facts.

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 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.[8]The withholding of data from other researchers is a violation of APA ethics rule 8.14.[9][10][11][12][13]