Letter from Consistent Life

Re: American Psychological Association Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion

Dear Dr. Kazdin:

APA publications report continuing trouble with Congressional proposals to de-fund already-established grants. The targeted grants often deal with racial issues or look at socioeconomic status - research on alleviating racism and poverty - which we see as crucial. Most of the psychological research on the death penalty has also shown the counterproductive nature of that practice, and of course Divisions 9 and especially 48 focus on the causes and prevention of war. In addition, several more divisions also focus on family violence and other crucial areas of brutality. Since our organization focuses on issues of violence, and connections among those issues, the similar underlying psychological mechanisms for violence are of particular interest to us. Therefore, we share your concern that research on these mechanisms be scientifically rigorous and objective.

It is accordingly with great concern we note APA has not taken sufficient care with a highly volatile issue, that of abortion. APA has held a position of abortion as being a civil right for women since 1969, and therefore has a clear political stand. Yet the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion had no call for nominations; it was formed by Division 35, whose position is stronger and more focused than that of the national organization; and the final make-up of the task force had half the members as strong public advocates of the pro-choice view. Advocates of the view that abortion is violence to both unborn children and to women, which could balance such biases, are ominously absent. There are several well-qualified researchers who would have been pleased to serve on the panel, had the panel been selected with balance in mind.

Consider also that the report of this task force is scheduled to come out during an election year, 2008. The APA position is in accord with that of one of the major political parties, and in opposition to that of the other. When a prestigious organization puts out a report on a politically volatile issue at a time when political passions run particularly high, any imbalance on the task force will not pass unnoticed. Surely critics and observers will highlight the fact that members of such a task force were unbalanced in favor of those whose views matched the political position of the organization. The absence of those who could best challenge assumptions, provide alternative explanations, and offer differing interpretations of the same data will not be overlooked. We hope you will pause to reflect upon how partisan this will appear.

We very much want the APA to continue its effective advocacy on matters involving the psychology of direct and structural violence. We are afraid that insufficient attention has been paid to the scientific credibility of the upcoming report. If the Task Force comes to conclusions that are predictable, given its membership, then strategic considerations for lobbying in the public interest will be dealt a blow. We urge greater care and attention on this point.

Sincerely,

Bill Samuel, President On behalf of the Board of Consistent Life