Two weeks ago, the American Psychological Association plunged headlong into controversy with the release of a report from the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion.
The panel, chaired by University of California psychology professor, Brenda Major, produced a 91-page report with several conclusions. Principally, the APA reported that:
The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy, the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy.
The task force said the research was less clear about the effects of multiple abortions. However, it speculated that the culprit for association between women with multiple abortions and later mental health problems was not the abortion per se but conditions which lead to multiple unplanned pregnancies. Finally, the committee called for more research.
The report was immediately attacked by pro-life advocates and psychologists who questioned the objectivity of the APA. Critics pointed out that three members of the task force believed abortion was unrelated to adverse outcomes prior to commencing work on the report. Furthermore, since 1969, the APA has consistently advocated for a woman’s right to choose abortion as a civil right. In 1989, the APA took the position that the evidence did not support a link between adverse mental health consequences and abortion. Some of the same people who were on the 1989 committee were on this task force. Finally, the APA leadership consistently refused to meet with women who claim adverse effects from abortion.
When asked about these criticisms, the APA’s response is consistent. APA spokesperson Rhea Farberman said in an email: “The APA’s report is a rigorous review of the best available science. It calls to light the need for more research to better understand the potential mental health effects of abortion.”
The casual observer might conclude that the issue of post-abortion effects is hopelessly subject to bias. The pro-life researchers line up on one side and the pro-choice researchers line up on the other. However, there is one prominent pro-choice researcher who also questions the APA’s conclusions and method of finding them.
That scholar is David Fergusson, who is executive director of the Health & Development Study at the Christchurch School of Medicine & Health Sciences in New Zealand. In 2005, Dr. Fergusson published a longitudinal study of young women which found adverse mental health effects associated with abortion. What is striking about his work is that he began his study with the expectation that abortion would not prove harmful. What he found convinced him that the concerns about mental health effects were credible. Because of his work, Fergusson was selected to be one of 20 reviewers of the preliminary draft of the APA paper.
After reviewing the APA final report, Dr. Fergusson pointed out that the APA task force primarily relied on one study for its conclusions. It seems incredible that the APA would use just one study to make conclusions, but this approach is evident on page 68:
In summary, although numerous methodological flaws prevent the relative mental health risks associated with abortion per se compared to its alternatives (childbirth of an unplanned pregnancy), in the view of the TFMHA [Task Force], the best scientific evidence indicates that the relative risk of mental health problems among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy is no greater if they have an elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy (Gilchrist et al., 1995).
As a basis for policy, there are multiple problems with the Gilchrist study. First, mental health outcomes were not assessed by mental health professionals or standardized surveys but rather by reports to general practitioners. In addition, well over half of the women dropped out of the study and were not available for follow up. Dr. Fergusson concludes:
Since most of those having mental health problems do not attend general practitioners, this approach to assessment of mental health is poor. Thus, from the standpoint of the U.S. debate, basing conclusions on evidence that was gathered in the United Kingdom in 1995 and in which mental health was not adequately assessed is scarcely adequate grounds for confidently informing the U.S. public that the committee’s findings are based on “the best scientific evidence.”
Dr. Fergusson also questioned the rationale for making policy in the absence of more evidence saying:
What the Committee has, in effect, said is that until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, people should act as though abortion has no harmful effects. This is not a defensible position in a situation in which there is evidence pointing in the direction of harmful effects. The moral of all of this is very simple: In science, drawing strong conclusions on the basis of weak evidence is bad practice. The APA report on abortion and mental health falls into this error.
I think Dr. Fergusson struck at the heart of the matter. Best may not be good enough. Earlier this year, the British Royal College of Psychiatrists took the more cautious approach saying, “The specific issue of whether or not induced abortion has harmful effects on women’s mental health remains to be fully resolved. The current research evidence base is inconclusive-some studies indicate no evidence of harm, whilst other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion.”
When scholars on both sides of the ideological spectrum question objectivity, it is time to go back to the drawing board. The APA should not conclude work at this point, but start over. It would be a remarkable act of scientific integrity to acknowledge they were premature, but it would be the right thing to do. When the “best scientific evidence” isn’t good enough, why say anything else?
Warren Throckmorton, PhD is an associate professor of psychology at Grove City College and fellow for psychology and public policy with the Center for Vision & Values. He can be reached via his blog, http://www.wthrockmorton.com/.
September 5th, 2008 at 8:21 am
Talk about deja vu! Those of us old enough to remember can recall the “debates” in the 1960’s over whether smoking was a health hazard. Yes, there was a debate, especially in the halls of Congress. Today, instead of the Tobacco Institute muddying the waters we have the big, mainline medical associations taking up a sham defense of abortion: APA, AMA, and other supposedly “impartial” research bodies are sparing no expense to propogandize American women about the neutral effects of abortion on their health (and that of any children they might bear after undergoing an abortion). That said, it may take some time for the truth of this tragedy, and its immensity, to finally reach a critical mass among women in America. Overseas researchers (with the possible exception of UK) seem to have no problem discovering abortion links to breast cancer, psychological injury, premature births, etc. Because abortion is considered “holy ground” at our medical research universities I don’t expect things to change on that level anytime soon. Thankfully pro-life organizations can still cite well-documented studies done overseas to bolster their position that abortion harms women.
September 6th, 2008 at 3:35 am
I personally know a number of women who have confided that they had abortions (from the 70’s to present.) They either admit to mental hurts, or angrily and vehemently deny any hurt. Many have addictions or destructive behaviors whether they admit it or not. There are too many for this link NOT to be true.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:29 pm
dennisofraleigh is so correct in his observations.
It all shows how Culture of Death elements bring up all sorts of diversions to occupy peoples’ minds, but the fundamental issue dedicated persons need to address is how do we use our democratic prerogatives to remove abortion (and allied, Culture-of-Death abominations) from the political roost abortion has come to occupy. Diversionary arguments about related details become of little consequence.
I suggest that all pro-life persons must take personal initiatives to spread the word that abortion isn’t thwarted by installing one president or another, but by adopting the approach of publicly grilling every candidate for every political office from the local level to the presidency as to each candidate’s stands on the principle of life and with the forthright advice to them that culture-of-death leanings are unacceptible and will be voted against.
God’s Great Commandment REQUIRES THAT WE LOVE OUR NEIGHBORS AS OURSELVES. The lives of those human beings living in the womb are unprotected by American
Law and their mothers can be subjected (by means of the same law) to outlandishly brutal pressures for them to have their babies brutally killed at the incessant insistence of irresponsible, spineless men and others, to spare these third parties responsibilities they seek to avoid.
Half of US citizens eligible to vote perenially don’t cast their ballots. These are not abortion ideologues, else they’d be at the polls early (and, perhaps often). Convincing just a small percent of them that they have a duty to help protect the unborn and their mothers, OUR NEIGHBORS, by affording them the LOVE Commanded by God that we give our neighbors would allow justice along with love to all our neighbors.
Peace,
Jakes
September 8th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
Yeah, well documented studies paid for by the Catholic Church. The truth is the only reason any of the mental anguish exists, is due to the shrill protests of anti-choicers making women feel guilty about THEIR CHOICE. Instead of trying to drive a wedge between people and guilt tripping them, why don’t you do something positive for a change. I suppose all this is too much to ask from an organization which maintains its power by keeping people poor, drunk, and uneducated. Oh, and you can’t have your cake and eat it too — people are going to continue to have sex, if you don’t want more abortions, why don’t you consider accepting the fact that people are going to use the contraceptive methods that God gave man the ability to create.