Groups: Abortion Report Biased, Downplays Mental Harm

By Lillian Kwon|Christian Post Reporter

E-mail
Print
RSS
digg Facebook Twitter Stumble Reddit del.ico.us Buzz Share
Text

With conclusions drawn from such flawed studies and limited evidence, New Zealand researcher David Fergusson believes what the panel “has, in effect, said is that until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, people should act as though abortion has no harmful effects."

"In this respect, the response of the APA committee to this situation appears to follow the type of logic used by the Tobacco industry to defend cigarettes: since, in our opinion, there is no conclusive evidence of harm then the product may be treated as safe," Fergusson told Throckmorton. "A better logic is that used by the critics of the industry: since there is suggestive evidence of harmful effects it behooves us to err on the side of caution and commission more and better research before drawing strong conclusions. History showed which side had the better arguments."

The APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion was formed in 2006 and charged with collecting, examining and summarizing the scientific research addressing mental health factors associated with abortion, including the psychological responses following abortion. According to the report, the panel evaluated all of the empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals since 1989 that compared the mental health of women who had an induced abortion to comparison groups of women, or that examined factors that predict mental health among women who have had an elective abortion in the United States.

Pages: 12

View article on single page

Next Story : Evangelical Leaders Meet U.N. Chief

Most Popular

Viewed
Commented
Blogged

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree

All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.

artm »

Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Why are so many women determined to kill their Baby.? Why are so many Polititions determined to pass laws that will further the Death of unborn Babies.?

The Bible tells us that the time would come when many would be without " Natural " affection.

And once the deed has been acomplished, Then the devil steps back and allows the woman to see what has been done, then the guilt and condemnation floods in.

God help this Nation, Because God is going to judge us for the murder of unborn Babies.
Daniel Paul »

Mon Nov 17, 2008 3:27 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I think it goes without saying this study didn't include the 1000s of women who go to church based recovery groups for the grief they go through after an abortion. Having witnessed this grief first hand I'd say this report was political and not medical.
tamna »

Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:38 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Prophet:

All I can say after reading your comments is: "Amen, brother!

PAX
Tamna
Prophet »

Fri Aug 22, 2008 6:02 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Tamna,
I hear that. I remember when the ultrasound became an issue. The pro-life wanted to make it mandatory for prospective clients to see an ultrasound of the baby. They knew it would sway most of the girls to keep the baby. PP fought it adamantly. Because they knew the same thing. You see, Planned Parenthood doesn't give a rip about "Parenthood". When a pregnant girl comes in, the grab their tools and start seeing dollar signs. And they don't care for the girls either. Get 'em in! Get 'em done! Get 'em on their way!
Instead of Planned Parenthood, how about "Planned Murder"? Or "Planned Convenience". Perhaps they can offer a "Get out of pregnancy free" card for every 10th victim. Oops. I meant client.
I also agree with your assessment of all the potential geniuses and such that are being thrown down the toilet. One of them might have come up with a cure for AIDS...or cancer. But one woman's convenience is worth more than a world that may have been changed. Self-centered and selfish. If I may be so blunt to say about those who work in and support PP...I wish their parents practiced "choice" when they were pregnant.
tamna »

Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:57 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Admittedly, I haven't read all the comments. So, if this is a duplication, my apologies. I have some questions that always come to mind when I think about murdering unborn children uhhhh, sorry, I mean "terminating an unwanted pregnancy."

The first is if there is no mental harm why doesn't Planned Parenthood want "clients" to have an ultrasound prior to the "termination." If I remember correctly, they said because it would unduly traumatize their clients (mothers). No mental harm? Hmmmmm.

Another question I have is I wonder how many potential Martin Luther Kings, Albert Einsteins, Jonas Salks, Mahatma Gahndis and Mother Teresa's have been murdered (gosh darn it there's that unPC word again), I mean "terminated," because they were inconvenient.

Finally, why is it that, statistically speaking, the most dangerous "job" in America is being an unborn child.
JC »

Thu Aug 21, 2008 4:00 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

Where there is no truth, there is no love and Jesus doesn't reside there. For if they had known The Father, they would know and love The Son, but love was not in them and they rejected the Son. Had they not rejected the Son, they would have known that all life is to be cherished. All life, is for the glory of God.

Before a baby is born, a mother can feel the baby kick and move about. This is recorded in the Bible, and any woman who has been pregnant can tell you this. This is a fact of life. Each born this way, son and daughter of Man. To the daughter was given maternal instincts, she by her very design is the best child caregiver by far. To these were given the greatest gift with regards to the flesh, the carrying of the child, the tenderness and patience to care for the child, the love that only a mother can give. This is the greatest gift that few men realize. No man knows what it is like to deliver a baby, and have that baby put on your stomach. At that moment, for most women, the pain, worrying, anguish, discomfort seem distant from her. A new life, a new soul, a new beginning is laying there, and all at this moment surrounds this life, a creation of God. She is both overwhelmed and emboldened over the beauty of this creation.

This is inherit in all creation I believe. In the wild, a mother would protect her young to the death. This can be seen in women as well. She is a force to be reckoned with if one would attempt to take them from her arms.

This is truth, this is reality. By His design, not ours. We are just the fruits of this design, not the designers.

Beloved, in days gone by, a daughter could accidentally get pregnant out of wedlock. We are human and in a fallen nature, it does happen. In days gone by, the parents were furious at their daughter, but most did not abandon her. They were furious up to the day when they held that child for the first time, and knew of the life they were holding. No way was the infant at fault, and their anger at their daughter had fled.

But not anymore. Humans have now said that the parents don't need to know anymore because they can prevent the infant from even being born. They just kill it now before the birth.

So, now the daughter thinks that her trouble has ended, but she has been deceived. For they have just started. Only the coldhearted would not someday think what that child would have grown to be. Only those without love, where Jesus does not reside.
Prophet »

Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Professor,
Amen! I second that heartily. This country is morally bankrupt, and it will bring us (the US) to our knees. If we keep on the road we are travelling, we will fall.
When parents hearts are turned from their children (including unborn children), and the mother's natural tendency to love and protect her children's life is abandoned, then we are in grave danger.
For the love that a parent should have for their children is the same love that our Father has for us. And when that love is quenched, then we turn our backs on His love for us.
We cry patriotically "God bless America!", but our hearts betray us. Our mouths speak of God, but our hearts are far from Him. The road we travel is paved with self-love.
Oh God, if we would only repent!
ProfessorX »

Wed Aug 20, 2008 5:24 pm Agree: 2 Disagree: 1

VP HUCKABEE HELPS MCCAIN WIN in 2008!!

MIKE HUCKABEE IS A FIGHTER AND ONE OF THE GREATEST COMMUNICATORS OF OUR TIME!

Most American's DO NOT favor abortion. Nor do they wish to align themselves with factions dedicated in butchering innocent babies inside and outside the womb. And NO, that baby is NOT the women's body; it is a separate body with a separate heartbeat and separate brain activity. And YES, the unborn baby FEELS PHYSICAL PAIN as it is being ripped out of what should be the safest place on earth - mother's womb!

The Planned Parenthood abortionists lie to young women all the time just to get their money, while those ex-mothers and ex-fathers suffer emotional distress as they realize everyday that they have just allowed a child killer to convince them, not only to take their money, but also to kill their precious little baby. Abortion STOPS A BEATING HEART and the future of a civilization.

People weep and wail over the loss of a High School football player destined for a great professional career who had been gunned down by a random shooter, but yet we will never know the great deficit future generations will suffer for the loss of over 50 million innocent babies in this country alone. Shame on America for tolerating this horror ... and shame on its citizens for tolerating their personal complacency. Pro-choice is a lie - Babies do not choose to die!

Away with this archaic freakish, barbaric practice! It will soon be done away with, along with these fake pro-abortion polling numbers! As long as the president chooses judicial nominees his Vice-president better be pro-Life if he is ever going to win an election.

"A nation that cannot protect its most innocent and helpless citizens and the sanctity of human life is a weak nation that will utterly collapse economically, socially, relationally and entirely." - HMH

ATHEISM is a CATASTROPHIC FAILURE.

http://www.evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/
Prophet »

Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:22 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

If I'm correct, abortion was originally designed to be used on women who's life was in danger from the pregnancy (which accounts for like only 4% of all abortions). But PP has cheapened life, and made it an option of convenience rather than neccesity.
"So you're pregnant. Ok. Well, if it's inconvenient, then just abort it. Can't afford to have kids? Don't worry about getting pregnant. If you do, just abort it. Do what you want, and not worry about the consequences. We'll let an innocent party be responsible for your stupidity."
believer »

Tue Aug 19, 2008 4:15 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

blue, in this case for me personally it does not matter what pro-family or pro-life groups or those on the other side of the issue say since my view on this matter is based totally what I've experienced as both a Pastor and even while in the military in dealing with women who were struggling as the result of getting an abortion.
blue1018 »

Tue Aug 19, 2008 3:45 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

I love how when reports that are pro-Christian come out from highly respected organizations and associations, conservatives are galore. They praise the reports and use them as sources to continue their conservative beliefs. But, the minute an anti-Christian viewpoint peeks into the realm of real science and psychology, these family groups rave and act as though everyone's 'biased' and 'wrong.' Goes to show unacceptable they are.
abhodim »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 5:17 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Dongard,
It's a pity that you've taken back your apology with your latest post. But it's inconsequential. I can forgive you for your brash comments, attributing them to a stout defense of the principles of science.
But this forgiveness, irrational and unscientific as it may seem ("Father, forgive them for they know not what they do" was Jesus' expression in a throng of humanity that would never appreciate this element of forgiveness), is noble and good. Thus it appears that science can't garner all the answers to all the questions.
Do not sell short this "forgiveness" as some "polite speech" conducted in civil proceedings. It after all is the heart and sould to understanding Shakespeare's "the Tempest." After all, the plot revolves around Prospero's cunning use of magic to bring all his enemies who robbed him of his dukedom under his power, to bring to a climax that he has forgiven them. The twist in the plot is beyond prediction, and this makes the stunning "I forgive you," uttered after reviewing the villain's comtemptable activities the reason the play is a comedy, not a tragedy based on vindication.
Remind yourself that "science can't garner all answers." It is the rationale of the posters that have come to question the results of the survey. Don't be quick to attribute it to some mindless bias.
believer »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:29 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

daniel, unfortunately I fear you're all to right on the consequences of post modern thinking as well as the impact of secular humanism on our society.
believer »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:25 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

dongard, no one is arguing against your last post, what we are arguing against is the lie be presented by this so-called report saying that abortion does not cause considerable psychological harm in women.
believer »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 2:21 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I just received an e-mail from CareNet in response to this report. They shared that in 2006 alone they had over 13,000 women and men come to their centers to get help from having a past abortion.
dongard »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 1:13 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

while the number of women who have had an abortion is relatively large it is dwarfed by the number of women who have given birth. statistics indicate that at a minimum 5% of those suffer Postpartum depression and its effect maybe maybe as high as 25%. in some cases the effects of Postpartum depression are toxic and fatal both to the mother and child(ren). for those women the trauma will not be just emotional, but physical and legal leading to severe and life threatening consequences. therefore we are advocating that the CDC mandate a warning to everyone engaging in procreation that there is a significant risk of serious illness, legal and criminal sanctions and even death in the procreation of offspring.

hello people all of life carries risks including abortion, and being a christian. what i see here is an attempt to privilege your beliefs into the record by a conscious act of distortion and thereby force others, under the penalty of imprisonment to accept your biases as law. to orarkprof, as most of the posters on this board are obviously not interested reasonable discourse and prefer to post blatant distortions i withdraw my apology.
Daniel Paul »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:56 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

Actually, jjdiogenes makes a point. In a post modern culture where people are convinced there is no right or wrong, physical pain is more of a problem to post modern people. Post modern mentality is self centered and nobody else matters. That which harms others (even spouses and children) is easily dismissed as being 'wrong thinking'. People become numb to the pain associated with wrong behavior towards others.
believer »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:49 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

jj, for you to compare abortion to having a tooth pulled is pathetic at best. There are too many women who struggle emotionally as a result of having an abortion. And much of this struggle I believe results from them being told lies such as you saying that an abortion is no different than having a tooth pulled. And then reality hits and they are totally unprepared to deal with.
jjdiogenes »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:36 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 2

I know five women who have had abortions and only one seemed adversely affected by it. About 50% of the people I know that have had their wisdom teeth pulled report adverse effects.
wbmoore »

Mon Aug 18, 2008 12:08 am Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

I've known too many women who have been adversely affected by a single abortion to believe this so called study is anything but propaganda for the right-to-die folks.
Daniel Paul »

Sun Aug 17, 2008 5:24 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 1

The most common is 'lost child syndrom' which is when a child is missing or has passed away and the parent keeps looking for them. They feel one is missing and have to remind themselves of what happened.

This happens to parents who had 4 children and one was killed somehow. Even after the funeral they do the head count when leaving a store and one is 'missing'.

This is understandable but anti-life groups say it's not a result of the abortion that women feel that way after an abortion. Life is full of ignorance isn't it?
star2 »

Sun Aug 17, 2008 2:10 pm Agree: 4 Disagree: 1

I knew a Christian lady in the Church I went to that had an abortion back in the 70's when it first became legal for a woman to have one. Afterwards she became an alcoholic for 10 yrs, had problems with depression, couldn't watch a baby dedication at Church without becoming upset and having to leave the sanctuary, and etc. It also affected her relationship with her husband and it affected her relationship with God. She to this day is still affected by that abortion though she is no longer an alcoholic.

She went for an abortion because of her age and people telling her that if she has a child at her age she would get breast cancer. When she went for the abortion she decided she didn't want it but Planned Parenthood lied to her and told her that the fetus was nothing more than a clump of tissue. They wouldn't even allow her to leave the room and somewhat forced her into it. Unfortunately she had no help from her husband, maybe because he didn't see anything wrong with it, I don't know.

Planned Parenthood is evil.

Abortion destroys not only the life of the unborn child but also the life of the mother. It also affects the lives of other family members as well.

Thank God, though, these unborn children go to Heaven. Their cries when they are being burned to death or having their bodies torn apart, or their brains sucked out as they are being delivered doesn't go unnoticed by God. He avenges their death. No participant in the abortion will escape the judgment of God including the mother and her family, the medical personnel who perform the abortion, the clinics who provide it, and the nation who sanctions it.
believer »

Sun Aug 17, 2008 1:34 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

wb and daniel, I wonder who funded this study, Planned Parenthood or NARAL or a combination of the above. If this wasn't so pathetic it would be comical. And just think of all the women who's pain and guilt are being totally ignored as a result.
wbmoore »

Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:32 pm Agree: 1 Disagree: 0

DP, and you are soooo right about statistics. I gave up believing in them when my Stats prof proved that I do not weigh what I weigh.
wbmoore »

Sun Aug 17, 2008 12:31 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul,

Yeah, that's certainly what it looks like. I would think if they wanted a true study, they would gather a selection of people who claim trauma, a group who do not, and a group of unknowns. Otherwise, it looks like they are selecting for their desired outcome.
Daniel Paul »

Sun Aug 17, 2008 11:17 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Thanks WB. So...it's even more biased than I read the first time around!
wbmoore »

Sun Aug 17, 2008 9:38 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Daniel Paul, those 600 women had ASKED to speak to the panel but were dismissed. They had wanted to tell the APA that THEY had had depression because of abortion, but were ignored.
Daniel Paul »

Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:51 am Agree: 2 Disagree: 0

"Over 600 women who had an abortion"

First, I don't see anything in the story about it being a double blind study. It just picked 600+ women. How many abortions are there each year in the USA? 600+ isn't even close to a legitimate study group. My experience having taken phone calls at a Christian radio station for over 12 years plus my other lay ministry work says all women who have abortion have experienced 'mental harm' as a result.

Give me statistics and I can prove anything....
Diana626 »

Sat Aug 16, 2008 10:10 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 1

DO they mean the report downplays SIN and the GUILT that it induces? I don't recall "mental harm" in the bible :-(
dongard »

Sat Aug 16, 2008 9:14 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

ozarkprof

you are right that there are many many organized religion advocates that are completely capable of understanding and using scientific logic and theory. my frustration is with those, and they too number in the millions, who demand that science be bent to reinforce their beliefs. and when confronted that science has its own internal logic, they immediately claim that this proves its flaws and bias. Scientific thought and logic is by no means as rational and as neutral as we would like it to be. but it is not a leap of faith system either. unlike religion it attempts to undergo the test of proof and repeatability. it stands to date as the best we have to construct a theory of knowledge that can be independently verified by outsiders whatever bias they bring to the table.
dongard »

Sat Aug 16, 2008 8:49 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

i think i should apologize for my somewhat smart-mouth answer. and as a fan of thomas kuhn's "the structure of scientific revolutions" we all should be aware of the dangers of normaltive science.
that being said my core objection to the objection of the APA report still stands unanswered. Perhaps indeed the APA report is biased towards a conclusion. But the objections expressed here seem to be that they are disappointed that it is not biased towards their preferred conclusions. and the focus of this objection is, in part, that a large group of biased samples was not factored in. this does not appear on the face of it to be good research. the point about meta analysis only advances my objection. it is by definition the secondary compilation of primary research. the addition of an uncontrolled sample of primary experiences into a secondary met-analysis would be a distortion.
ozarkprof »

Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:37 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Dongard

Another thing to google. There is a greater percentage of practicing scientists that are members of organized religion (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhists) than those who are not. Check out the findings from New Scientist.

It is not hard for supporters of organized religion to grasp advanced scientific methodologies nor basic science research. They do both all of the time.
ozarkprof »

Sat Aug 16, 2008 3:30 am Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Dongard

Nothing in this article or the actual report mentions a double-blind experimental design. In fact in non-pharmaceutical psychological research these days, DBD is rarely used. In fact the report is a meta-analysis of existing research reports. Feel free to google meta-analysis since you seem unfamiliar with modern psychological research practice.

Meta-analytical validity is limited by the research design of the studies analyzed. There are inherent weaknesses to meta-analysis and Forney's objections are supported.

Because insurance companies use APA studies to decide whether specific treatments are covered, the APA owes the public a broad-based analysis, including the most recent data that are both supportive and dispositive to the findings of the report. Particularly when public health practice is at stake.
abhodim »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 9:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Dongard
Thank you for your explanation to what is a valid method of experimental control in scientific experimentation, but you misunderstood my point. The dismissal of 600 subjects (and your analysis of scientific procedure seemed to focus on the credibility of the experimenter) seems to make a system of "blinds" inconsistent with what the APA survey claimed to accomplish. Was this dismissal of so many case studies appropriate science?
I take time to properly teach science at my school. At the elementary level, the crucial task is to make the children conversant with the scientific method, really to think scientifically. One of my favorite series of experiment/demonstrations is a set of double trials, where conflicting results occur. The goal of the lesson is to determine which of a set of factors led to the failure of the experiment. The solutions to these experiments can be simple to subtle (the amount of pressure on a matchhead, the omission of a catalyst, a switching or deletion in the procedure). The aim of these lessons is to observe and practice the proper scientific skills to explain shortcomings and allow the students to prepare their own experiments with due caution, allowing for the factors to be tested/not to be tested to be properly accounted for. This is why I wished to know what procedures the APA explicitedly pursued in drawing up their results.
Eye-opening reading for matters as this would be Nicholas Wade's Betrayers of the Truth, which tells of shoddy scientific research done to gain the grant, to acchieve some scientific fame. While two decades old by now (Al Gore was an influential senator from Tennessee at the time), the book warns of shortfalls in trying to maintain scientific integrity if shortcuts and personal agendas are followed.
dongard »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 8:41 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

adhodim

thank you for making my point. please take a moment to google terms that you are unfamiliar with next time.

Double-blind describes an especially stringent way of conducting an experiment, usually on human subjects, in an attempt to eliminate subjective bias on the part of both experimental subjects and the experimenters. In most cases, double-blind experiments are held to achieve a higher standard of scientific rigour.
In a double-blind experiment, neither the individuals nor the researchers know who belongs to the control group and the experimental group. Only after all the data has been recorded (and in some cases, analyzed) do the researchers learn which individuals are which. Performing an experiment in double-blind fashion is a way to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of double-blind research design. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over.
Double-blind methods can be applied to any experimental situation where there is the possibility that the results will be affected by conscious or unconscious bias on the part of the experimenter.
believer »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 5:53 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

dongard, once again the article failed to say what definition was used to determine what a mental health problem is and if the data put out by Crisis Pregnancy Centers is any indicator there are a number of women who come to them after they have an abortion who are struggling with post-abortion trauma who have been left high and dry by those fine caring people at Planned Parenthood and the like. An murdered unborn baby is not the only victim when it comes to abortion.
abhodim »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:46 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

Dongard,
With all due respects, I can't follow thge reasoning of the "double blind" argument. The disavowal of 600 women seems more like a jettisoning of data that doesn't support the hypothesis. I wish the article was clearer about the procedures the APA used. Research is about following all lines of evidence, defining the factors that contribute to the issue under discussion. This matter looks too much like "cooking the numbers."
dongard »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 4:26 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 2

unlike, this site, the polls on AFA and Fox News view polls, double blind studies are conducted to insure that the sample has statical validity. this should not be such a hard concept to get. allowing a group of women(600) with a preselected outcome would destroy any scientific value. double blind studies are not about grouping individual stories into a package as Tony Perkins seems to believe. this is not about collecting votes to win the poll. why, and this is a rhetorical question, its is so hard for organized religion advocates to grasp basic science research?
believer »

Fri Aug 15, 2008 1:37 pm Agree: 0 Disagree: 0

I'd be interested to hear their definition of a mental health problem. While in the military I served as a Section Commander and my primary resposibility was taking care of the people problems. I had a young airman who had an abortion and could not sleep for several nights until I shared that as bad as she might feel about getting the abortion she can be glad to know her child is in heaven with God. That night she got the first good night of sleep since she had the abortion and I'm sure she is not an isolated case in the matter of post-abortion trauma.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.

Comment on this story