New Mental Health Studies Dispel Myth That Abortion is a ‘Non-Event’
by Moira Gaul
December 5, 2008
News of note this week is that two new studies published in peer-reviewed journals continue to link abortion and negative mental health effects.
The first paper , published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research, analyzed data from the National Comorbidity Survey, the most comprehensive national dataset on the prevalence of psychological disorders, to explore associations between abortion history and mental health. Abortion was found to be associated with an increased risk of a number of mental health problems including: panic attacks, panic disorder, agoraphobia, post traumatic stress disorder, bipolar disorder, and major depression. The four study authors presented their research on topic at a panel discussion at the Family Research Council in October 2008.
The second paper, written by New Zealand researcher David Fergusson, analyzed data from a 30-year longitudinal study. The methodology, analysis employing two types of models for concurrent and long-term health effects, strong control for confounding variables, and comparison groups were all strengths of the study. The results indicated abortion to be associated with an increased risk of mental disorders, including major depression, anxiety disorder, illicit drug dependence, and suicide ideation.
The results of both studies add to the strong body of evidence detailing the causal association between abortion and mental health disorders. These findings continue to raise important implications concerning informed consent in healthcare. Women in this country deserve quality healthcare which provides accurate information on the associated risks accompanying abortion.
Also making news yesterday was a review paper published by researchers at Johns Hopkins University. In their own press release the university/dept. cited the review paper as the most rigorous review of the literature to date which purported that “studies with the most flawed methodology found negative mental health sequelae of abortion.” This is an insult to Johns Hopkins as a credible academic research institution. The exclusion of numerous studies published in peer-reviewed journals was a gaping omission. The ties of senior author Robert Blum to the Alan Guttmacher Institute as a board member and previous board chair as well as the funding of the university’s department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, where three of the four study authors work, by Planned Parenthood of Maryland, serve as evidence of the political motivation behind the publishing of the study. Johns Hopkins should be admonished for stamping such sham science.
Women are increasingly coming forward to share about the negative impacts of abortion in their lives. Clinicians treating women for mental health disorders are increasingly stepping forward to tell the truth about the large numbers seeking treatment due to the fallout from abortion. The repeated lies from the pro-abortion community that abortion is a non-event or somehow “therapeutic” in women’s lives are being dispelled and the truth clearly elucidated by scientific findings.
Family Research Council is a 501c(3) non-profit organization. If this post has been helpful to you, please consider a gift to help us continue to advance Faith, Family, and Freedom.
Comments
I have gone to Planned Parenthood for cheap medical exams.
Even if you do not believe in all of their practices (the clinic I went to did not perform abortions), I do not think it is fair to “throw the baby out with the bath water,” so to speak. They certainly helped me when I could not afford medical care.
Well done. This quantitative data substanciates the massive amouont of empirical data supporting the devastating mental burden of an abortion upon the woman’s mental health, and often the biological father.
Undeniably our race is one of conscience. When violated, problems immediately begin to occur. Understanding we bear an innate ‘judging system’ that is so common one to another in understanding right and wrong, good and evil.
The multitude of obvious examples is long . . . rape, murder, stealing, child abuse . . . seemingly having come from a Common Source and put in us all.
Abortion is a violation to the woman’s conscience. A scare, deep, not ever to be completely healed. For she knows she has on hands the blood of her own child.
The only true relief she can find to help her bear her crime is to appeal to the One from whom she was given the conscience that now weighs so heavily upon her.
Any other counsel is unfeeling and blind. A secular voice that incessently rejects Authority and Accountability holds the torubled woman under the foul waters of her condemned conscience . . . and in the end, will be condemned for both the childs blood and the woman’s soul who they so willlingly destroyed.
This is so encouraging to see this information get out. Recently, FRC pointed out the flaws in another mainstream abortion paper showing no adverse effects. Unfortunately, the proabortion researchers (they do the abortion research) never find a problem.
I suppose some may be surprised by this. One expects honesty from scientists. One expects medical research to actually reflect truth. One expects researchers would design studies to clearly answer questions asked. One expects scientific research to be free of ideology. One expects valid research to be published regardless of the ideology upheld or refuted.
With most research, I think that is probably true. However, the ideology of abortion does not allow research to be published which would in any way harm the cause of abortion-on-demand. Studies that do show significant harm to women never see the light of day. Why else would there never be found (by pro-abortionists) a long-term harm from abortion? I certainly see the harm in my practice.
After the FRC called into question the study showing no harm from abortion, there was apparently some harrumphing and bluster from the abortionists involved in the study, probably because they were called out. Of course, the Family Research Council was correct.
With abortion, the scientific community does not challenge data that supports the abortion ideology. Pro-abortionists do challenge data that shows harm to women in any way. Rest assured, however, abortion increases the risks of preterm birth, long-term depression and possibly posttraumatic stress disorder. Immediate risks include infection which can be severe and life-threatening, bleeding which can also be severe and life-threatening, injury to the pelvic organs resulting in sterility, pain at the procedure and even live birth in advanced abortion. I have had many tears spilled on my desk by women distraught over “the biggest mistake I ever made in my life.” It’s amazing to me how often the same phrases used.
So do not fear, pro-life friend. You are on solid ground pointing out to pro-abortion people that abortion is a traumatic surgery with negative and sometimes life threatening short-term and long-term sequelae.
You know, I did not understand alot of what this article was saying because it was most likely written by a guy and so far over most peoples heads. Speak english dude. I am a 53 year old women who had two abortions when I was in my early 20’s. PP counts on young women who are in a bind that is the majority of their business. They did not councel me. They did not tell me what effects it could possibly have on the rest of my life and it has and still does to this day.
Most of the people out there talking have no idea what they are talking about. Why don’t we hear from the women who know.
Abortion hurts women…do not be deceived…abortion hurts women.
By: anna | December 5, 2008 at 5:10 pm
That is totally baloney that a comparatively small non-profit with a $6-7m budget would have the resources to fund a department at a huge, well funded university. Get your facts straight before spreading misinformation that was falsely disseminated through a heavily biased site (lifenews). Be a responsible blogger and follow the money trail to try and back up this claim. It’s really ridiculous. It’s like saying a crisis pregnacy center funds the Catholic church.