Talk:Abortion and mental health/Chronological

Untitled
The relationship between abortion and mental health is primarily an area of political controversy. A number of studies have concluded that abortion is associated with no more psychological risk than carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term. Other studies have reported a statistical correlation between abortion and negative psychological effects, though no studies have demonstrated a direct causal relationship. Pre-existing factors in a woman's life, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of social support, pre-existing psychiatric illness, and conservative views on abortion increase the likelihood of experiencing negative feelings after an abortion.

In a 1990 review, the American Psychological Association found that "severe negative reactions [after abortion] are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses." In light of additional studies undertaken since that time, both the APA and the United Kingdom Royal College of Psychiatrists are performing systematic reviews of the medical literature in order to update their position statements.

Some proposed negative psychological effects of abortion have been referred to by pro-life advocates as a separate condition called "post-abortion syndrome." However, the existence of "post-abortion syndrome" is not recognized by any medical or psychological organization, and some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that the effort to popularize the idea of a "post-abortion syndrome" is a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.

Neutral and positive psychological effects of abortion
Studies have indicated that those who have undergone abortion have experienced positive or no change to their mental health. A 1989 study of teenagers who sought pregnancy tests found that counting from the beginning of pregnancy until two years later, the level of stress and anxiety of those who had an abortion did not differ from that of those who had not been pregnant or who had carried their pregnancy to term. A study done at the University of Washington found no correlation between a history of abortion and suicide following a subsequent pregnancy.

Another study in 1992 found that having one abortion was positively associated with higher global self-esteem, particularly feelings of self-worth, capableness, and not feeling one is a failure, but that this positive association was not significant after controlling for childbearing and resource variables. It also noted that adverse emotional reactions to the abortion are influenced by pre-existing psychological conditions and other negative factors and, furthermore, that well-being was separately and positively related to employment, income, and education, but negatively related to total number of children. The authors concluded that "No evidence of widespread post-abortion trauma was found."

In a 2005 US study, the evidence was inconclusive as to whether abortion as compared to completion of an undesired first pregnancy was related to increased risk of depression.

Negative feelings experienced after abortion
Some studies suggest that some women experience stress after a miscarriage or abortion. The kind of stress and the amount of stress women experience varies from culture to culture. Studies also suggest that an individual woman's stress level is influenced by her economic status, family situation and the status of her mental health before the pregnancy. Although no studies have been able to establish a causal relationship between abortion and depression or stress, many studies cite the pre-existence of depression and stress in a sub-set of women who procure abortions. No causal link has been established between abortion and mental illness. Emotional distress may occur in a minority of women who are contemplating or have had an abortion due to a number of factors, including pre-existing mental health problems, the status of the woman's relationship with her partner, poor economic status, poor social network, or conservative views held on abortion.

Post-abortion syndrome
Post-abortion syndrome (PAS) is a term used by pro-life advocates to describe a set of supposed adverse psychopathological characteristics which are proposed to occur in a small percentage of women following an induced abortion. PAS is not a medically recognized syndrome; PAS is not listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and neither the American Psychological Association nor American Psychiatric Association recognize it. Some physicians and pro-choice advocates have argued that attempts to popularize the term "post-abortion syndrome" are a tactic used by pro-life advocates for political purposes.

While some studies have shown a correlation between abortion and clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions for a small number of women, these correlations may be explained by pre-existing social circumstances and emotional health. According to the American Psychological Association, various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortion, may increase the likelihood of experiencing negative reactions. Studies have either failed to establish a causal relationship between abortion and negative psychological symptoms experienced by women, or been inconclusive.

United States Surgeon General
In 1987, President Ronald Reagan directed U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, an evangelical Christian and abortion opponent, to issue a report on the health effects of abortion. Reportedly, the idea for the review was conceived by Reagan advisors Dinesh D'Souza and Gary Bauer as a means of "rejuvenat[ing]" the pro-life movement by producing evidence of the risks of abortion. Koop was reluctant to accept the assignment, believing that Reagan was more concerned with appeasing his political base than with improving women's health.

Ultimately, Koop reviewed over 250 studies pertaining to the psychological impact of abortion. Koop wrote in a letter to Reagan that "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop acknowleged the political context of the question in his letter, writing: "In the minds of some of [Reagan's advisors], it was a foregone conclusion that the negative health effects of abortion on women were so overwhelming that the evidence would force the reversal of Roe vs. Wade."

In later testimony before the United States Congress, Koop stated that the quality of existing evidence was too poor to prepare a report "that could withstand scientific and statistical scrutiny." Koop noted that "... there is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material." In his congressional testimony, Koop stated that while psychological responses to abortion may be "overwhelming" in individual cases, the risk of significant psychological problems was "miniscule" from a public health perspective.

Subsequently, a Congressional committee charged that Koop refused to publish the results of his review because he failed to find evidence that abortion was harmful, and that Koop watered down his findings in his letter to Reagan by claiming that the studies were inconclusive. Congressman Theodore S. Weiss, who oversaw the investigation, argued that when Koop found no evidence that abortion was harmful, "he therefore decided not to issue a report, but instead to write a letter to the president which would be sufficiently vague as to avoid supporting the pro-choice position that abortion is safe for women."

Julius Fogel
In commenting on the Koop letter, Washington Post columnist Coleman McCarthy interviwed Dr. Julius Fogel because he is both a psychiatrist and an obstetrician who had performed over 20,000 abortions, in 1989. Fogel reiterated a view he had previously told Coleman: Every woman--whatever her age, background or sexuality--has a trauma at destroying a pregnancy. A level of humanness is touched. This is a part of her own life. When she destroys a pregnancy, she is destroying herself. There is no way it can be innocuous. One is dealing with the life force. It is totally beside the point whether or not you think a life is there. You cannot deny that something is being created and that this creation is physically happening.... Often the trauma may sink into the unconscious and never surface in the woman's lifetime. But it is not as harmless and casual an event as many in the proabortion crowd insist. A psychological price is paid. It may be alienation; it may be a pushing away from human warmth, perhaps a hardening of the maternal instinct. Something happens on the deeper levels of a woman's consciousness when she destroys a pregnancy. I know that as a psychiatrist.

1987-1990 APA Task Force Review
In response to Surgeon General Koop's review of available data, the American Psychological Association Division on Population and Environmental Psychology prepared and presented their own summary of the literature and recommendations for Koop's report. After Koop refused to issue their findings, division members published a synthesis of their own findings in which they concluded that "Although there may be sensations of regret, sadness, or guilt, the weight of the evidence from scientific studies indicates that legal abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in the first trimester does not pose a psychological hazard for most women."

They also noted that ""Case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion" and that "Women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand may be a relatively higher risk for negative consequences."

The task force also concluded that "research with diverse samples, different measures of response, and different times of assessment have come to similar conclusions. The time of greatest distress is likely to be before the abortion. Severe negative reactions after abortions are rare and can best be understood in the framework of coping with normal life stress." Nancy Adler, professor of psychology at the University of California, San Francisco, has testified on behalf of the APA that "severe negative reactions are rare and are in line with those following other normal life stresses."

In 2007, APA established a new task force to review studies on abortion published since 1989. The new task force report is expected to be published in 2008.

Nada Stotland
In 1992, psychiatrist Nada Stotland of the University of Chicago, and current vice president of the American Psychiatric Association, wrote in Journal of the American Medical Association, "...there is no evidence of an abortion-trauma syndrome." Stotland identified three groups of women as being at risk of negative psychological reactions to abortion: those who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, those who undergo abortion under external pressure, and those who underwent abortion in "aversive" circumstances such as abandonment or stigmatization. In a 2003 review article, Stotland wrote: "Currently, there are active attempts to convince the public and women considering abortion that abortion frequently has negative psychiatric consequences. This assertion is not borne out by the literature: the vast majority of women tolerate abortion without psychiatric sequelae."

Gregory Wilmoth
In 1992, the Journal of Social Issues dedicated an entire issue to research relating to the psychological effects of elective abortion. In an overview of the contributors papers the editor, Dr. Gregory Wilmoth, concluded: "There is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion." Wilmoth goes on to describe four issues of interest: (1) identifying the prevalence of negative reactions, (2) identifying the severity of negative reactions, (3) defining what level of negative reactions constitutes a public health problem, and (4) classification of severe reactions.

Mika Gissler
A government record-based study of all Finnish women found that the suicide rate associated with abortion (34.7 per 100,000) was significantly higher than that associated with giving birth (5.9 per 100,000). The study concluded that "The increased risk of suicide after an induced abortion indicates either common risk factors for both or harmful effects of induced abortion on mental health." The authors of the study noted that women who committed suicide after having an abortion tended to be from lower social classes and also tended to be unmarried. The authors state:

The relation between suicide, mental disorders, life events, social class, and social support is a complex one. Abortion might mean a selection of women at higher risk for suicide because of reasons like depression. Another explanation for the higher suicide rate after an abortion could be low social class, low social support, and previous life events or that abortion is chosen by women who are at higher risk for suicide because of other reasons. Increased risk for a suicide after an induced abortion can, besides indicating common risk factors for both, result from a negative effect of induced abortion on mental wellbeing. With our data, however, it was not possible to study the causality more carefully. Our data clearly show, however, that women [in Finland] who have experienced an abortion have an increased risk of suicide, which should be taken into account in the prevention of such deaths.

Nancy Adler
In 1997, Nancy Adler, a professor of medical psychology, conducted a review of methodologically sound studies of women's mental health before and after abortion. She concluded, "...nonrestrictive abortions indicates that distress is generally greatest before the abortion and that the incidence of severe negative responses is low. Factors associated with increased risk of negative response are consistent with those reported in research on other stressful life events."

Adler is referenced in an article titled, "Is there a Post Abortion Syndrome?" in the New York Times Magazine: ...Nancy Adler, found that up to 10 percent of women have symptoms of depression or other psychological distress after an abortion — the same rates experienced by women after childbirth... Researchers say that when women who have abortions experience lasting grief, or more rarely, depression, it is often because they were emotionally fragile beforehand, or were responding to the circumstances surrounding the abortion — a disappointing relationship, precarious finances, the stress of an unwanted pregnancy.

Brenda Major
In a study done in 2000, Brenda Major, Ph.D. examined women's emotions and mental health after abortion. Major concluded that, "Most women do not experience psychological problems or regret their abortion 2 years postabortion, but some do. Those who do tend to be women with a prior history of depression." She goes on to say:

Ultimately, the psychological risks of abortion must be compared with the psychological risks of its alternatives. When women become pregnant unintentionally, they have few alternatives, any of which could be a source of regret or distress. Studies of women who give up a child for adoption suggest that feelings of loss and sadness are common, although no well-controlled studies have compared the reactions of these women with reactions of women who have an abortion. In contrast, studies comparing the mental health of women who have an abortion and women who carry an unintended pregnancy to term and keep the child are more common. These studies consistently find that the former are at no greater risk for psychological problems than the latter. Thus, for most women, elective abortion of an unintended pregnancy does not pose a risk to mental health.

Brenda Major is also critical of a study done by David Reardon and his co-authors that analyzed data from the medical records of 56,000 low income women in California. Reardon and his co-authors concluded that women who had an abortion had a significantly higher relative risk of psychiatric admission compared with women who had delivered. In a commentary about this study, Major writes:

David Reardon and colleagues describe how they conducted a record-linkage study of psychiatric admissions among a sample of low-income women who had received state funding for either an abortion or delivery in 1989. They report that subsequent psychiatric admission rates were higher for women who had an abortion than for women who delivered. Their conclusion implies that this was the result of problems related to aborting a pregnancy. This conclusion is misleading... It is a fundamental tenet of science that one cannot infer cause from a correlation between 2 variables...

Politics and values shape the way that research on women's psychological responses to abortion is conducted and interpreted. On the basis of correlations such as the one reported here, abortion-rights opponents assert that scientific evidence indicates that abortion causes psychological harm. Because they are not experts in scientific reasoning, most people are unable to evaluate the validity of these claims. Statistics such as those reported by Reardon and colleagues thus run a high risk of being used in ways that misinform and mislead the public.

Sarah Schmeige and Nancy Russo
In a 2005 study by Sarah Schmiege and Nancy Russo comparing rates of depression following an unwanted first pregnancy carried to term versus an unwanted first pregnancy that was aborted, the authors concluded that, "under present conditions of legal access to abortion, there is no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression than does choosing to deliver an unwanted first pregnancy." Their research did not confirm the results of a study done by David Reardon and his co-author J.R. Cougle which found higher rates of depression after abortion of an unintended first pregnancy. She writes: Our results provide no support for the claim by Reardon and Cougle that terminating an unwanted first pregnancy contributes to risk of subsequent depression. Instead, our finding that the group that delivered before 1980 had a significantly higher risk of depression than all other groups directly contradicts the claim that terminating an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression, particularly for younger women.

Priscilla Coleman
In a 2005 review of the literature on abortion and mental health, Bowling Green State University (BGSU) professor Priscilla Coleman, a research psychologist wrote: "[T]here is relative consensus among scholars in the field that at least 10-20% of women who have had an abortion suffer from serious negative psychological complications.... Among those who are adversely affected, many stress-related symptoms have been identified, including anxiety, depression, sleep disturbances, substance use/abuse, and increased risk of suicide. A few recent studies have further identified relations between maternal history of abortion and problematic parenting."

Coleman is the faculty adviser for the BGSU group "Falcons for Life," she helped plan rallies that convinced BGSU trusties to stop covering abortion in the BGSU health insurance plan. She also regularly gives speeches to the National Right to Life Committee, among other prominent pro-life organizations.

Coleman has published a dozen studies with David Reardon. The research methods of Coleman, Reardon criticized by some scientists, including Nada Stotland, though Coleman states that the criticisms are mostly about her colleagues, not their methodology. .

Coleman was also mentioned in an article titled "Is there a Post-Abortion Syndrome" in the New York Times. In the article, Nancy Russo, a psychology researcher at Arizona State University, and "veteran abortion researcher," says that Reardon's analysis typically has methodological flaws. Once these flaws are corrected, there are no higher rates of mental illness among women who have had abortions. Russo said, "Science eventually corrects itself, but it takes a while."

David M. Fergusson
In 2006, a team of researchers at the University of Otago Christchurch School of Medicine in New Zealand, published results relating to abortion reactions from a longitudinal study tracking approximately 500 women from birth to 25 years of age. Information was obtained on: a) the history of pregnancy/abortion for female participants over the interval from 15-25 years; b) measures of DSM-IV mental disorders and suicidal behaviour over the intervals 15-18, 18-21 and 21-25 years; and c) childhood, family and related confounding factors. The study concluded that compared to other women in the group those who had an abortion were subsequently more likely to have "mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors." The authors wrote, "The findings suggest that abortion in young women may be associated with increased risks of mental health problems," and "on the basis of the current study, it is our view that the issue of whether or not abortion has harmful effects on mental health remains to be fully resolved."

The team was led by Professor David Fergusson, a self-described "pro-choice atheist," complained the to press that they had run into political bias at journals which did not want to publish their results, saying they "went to four journals, which is very unusual for us, we normally get accepted the first time."

The team particularly objected to the 2005 position paper by the American Psychological Association which "concluded that ‘well designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low...the percentage of women who experience clinically relevant distress is small and appears to be no greater than in general samples of women of reproductive age'" According to the researchers, "This relatively strong conclusion about the absence of harm from abortion was based on a relatively small number of studies which had one or more of the following limitations: a) absence of comprehensive assessment of mental disorders; b) lack of comparison groups; and c) limited statistical controls. Furthermore, the statement appears to disregard the findings of a number of studies that had claimed to show negative effects for abortion."

The research prompted the American Psychology Association to withdraw an official statement which denied a link between abortion and psychological harm. In response to Fergusson's criticisms of the APA, the APA's spokesperson on abortion and a member of the 1989 task force, Dr. Nancy Russo, told a Washington Times reporter that the APA's official position on abortion developed from the viewpoint that abortion is a civil right and that "To pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion." She further stated her opinion that "pre-existing mental health problems, relationship quality, and whether the pregnancy was wanted or unwanted are key factors determining postabortion mental distress, not the abortion itself," She rejected the significance of Fergusson's study stating: "There has yet to be a well designed study that finds that abortion itself contributes to increased risk for mental health problems," and noted that feelings of guilt and shame after abortion may result from social disapproval and efforts to cast abortion as a moral failing, rather than from the procedure itself. Fergusson resopnded that better research was needed, but that "...the abortion debate and its implications drive out the science."

Subsequent to the New Zealand team's criticisms of its position papers, the APA convened a new task force to publish a new report in 2008 regarding abortion and mental health.

Royal College of Psychiatrists
On March 14 2008, the Royal College of Psychiatrists released a statement saying that "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&mdash;some studies indicate no evidence of harm, whilst other studies identify a range of mental disorders following abortion." The statement noted that the Royal College is undertaking a systematic review of the medical literature with the intent of updating its position and possibly recommending changes to the informed consent process for abortion. According to The Times, the Royal College stated that "women may be at risk of mental health breakdowns if they have abortions" and that "women should not be allowed to have an abortion until they are counselled on the possible risk to their mental health." The Times also reported that the controversy over abortion and mental health in Britain "intensified earlier this year when an inquest in Cornwall heard that a talented artist hanged herself because she was overcome with grief after aborting her twins." The woman, Emma Beck, had a long history of anxiety and depression, she felt pressure from her boyfriend to follow through with an abortion she did not want, and she refused to see a counselor after the abortion.

In contrast, the Daily Mail reported that "Updated guidance from the Royal College of Physicians (RCP) points out that there is still no evidence that abortion causes mental health problems... The college rejects claims by the pro-life lobby that abortion causes mental health problems." The Daily Mail points out that the Royal College of Psychiatrists report comes out at a time when there was a controversial proposal before Parliament to reduce the term limit for abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks.