Debunking anti-choice myths. (1 Viewer)

[1069]

The following was posted by a prolifer in another section of the forum (the "Gay Baby" thread in the Polls section).

Should I post of list of negative things regarding abortion.......and the post partum things woman get after having an abortion. Increases of cancer etc?

Rather than continue to derail that thread, I thought I'd start a new thread to address these claims here in the appropriate section.

I'll start by re-posting my response to her "breast cancer" claim:

"Can Having an Abortion Cause or Contribute to Breast Cancer?

Both abortion and breast cancer are topics that can bring out strong emotions in people. The issue of abortion generates passionate personal and political viewpoints, regardless of a possible disease connection. Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women, and it can be a life-threatening disease that most women fear.

Linking these 2 topics understandably generates a great deal of emotion, as well as controversy. Research studies, however, have not found a cause-and-effect relationship between abortion and breast cancer. ...

In February 2003, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) convened a workshop of over 100 of the world’s leading experts who study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. The experts reviewed existing human and animal studies on the relationship between pregnancy and breast cancer risk, including studies of induced and spontaneous abortions. Among their conclusions were:

* Breast cancer risk is temporarily increased after a term pregnancy (resulting in the birth of a living child).

* Induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

* Recognized spontaneous abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer risk.

The level of scientific evidence for these conclusions was considered to be "well established" (the highest level).

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) Committee on Gynecologic Practice reviewed the available evidence as well and published its findings in August 2003. The committee concluded that "early studies of the relationship between prior induced abortion and breast cancer risk have been inconsistent and are difficult to interpret because of methodologic considerations. More rigorous recent studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk."

Conclusion

The topic of abortion and breast cancer highlights many of the most challenging aspects of studies of human populations and how those studies do or do not translate into public health guidelines. The issue of abortion generates passionate viewpoints among many people. Breast cancer is the most common cancer, and is the second leading cancer killer, in women. Still, the public is not well-served by false alarms, even when both the exposure and the disease are of great importance and interest to us all. At the present time, the scientific evidence does not support a causal association between induced abortion and breast cancer.

References

ACOG Committee on Gynecologic Practice. ACOG Committee Opinion. Number 285, August 2003: Induced abortion and breast cancer risk. Obstet Gynecol. 2003;102:433-435.

Beral V, Bull D, Doll R, et al. Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and abortion: Collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries. Lancet. 2004;363:1007-1016.

Melbye M, Wohlfahrt J, Olsen JH, et al. Induced abortion and the risk of breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:81-5.

National Cancer Institute. Summary Report: Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop. Accessed August 23, 2005.

Revised: 09/18/2006 "

American Cancer Society


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ACOG Finds No Link Between Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk


Washington, DC -- There is no evidence supporting a causal link between induced abortion and subsequent development of breast cancer, according to a committee opinion issued today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). ACOG's opinion is in agreement with the conclusion reached at the National Cancer Institute's Early Reproductive Events and Breast Cancer Workshop, which met in March 2003.

ACOG's review of the research on a link between abortion and later development of breast cancer concluded that studies on the issue were inconsistent and difficult to interpret, mainly due to study design flaws. Some studies showed either a significant decrease in breast cancer risk after abortion or found no effect. The most recent studies from China, the United Kingdom, and the US found no effect of induced abortion on breast cancer risk.

~~~~~~~~~~~

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is the national medical organization representing over 45,000 members who provide health care for women.


The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

The American Cancer Society and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecology are two of the nation's leading authorities on women's health.
Every other reputable and legitimate national authority on cancer, obstetrics, and women's reproductive health agrees that there is no causal link between abortion and breast cancer.
It's noteworthy to me that the religious Right has got medical authorities so intimidated that the American Cancer Society feels they have to placate them by repeatedly making noises about how abortion is a very emotional and controversial issue, blah-blah-blah, before presenting the medical fact that there's no causal link between abortion and breast cancer. On a medical website (not a religious nor a political one).
It's as if they're apologizing for the fact that there isn't one.
Cute.
Anyway, there's the facts, and anyone who cares to dispute them, bring it on. :bringit

Next, I'll be addressing the "Post-Abortion Stress Syndrome" (aka "PAS" or "PASS"), a bogus affliction invented by the fundamentalist Right and unrecognized by the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, or any other mainstream authority.
Any self-proclaimed sufferers of this malady are more than welcome to participate, but probably ought to avoid the thread if evidence from mainstream medical authorities proving that "PASS" is a groundless political contrivance of the conservative Right is going to send them into some sort of a emotional or psychological tailspin.

 

[talloulou]

While I'd be inclined to agree that the surgical procedure of abortion doesn't cause increased risk of cancer there is no question that delaying or foregoing child birth does. Since many women having an abortion are doing so in order to delay or forego bearing children they may in fact be putting themselves at higher risk for cancer. Now if they've already had children than they're probably not.

 

[1069]

Since many women having an abortion are doing so in order to delay or forego bearing children they may in fact be putting themselves at higher risk for cancer.

Over 60% of women who have abortions already have children, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
It is reasonable to assume that the remainder go on to have children at the same rate that women who don't have abortions do.

 

[talloulou]

Over 60% of women who have abortions already have children, according to the Guttmacher Institute.
It is reasonable to assume that the remainder go on to have children at the same rate that women who don't have abortions do.

Why is it reasonable to assume that?

 

[Felicity]

Every other reputable and legitimate national authority on cancer, obstetrics, and women's reproductive health agrees that there is no causal link between abortion and breast cancer..

That's a little different tune than you were piping on that other thread...
Please note the part in bold:

Originally Posted by 1069
If you feel you can prove these things, be my guest.
I, however, will counter with unbiased and empirical evidence that there is no link between abortion and cancer

"causal" is an interesting qualifier--what exactly are you saying so that I might understand the point you are making?

 

[talloulou]

That's a little different tune than you were piping on that other thread...
Please note the part in bold:

"causal" is an interesting qualifier--what exactly are you saying so that I might understand the point you are making?

More people drown in summer. That's not a causal link between summer and drowning. Summer in itself doesn't cause one to drown. The fact that more people swim in summer does.

 

[1069]

Why is it reasonable to assume that?

In the US, 82% of women are mothers. (source: US Census Bureau)
24% of women in the US have abortions (source: Guttmacher).
12% of women suffer from infertility/ impaired ability to conceive - source: National Center for Disease Control and Health Statistics (these would not be the same women who have abortions, unless said fertility problems manifest later in life; due to Pelvic Inflammatory Disease or an advancing chronic condition such as Endometriosis, for instance).
Also, black and hispanic women account for 40% of all abortions, with a black woman being three times more likely to have terminated a pregnancy than a white woman (source: Guttmacher), while the birth rate of these ethnic groups is currently far higher than that of the white population (source: US Census Bureau).
Like I said, based on these statistics, it seems to me a reasonable assumption that the number of offspring produced by the post-abortive population is on par with (if not far higher than) the number of offspring produced by women who have never had abortions.
Perhaps you have some evidence to the contrary?

 

[1069]

That's a little different tune than you were piping on that other thread...
Please note the part in bold:

"causal" is an interesting qualifier--what exactly are you saying so that I might understand the point you are making?

What I'm saying is that there is no link- causal or otherwise- between abortion and breast cancer.

 

[Felicity]

Induced abortion as an independent risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis -- Brind et al. 50 (5): 481 -- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health The results support the inclusion of induced abortion among significant independent risk factors for breast cancer, regardless of parity or timing of abortion relative to the first term pregnancy. Although the increase in risk was relatively low, the high incidence of both breast cancer and induced abortion suggest a substantial impact of thousands of excess cases per year currently, and a potentially much greater impact in the next century, as the first cohort of women exposed to legal induced abortion continues to age.

Cancer Spectrum: Daling et al., pp. 1584-1592.
CONCLUSION: Our data support the hypothesis that an induced abortion can adversely influence a woman's subsequent risk of breast cancer. However, the results across all epidemiologic studies of this premise are inconsistent—both overall and within specific subgroups. The risk of breast cancer should be re-examined in future studies of women who have had legal abortion available to them throughout the majority of their reproductive years, with particular attention to the potential influence of induced abortion early in life. [J NatI Cancer Inst 86:1584-1592, 1994]

Cancer Spectrum: Medline Abstract
Parous women who had a preterm delivery below 32 weeks gestation had a 1.72-fold (1.14-2.59) increased risk of breast cancer compared with other parous women. In conclusion, a preterm delivery of 32+ weeks gestation did not significantly increase a woman's risk of contracting breast cancer. Only for the very small group of women with preterm deliveries of less than 32 weeks gestation did we observe an increased risk.

Entrez PubMed
The possible influence of induced abortion on breast cancer risk was assessed in a cohort of 267 040 women enrolled in a randomised trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai, China. Based on answers to a baseline questionnaire, subsequent breast cancer risk was not significantly associated with ever having an induced abortion. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk estimate was 1.06 (95% C.I.: 0.91, 1.25), and there was no trend in risk with number of abortions. Analysis of data from more detailed interviews of 652 cases and 694 controls from the cohort yielded similar results. There was also no overall increase in risk in women with induced abortion after first birth. Few women had undergone an abortion after 13 weeks gestation or before their first child. Although increases in risk were observed in such women, they were not statistically significant and could have been due to recall bias. Abortions as they have been performed in China are not an important cause of breast cancer.

Would these be evidence of a "causal" relationship as you describe talloulou? I'm still inclear as to why Summer would be "causal" but such findings as increased risk aren't. I think there's something I'm not understanding.

EDIT: Ah...Either I read you wrong or you edited it...

EDIT 2: What say you to such studies 1069?

 

[1069]

"The possible influence of induced abortion on breast cancer risk was assessed in a cohort of 267 040 women enrolled in a randomised trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai, China. Based on answers to a baseline questionnaire, subsequent breast cancer risk was not significantly associated with ever having an induced abortion. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk estimate was 1.06 (95% C.I.: 0.91, 1.25), and there was no trend in risk with number of abortions."

I'm not sure what a "cohort of Chinese women" is, but a study of 652 cases and 694 controls doesn't sound like a relevant study at all, being far too small, and really doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Unless I'm having reading comprehension problems here, your study says there isn't a link between abortion and breast cancer?
Surely I'm misunderstanding.

I've gotta go cook dinner; I'll read over the rest when i get back. I'm not avoiding the issue. I just thought we'd already covered the "abortion/breast cancer link" in the other thread. I'm really anxious to move on to ripping a new arsehole in "PASS".
Please hurry up and let me... pleeeease?? :mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

"The possible influence of induced abortion on breast cancer risk was assessed in a cohort of 267 040 women enrolled in a randomised trial of breast self-examination in Shanghai, China. Based on answers to a baseline questionnaire, subsequent breast cancer risk was not significantly associated with ever having an induced abortion. After adjustment for potential confounders, the relative risk estimate was 1.06 (95% C.I.: 0.91, 1.25), and there was no trend in risk with number of abortions."

I'm not sure what a "cohort of Chinese women" is, but a study of 652 cases and 694 controls doesn't sound like a relevant study at all, being far too small, and really doesn't prove anything one way or the other.
Unless I'm having reading comprehension problems here, your study says there isn't a link between abortion and breast cancer?
Surely I'm misunderstanding.

I've gotta go cook dinner; I'll read over the rest when i get back. I'm not avoiding the issue. I just thought we'd already covered the "abortion/breast cancer link" in the other thread. I'm really anxious to move on to ripping a new arsehole in "PASS".
Please hurry up and let me... pleeeease?? :mrgreen:

Well..go ahead and do that....but I did cite 4 studies--and the one you commented on was one steen offered that DOES say there is evidence of an increased risk even though most of the women studied didn't have abortion past 13 weeks. Still--it says there's a possible link, where you are saying there is none. I do believe the jury is still out and there isn't a definative conclusion. Go ahead and blast PASS now if you just can't wait.:mrgreen:

 

[talloulou]

I don't have evidence. I haven't researched it yet but if I were to "assume" I would have assumed differently than you did.

When it comes to the protective benefits of child bearing on a variety of cancers the two most important factors seem to be 1)age of first full term pregnancy 2)number of children had in a lifetime.

It's not hard to look around and see that women are having less children today than women did in the past and that they are having them at an older age.

However I myself only have two kids, never had an abortion, but didn't have my first kid till the age of 24 which is close to the end of the "fertility peak" for women. Probably much of the delayed child bearing and less number of kids is due more to other contraceptive methods and not abortion.

But in any event the younger you are when you conceive the higher the child bearing protective benefit for breast cancer. Other cancers seem to have the risk more related to how many kids you have. So in that scenario the women who has an abortion is no more at risk for breast cancer than the women who never got pregnant because she's on birth control. But both of those women are more at risk then a women who gives birth at 19 or 20 for the first time.

Then there is the second factor and the one that is most debated. And that is the idea that pregnancy changes the breast tissue and the breast tissue changes early in pregnancy create tissue that is more vulnerable to cancer if the pregnancy isn't carried out to term. That is the factor that has been disputed pretty strongly by the majority of the medical community.

Simultaneously a large portion of the medical community believe and strongly claim that breastfeeding lessens your risk of breast cancer because it is only through breastfeeding that you get rid of this tissue from pregnancy that is higher risk tissue. So that seems a little inconsistent. But in any event if that's the case than it could be that women who don't breastfeed share the same risk as those who abort while those that breastfeed have lessened their risk.

In any event it's all stuff women should think about as we live in a society that sort of encourages delayed child birth and suggests breastfeeding is a matter of whatever is most comfortable for you. These attitudes are actually harming women rather than helping or empowering them.

 

[rathi]

. These attitudes are actually harming women rather than helping or empowering them.

As opposed to the emphasis that society places on males to engage in sports and other somewhat dangerous activities? Let people make their own choices.

 

[1069]

In any event it's all stuff women should think about as we live in a society that sort of encourages delayed child birth and suggests breastfeeding is a matter of whatever is most comfortable for you. These attitudes are actually harming women rather than helping or empowering them.

Well... I'm a huge breastfeeding advocate; I adored breastfeeding.
But some women hate it, and I don't think the physical benefits to the child are worth the possible emotional damage to both mother and child- not to mention their relationship with each other- if the woman just absolutely doesn't want to do it.
Also, there are some women who can't, who physically don't produce enough milk; there are some women who can, and want to, but develop infections, clogged ducts, abcesses, etc, and have to stop.
I dislike militant breastfeeding advocates who portray such women as failures.
That attitude- that label- can do untold damage to a young woman's confidence in her ability to nurture and bond with her child.
On the other hand, it's just not right that society has portrayed commercial formula as an equivalent to breast milk. It's not. It's decidedly second-best. Heck, back in the 50s and 60s when baby formula was introduced, it was advertised as being superior to breast milk.
It's also not right that society, advertisers, the media, and even the medical establishment to a degree promote the idea that breastfeeding ruins a woman's breasts or figure permanently. It certainly changes things, but "ruin" is a relative term. If society felt like it, it could perceive the breasts of a woman who has breastfed a child as even more beautiful, rather than "atrophied" (a term I've seen used in an advertisement for cosmetic surgery).
Society also needs to change its attitude about women breastfeeding in public or pumping and storing milk at work. A decision to breastfeed should not be the equivalent of house arrest. Many women only get six weeks of maternity leave and then have to go back to work.
Until these things change, I can't wholeheartedly advocate breastfeeding as the best option for everyone, because to me the benefit to the child is not, in many cases, worth the detriment to the mother.
But I feel that many of those obstacles and detriments could be alleviated by society changing its attitude about breasts being primarily sexual organs; our culture is unique in its sexual fetishization of women's breasts, which in itself makes a lot of women feel icky about breastfeeding, as if they're molesting their baby or something. Most cultures throughout history have viewed breasts as being connected to maternity rather than sexuality; in Africa today many tribal cultures require that women cover their legs to the ankle, but permit them to leave their breasts bare.
The laws permitting men in our society to run around shirtless in public while arresting and imprisoning women for doing the same because their bare torsos are considered somehow criminally "indecent", while men's are not, is one of the most blatant examples of sexism in our society today.


Anyway, that's a subject for another thread. Maybe one of us should start a thread about it somewhere.

Go ahead and blast PASS now if you just can't wait.

Okay... let me get my research together.

 

[1069]

Okay, here I go, debunking PAS.

Many people are interested in learning about the possible effects of abortion on women's emotional well-being, and several hundred studies have been conducted on this issue since the late 1970s. Unfortunately, much of the research on women's psychological responses to abortion can be confusing. Nonetheless, mainstream medical opinions, like that of the American Psychological Association, agree there is no such thing as "post-abortion syndrome."

A Summary of the Scientific Research

Since the early 1980s, groups opposed to abortion have attempted to document the existence of "post-abortion syndrome," which they claim has traits similar to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) demonstrated by some war veterans. In 1989, the American Psychological Association (APA) convened a panel of psychologists with extensive experience in this field to review the data. They reported that the studies with the most scientifically rigorous research designs consistently found no trace of "post-abortion syndrome" and furthermore, that no such syndrome is scientifically or medically recognized.1

The panel 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."2 While some women may experience sensations of regret, sadness or guilt after an abortion, the overwhelming responses are relief and happiness.3

In another study, researchers surveyed a national sample of 5,295 women, not all of whom had had abortions, and many of whom had abortions between 1979 and 1987, the time they were involved in the study. The researchers were able to learn about women's emotional well-being both before and after they had abortions. They concluded at the end of the eight-year study that the most important predictor of emotional well-being in post-abortion women was their well-being before the abortion. Women who had high self-esteem before an abortion would be most likely to have high self-esteem after an abortion, regardless of how many years passed since the abortion.4

Psychological responses to abortion must also be considered in comparison to the psychological impact of alternatives for resolving an unwanted pregnancy (adoption or becoming a parent). While there has been little scientific research about the psychological consequences of adoption, researchers speculate that it is likely that the psychological risks for adoption are higher for women than those for abortion because they reflect different types of stress. Stress associated with abortion is acute stress, typically ending with the procedure. With adoption, as with unwanted childbearing, however, the stress may be chronic for women who continue to worry about the fate of the child."5

>snip<

Russo and Dabul reported their conclusions of an eight-year study in Professional Psychology:

"Although an intensive examination of the data was conducted, controlling for numerous variables and including comparisons of Black women versus White women, Catholic women versus non-Catholic women, and women who had abortions versus other women, the findings are consistent: The experience of having an abortion plays a negligible, if any, independent role in women's well-being over time, regardless of race or religion. The major predictor of a woman's well-being after an abortion, regardless of race or religion, is level of well-being before becoming pregnant...Our findings are congruent with those of others, including the National Academy of Sciences (1975), and the conclusion is worth repeating. Despite a concerted effort to convince the public of the existence of a widespread and severe postabortion trauma, there is no scientific evidence for the existence of such trauma, even though abortion occurs in the highly stressful context of an unwanted pregnancy."8

The Impact of Anti-Choice Activities

Russo and Dabul point out that when women in their study were interviewed from 1979 to 1987, anti-choice efforts to stigmatize abortion had not yet reached prominent levels. Today, anti-choice groups regularly harass clinic staff, intimidate patients at clinics, and use graphic language designed to punish women (e.g. "abortion is murder," "women are baby-killers"). Additionally, the past few years have revealed a new anti-choice strategy of offering "counseling" services to women. Rather than exploring the roots of a woman's psychological distress and providing unbiased therapy, anti-choice counselors tend to direct her anger towards the abortion provider by claiming that women are misinformed about the psychological trauma that abortion inflicts. Due to the political bias of these counselors and their misuse of psychological services, women can be left feeling angry and betrayed.

Russo and Dabul concluded that practitioners should acknowledge the detrimental effects of the social ostracism felt by abortion patients. Some post-abortion difficulties may result from a lack of social support because women are expected to bear the brunt of unplanned and unwanted childbearing. The researchers encouraged all practitioners to continue to provide accurate information since many women have been misled by anti-choice sources which may contribute to concerns if they choose abortion. Further, women who have concerns after an abortion should be encouraged to see a professional psychologist or join a support group supervised by a professional mental health provider, rather than one sponsored by any anti-choice organization.

References

1. American Psychological Association. "APA research review finds no evidence of 'post-abortion syndrome' but research studies on psychological effects of abortion inconclusive." Press release, January 18, 1989.
2. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.
3. Adler NE, et al. "Psychological factors in abortion: a review." American Psychologist, 1992, 47(10): 1194-1204.
4. Russo NF, Zierk KL. "Abortion, childbearing, and women's well-being." Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1992, 23(4): 269-280.
5. Russo NF. "Psychological aspects of unwanted pregnancy and its resolution." In J.D. Butler and D.F. Walbert (eds.), Abortion, Medicine, and the Law (4th Ed., pp. 593-626). New York: Facts on File, 1992.
6. Stotland N. "The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome." Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268(15): 2078-2079.
7. David HP. "Commentost-abortion trauma." Abortion Review Incorporating Abortion Research Notes, Spring, 1996, 59: 1-3.
8. Russo NF, Dabul, AJ. "The relationship of abortion to well-being: Do race and religion make a difference?" Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 1997, 28(1): 1-9.


link

We can start with this.

 

[1069]

An interesting article from Ms. Magazine online:

Post-abortion stress syndrome" — PASS or PAS — sounds scientific, but don't be fooled — it's a made-up term. Not recognized as an official syndrome or diagnosis by the American Psychiatric Association , the American Psychological Association, or any other mainstream authority, it is a bogus affliction invented by the religious right. Those who claim its existence define it loosely as a raft of emotional problems that they say women suffer after having an abortion — nightmares, feelings of guilt, even suicidal tendencies — and compare it to post-traumatic stress disorder.

Using the allure of outward compassion, dozens of anti-choice PAS organizations have sprung up in the last ten years, accompanied by books, pamphlets, billboards, and Web sites. From SafeHaven and Healing Hearts Ministries to Victims of Choice and Rachel's Vineyard — a project of the anti-choice American Life League that operated its varied programs on a $7 million annual budget in 1999 — all of them insist that women who have had abortions suffer severe psychological damage that can be alleviated only with their assistance. Even though they call it a "syndrome," they don't recommend medical intervention.

It's anti-choice dirty-play at its worst. Because the groups believe that abortion is always a wrong choice, they often engage women in three steps toward recovery: confession of their mistake; reconciliation, usually through a ritual (Project Rachel, which is affiliated with the Catholic Church, takes women on retreats that include a "name your baby" ceremony and a "Mass for the Unborn"); and, finally, restitution of some sort. Of course, "the way to make recompense is usually to speak out against abortion," says Rev. Cynthia Bumb, an activist who has followed PAS activity closely. The groups tell PAS sufferers to lobby for anti-choice legislation; Afterabortion.org helps women get started with model bills, like the "Protection from High Risk and Coerced Abortion Act." Another route to "recovery" is to sue an abortion provider for malpractice. At the Web site of the anti-choice Justice Foundation — actually a malpractice firm, not a foundation — viewers are greeted by a burst of thunder, followed by a voice: "If you've been physically or emotionally injured by abortion, don't suffer in silence." You can "talk to an aggressive attorney today," the voice says. "You don't have to be a victim for the rest of your life." Their hope is that malpractice claims will eventually put abortion clinics out of business, even if protesters do not.

Claiming that abortion causes women psychological suffering conveniently flips the debate so that the anti-choice movement seems less callous toward women's concerns and more focused on women's "health." This cynical pro-woman/pro-life scheme was honed by David C. Reardon, director of the anti-choice Elliot Institute in Springfield, Illinois — the organization behind Afterabortion.org — who realized that the fetus imagery of the "pro-life" movement was failing to sway the masses because too much of the public believes that women will suffer if abortion is criminalized. In fact, an October 2000 Gallup poll found that two-thirds of Americans surveyed said they are against a constitutional amendment that would overturn the right to abortion established in Roe v. Wade. In March 2001, only 18 percent of the people polled told Gallup they want abortion to be illegal in all circumstances. But Reardon asserts that many people who support abortion are "uneasy pragmatists" who "have hardened their hearts to the baby because they think at least women are being helped." In his book, The Jericho Plan: Breaking Down The Walls Which Prevent Post-Abortion Healing, Reardon describes his new strategy for making the anti-choice movement appear pro-woman, bringing down the walls of choice by convincing the public "about the dangers of abortion." And since legal abortion is, in fact, a very safe surgical procedure and is far less dangerous than childbirth, Reardon and his allies seek to foment mental pain. "So as we educate [the public] about how abortion hurts women, it changes the whole equation," Reardon told Priests for Life. "The potential of post-abortion healing . . . can rapidly change the whole dynamic of the abortion debate in this country. And I am really confident that we will see an end to abortion within the decade."

His formula calls for "stealth healers" (his term) to offer mercy and forgiveness to women who have had abortions — he calls them "post-aborted women" — and then use them as "compelling advocates for the unborn." Says Reardon: "By demanding legal protection for women forced into unwanted abortions and greater rights for women to sue for post-abortion trauma, we force our opponents to side with us in defending women's rights or [to] be exposed as defending the abortion industry at the expense of women." He wants the message of the antiabortion movement to be, "abortion hurts women." And he's getting his wish. During the Republican National Convention in Philadelphia last year, a string of anti-choice protesters spread out on a street in a "human life chain," holding the same sign: abortion hurts women.
Of course, the overwhelming scientific evidence shows that abortion does not hurt women — physically or mentally. In the late 1980s, President Reagan tried a strategy similar to Reardon's and asked his like-minded surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, to conduct a study on the mental pain caused by abortion. To everyone's surprise, Koop determined that there was insufficient evidence of trauma. Psychological problems were "minuscule from a public health perspective," he said. The American Psychological Association followed up by asking a group of six experts to undertake a special review. The panel concluded in 1989 that terminating an unwanted pregnancy posed no hazard to women's mental health. The predominant sensation women felt following an abortion was relief, the group said.

And in August 2000, a study conducted by Brenda Major at the University of California at Santa Barbara — the latest among many — confirmed those findings. Severe post-abortion psychological distress is extremely rare, affecting just one percent of patients. "Most women were satisfied with their decision, and believed that they had benefited more than they had been harmed," said Major, who, along with other researchers, tracked women for two years after they had first-trimester abortions (88 percent of abortions are performed in the first trimester, and therefore represent the typical experience). The best predictor of post-abortion mental health, it turns out, is a woman's mental health prior to the abortion.

"Abortion does not cure depression or bipolar disorders; nor does it cause them," says Suzanne Poppema, a retired Seattle abortion provider, now an international consultant on reproductive health issues. She and many others have little tolerance for PAS — "because it doesn't exist," she says. The overwhelming emotion she witnessed at her clinic, she says, was relief; PAS is merely an attempt to scare women, and she points out that if women do feel negative emotions, they are probably a result of the antiabortion movement itself. After all, the picketers who scream "murderer" at women entering clinics are significant stress-inducers, too.

Like Poppema, abortion rights organizations are quick to denounce PAS as the myth that it is. "The shame here is they look for women and seek to exploit them," says Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers in Alexandria, Virginia, an association of independent clinics. When Project Rachel began its multicity anti-choice ad campaign in the Spring of 2000, the National Abortion Federation, the largest professional association of abortion providers, countered with a press conference that cited scientific studies disproving post-abortion stress. "This is an invention of those who oppose choice," says Vicki Saporta, NAF's executive director.

Abortion does not "hurt" women and there is no such thing as "Post Abortion Syndrome," but it's also true that women who feel relief after having an abortion may also have normal feelings of sadness, grief, or regret. An unwanted pregnancy alone can create significant anxiety. With the clock ticking, a woman is forced to decide between very limited options, each of them stressful. The alternatives to abortion — carrying a pregnancy to term and either keeping the child or making an adoption placement — can have a serious impact on a woman's mental health. Rosemary Candelario, a longtime abortion rights activist and current director of the Massachusetts Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, points out that it is important for pro-choice organizations to recognize that some women, especially those with religious backgrounds, may have difficulty making the decision to terminate the pregnancy: "I think the fear in the movement is if we admit abortion is hard for some women, then we're admitting that it's wrong, which is totally not the case. I've heard from women who are having problems dealing with their abortion who are still ardently pro-choice."

Attributing a woman's emotional problems to the simple fact that she had an abortion can detract from a full understanding of what is going on with her," says Nancy Russo, a professor of psychology and women's studies at Arizona State University and the author of multiple studies on the subject. Ava Torre-Bueno, a psychotherapist and the author of Peace After Abortion, says most of the women who come to her seeking counseling say, "I'm pro-choice. I'm still pro-choice. So why do I feel so bad?" Many are recovering from the sheer stress of making the decision to have an abortion. About one-quarter, she says, are grieving-sometimes for the fetus or what they might see as a life or potential life. Others are grieving another kind of loss: a breakup with a boyfriend or rupture with parents.

Women's real-life responses to abortion are "complex," notes Gail B. Williams, an associate professor of nursing at the University of Texas, and are "associated with a mixture of feelings." And the current political climate has only made things worse. In the days of back-alley abortions, "women felt lucky if they didn't die," says Susan Brownmiller, author of the feminist memoir In Our Time. Now, however, the atmosphere surrounding abortion is saturated with anti-choice rhetoric. "Women who sit in my clinic don't see it as a right," says Peg Johnston, director of Southern Tier Women's Services near Binghamton, New York. "They're scared."

What they are scared of is stigma, according to a little-noticed 1999 study by Brenda Major, the lead researcher of the U.C. Santa Barbara study, and psychologist Richard H. Gramzow, who found that approximately half the women in their study who had abortions felt a need to keep them secret from friends and/or family for fear of social disapproval. The effort of concealment itself was a major source of distress for women, the study said. "Women are hypersensitive to the sociopolitical climate and how it affects their feelings. This is the only medical procedure you can't talk about," says Dana Dovitch, a psychotherapist in Los Angeles and coauthor with Candace De Puy of The Healing Choice, a therapeutic handbook on abortion. In interviews across the country, women described to Dovitch the difficulty of creating a pretense at work, lying to relatives, avoiding friends. Torre-Bueno agrees. She noticed that emotional issues, especially feelings of guilt, began rising along with anti-choice efforts to restrict abortion. "More and more often, women would say, 'I hope you won't judge me,'" she says.
>snip<
link

 

[1069]

American Psychological Association:

APA Briefing Paper on The Impact of Abortion on Women

The Impact of Abortion on Women: What Does the Psychological Research Say?

The research shows that the ability of women to make decisions about their own childbearing (e.g., timing) is a necessary condition for their health and mental health, as well as for their families. Abortion is a safe medical procedure that carries relatively few physical or psychological risks and that yields positive outcomes when the alternative is unwanted pregnancy (Adler, Ozer, & Tschann, 2003).
>snip<

Physical Risks and Consequences of Abortion

* Legal abortion is less dangerous than pregnancy. In 1999, as in previous years, deaths related to legal abortions occurred very rarely, at a rate of less than one per 100,000 abortions. The overall pregnancy-related mortality rate was nearly ten times higher (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2003).

* Abortion may avoid negative health consequences, especially for teenage mothers. Unintended and unwanted childbearing can have negative health consequences, including greater chances for illness for both the mother and child. The adverse consequences of teenagers’ inability to control their childbearing can be particularly severe. Teenage mothers are more likely to suffer toxemia, anemia, birth complications, and death. Babies of teenage mothers are more likely to have low birth weight and suffer birth injury and neurological defects. Such babies are twice as likely to die in the first year of life as babies born to mothers who delay childbearing until after age 20 (Russo & David, 2002).

Psychological Responses Following Abortion

* Low risk of psychological harm. Well-designed studies of psychological responses following abortion have consistently shown that risk of psychological harm is low. Some women experience psychological dysfunction following abortion, but post-abortion rates of distress and dysfunction are lower than pre-abortion rates. Moreover, 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. A recent study showed not only that rates of disorders, such as depression and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), were not elevated in a large sample of 442 women followed for two years post-abortion, but also that the incidence of PTSD was actually lower in women post-abortion than the rate in the general population (Adler et al., 2002).

* Positive functioning and educational attainment two years later. A study of adolescent abortion followed 360 adolescents over two years after they had been interviewed when seeking a pregnancy test. Some had a negative pregnancy test, some were pregnant and carried to term, and some were pregnant and aborted their pregnancy. The adolescents who chose abortion showed significant drops in anxiety and significant increases in self esteem and internal control in the period immediately following the abortion to two years later. They appeared to be functioning as well as, or even better than, adolescents who had a negative pregnancy test or had carried to term. They were also most likely to have higher economic well-being; most likely to be in high school (and performing at grade level) or to have graduated; and less likely to have a subsequent pregnancy (Zabin, Hirsch, & Emerson, 1989).

* Psychological measures within normal range. Available data show that mean scores on psychological measures are well within normal bounds for minors as well as for adults who have undergone an abortion. The data do not suggest that legal minors are at heightened risk of serious adverse psychological responses compared with adults following an abortion or with peers who have not undergone an abortion (Zabin et al., 1989).

* Positive emotions more often experienced. Freely chosen legal abortion, particularly in the first trimester, has not been found to be associated with severe psychological trauma, despite the fact that it occurs in the stressful context of unwanted pregnancy. The time of greatest stress is before the abortion. A woman’s emotional responses after experiencing an unwanted pregnancy terminated by abortion are complex and may involve a combination of positive and negative emotions. Positive emotions are more often experienced, and they are experienced more strongly than negative emotions, both immediately after the abortion and during the months following it (Russo & Zierk, 1992).

* Higher risk for psychopathology if pre-existing emotional problems. While there is little risk for severe post-abortion psychopathology for women in general, it is important to recognize that some women, particularly those with pre-existing emotional problems, are at higher risk for negative emotional responses after abortion due to their individual history than are other women (Russo & Zierk, 1992).

* Effects of stress are relative. Abortion may be a stressful experience, however, it may also reduce the stress resulting from an unwanted pregnancy and from the events that led to the pregnancy being unwanted. The effects of abortion cannot be separated from the effects of the experience of unwanted pregnancy and from the effects of the context in which the pregnancy occurred (Russo & Zierk, 1992).


* Circumstances must be taken into account. In studying responses to abortion, one needs to take into account the circumstances of the conception, as well as those following conception. If the conception is planned, the resulting pregnancy is likely to be wanted. However, changing circumstances (e.g., separation from one’s partner or adverse results of genetic testing) may cause an initially planned, intended, and wanted conception to become an unwanted pregnancy. The circumstances leading to this change may themselves be sources of stress and distress, and should be taken into account in evaluating a woman’s response following abortion. That is, in some cases, it is the unwanted pregnancy that is the source of stress, not necessarily the abortion (Adler, 1992).

* Poor social outcomes often arise for unwanted children, especially of teenage mothers. Unintended and unwanted childbearing has been linked with a variety of social problems, including divorce, poverty, child abuse, and juvenile delinquency. One study found that unwanted children were less likely to have a secure family life. As adults, they were more likely to engage in criminal behavior, be on welfare, and receive psychiatric services. Another study found that children who were unintended by their mothers had lower self esteem than their intended peers 23 years later. Research has shown that social and psychological problems persist, partially because the mothers are themselves from disadvantaged backgrounds with poor prospects for future education and employment. Children born to teenage mothers are more likely to have lower achievement scores, poorer school adjustment, and more problem behaviors than children born to older women (Russo & David, 2002).


* Negative outcomes persist in the best of circumstances. Longitudinal research has found that when abortion is denied, the resulting children are more likely to have a variety of social and psychological problems -- even when they are born to adult women who are healthy with intact marriages and adequate economic resources (Russo & David, 2002).


Recommendations

1. Access to legal abortion to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is vital to safeguard both the physical and mental health of women. Research indicates that abortion does not generally have a negative impact on either women’s physical or mental health. A forced, unwanted pregnancy, on the other hand, could place women’s health and well-being at risk.

2. Mental health consultation needs to be readily available for the small number of women who would benefit from such intervention following abortion. Mental health professionals should explore factors, such as psychological distress and low self esteem, that may have contributed to the unwanted pregnancy. Through the therapeutic process, it is vital to enhance the coping ability of women (including adolescents) to equip them with ways to prevent future unwanted pregnancies.

3. Education and career development programs need to be available for young women to enhance self esteem and increase access to resources associated with employment and income. Given the general decline in self esteem among adolescent girls and high rates of unintended pregnancy, the school system must begin teaching young girls that a career is in reach and that early pregnancy is not a viable alternative to a high school diploma. Professional psychologists, social workers, and guidance counselors all have important roles to play in the development of such programs.

References

Adler, N.E. (1992). Unwanted pregnancy and abortion: Definitional and research issues. Journal of Social Issues, 48(3), 19-35.

Adler, N.E., David, H.P., Major, B.N., Roth, S.H., Russo, N.F., & Wyatt, G.E. (1992). Psychological factors in abortion: A review. American Psychologist, 47, 1194-1204.

Adler, N.E., Ozer, E.J., & Tschann, J. (2003). Abortion among adolescents. American Psychologist, 58 (3), 211-217.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2003). Abortion surveillance-United States, 2000, Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 52(SS12), 1-32.

Prochoice Forum, Division 35, the Society for the Psychology of Women, the American Psychological Association. 2004

Russo, N. F., & Zierk, K.L. (1992). Abortion, childbearing, and women. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 23(4), 269-280.

Zabin, L S., Hirsch, M.B., & Emerson, M.R. (1989). When urban adolescents choose abortion: Effects on education, psychological status, and subsequent pregnancy. Family Planning Perpectives, 21, 248-255.

link

 

[1069]

Induced Abortion: Helping Your Patients

There are 1.5 million induced abortions in the U.S. every year. By age 45, 43% of U.S. women will have an abortion. (Alan Guttmacher Institute, 1996) The procedure, whether medical or surgical, is known to be safe and effective. The psychological and psychiatric aspects of abortion, however, are subject to misunderstanding and misinterpretation. Clinicians and patients have not only their own and each other's feelings and values to contend with, but also those of powerful social factions. Most states have laws limiting abortion, and in the U.S., it is only older women and older clinicians who have personal experience of the morbidity and mortality that inevitably result from abortion prohibitions.

The social realities of abortion, whether it is illicit, whether it is opposed by a woman's religious faith, or whether she must make her way past demonstrators shouting that she is about to commit murder, forcefully shape a woman's psychological realities, and, to some extent, dictate the support she needs from her care providers.

To begin with, an abortion represents a failure: of contraception, of a relationship, of knowledge, of self-assertion. Whatever the real reason, a woman contemplating abortion often feels the failure is hers. An abortion ends a potential life, and is nearly always experienced with some sense of loss. Negative feelings are not equivalent to psychiatric disorders, despite the confusion between "depression" as a self-limited bad mood in common parlance and "depression" as a diagnosable psychiatric disorder. The most common feeling following an abortion is relief. While there are women who later regret having had an abortion, as all of us regret some decisions we make, there is no evidence that women make hasty or thoughtless decisions, or that they benefit from mandatory parental involvement, waiting periods, or counseling.

The incidence of psychiatric illness is several orders of magnitude greater following childbirth than following abortion. Serious psychiatric illness follows abortion in fewer than 1% of cases; in most of these, the psychiatric illness preceded the medical procedure. Among adolescents, those who choose abortion have better psychosocial outcomes than those who deliver.

The risk factors for psychiatric complications of abortion include social or emotional deprivation, having an abortion against one's will, extreme youth, past or current psychiatric illness, paralyzing ambivalence, genetic indications for the abortion, and abortion after the first trimester. Women who abort for genetic reasons lose pregnancies they had planned to keep, and also face the fear and narcissistic injury that come with the conception of an abnormal fetus. The delay of abortion beyond the first trimester is generally a result of one of the other risk factors. Nearly all patients with psychiatric disorders are perfectly capable of giving informed consent. They generally face greater psychiatric danger from continued pregnancy, labor, delivery, and motherhood than from abortion. The recognition by a patient with a psychotic illness that she is not ready to care for a child can be a sign of emotional health.

The data about psychiatric illness following abortion are frequently misinterpreted and misused, and combined with anecdotal reports from women involved with anti-abortion groups in an attempt to convince women considering abortion that the procedure is traumatic and causes permanent psychological damage. There is no empirical evidence for such assertions.The circumstances most conducive to a good psychological outcome are those in which the patient makes an autonomous choice, knowing that those she cares about will support whichever choice she makes.

JournalWatch Article, from the publishers of The New England Journal of Medicine link
Note: you may need to register in order to view this article; registration is free.

Misconceptions about abortion and limitations on access to abortion services threaten women's health, leaving them isolated, stigmatized, and vulnerable to life-threatening self-induced or back-alley procedures. The knowledgeable clinician can help women to make informed choices consonant with their own values, responsibilities, and medical needs, and to integrate abortion experiences into healthy lives. -- NL Stotland, JAMA (Quote from The myth of the abortion trauma syndrome, Journal of the American Medical Association)

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

How about a little personal experience? As a mental health professional, working in the field for more than 16 years and having worked with quite a few who have had abortions, I have noticed several things. Firstly, until recently, I have entered each situation with a personal bias; there will be psychological effects similar to a Major Depressive Episode to an individual following an abortion. What I have observed is that this premise does not hold true, which is why I have abandoned it. What I have found is that there is a direct correlation between the amount of emotional distress one has after an abortion and the degree the individual feels the freedom to choose before the abortion, regardless of whether that freedom is compromised internally or externally. If one feels pressured because of age or life situation, more emotional distress will be apparent. If, however, there is total freedom of choice and few or no reservations about the proceedure, then there seems to be little or no emotional distress afterwards.

My current premise is to not assume anything; to listen.

Remember, what I posted above is my observations having worked, in a psychological framework, with women going through this issue. No research, just anectotal, so please take it for just that.

Addendem: Having just taken a quick look at some research on both sides of the issue, I would say that my observations probably hold true. Whether emotional distress after an abortion occurs or not, seems to depend on the psychological state of the woman both before the abortion and in regards to issues surrounding the abortion.

 

[jfuh]

How about a little personal experience? As a mental health professional, working in the field for more than 16 years and having worked with quite a few who have had abortions, I have noticed several things. Firstly, until recently, I have entered each situation with a personal bias; there will be psychological effects similar to a Major Depressive Episode to an individual following an abortion. What I have observed is that this premise does not hold true, which is why I have abandoned it. What I have found is that there is a direct correlation between the amount of emotional distress one has after an abortion and the degree the individual feels the freedom to choose before the abortion, regardless of whether that freedom is compromised internally or externally. If one feels pressured because of age or life situation, more emotional distress will be apparent. If, however, there is total freedom of choice and few or no reservations about the proceedure, then there seems to be little or no emotional distress afterwards.

My current premise is to not assume anything; to listen.

Remember, what I posted above is my observations having worked, in a psychological framework, with women going through this issue. No research, just anectotal, so please take it for just that.

Addendem: Having just taken a quick look at some research on both sides of the issue, I would say that my observations probably hold true. Whether emotional distress after an abortion occurs or not, seems to depend on the psychological state of the woman both before the abortion and in regards to issues surrounding the abortion.

Very interesting experience indeed. Good info.
I guess a method to measure this though would be looking at women in China. Have any acquaintances there? This might make for a very interesting manuscript.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Very interesting experience indeed. Good info.
I guess a method to measure this though would be looking at women in China. Have any acquaintances there? This might make for a very interesting manuscript.

No aquaintances in China. Interesting...as I was writing it, I was also thinking that there was a research study just begging to be done in there somewhere...

 

[jfuh]

No aquaintances in China. Interesting...as I was writing it, I was also thinking that there was a research study just begging to be done in there somewhere...

As far as what I have researched I've found none in relationship in a real scientific study on the premise you've provided here. Lots of postulations but nothing solid or well studied.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

As far as what I have researched I've found none in relationship in a real scientific study on the premise you've provided here. Lots of postulations but nothing solid or well studied.

Neither did I. However, looking at studies presented by both sides, the 'prior psychological status' issue is often presented. My experience with woman who have aborted is just an expansion of this. A good non-biased study could help explore this issue.

 

[Felicity]

How about a little personal experience? As a mental health professional, working in the field for more than 16 years and having worked with quite a few who have had abortions, I have noticed several things. Firstly, until recently, I have entered each situation with a personal bias; there will be psychological effects similar to a Major Depressive Episode to an individual following an abortion. What I have observed is that this premise does not hold true, which is why I have abandoned it. What I have found is that there is a direct correlation between the amount of emotional distress one has after an abortion and the degree the individual feels the freedom to choose before the abortion, regardless of whether that freedom is compromised internally or externally. If one feels pressured because of age or life situation, more emotional distress will be apparent. If, however, there is total freedom of choice and few or no reservations about the proceedure, then there seems to be little or no emotional distress afterwards.

My current premise is to not assume anything; to listen.

Remember, what I posted above is my observations having worked, in a psychological framework, with women going through this issue. No research, just anectotal, so please take it for just that.

Addendem: Having just taken a quick look at some research on both sides of the issue, I would say that my observations probably hold true. Whether emotional distress after an abortion occurs or not, seems to depend on the psychological state of the woman both before the abortion and in regards to issues surrounding the abortion.

Wouldn't abortion, then, be contra-indicated unless one goes through rigorous counseling (such that potential transgenders must endure) prior to the procedure? Right now, all the counseling, as 1069 attests to, is basically "you wanna do this?--you sure?--okay, let's go..." No matter the age or the mental status of the female requesting the abortion.

 

[CaptainCourtesy]

Wouldn't abortion, then, be contra-indicated unless one goes through rigorous counseling (such that potential transgenders must endure) prior to the procedure? Right now, all the counseling, as 1069 attests to, is basically "you wanna do this?--you sure?--okay, let's go..." No matter the age or the mental status of the female requesting the abortion.

I think we'd have to define 'rigorous' in the context of the time frame involved with abortion...which is different then that of a potential transgender. I think, however, abortion certainly is contra-indicated, unless one has counseling, if there is a prior history of psychological problems. It is these women that seem to have a high incidence of post-abortion emotional distress.