Vol. 11, No. 3 -- February 3, 2012
IN THIS ISSUE:
Leading Medical Journal Publishes Response to Critics
After several months' delay, a leading medical journal has published a letter by Elliot Institute director Dr. David Reardon in response to recent ad hominem attacks by abortion advocates attempting to deny a link between abortion and mental health problems in women.
The criticism began last fall after the British Journal of Psychiatry (BJP) published a meta-analysis review by Dr. Priscilla Coleman on mental health and abortion. To the dismay of abortion rights advocates, the review showed that women who had abortions were 81 percent more likely to experience mental health problems afterward compared to women who gave birth.
Abortion rights advocates responded by criticizing Coleman and her study, and attempting to accuse her of bias by linking her to Reardon. Three different letters published in the BJP used quotes from an article previously written by Reardon, in an attempt to undermine Colemanís integrity.
In a response published by BJP, Reardon refuted the charges of bias and provided context for the article that was used to criticize Coleman, pointing out the critics had taken quotes out of context and offered a distorted picture of his views.
The article "reflected my sincere belief that abortion involves substantial dangers to specific subgroups of women," he wrote. "Unfortunately critics have distorted this into the charge that I seek to scare women with exaggerated risks. That is untrue. There are real risks, especially for certain higher risk groups. Women should be told of the truth, with neither exaggeration nor dismissal and minimization."
The letter is available online under the heading, "Abortion, Mental Health and Charges of Guilt by Association," and will be published in the journal's print edition in March.
Below you will also find a more detailed article by Reardon describing and refuting the "attack and distract" strategy employed by those seeking to discredit this research. In it, he explains why its time to stop attacking the messenger and start putting concern for the lives and well-being of women ahead of promoting abortion.
Ad Hominem Attacks, Guilt by Association,
A Commentary by David C. Reardon, Ph.D.
The abortion and mental health controversy shifted into high gear following the recent publication in The British Journal of Psychiatry of a meta-analysis review that combined results of 22 studies and reported that women who have abortions are 81 percent more likely to experience subsequent mental health problems.
The study included all studies between 1995 and 2009 which met strict inclusion criteria. The data included 877,181 women from six countries. Every one of the 22 studies, even those where the authors concluded there were no significant mental health risks, revealed higher rates of mental health problems associated with abortion for at least one symptom, and many for more than one symptom.
Even if one ignores the exact numbers produced by the meta-analysis, the graphs in which these results are laid out side by side show a trend in the data, across every study design, which is unmistakable (as Iíve discussed in a YouTube video review of the study).
Links to Important Information and Resources
Pregnancy and After-Abortion Help
Get the Latest Information, First
Not receiving this e-newsletter? Want to be the first to get the latest information on research, outreach projects and more? Sign up for our e-news list here.
Be A Partner in Our Work
Contact the Elliot Institute at email@example.com
But if you do forward it, you should remove the unsubscribe link at the bottom or they may unsubscribe YOU by mistake.