I really need some help sorting this one out folks. I am writing this directly to the pro-lifers who read this blog. I really need to get your angle on something…
So, if you are pro-life you think abortion should be illegal, right? You generally think – although there are differences of opinions within your movement – that the doctor should go to the jail and some of you think that the woman (because she basically created the need for the doctor) should go to jail as well. You don’t want to see any more abortion clinics because they are complicit in the killing of babies or pre-born babies or the unborn or whatever you wish to call it. Am I correct so far?
But now, here comes the ole Commonwealth of Virginia where pro-life forces have successfully persuaded the state Board of Health to issue regulations that will govern how abortion clinics are run. Pro-lifers say they want to make the abortion process safer for the women because there are so many sleaze balls out there performing abortions.
Okay, folks, what am I missing here?
A woman going into an abortion clinic is usually going in for one reason – to abort their fetus, their baby, their child, their – well, you pick title. And the pro-lifers don’t like. Indeed, they will spend hours and hours standing in front of an abortion clinic, screaming and yelling at women in an effort to persuade them to cancel their appointment. Some will go further and threaten the doctors and their staff in the hopes that they will stop performing this pernicious act. Some will burn down the clinic. Oh, yeah, and some will actually get a gun or two and kill the doctor and/or their staff to make the point.
But now – wait a second! Now these same folks want to guarantee that the abortion is performed in a safer environment. Suddenly, the pro-lifers are now very concerned that a woman might be injured while she is “killing her baby.” Now, they seem concerned that if there is an emergency the hallways need to be wide enough to get the gurney out to the waiting ambulance. They now want to make sure that the air conditioning is at a proper setting, so the woman will be comfortable while she terminates her pregnancy. In South Carolina, where they promulgated regulations several years ago, they were so concerned about making abortion such a pleasant experience that they required the clinic to regularly mow their lawn and to rid the property of all kinds of critters. In Kansas, pro-lifers want to make sure that the woman’s personal belongings are safe so they required clinics to have a locker for each patient. Damn the cost, they shouted! Women should feel mentally comfortable when they are aborting. Then, tossing a bone to the Custodial Engineer’s Association of America, they threw in a requirement that a janitor’s closet be at least 50 square feet, enough room to hang out and watch television. Bravo to the pro-life movement! Is there no end to their compassion?
The new temporary regulations in Virginia will be formally voted on Sept. 15 by the state Board of Health and could go into effect by Dec. 31. Clinics that provide five or more abortions per month will then be classified as hospitals. Supporters of the restrictions say with a straight face that their only aim is to protect women. They assure us that they do not seek to make the regulations so onerous that it will force many of them to shut their doors. Oh, sure, they’ll still shout that women are “murdering babies” inside that facility, but they still want to make sure that everything is nice and clean in there.
Can anyone help me out here? I’m just a little confused….


September 1, 2011 at 10:42 am
I am pretty sure that there is something hidden on this “protection” thing!
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 5:35 pm
You clearly don’t fololw Cal football very closely. The REASON Tedford is on the firing line this year is because so many of Cal’s players become NFL talents after they leave. Aaron Rodgers, Desean Jackson, Nnamdi Asoughma, Desmond Bishop, Jahvid Best, Shane Vereen the list goes on. Cal currently has the second most players in the NFL of any Pac-12 school. USC is first.The product he puts on the field is much less than the sum of the parts.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 10:45 am
It is hard to believe they will change so drastically.
LikeLike
February 10, 2014 at 7:33 am
Well shucks, I’ll whack him myelsf if he plays that horrid Sublime CD again. At the age of 52 you’d think (hope?) the guy would stop acting/dressing like a teenager and broaden his musical tastes a bit, especially if he feels the need to play that stuff so goddamn loud. Yes, he needs to go down.
LikeLike
April 23, 2014 at 8:44 am
You’ve hit the ball out the park! Incredible!
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 10:46 am
This site is becoming more and more interesting, I like to read posts of intelligent people even if I don’t agree with them.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 11:07 am
I would be very careful with the places this people are involved at
LikeLike
February 8, 2014 at 2:27 am
در 3:52 pmسعیده میگوید:man in masalaro ba harmsaam matrah kardam shokre khoda ihsun manteghi barkhord kard va goft ke sedaghat barash mohemtare
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 12:39 pm
voice lists 30 deaths from abortion in 20 years? With an average of 1.2 million abortions per year, that’s 30 per 24 million abortions. Dr. Amy Tutuer,the Skeptical OB defends her practice with her updated estimate of deaths from maternal hemorrhage, embolism and eclampsia (the three biggest killers of pregant women: she states the rates per 100,000 are, respectively: 0.8, 1.0 and 1.3.
In other words, in 24 million pregnancies, we would see the following numbers of deaths from each of those conditions: 192, 240, 312, for a total of 744. And those are just the three biggest killers.
In other words, (744/30), a woman is at least 25 times safer having an abortion than she is being pregnant. Thanks for the info, voice….
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 1:59 pm
Good point.
First trimester abortion is pretty safe.
Safer than driving to Church on a Sunday!
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 4:38 pm
I stated clearly that this was a partial list of women killed, not to mention the multiplied number that are injured. So your stats are way off. Since you are so big on research why don’t you go research the actual number of women injured and killed in abortions. You might surprise yourself.
I really don’t get your point in comparing maternal deaths to abortions. What, should we all stop getting pregnant so that there are no maternal deaths? These are NATURAL by-products of reproduction. Abortion is UNNATURALLY taking a life and sometimes two and these deaths can be prevented 100 percent of the time.. They are not the same.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 9:07 am
Voice,
One reason to compare abortion mortality rates to pregnancy is to show how safe abortion is. You seem to completely miss that simple juxtaposition and try to insinuate ideas that no one is proffering.
It is common in science to do risk comparison ratios as it gives one a more intuitive sense of the real relative risk of an event.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 6:11 pm
“You seem to completely miss that simple juxtaposition . . .” — it’s not a juxtaposition, Stupid, it’s a comparison. I’m nice; so, I’ll ignore “insinuate,” “proffering,” “risk comparison ratios,” “intuitive sense,” and “real relative risk.” The more time I spend on this blog, the more I realize that baby killing stems from stupidity rather than evil.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 10:25 am
Kate is very clear on the well recognized stats.
Abortion is very safe.
Much safer than most Pro lifers proclaim it to be.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 10:42 am
Tell that to the dead and injured women.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 10:46 am
It’s true that some women get injured and even die during a legal abortion. It’s surgery, it can happen and it’s unfortunate. But, Voice, what about the many, many dead and injured women who performed their own abortions or who went to sleazy back alley docs? Surely, you are not saying that things are as bad today as they were pre Roe??
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Not as bad no, but bad.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 12:49 pm
This is Nunya…
Pat, per your article, I would say that if it is correct then of course the part about not making it “onerous” is a lie, and if that was said, (a direct quote would be nice) then it’s wrong to lie. It is, however just heresy until we are provided with the source.
As for the rest of your article, of course we are going to hit it from all sides, from the streets to the courtroom. Of course all the rules and regulations are to cripple them if not shut them down completely.
Finally, we really do want the women to be safe. We care about the woman as well as the infant she carries. You don’t believe that but it’s true. No, we don’t want them to resort to back alley abortions. We want these TRUST WOMEN! RESPECT WOMEN! to obey the law if abortion is illegal. I wish I had time to research the stats but I’m sure the incidences of unwanted pregnancies pre-RvR paled in comparison to post-RvR.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 12:51 pm
This is Nunya…
ROFL!
Here-say, not heresy, but if the shoe fits…lol!
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 10:55 am
Terry:
How bout what happens to the women later in life. Has anyone ever documented that issue. Know 4 people personally who have had ab ortions. They are in their 60’s now and still have remorse . Abortion is very safe, I don’t agree with that. You are only taking into consideration the procedure itself. How bout life after death.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:11 pm
Actually a new study about that very thing came out a few days ago in the British Journal of Psychiatry. It was a peer reviewed study, the largest of it’s kind ever done, that shows without a doubt that abortion hurts 81% of the women having them. The full story is on CBS NEWS Healthpop, September 1, 2011
This proves what pro-lifers have been saying all along, what we see from the women we talk to. A full 81% have mental health issues afterwards. That is a big deal. Pro-choice propaganda has been just that…….propaganda. And now we have evidence to prove it.
Before anyone gets started trying to tear the study apart in order to discredit, it was a very large very well done peer reviewed study.
“Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure,” the authors wrote in the study, published in the September 1 issue of the British Journal of Psychiatry.”
“For the study, researchers analyzed data on 877,000 women, including 164,000 who had an abortion. They found women who had an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk for mental problems.”
“Women who had an abortion were 34 percent more likely to develop an anxiety disorder, 37 percent more likely to experience depression, 110 percent more likely to abuse alcohol, 155 percent more likely to commit suicide, and 220 percent more likely to use marijuana.”
“Conducted by Priscilla K. Coleman, Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University, Ohio, USA, the study was based on an analysis of 22 separate studies and 36 measures of effect, that involved a total of 877,181 participants of whom 163,831 had experienced an abortion. The study took into account pre-existing mental health problems prior to the abortion.’
“In order to avoid any allegations of bias,” Dr. Coleman explained, “very stringent inclusion criteria were employed. This means every strong study was included and weaker studies were excluded.”
“Specifically, among the rules for inclusion were sample size of 100 or more participants, use of a comparison group, and employment of controls for variables that may confound the effects such as demographics, exposure to violence, prior history of mental health problems, etc.”
“This makes Dr. Coleman’s study the most comprehensive of its kind to date.”
“Given the methodological limitations of recently published qualitative reviews of abortion and mental health, a quantitative synthesis was deemed necessary to represent more accurately the published literature and to provide clarity to clinicians” Dr. Coleman stated in the report.”
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:11 pm
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-20100587-10391704.html
Link to the CBS news story
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:17 pm
………and here’s a link to the British Journal of Psychiatry article
http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/199/3/180.abstract
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 6:10 pm
Aborticentrism is a focus on abortion so strong as to preclude care for real human life. You seem not to understand that pregnant women die at a rate 2500 times higher than women who have an abortion. I would call that focusing on abortion to such an extent that it precludes your care for human life.
I’ll let you come up with the entire list of names of women who have died as a result of a legal abortion in the last 20 years. When it exceeds 7,000, it will exceed the number who used to die each year when abortion was illegal.
It won’t hurt to expand your focus to include a broader concern for real human life.
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 1:36 pm
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 1:47 pm
Is that a sign that abortion is becoming OK everywhere in the world?
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 6:51 am
Melissa, which would you rather have:
1. A first- or second-trimester abortion?
2. A mother who kills her baby by rolling over on it in her (claimed) sleep, which was in the Middle Ages the most common form of infanticide)?
3. A seven-year-old drowned by his mother?
4. A twelve-year-old beaten to death by a parent?
5. A nineteen-year-old prostitute shot to death by her monther?
6. A child who turns out to have a productive adulthood within her grasp because you sacrificed other goals to raise her?
Life is a series of choices and trade-offs. Just don’t count on somebody else to raise the child you think will be cherished.
By the way, birth control in Japan is done 50% of the time by abortion. It might not be acceptable worldwide, but it is in Japan. The bigger question is, why don’t self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” seriously promote it? There is something really bizarre going on in their heads.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 5:34 am
I would choose 6: “A child who turns out to have a productive adulthood within her grasp because you sacrificed other goals to raise her?”
What makes your question bizarre, though, Chuck, is your implied one: wouldn’t you rather help kill a child whom you have not sacrificed for and who might not turn out to be a productive adult?
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 3:07 pm
That is not an implication. There is nowhere that I imply that.
That is an inference you would naturally make because as an aborticentric, you are focused on Death, which is represented for you by abortion. You will never be able to put the welfare of a child above your need to fight abortion. Prove me wrong, if you wish.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 7:10 pm
So chuck/charles/aborticentrisism, what is your background education that you are qualified to not only identify a new mental disorder but try and educate others about it? Where are your credentials for properly evaluating your so called information that you have gathered? I thought you said you worked for the state or something.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 7:23 pm
When I found out about abortion.ws several years ago, Pat was trying to persuade Chuck to stop trying to sell aborticentrism, the name of the new mental disorder he had discovered. No go. He still tries, endlessly. “No buyers” seems not to discourage him. I wish, v, you’d written this back then and stopped him in his tracks.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 6:54 am
So, who’d listen to a patent office clerk who has some unusual ideas about the nature of reality?
I’m just trotting out insights that have occurred to me about the nature of the so-called “pro-life” movement. Like Jesus, William Miller, Joseph Smith and Pastafar, I’m just putting ideas out there.
Whether or not they’re commonly accepted is not a problem for me; what’s important to me is whether my description matches reality– and so far, apart from the need to modify it with an exegesis of the sliding scale of engagement of so-called “pro-lifers,” it appears to be pretty cohesive.
I look forward to a peer review.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 8:59 am
You need peers for that.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 9:01 am
“So, who’d listen to a patent office clerk who has some unusual ideas about the nature of reality? ” Not too many. See “Bartelsby the Scrivener.”
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 11:04 am
Your descriptions do not match reality. That’s the whole point. But you refuse to accept that fact.
Peer reviews mean nothing…..at least not to Kate. That is unless it agrees with her agenda.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:07 am
Chuck, I agree that there are hidden genius’s out there in menial jobs just like Einstein. I don’t care what your day job is, or your level of education. Education measures what you’ve learned, not intelligence. But your theory is nothing but your opinion. It’s basis relies on what a segment of the population thinks, and their motives for thinking that way, and you have not interviewed those people. You do not present it as theory, you present it as fact, using jargon meant to cause people to believe it’s fact, because you believe it’s fact, based on your observations.
As an intelligent person, you should know that observation of behavior is only a small fragment of data needed to prove, or even present, a theory such as this. One woman could be holding a sign at an abortion clinic because she wants the notoriety of being on the 6 o’clock news, another could be working in a CPC because her daughter died from a botched abortion years ago. You cannot prove your theory because it isn’t fact. People aren’t in it to be heroes, they know, but for the sake of your argument, let’s say they “believe,” that a real, live human baby is about to be killed. THAT is why the majority, practically all, pro-lifers are pro-life.
Some are religious and believe God is against it, but that isn’t the only reason they do it. The really “believe” a child is going to it’s death.
I don’t understand why seemingly reasonable, rational, intelligent people like you, Kate, Pat, and others won’t admit that. Or at least admit that it is the driving force. I think it’s because you would then have to stop vilifying us, which is a slippery slope for your “side.” You might end up having to talk to us, then next thing you know you’d be letting us talk to the girls going into those clinics, knowing full well that most of them feel it’s a baby they are about to kill, and they at least need the chance to talk to someone about it first, someone who believes as they do.
Many pro-lifers act a fool, as do many Christians, but that doesn’t change the truth of WHY we feel as we do. I’ve seen many pro-choicers acting a fool too. But you don’t see me writing a paper trying to fit ALL pro-choicers into the same mold, calling it a “syndrome” or a “psychosis,” then presenting it in an obviously biased way, as fact. I could do the same thing you have done, coin a word, write a paper, and call it fact.
I believe that that peer review you wait for, if done by truly unbiased people who really want actual facts about the internal workings of the minds of pro-lifers, would demand of you much more than your own opinions, starting with hundreds of interviews, asking a predetermined set of questions drawn up by professionals, and using a cross section of pro-lifers. And that’s just a start. Even if some fringe segment out there fits your mold, it certainly couldn’t be considered representative of pro-lifers in general. I feel you just want to push your theory for some reason, regardless of the validity of it.
But that’s just my opinion.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“That is not an implication. There is nowhere that I imply that.
“That is an inference you would naturally make because as an aborticentric, you are focused on Death, which is represented for you by abortion. You will never be able to put the welfare of a child above your need to fight abortion. Prove me wrong, if you wish.”
Good, it’s for me, but Chuck, and others, please say who you’re talking to.
It’s you, Chuck who are focused on death. You want to help kill people who might not have all the advantages, as they say. And of course you implied that! I’ll spell it out: “”Melissa, would you rather help kill somebody or would rather raise her. Those pro-lifers want to stop us from killing her even though they cannot or will not raise her.”
That’s been one of you four absurd reasons from the git-go in support of child killing.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 1:15 pm
I choose reallocating all the time, effort and expense promoting, lobying and advertising for abortion to finding, promoting and funding programs and laws to help end all the above, rather than resorting to “controlled hunts” to keep down the population of POSSIBLE unsavories being born.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 1:19 pm
Oh and Chuck, as for the last one on your list, I’m still waiting for you to present all the women with “the next child” for me to find homes for or adopt. It’s all in your head Chuck. Aborticentrism only exists in your head.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 3:03 pm
It can’t really be about the child’s needs, can it, NunYa? It has to be about you: I come to you with an engraved list on a silver platter, and after hearing my plea, you graciously deign to “rescue” one “unborn human” whom I beg you to take.
Somebody who really cared for, rather than merely about, human life would simply pick up the phone and call the nearest adoption agency– but you can’t.
Sounds like full-fledged aborticentrism to me. Just sayin’ . . . . You want a telephone number?
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 9:25 pm
Blow smoke all you want Chuck. Find me that woman. Find me that “next child.”
And don’t pretend for a minute you care about a child’s needs. How many have you adopted Chuck? Oh wait…I forgot, you aren’t RESPONSIBLE because you didn’t insist that any of them be born.
I bet you do things behind the scenes to help children Chuck, just like I do. Aborticentrism is all in your head. It doesn’t exist.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:16 am
The “reply” function is not putting the reply under the appropriate thread today, Pat. Talk to your techie.
NunYa, I have cared far more for real children than I have hated abortion. I have never, despite my strongest feelings, counseled a woman to have or not have an abortion.
Every child I wanted born I raised, and a lot of kids I never wanted born and never wanted to deal with I took under my wing, at my expense, my time and a big hit to my retirement plan.
People pressed me to take on another kid– in one case, she kept it up for two years. I was disheartened to find that the nine best fathers I knew– fathers of my son’s friends– wouldn’t take on that kid even when I asked them personally.
And I’m just an average schlub– if I can begrudge 600 unpaid hours and 8% of my income annually, anybody can. So, why aren’t you?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 8:27 am
Charles,
One aspect of abortion that has yet to appear on this blog is the idea that abortion in other countries is viewed as reproductive health care, as it should be. Abortion is not stigmatized, it’s normalized.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 9:18 am
“One aspect of abortion that has yet to appear on this blog is the idea that abortion in other countries is viewed as reproductive health care, as it should be. Abortion is not stigmatized, it’s normalized.”
The reason for this, Kate, is that here in the USA believing Catholics, less than two percent of all Church-going Catholics, constitute enough of a block to be annoying. Ignorance or cowardice, though, prevents that small group from being hardly anything more than annoying. It doesn’t take much.,
Catholicism in other countries, at least in other European countries, is even weaker than in the USA. Muslims will soon take over Europe. By the time our grandchildren are adults, they will have taken
over here.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 9:58 am
Catholicism is a barbaric religion.
It’s demise is welcomed.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 10:46 am
Sherry is a barbaric girl.
Her demise is welcomed.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 5:57 am
Do you dislike Muslims?
The tone of your statement makes it appear so.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 9:45 am
“Do you dislike Muslims? The tone of your statement makes it appear so.”
Sherry, now you’re starting to bother me too. I suppose you’re talking to me here because recently I said two things about Muslims, but you don’t address me. “Dumbkle’s fine; anything! But be clear.
The first thing I said is that Muslims, unlike Catholics and Jews, do not kill their children. The second thing is that Muslims will take over this country after they have taken over Europe. That’s two statements. The tone of which one bothers you? Again, please be clear.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:21 am
Are you saying, John, that no Muslims get abortions in this country? Careful now!
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 11:04 am
I don’t see many Muslims entering the mills, but I ‘m sure some do. I’m also sure that relatively few do because in Muslim countries baby killing is illegal, and the law is enforced.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 8:22 am
Kate, the Republican Party has so successfully used the cultivation of hatred and fear among splinter groups (anti-abortion, anti-immigration, racism, homophobia, religious fanaticism, etc.) to get voting bloc majorities that “normal” is not the standard for much of American values. The self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” here vote for candidates who will destroy their Social Security, their security in old age, their schools and their bridges at the behest of the candidate who tells them he will fight for the “unborn humans.”
Normal, hah!
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 12:36 pm
Actually that is not true. There are pro-life organizations fighting for life in almost every country out there, including Japan. Laws are being passed to try and protect women form money hungry abortion providers. Here is a portion of a recent article from Britain (The Daily Mail) showing some of the stuff going on:
“In response to a push for impartial abortion counseling in Great Britain, female reporter for the Daily Mail, Jenny Stocks, posed as a pregnant woman and went to 5 locations (abortion clinics and pregnancy care centers) for counseling:
What happened next left me confused and traumatised – and I’m not even pregnant. I discovered that vulnerable women are being given advice that is both biased and manipulative – and could easily make them feel pressured into making a decision they will regret later….
My first call was to Marie Stopes, a nationwide network of sexual health clinics that provide private and NHS abortions….
Questioned about the size of the foetus, or the risks of infertility caused by abortion, [the counselor] said ‘You’ll have to talk to a nurse about that’, or ‘I don’t have the exact statistics’.
Nevertheless, the message seemed very much to be that abortion was the best option. ‘It goes against our very nature to have an abortion,’ she said. ‘But we do things every day that go against our very nature.’
This was followed by: ‘You want what you want… is it worth having a child because you don’t want to deal with a bit of guilt?’…
The session came to an abrupt end after 29 minutes and I left not knowing the medical or emotional side-effects of abortion. Keeping the baby was not seen as an option at all. I thanked my lucky stars that I wasn’t scared and pregnant for real.”
The British government will offer pregnant women considering an abortion independent counselling under Government plans because the abortion providers cannot be trusted to be unbiased. Who knew?http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/government-launches-abortion-advice-service-2345524.html
and this is only one example.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 2:49 pm
FYI
#The Daily Mail is a trashy tabloid that has a conservative, homophobic leaning as well as a taste for sensationalism instead of objective reporting.
#The Royal College of Psychiatrist issued a preliminary report stating that abortion did NOT necessarily lead to negative mental sequelae
# In all the commotion in the UK over abortion and counseling, it’s interesting that BJP published Coleman’s recent article, suggesting an anti abortion political influence.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 3:21 pm
Well said, now the truth is out in plain English . . . about the prolife industry’s propaganda machinations
http://www.publiceye.org/magazine/v20n2/chamberlain_politicized_science.html
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 7:43 pm
FYI,
I’d be happy to send you a file that helps you distinguish between popular and scholarly research AND that addresses the significance of both. In the intervening period where you make a decison about whether you want to be enlightened or want to stay in the dark, consider the following:
I really want to be sure that I’m carefully considering those scholars who I reference. For example, let me bring to your attention a young scholar named Jesse Cougle who worked with Coleman and Reardon. He’s a psych. grad from the prestigious University of Texas at Austin. He’s now in Florida as an asst professor. So, if you are so inclined, read through his research and do a citation analysis. What you will notice is that there is NO reference to Coleman or Reardon or Rue. You might guess that he used these professors to his own personal gain. You might guess that he believed in their work. You might guess that he changed his mind about their work. Regardless, he is clearly disconnected from his “motherlode” that so many prolifers want to embrace.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:30 am
Wow Kate, you really are the arrogant one, implying that the British Journal of Psychiatry is popular but not scholarly. As if you have the qualifications to say so. You border on narcissism.
Some guy in Fl. who does research that is most likely biased doesn’t impress me. Neither do any of the others you quoted because I see for myself what the new study proves. You refuse to see it because you don’t want to. Why don’t you try interviewing a RANDOM set of women who have had abortions and see what you come up with. You will see that they are a group of hurting women. The ones who want to insist that they aren’t are people who make money off abortions, get recognition (making false documentaries and such), and those who 19% of women who apparently have no ill effects from abortion. However, I cannot fathom how a woman can kill her baby and not have ill effects but I suppose that it is possible in this age of selfishness.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 12:40 pm
A friend of mine is a clinical psychologist and loves to share her insights about the protesters at a local clinic. She is a Ph.D. with an expertise in women’s studies. Her conclusions are predictable: she believes they project, like calling their enemies liars when they themselves lie, like saying all women are wounded after abortion when they are the ones hurting. She views the majority of these protesters as holding a myopic worldview where women should know their place being mommies and homemakers and where feminism is destroying the nation.
So, I’d agree that you might fit into the above. You simply cannot make a valid claim that I implied that the BJP is a popular journal and still speak the truth. And for your information, freshman and sophomore college students are taught to discriminate popular from scholarly sources. So it’s not that difficult.
And last, what you fail to recognize is that guy in Florida is Jesse Cougle who co-authored work with Coleman and Reardon. It makes more sense if you would have read more carefully.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 12:46 pm
The statistical methods Coleman and her co-authors use have been criticized by the American Psychological Association (APA). A panel convened by the APA found that the studies by Coleman, and her co-authors have “inadequate or inappropriate” controls and don’t adequately control “for women’s mental health prior to the pregnancy and abortion.”
Coleman, Cougle, Reardon and Rue have also been criticized by other researchers in the field. Psychologist Brenda Major published an article in the same issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal that contained Coleman’s “Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth”; this article, “Psychological implications of abortion—highly charged and rife with misleading research,” criticized Coleman’s study, saying that it did not distinguish correlation and cause, that the direction of causality could indeed be reversed, with psychiatric problems leading to a greater incidence of women having abortions, and that the study failed to control for factors such as relationship stability and education. Jillian Henderson, a professor of gynecology, and Katharine Miller wrote to the Journal of Anxiety Disorders, saying, “We believe that Cougle, et al., operate with strong political views regarding abortion, and unfortunately their biases appear to have resulted in serious methodological flaws in the analysis published in your journal. [Reardon, Coleman and Cougle] are involved in building a literature to be used in efforts to restrict access to abortion.” Nancy Russo, a psychology professor and abortion researcher, examined two of Coleman and Reardon’s articles, and found that when the methodological flaws in the studies were corrected, the supposed correlation between abortion and poor mental health disappeared.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 5:44 pm
Can anybody read this crap? She’s getting worse than Chuckles!
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 2:52 pm
“NunYa, I have cared far more for real children than I have hated abortion. I have never, despite my strongest feelings, counseled a woman to have or not have an abortion.”
One does not exclude the other Chuck, no matter how much that messes up your aborticentrism theory. And you don’t “trot” out ideas, you present it as fact, using psychological jargon meant to make it sound like it was written by a professional in the “field”. A professional wouldn’t present such an obviously biased paper, which even I, as a layperson, could see through.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 9:15 am
NunYa, I HAVE been responsible for every one I wanted “rescued.” You haven’t. I have seen a lot of women make what I considered to be a stupid choice about their pregnancy– either aborting or continuing it– but it was never my place to offer them false hope one way or the other.
Gravity is only a theory, too.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 12:38 pm
“It can’t really be about the child’s needs, can it, NunYa?”
So slaughtering it meets it’s needs I guess?
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 3:08 pm
m, I didn’t see the word “adopt” in there….. just sayin’ . . .
LikeLike
September 1, 2011 at 7:40 pm
[…] Their Cup Runneth Over with Compassion (abortion.ws) […]
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 6:36 am
From the CDC
The case-fatality rate of legal induced abortion was 0.8 abortion-related deaths per 100,000 legal induced abortions while the the overall pregnancy-related mortality ratio was 11.8 deaths per 100,000 live births
Facts to ponder . . .
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 8:51 am
It always amazes me how safe abortion really is.
Yet the anti abortion people continue to lie and pretend that it is a dangerous procedure.
They also lie about the potential morbidity as well.
The pro lifers’ lies are pernicious and harm women, especially when they lie at a CPC Mill.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 9:45 am
If you understand aborticentrism, Lisa, you know that the self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” HAVE to lie about how dangerous it is. They cannot make themselves out to be heroes if they are not “rescuing.”
How much glory would they get if they said that polio is dangerous? Hardly any, since although it is dangerous, it is clear that thousands of others are already covering it quite well, and there’s no room for them, unless they have the training to get employed in the field.
Tob be a so-called “pro-lifer,” you don’t need ANY training; another characteriic of the aborticentricv.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 10:48 am
They cannot make themselves out to be heroes if they are not “rescuing.”
Responsible:
What why are you dwelling on this hero idea. I don’t get it. Who gave you this rash idea that pro-lifers are in it so we can be heroes. Guess we will have to start wearing yellow capes with the slogan, HAVE CAPE, WILL BE YOUR HERO. Gezzzzz
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:15 pm
It’s his mantra that he chants every time someone says something. He has nothing to back it up with except his imagination.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:35 pm
voice, then WHY the huge gap between what you say about your care for human life and your actual level of engagement in nurturing children you never wanted to raise? That’s not my imagination; it’s a fact.
And so it is for the whole so-called “pro-life” crowd– a minimal investment of energy to burnish credentials as caring in order to reap maximum benefits for their level of comfort with themselves.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:58 pm
“Voice, then WHY the huge gap between what you say about your care for human life and your actual level of engagement in nurturing children you never wanted to raise? That’s not my imagination; it’s a fact”
Really, A fact? Since I have disclosed nothing about myself your “facts” would be only assumptions now wouldn’t they?
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 2:50 pm
voice, people are proud of what they do, no matter how little it might be, and they deserve to be praised as though what they did was a great thing. Which is why all of us are quick to point out when we are challenged for pettiness that our accuser has it wrong, that in fact we have done and are doing thus-and-such. And psychopaths will lie, but usually be caught in their own web, as when one woman claimed here to have adopted four children and be spending her days as a volunteer at a children’s hospital.
I have seen no evidence that you are a psychopath, so I can infer that you are not prone to puffing your reputation by lying. At the same time, although I have lodged rather serious charges against you, you have not undertaken to defend yourself, for reasons you know and I infer: You don’t care for various real human children as much as you care about abortion.
Notice carefully the distinction between “care for” and “care about.” It’s very important in understanding the self-proclaimed “pro-lifer.”
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 1:36 pm
OMG Chuck, are you a politician? Voice called you out on the “facts” you presented to this forum about her (which I was amazed at since I knew she/he had never revealed anything about herself/himself) and your response here…
RESPONSIBLE Right to Life/aborticentrism/charles/chuck/etc. Says:
September 2, 2011 at 2:50 pm ENTIRE COMMENT, I WON’T REPOST FOR THE SAKE OF SPACE
…is the biggest load of double speak and avoiding of the obvious I’ve heard in awhile. And you guys say we lie. Sheesh.
Respond to this and this only: do you have one shred of evidence to back up the “facts” you stated about voice? (please refrain from more regurgitated Aborticentrism theories.)
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Kathleen, nobody agitated against abortion when it was illegal. What bothers the self-proclaimed “pro-lifers” is not that it happens, but that it is legal. Why does the legality rather than the deed bother them (you)? A number of interesting hypotheses suggest themselves. You can find them in the aborticentrism website.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 2:08 pm
RESPONSIBLE,
Never thought about that. Give me some time as it is not deserving of a quick answer. You certainly bring to light many facets that I have never ever brought to mind. You sure have me on the prowl.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 2:52 pm
Just don’t let denial kick in, Kathleen.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 1:03 pm
Kathleen, check the article right before this one for all Chuck’s comments. You’ll come across one where he admits that he has interviewed NO pro-lifers, and in fact doesn’t see the need. His Aborticentrism site uses all the correct terminology, but is glaringly biased. When pro-lifers here plainly answer his charges, he ignores them. His theory is made up from his prejudices and not based in fact, interviews, statistics or cited sources. I would stick to the unbiased study Voice mentioned.
Chuck, are you talking about Deanna when you mentioned the woman who adopted four children AND worked in a hospital or something like that? I ask, because I don’t remember anyone fitting that description on here. She adopted, but who worked in a facility like that?
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 3:12 pm
Nunya, you haven’t done any college-level work, have you? Interviews are not the way to produce a wide-ranging paper on a given topic. They are, when done extensively, the basis for data from which broad conclusions can be drawn.
The woman I described was not Deanna. She called herself Nancy, if I remember correctly. You can do a word search in previous threads for her name or “children’s hospital” to find the exchangus interruptus….
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 5:57 pm
Chuck, you push Aborticentrism as if it’s fact about the thought processes of a segment of people, without interviewing those people. There are no studies out there to back up your claims.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 3:25 pm
Nunya, as regards my conjectures about voice: You would find it helpful to learn a little about law enforcement interrogation techniques.
One of my favorite stories about using the technique comes from H. Allen Smith, who at the time was a journalist covering a rodeo out West where Will Rogers was the starred entertainment.
Smith and a group of fellow reporters decided to interview Rogers and found him practicing with his lariat. Rogers growled at them to get lost.
The reporters found this irritating from a man who said of himself, “I never met a man I didn’t like,” and decided to settle his hash. They knew that if you accuse a man of something really heinous, he will protect himself by admitting to something far lesser, thereby feeding you a little of what you want (to placate you) and put you off the hunt by ameliorating your blood lust.
So they dreamed up the worst possible thing they could about him. They knew that he had starred in a film with little Shirley Temple. So they called up his agent and said, “We heard that when Will Rogers was in that movie with Shirley Temple, he drilled a hole in her bathroom wall so he could watch her pee.”
The agent’s gasp confirmed they had stumbled on something really, really hot. Rogers’ career, by the arrival of tomorrow morning’s papers all across the nation, was going to be dead meat, as dead as Fatty Arbuckle’s was a few years earlier.
“Don’t you ever say that about Will Rogers!” his agent pleaded. They waited for the lesser charge to be revealed, a tidbit that might soil, but not kill his reputation. They would have their revenge on his surliness. The agent continued, desperation leaking over the line.
That wasn’t Will Rogers! That was John Barrymore.”
So, study up on how to get information from criminals. . . .
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 9:14 pm
You ARE a politician! For heavens sake Chuck, in the words of Tommy Lee Jones, “You’re caught!”
You said to Voice:
“Voice, then WHY the huge gap between what you say about your care for human life and your actual level of engagement in nurturing children you never wanted to raise? That’s not my imagination; it’s a fact”
Now you say it was conjecture, after two long ramblings around the block and back, trying to wear us out with words.
con·jec·ture
1.the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.
2.an opinion or theory so formed or expressed; guess; speculation.
You said it was a FACT. You are so prejudiced in your opinions of ALL pro-lifers that you spout your prejudices and don’t even realize it. Be man enough to admit it.
By very definition fact cannot be conjecture.
You should study up on admitting when you’re wrong.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:01 am
Wrong, NunYa; fact, not conjecture, that voice has not responded as people do with ANY defense of her/his life’s work in behalf of needy children.
Fact also, that also you haven’t adopted…. by your actions you strengthen the case for aborticentrism! Isn’t it nice to be part of a studied group?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 10:45 am
“fact, not conjecture, that voice has not responded as people do with ANY defense of her/his life’s work in behalf of needy children.”
And I won’t either because if I told you I had adopted 20 kids you would say it wasn’t enough or that it was in your words “crown control”. Then you would ask how many other people I had talked into adopting (yes you did that to someone). If I told you I was a foster parent you would ask why I didn’t man up and adopt them. If I said I ran an orphanage you would say it was a cop out. There is no satisfying your need to discredit pro-lifers so it doesn’t matter what I do…at least not to you…so I will say again…it’s non of your business. As far as your criminal interrogation jargon goes…nonsense! You are not a cop, a detective, nor in any way have the credentials to know anything about interrogation other than what you have seen on the movies. Don’t forget,you told us what you do for a living.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 2:57 pm
Boy, you’re one tough cookie Chuck. Your comment…you know, just forget it. It’s all right here in black and white.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 12:53 pm
Abortion carries a 100% mortality rate. It’s all in where your focus is Lisa.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 5:50 pm
Correction: abortion carries a 100% mortality rate for fetuses.
Let’s be a bit more exact in our absolutes. The mortality rate for women is far less when abortion is under consideration. Pregnancy, on the other, is more dangerous to the woman, and, at times, the fetus.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 8:53 pm
Kate, this sentence by me; “it’s all in where your focus is Lisa,” was supposed to be the dead giveaway that I was talking about the fetus.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 4:38 am
Hmm: “it is sometimes more dangerous to let someone live than it is to kill her.” Kate might not be an adolescent illiterate, but, grandmother or no, she is an adolescent at heart.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:04 am
Notice how they have to focus on death, death, death, death, death.
Nunya doesn’t want to talk about the differences between the Abortion Store and the Baby Store, and where she might better put her talents and energy… What good does it do to extend a fetus’ life and ignore the needs of the resulting child?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 10:47 am
Notice how they have to focus on death, death, death, death, death.
Unfortunately that is what abortion is.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 12:21 pm
“What good does it do to extend a fetus’ life and ignore the needs of the resulting child?”
What good does it do to extend a resulting child’s life and ignore the needs of the adolescent?
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 3:02 pm
Chuck, if I had the inclination, and I don’t, I could go back to the beginning of my time on this blog and copy and paste each and every time I have said that I do help meet the needs of children (and adults). You ignore this because it blows holes in aborticentrism. Adoption is not the only way to care FOR the needy, otherwise I’d have to adopt homeless people, cancer patients, the poverty stricken elderly and any other segment of society that is considered needy. Aborticentrism doesn’t exist Chuck, it’s all in your head…
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 9:21 am
Any intelligent Pro Lifer:
Did Dunkle ever answer the question of how he would pragmatically pay for the incarceration (or execution) of women that had abortions if “his” laws were enacted?
He advocated capital punishment as well for many. As we all know capital punishment is an expensive and resource intensive endeavor in a society with a good judicial system. As well it seems paradoxical for people who are Pro Life to be fond of Capital Punishment.
Do any other Pro Lifers share Dunkle’s extreme thoughts on punishment of women for getting an abortion? If so, would you also please explain how you would pragmatically incarcerate so many women, year after year (they would accumulate), and how you would deal with the repercussions of taking care of their present families?
Tx for not evading the issue.
L
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 6:09 pm
I didn’t get past this: ” . . .how he would pragmatically pay . . .” When someone says something stupid, I stop. That’s it. Go away and learn how to talk, and then come back, or just go.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 3:54 pm
John,
I thought you retired as an English teacher. Stop correcting everyone’s papers.!!!!!!!!
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Oh all right, all right. How would I pay for the incarceration of women (drop that stupidly-used adverb — oops)? I don’t know. I’d put you on a committee, Lisa, to figure that out. But just maybe I’d go back to the administration of good whipping.
Baby killing was illegal until I was thirty-five years old. Lawbreakers did get away with it though, and we kinda looked the other way. Instead, punishment should have been administered immediately. Then, instead of legally torturing to death a million and a half young people every year, those numbers would have dipped below ten thousand, about the same as for other grotesque practices like baby and child rape, wife beating, inhuman prison activities, etc.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 1:52 pm
I don’t know Dunkle or what he believes, but as for me, I have never thought about punishing the women with jail. That’s a new thought for me. I’ve been involved in the movement for years and have never heard it from anyone before. Most of us see the women, many of them underage, uneducated or both, as victims too, of a society that doesn’t value human life anymore, and of money hungry and bloodthirsty Planned Parenthood. We know that the price many of them pay is a lifetime of regrets, what ifs, substance abuse and mental issues. At least those are the ones we deal with. Not surprisingly, proponants of abortion portray women who go through this admittedly painstaking choice, some even writing letters to the child they are about to kill, as totally unscathed by this life altering, irreversible decision.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 10:04 am
Why wouldn’t you want to punish the murderer for murder?
If you believe abortion is murder.
If you do not believe abortion is murder, then please tell me what you think it is.
LikeLike
September 2, 2011 at 1:11 pm
When I posted that question I had actually posted a link prior to it with a picture of a billboard with an ad on abortion services in what appear to me to be a middle eastern country, that is where the question comes from. I guess my post was not approved that is why you can’t see it.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 5:32 am
In response to the allegation of “proof” about post abortion mental sequelae, yet another reason to be wary, as many other academics are, of Priscilla Coleman’s work.
Steinberg, Julia R.,Finer, Bixby Center Lawrence B. University of California, SF (2011)
“Using the US National Comorbidity Survey (NCS), Coleman, Coyle, Shuping, and Rue (2009) published an analysis indicating that compared to women who had never had an abortion, women who had reported an abortion were at an increased risk of several anxiety, mood, and substance use disorders. Here, we show that those results are not replicable.
******That is, using the same data, sample, and codes as indicated by those authors, it is not possible to replicate the simple bivariate statistics testing the relationship of ever having had an abortion to each mental health disorder when no factors were controlled for in analyses (in Coleman et al., 2009).*****
Furthermore, among women with prior pregnancies in the NCS, we investigated whether having zero, one, or multiple abortions (abortion history) was associated with having a mood, anxiety, or substance use disorder at the time of the interview. In doing this, we tested two competing frameworks: the abortion-as-trauma versus the common-risk-factors approach. Our results support the latter framework. In the bivariate context when no other factors were included in models, abortion history was not related to having a mood disorder, but it was related to having an anxiety or substance use disorder. When prior mental health and violence experience were controlled in our models, no significant relation was found between abortion history and anxiety disorders. When these same risk factors and other background factors were controlled, women who had multiple abortions remained at an increased risk of having a substance use disorder compared to women who had no abortions, likely because we were unable to control for other risk factors associated with having an abortion and substance use. Policy, practice, and research should focus on assisting women at greatest risk of having unintended pregnancies and having poor mental health—those with violence in their lives and prior mental health problems.”
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 6:58 pm
Her work was the largest of it’s kind ever done, was very well done, peer reviewed, and made it to the British Journal of Psychiatry and you think that you have the background of knowledge to question the validity of it? Did you read the study or are you just saying that because you NEED it to be invalidated in order to continue to walk women into the clinic. 81% of them will walk out with mental health issues and you think you are “helping” them. No Kate, you are escorting women into a lifetime of misery. It’s time you face it. You have not helped them you have hurt them. To continue to pretend as if you are right and all of this evidence is wrong is lunacy in and of itself.
LikeLike
September 3, 2011 at 9:18 pm
Deanna cited non peer reviewed sources and they pitched a fit. You cite peer reviewed sources and they invalidate it. I’m not sure they are really interested in facts.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 5:16 am
In general, there are 3 main objectives of the peer-review process:(1) to prevent the publication of bad material, (2) to improve journal scholarship, and (3) to improve a manuscript’s language and data presentation. Any practicing editor is also aware however, that peer review is not and cannot be absolute. An excellent paper may be unsuitable for a particular journal. A paper that is acceptable but not monumental may still advance knowledge in a certain way or meet a particular need for data. There always will be bad reviewers of good papers, as well as split decisions to be managed. Groundbreaking work is seldom well documented and irrefutable when it first appears, but neither is junk science. Editors are responsible for discerning the difference in such cases, albeit with guidance from reviewers. Regardless of any scientific article’s intrinsic quality, the publication process also involves a certain amount of politics. At the least, it requires a delicate web of interaction and sometimes negotiation among editors and reviewers on the basis of shared values, knowledge, and assumptions about the field.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 5:42 am
I am providing yet another source that invalidates Coleman’s research. If you don’t like the FACT that their research questions the validity of her results, you can take it up with the authors from the Bixby Center. And, yes I “have the background of knowledge to question the validity of it” and other sources that are published in academic journals.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 8:24 am
Robinson, G., Stotland, N. L., Russo, N., Lang, J. A., & Occhiogrosso, M. (2009). Is There an “Abortion Trauma Syndrome”? Critiquing the Evidence. Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 17(4), 268-290.
The objective of this review is to identify and illustrate methodological issues in studies used to support claims that induced abortion results in an “abortion trauma syndrome” or a psychiatric disorder. After identifying key methodological issues to consider when evaluating such research, we illustrate these issues by critically examining recent empirical studies that are widely cited in legislative and judicial testimony in support of the existence of adverse psychiatric sequelae of induced abortion. Recent studies that have been used to assert a causal connection between abortion and subsequent mental disorders are marked by methodological problems that include, but not limited to: poor sample and comparison group selection; inadequate conceptualization and control of relevant variables; poor quality and lack of clinical significance of outcome measures; inappropriateness of statistical analyses; and errors of interpretation, including misattribution of causal effects. By way of contrast, we review some recent major studies that avoid these methodological errors. The most consistent predictor of mental disorders after abortion remains preexisting disorders, which, in turn, are strongly associated with exposure to sexual abuse and intimate violence. Educating researchers, clinicians, and policymakers how to appropriately assess the methodological quality of research about abortion outcomes is crucial. Further, methodologically sound research is needed to evaluate not only psychological outcomes of abortion, but also the impact of existing legislation and the effects of social attitudes and behaviors on women who have abortions.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 10:50 am
Once again, this is the LARGEST Study of it’s kind ever done, peer reviewed. Your credentials of making fake documentaries do not qualify you as a psychiatric expert. Get over it Kate….the study is right and you are wrong.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 11:04 am
Voice,
what are your credentials in evaluating data?
Your comments lead me to believe you don’t have a significant background.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Dear Voice,
In your responses to my posts, I’ve determined that it might be beneficial to enlighten you and others about the peer review process and some of its problems (without inundating anyone with boring information). I’ve also provided insight into the give and take, the response and the rebuttal of academics who disagree. One thing that you might want to consider is that scientific, scholarly research is not “a once and done deal” as much of the prolife literature suggests. In fact, the search for scientific and scholarly evidence is an ongoing process. For example, medical practitioners in the late 1800s believed education would disable women from having children. It seems ludicrous now. But that was an accepted belief. Decades of research prove otherwise.
More to the point, to the best of my knowledge, the overwhelming amount of research by reputable scholars published in reputable journals finds that abortion does not have the mental sequelae that you and your colleagues purport it to have.
Everyone on this blog might want to know that there are serious academicians and researchers who stake their professional careers on the mental health of women who seek reproductive care. While it is not my research interest, it is my obligation to speak out about what they have found and how their research evolves over time. If there is overwhelming scientific, scholarly evidence that abortion is damaging to women, I’ll be the first to share what I’ve read with you on this site.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 1:25 pm
Little factoids to consider:
#Priscilla Coleman is not a psychiatrist.
# The BJP is a highly respected journal. No question. Keep in mind, however, that it is a product of it’s own internal culture as well as the British culture.
#In the peer review process, there is a potential for bias or invalid expertise in the reviewers, potential for bias with the editor, publication bias toward positive results, lack of standard operation procedures/formats and benchmarks of quality. There is also the potential for academic authorial dishonesty such as plagiarism (including self-plagiarism), theft, and collusion. While there is no suggestion that Coleman’s article is problematic, because I have not read the work, there is potential for problems within the peer review process. And even though it’s the best we have so far, there is room for improvment.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 3:40 pm
You really should go read it before you try to discredit it. But I have a feeling that you don’t care what it says. You want it to be wrong so to you it will be.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 5:37 pm
I agree that I should read Coleman’s article but it’s not available on the databases I access. Not yet.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 10:48 pm
Kate, at least this was an educated, thought out answer, rather than your usual biased hatefulness. But I still have the same comment that I presented to Voice: you demanded peer review of sources Deanna cited, so someone comes here with a peer reviewed source, and not only do you discredit the study, which was the largest of it’s kind, you now discredit the process of peer review? Do you think we don’t remember what you say or do you not care? Also, you have said yourself that this is a heart wrenching decision for these women, that they are emotional and vulnerable. Many clinics allow them to write letters to the unborn child they are about to kill. You say this to make the point that they shouldn’t be disturbed by pro-lifers as they enter clinics, yet you seem to purport that they are totally unaffected as they come out of the clinic. Is that even logical to you? This type of behavior is the reason I called you all “rabid” pro-choicers. You seem to really, truly be in denial, and so unsure of your own beliefs that you resort to lies and twisting your own words in order to make abortion appear no more than a blip on the screen when it suits your point, and an emotionally charged situation when that perspective suits your point.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 5:03 am
NunYa,
In response to your initial charge of of discrediting Coleman’s study, you might consider rereading what I wrote. I did not discredit her current article in BJP but I did shed light on another article she wrote, one that two other scholars raised questions about her methods and results. It’s not the first time that questions have been raised about Coleman’s work.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 12:30 pm
I stand corrected on that point.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 8:52 pm
VOICE: Her work was the largest of it’s kind ever done, was very well done, peer reviewed, and made it to the British Journal of Psychiatry.
RESONSE: And, you, Voice, are the arbiter of peer reviews, of all things large and peer reviewed, of studies “very well” done. What would you know about studies that are well done?
And, your qualifications for making any judgments about Coleman or any other scholarly journal articles are?
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 11:28 am
common sense
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 11:42 am
Kate,
In response to “And, your qualifications for making any judgments about Coleman or any other scholarly journal articles are?”
Common sense and……
As Nunya explained to you…if women are going into clinics making “heart wrenching” decisions. Then common sense tells you that they come out the back door of those same clinics with remorse to differing degrees. Some remorse causes them to develop mental health issues. Apparently 81% of them.
“Furthermore, this study was based on an analysis of 22 separate studies which, in total, examine the pregnancy experiences of 877,000 women, with 163,831 women having an abortion. The study also indicated abortion accounts for one in ten of every adverse mental health issue women face as a whole.”
“Also, The study is a meta-analysis, which is a quantitative or numerical synthesis of data from many previously published studies. In a meta-analysis all studies are not treated equally. Contributions of individual study effects to the overall results are weighted statistically based on sample size.”
“Only studies that meet very stringent methodologically-based criteria are entered into the analysis; whereas in other types of reviews authors may not reveal the criteria employed or the criteria may be too restrictive (missing valuable studies) or too general (including weak studies in conclusions), Coleman explained. The bottom line is the results are far more reliable than the results of a single study or a qualitative review, because of the wealth of data incorporated and the objective methods for combining effects.”
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 4:32 pm
Repeatedly copying and pasting Coleman’s excerpts do not make it any better, any more reliable, any more methodologically sound.
The American Psychological Association (APA) and other major medical bodies have concluded that the evidence does not support a link between abortion and mental health problems, and APA panelists charged with reviewing the evidence were similarly critical of the methodology of Coleman’s studies.
You and your prolife folks can rant at me till your heads pop off. It won’t change what is evident in scientific and academic research journals. It won’t change the facts that Coleman, Rue, Cougle, Reardon and their cronies have an agenda that is to use their pseudo science to “prove” abortion is harmful to women, all women or 81% of women, whatever it takes to win their battle.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:41 am
Repeatedly trying to discredit it doesn’t make it go away either. As I stated before the 81% of women who are hurting say otherwise. I am sure that they are glad that they have some researchers on their side who validate their feelings and don’t tell them it’s just all in their head. It would be a horrific place to be in to know that you killed your baby and when that knowledge got to overwhelming for you and you asked for help you were told that it was all in your head, that some researches decided that so therefore it must be fact. And you claim to care about women? You care about your agenda, that’s all.
LikeLike
February 9, 2014 at 4:18 am
Cal needs a new start with a coach who can consistently prcuode victories. In these tough budget times, Tedford is the most overpaid man in California, but no one will do anything about that.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 6:43 am
Here’s another source from the BJP
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L., & Boden, J. M. (2009). Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(5), 420-426.
Background: There has been continued interest in the extent to which women have positive and negative reactions to abortion. Aims: To document emotional reactions to abortion, and to examine the links between reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health outcomes. Method: Data were gathered on the pregnancy and mental health history of a birth cohort of over 500 women studied to the age of 30. Results: Abortion was associated with high rates of both positive and negative emotional reactions; however, nearly 90% of respondents believed that the abortion was the right decision. Analyses showed that the number of negative responses to the abortion was associated with increased levels of subsequent mental health disorders (P < 0.05). Further analyses suggested that, after adjustment for confounding, those having an abortion and reporting negative reactions had rates of mental health disorders that were approximately 1.4–1.8 times higher than those not having an abortion. Conclusions: Abortion was associated with both positive and negative emotional reactions. The extent of negative emotional reactions appeared to modify the links between abortion and subsequent mental health problems.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 6:44 am
and here’s a response to this article
Rowlands, S., & Guthrie, K. (2009). Abortion and mental health. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(1).
Comments on an article by D. M. Fergusson (see record 2008-18556-003). The authors have overcome some of the methodological problems of previous studies. Nevertheless, their latest study has weaknesses: the women’s abortion status is not verified objectively, only by self-report. There were 153 abortions in 117 women but insufficient data to distinguish the effects of differing numbers of abortions; it is known that women having more than one abortion may differ in many respects from those having a single abortion. Whether abortion causes harm to women’s mental health is a question that is not scientifically testable, as women with unwanted pregnancies cannot be randomly assigned to abortion v. abortion denied groups. All women should have rights to reproductive health and self-determination, of which safe and dignified access to abortion services is an important part.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 6:45 am
And as academics are inclined to do, they respond to the response….
Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L., & Boden, J. M. (2009). ‘Abortion and mental health’: Author’s reply. British Journal of Psychiatry, 195(1), 83-84.
Reply by the current author to the comments made by Sam Rowlands, and Kate Guthrie (see record 2009-10700-016) on the original article (see record 2008-18556-003). We would like to thank Rowlands and Guthrie for their positive comments about our paper. The first concerns whether or not abortion is an adverse life event that increases risks of mental health problems. Answering this question is important for understanding the extent to which women having abortions are an at-risk population for subsequent mental health problems. The second question concerns whether any mental health risks of abortion are greater or less than the mental health risks of unwanted pregnancies that come to term. Rowlands and Guthrie suggest that our paper has a number of limitations relating to the assessment of abortion, the number of abortions and the social context of the research. They claim that conclusions cannot be drawn about the causal effects of abortion on mental health in the absence of randomized controlled trials. We believe that this argument overstates the case and there is now growing evidence for two major conclusions about abortion and mental health.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 10:59 am
The newest research was the largest of it’s kind and took into consideration the other studies done previously and GREAT lengths were taken to ensure a non-biased result. I really don’t understand why it is if you are so pro woman that you don’t want to help the 81% who are suffering post abortion. You claim to care about them but it appears as if you only care until you get them to the clinic door. Maybe it’s not the woman that you care about at all but rather furthering your cause. If you cared about the woman then you would consider that they are traumatized and hurting. And here we pro-lifers are, the ones who you claim don’t give a crap for the woman, begging you to give a crap. As the old saying goes “The proof is in the pudding.” If you could just lay down your agenda for a second and LISTEN to some of these hurting women you could see clearly what we have seen all along. If you would just listen to one of the 81% you would see for yourself that they are hurting. But I guess if you admitted that then that bogus documentary you are working on would have to be re-done and we can’t have that now can we? Too much at stake, right Kate?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 1:27 pm
That anger of your’s seethes even through your writing. Is it righteous anger?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 3:43 pm
It’s not anger that you hear. It is frustration that babies are dying and woman are getting hurt and no matter what proof is provided you try to discredit it and refuse to face it. Your mind is made up.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm
Why do you care what I think?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 6:17 pm
We love you, Kate.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 11:48 am
Because you lie and try out of your biased mindset to discredit every word that pro-lifers say. You are the voice of death and we are trying to be the voice of life. You walk women into clinics encouraging them to kill their babies and tell them it won’t bother them while we know full well that it will bother them, most for the rest of their lives. I know an almost 70 year old woman who had two abortions when she was younger and you mention the word abortion and she bursts into tears. Don’t tell me it doesn’t injure women. You live a lie and you preach lies to other women. That’s why I care.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Priscilla K. Coleman is a Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio.She has published articles in peer-reviewed journals suggesting a statistical correlation between abortion and mental health problems, and has claimed in interviews that there is a causal relationship.
Some other researchers have been unable to reproduce Coleman’s results on abortion and mental health despite using the same dataset,[4] and have described her findings as “logically inconsistent” and potentially “substantially inflated” by faulty methodology. The American Psychological Association (APA) and other major medical bodies have concluded that the evidence does not support a link between abortion and mental health problems, and APA panelists charged with reviewing the evidence were similarly critical of the methodology of Coleman’s studies. Coleman has responded that she is “not the only credentialed scientists whose research is indicating that abortion is not without serious mental health risks for many women.”
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 9:10 am
voice, why can’t you bring yourself to focus on the needs of children? They’re alive, they’re the future, and they need to be equipped to handle life they need to be nurtured well. This requires marshaling and using appropriate resources.
When the resources are not there or when the person responsible for that nurture is not given the proper support, nurture is handicapped. That’s when bad things start to happen.
An unwanted child in a family can have tremendously negative effects on the nurture of the others. I suggest you experience some of this for yourself by reducing your family’s income to $3,800 for an entire year. Or see how your ability to marshal and use resources is affected by taking under your roof for a few months a child you don’t want.
Nature is merciless towards the defenseless, and when a woman says she is not ready to have another child, she is thinking of protecting her abilities to nurture those she cares for; sometimes in order to protect children and families, trade-offs have to be made. I’m sorry that you consider that the continuation of a pregnancy should be an absolute.
LikeLike
September 6, 2011 at 10:41 am
I resisted responding to this when I first saw it, because it isn’t addressed to me, and I’ve already responded to other posts you directed to voice. I also don’t want to be perceived as against you personally, (though you are annoying) or be caught in an endless war of words with you. But I just cannot let this comment go unaddressed:
RESPONSIBLE Right to Life/chuck/charles/aborticentrism Says:
September 5, 2011 at 9:10 am
“voice, why can’t you bring yourself to focus on the needs of children? They’re alive, they’re the future, and they need to be equipped to handle life they need to be nurtured well. This requires marshaling and using appropriate resources.”
Chuck, you have continually stated the preposterious notion that adoption is the ONLY way to care FOR children, using your own made up aborticentrism to try to “prove” it. You then admitted that you care for children behind the scenes, though not through adoption. You have a double standard big enough to drive a truck through. If the average pro-lifer states they are caring FOR children in any one of a myriad of ways available to them, you ignore it and/or invalidate it because they haven’t adopted “the next child.” You tell voice to take in a child she doesn’t want, yet when Deanna said she had adopted four children, it was dismissed as not enough. Which is it Chuck?
Now, here it is above in black and white yet again. “marshaling and using appropriate resources” to focus on the needs of children? I thought that wasn’t valid, good enough, and in fact useless unless you adopt those children?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:06 am
NunYa declares, “RESPECT WOMEN!” But somehow that doesn’t include respecting their judgment about how many children they want to raise well.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 11:14 pm
GOOD GOD! Have you people no shame?? Chuck you know that is the pro-choice mantra. You know that it’s YOUR mantra. Scroll up and look at Kate’s icon. The caps here aren’t anger or upset, but outright ROFL!!! I can not believe you can walk amongst your associates with a straight face if they see your posts here. I don’t DECLARE respect women, I live it. YOU are the one demanding that they will all raise serial killers. I made a very good, undeniable (I thought, but then I had underestimated you) point that pro-lifers do respect women, and pro-choicers don’t. Way to ignore everything I said, deflect attention from it, and throw suspicion back on me. Yes, I admit it, that’s MY mantra, and I’m actually the one holding the Respect Women! sign by every one of Kate’s posts Chuck, King of All Things Annoying. I swear, I don’t need Jay Leno with you around.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:37 am
Lest any of you believe in your anti abortion tactics, here are two articles that report on the reactions/impact of your picketing:
Cozzarelli, C., Major, B., Karrasch, A., & Fuegen, K. (2000). Women’s Experiences of and Reactions to Antiabortion Picketing. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 22(4), 267-275
The results of this study suggest that many women who have a first-trimester abortion will encounter antiabortion picketers. Although significant variation existed among the women we studied, on average, they seemed to find these encounters unpleasant, to be negatively affected by them in the short term, but not to suffer any significant long-term harm as a result of encountering picketers.
Medoff, M. H. (2003). The impact of anti-abortion activities on state abortion rates. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32(3), 265.
This paper examines the impact anti-abortion activities have on state abortion rates. Using 1992 data from the 50 U.S. states, the empirical results find that anti-abortion harassment activities (picketing, picketing with contact, vandalism, bomb threats, and stalking) did not significantly reduce the demand for abortion within a state nor did they cause a change in the location of the abortion procedure.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:42 am
According to the 2008 The American Psychological Association (APA) Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health report, “the empirical literature on the association between abortion and mental health has been asked to address four primary questions: (1) Does abortion cause harm to women’s mental health? (2) How prevalent are mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion? (3) What is the relative risk of mental health problems associated with abortion compared to its alternatives (other courses of action that might be taken by a pregnant woman in similar circumstances)? and (4) What predicts individual variation in women’s psychological experiences following abortion? As discussed above, the first question is not scientifically testable from an ethical or practical perspective. The second and third questions obscure the important point that abortion is not a unitary event, but encompasses a diversity of experiences.” And they continue to answer the remaining questions in their summary including assessing the methodological rigor of researchers’ work in this area. You can asess for yourself the work of Priscilla Coleman.
The pdf of the report is available online.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:53 am
More research about abortion sequelae:
Warren, J. T., Harvey, S., & Henderson, J. T. (2010). Do depression and low self‐esteem follow abortion among adolescents? Evidence from a national study. Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 42(4), 230-235.
Context: A 2008 report by the American Psychological Association found no evidence that an induced abortion causes mental health problems in adult women. No conclusions were drawn with respect to adolescents because of a scarcity of evidence. Methods: Data from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health were used to examine whether abortion in adolescence was associated with subsequent depression and low self-esteem. In all, 289 female respondents reported at least one pregnancy between Wave 1 (1994–1995) and Wave 2 (1996) of the survey. Of these, 69 reported an induced abortion. Population-averaged lagged logistic regression models were used to assess associations between abortion and depression and low self-esteem within a year of the pregnancy and approximately five years later, at Wave 3 (2001–2002). Results: Abortion was not associated with depression or low self-esteem at either time point. Socioeconomic and demographic characteristics did not substantially modify the relationships between abortion and the outcomes. Conclusions: Adolescents who have an abortion do not appear to be at elevated risk for depression or low self esteem in the short term or up to five years after the abortion
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 9:55 am
Thanks for the work, Kate…
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 7:56 am
Here’s another article about abortion in countries where abortion is restricted:
Ludermir, A. B., de Araújo, T., Valongueiro, S. A., & Lewis, G. G. (2010). Common mental disorder in late pregnancy in women who wanted or attempted an abortion. Psychological Medicine: A Journal of Research in Psychiatry and the Allied Sciences, 40(9), 1467-1473.
Background: In countries where legal abortion is restricted, many unwanted pregnancies are carried to term. Attempting an unsuccessful abortion may influence women’s mental health. This study investigated the common mental disorders (CMDs) of depression and anxiety in the third trimester of pregnancy in women who wanted or had attempted an abortion in a poor region of Brazil. Method: CMDs were assessed by using the 20-item Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20) in all pregnant women aged 18-49 years who were registered with publicly funded primary health care in Recife, Northeast Brazil. Results: The study achieved a high response rate and 1121 (98.9%) women completed the interview. The prevalence of CMDs for the sample was 43.1 % [95% confidence interval (CI) 40.2-46.1], and 63.6% (95% CI 55.4-71.2) among the 13.7% of women who attempted an abortion. The association between CMDs and attempted an abortion [odds ratio (OR) 2.05, 95% CI 1.3-3.1] remained after adjustment for confounders. Conclusions: This study found that attempting an abortion in the current pregnancy was associated with CMDs. Good access to family planning programs, including access to contraceptive methods and safe abortion, should help to improve the mental health of women.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 9:59 am
Great Info Kate,
Tx
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 6:17 pm
How would you know.
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 1:32 pm
“Not too many.”
But the ones who do change the way we look at the world, as Einstein found out…
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 1:38 pm
voice~~ “death, death, death” is what you focus on. I don’t hear you talking at all about what life requires once a baby’s been born, and I haven’t heard any testimony from you about what you’ve done to help children get beyond the feral stage. Let’s try for a little “life, life, life” focus from you.
Nunya– we should be grateful that there are so few feral children in the world. I hope you understand that without human nurture, this is the life God gives to a child born into this world. You can download a classic study, “Secrets of the Wild Child,” about the girl who was strapped to a potty chair until she was 14. She’ll never have the language or behavioral skills of an adult. You want that number for an adoption agency yet?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 11:52 pm
You know what Chuck? You believe women, average women, the women you say to trust and respect to make decisions to kill their unborn, will raise feral children as well as serial killers? What happened to that girl is abuse and torture, and how dare you assume that kind of behavior of all women! How dare you continue to push your misogynist views on this site. Pat do you deny that what he pushes is misogyny? Just because a child is unwanted does not mean it’s mother is a closet child abuser. Child abuse and neglect were around long before abortion was legalized and common and is a fact of life from men and women, just like all crime. God forbid that you have that adoption phone number because you’ve used it. You are a woman hater Chuck, and you’ve found the perfect forum here to spread your poison, as well as free advertisement for your abortistupidism.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 8:03 am
NunYa, you consistently manage to avoid confronting my point about feral children, which is this is what we get when we don’t provide nurture. If this is what we get when we don’t provide nurture, why don’t YOU provide nurture to one of the 3.5 million children born every year who are at risk for it? The Wild Child didn’t have to grow up that way; neither did Ted Bundy or Elieen Wuorinen.
You are a living, breathing example of how aborticentrism warps the perceptions adn thought processes of the self-proclaimed “pro-lifer.” It’s all about death, death, death and not the needs of life, life, life….
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 12:51 pm
I don’t avoid it Chuck, you HAVE NO POINT. Feral children have absolutely nothing to do with abortion. If you want we to agree that children need nurture and suffer and are stunted without it, I agree all day long! The problem is that you ignore all points I have made concerning the fact that ALL women aren’t going to make serial killers of their unwanted children, no matter how much you try to prove that true, misogynist that you are. .
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 2:34 pm
I don’t know why my comments are sometimes posted as anonymous…
Chuck, let me try this again, without the sarcasm. Since the instance of feral children is very rare, trying to connect it to abortion doesn’t work. Lack of human contact is the number one variable that produces feral children. Lack of nurturing isn’t. If you have read the book, “A Child Called It” you will see that a complete lack of nurturing, coupled with severe abuse, did not produce a feral child. I have not read or heard of the 14 year old you mentioned, but if she was alive and chained to a potty chair, then she obviously had some human contact, so I will concede that possibly both can cause it, but I doubt her contact was much more than feeding and watering her. Regardless, it has no connection to abortion that I can see. As for the 3.5 million children born every year, they are not at risk of becoming feral, since there are only a few cases of it throughout history. I also would like to know what that figure of 3.5 million children includes. What is the breakdown?
LikeLike
September 4, 2011 at 1:48 pm
NunYa, you fantasize about what I WOULD do IF you do something and then you WOULD do something else, and I WOULD do something in response….
If you want to get me to shut up about you personally, just do this: raise the child you don’t want to.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 12:07 am
I don’t fantasize Chuck, I put forth questions and make points. You are a coward who ducks and weaves. Oh, and I have never even alluded to wanting you to shut up about me personally. Give it your best shot. Oh wait…you already have…all women are potential child abusers, raisers of serial killers, murders of their children, who will neglect them to the point of them becoming feral. The answer to that is for pro-lifers to adopt them before that happens. Bang. Ya got me.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 8:05 am
Oops, sorry, NunYa. The above was meant for voice….
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 12:56 pm
Sorry Chuck, you can take out the first sentence then.
LikeLike
September 5, 2011 at 2:39 pm
I meant the third sentence. But I apologize for calling you a coward. I only know what I read of your thoughts here, and I have nothing to base that accusation on. I do wish you would stop ignoring all the points I make and at least respond to them, rather than your continual focus on your pet project.
LikeLike