The British Journal of Psychiatry has released a meta-analysis of research on the mental-health effects of abortion. This meta-analysis was authored by Priscilla K. Coleman of Bowling Green University and offers the largest available body of evidence on the psychological impact of abortion. Overall, it presents a very strong body of peer-reviewed research showing that abortion increases the likelihood of depression, anxiety, alcoholism, drug use, and suicide.
This meta-analysis could not have come at a better time. In recent years, both the American Psychological Association and John Hopkins University have released less-systematic reviews of the academic literature on the psychological effect of abortion. Those reviews, which received plenty of coverage from the mainstream media, argued that abortion only has a marginal impact on the mental health of women.
However, Coleman’s meta-analysis employed considerably more rigorous inclusion criteria than these other reviews. Every included study had a sample size of more than 100 participants, used comparison groups, and controlled for demographic factors and prior history of mental-health problems. Overall, it is based on 22 published studies and brings together data on 877,181 participants, 163,381 of whom had experienced an abortion. Furthermore, its appearance in a top psychiatry journal indicates that it was carefully critiqued and evaluated by respected public-health scholars.
It will be interesting to see how much attention this meta-analysis will receive from the mainstream media. Within the past few years, both the New York Times and the Washington Post have run stories about research that indicated that abortion had little effect on the mental health of women. Furthermore, the mainstream media diligently avoids covering any studies on the harmful effects of abortion. Hopefully, the prestige of the journal, the volume of studies included, and the consistency of the findings will encourage the mainstream media to give a second look to this important issue.
— Michael J. New is an assistant professor of political science at the University of Michigan – Dearborn and is a fellow at the Witherspoon Institute in Princeton, N.J.
Now we need the studies on the correlations between abortion and breast cancer. Just use the same diligence that was used to come up with the "second hand smoke" effects.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBowling Green State University: a notable teacher's college.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGive it up.
The fact that this school also trains teachers is irrelevant to the point of this article.
Nor does the fact that there are professors there who do good work imply that the students in the teachers college portion of the school aren't wasting their money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Hopefully, the prestige of the journal, the volume of studies included, and the consistency of the findings will encourage the mainstream media to give a second look to this important issue."
The chance of this happening is exactly 0.0%. But we CAN hope more in the conservative media pick up this story.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseExpect full NYT coverage - in a three inch column on page C11, at the bottom of the classified section, just before obituaries.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMore abortion-related science the left will file under "To Be Ignored."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOf course, this is where the Liberals DON"T want science to be acknowledged.
Someone very close to me got an abortion when she was a young woman - and it ruined her. She was never able to get over it and died too young, drinking herself to death. People who ignore the truth ruin lives - sometimes even their own.
The truth is that abortion is murder and some who get one out of convenience, face that truth when it is too late to save themselves from the guilt of it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'd be interested in seeing the difference with abortion and adoption.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe mainstream media's dogmas:
1. Abortion is always good.
2. Christians and Jews are more dangerous than radical Islamists.
3. It's fine use racial or gender slurs against conservative minority individuals.
4. There are no moral absolutes (oddly, this is attested to as an absolute).
Etc., etc.
Professor New, don't hold your breath.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn psychiatry and/or psychology, very little is as concrete as is found in the harder sciences; almost everything lies in the gray zones, honest misinterpretation of data is common, while purposeful bias is hardly uncommon. A review of a meta-analysis of several, often disparate, studies may find impeccable protocols, but researchers at every step of the process in the assorted studies will have been forced to make judgment calls on a frequent basis. In this field it is wise to acknowledge the findings of studies with positive peer reviewed processes and protocols, but you withhold overall judgment until replicative studies find the same. It's just the 'gray' nature of the field (although academes and practitioners with an agenda will run off with any study which suits their needs).
While this study is impressive, it will require multiple quality studies with the same general findings to change the predominant beliefs on post-abortion psychosocial effects.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"While this study is impressive, it will require multiple quality studies with the same general findings to change the predominant beliefs on post-abortion psychosocial effects."
I thought the purpose of a meta-analysis was precisely to find the presence or absence of a "general finding" among "multiple quality studies".
I'm not sure what more you'd require to show the effect of abortion on mental health.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAudrey, I appreciate your scientific inquiry but, re-read this:
"In psychiatry and/or psychology, very little is as concrete as is found in the harder sciences; almost everything lies in the gray zones, honest misinterpretation of data is common, while purposeful bias is hardly uncommon. A review of a meta-analysis of several, often disparate, studies may find impeccable protocols, but researchers at every step of the process in the assorted studies will have been forced to make judgment calls on a frequent basis. In this field it is wise to acknowledge the findings of studies with positive peer reviewed processes and protocols, but you withhold overall judgment until replicative studies find the same. It's just the 'gray' nature of the field (although academes and practitioners with an agenda will run off with any study which suits their needs)."
What a bunch of B.S. They have no answer. "If you you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with B.S".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow unfortunate you did not - or could not - point out a single exmple of said BS, nor why it is BS.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, if you understand the scientific concept of replication, additional independent studies that arrive at or near the same conclusion of this study will serve to firm it up. This is preferred because single studies, whether individual or meta-analysis, can be well done but still depend on the efficacy of the original studies. Since the field is a lot 'softer' than math, biology, physics, etc., this is required. It's all good - if abortion is psychosocially deleterious, and I believe it is, those confirming studies will emerge.
FWIW, I'm a forensic psychologist.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI am a biochemist, and yes, I do understand the importance of repetition in making statements about whether an experiment shows something/is valid.
However, I still do not think that a meta-analysis is the same as a single study. In a single study, data is collected and analyzed, perhaps comparing a variable to a control group. Having many single studies that show the same effect can "firm up" conclusions about said effect.
A meta-analysis does not set up an experiment the same way. It takes the data that already exists from many independent studies and asks if over the large sample the same conclusions can be drawn about the variable vs the control. In effect, it is asking "do all these little studies say the same thing?" Or when you combine the data, does the conclusion - or, possibly, bias - disappear?
I still think the meta-analysis is exactly the kind of method that can give weight to a conclusion - the kind of weight that makes you say well, this must be it.
Are you really saying you want 10 more individual studies and ANOTHER meta-analysis before you think the conclusion is convincing?? How many??
captcha=nth degree. haha. to the nth! and beyond!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe whole point of this study is to quantify if there is replication of results in the 22 studies examined.
Literally all 22 studies found higher rates of at least one mental health problem associated with abortion.
While better studies are always needed the trend in results is very pronounced and statistically significant to a high degree of confidence.
You can see some more regarding the actual findings in this video review.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe whole point of this study is to quantify if there is replication of results in the 22 studies examined.
Literally all 22 studies found higher rates of at least one mental health problem associated with abortion.
While better studies are always needed the trend in results is very pronounced and statistically significant to a high degree of confidence.
You can see some more regarding the actual findings in this video review.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI can tell you from personal experience that the affects that this study is suggesting were not true for me. I was in a very abusive marriage with two children already. On birth control I became pregnant with a third child. The abuse did not stop throughout my first two pregnancies so there was no reason to assume that the last would be any different. After careful deliberation I chose to abort. It was not an easy decision but, I could not see bringing another child into this world in that situation. I know what you are thinking. "Why didn't I just get out?" Well unless you have been in that kind of relationship you can not judge. I was married to him for almost 15 yrs. We were together 18 yrs all together. At 34 yrs old I have spent the better part of my life with this man. He was and still is a master manipulator. Looking back now I realize that there were other options I had, but then I didnt know that. It doesn't make me feel good knowing what I did but, at the time it was the best decision I could make. Since then I have not turned to drugs or alcohol. I have not been depressed or tried to kill myself. I guess what I'm trying to say is that all situations are different and you cannot judge a woman for having an abortion until you know the whole story. I am sure that there is some part of everyone's life that we are not proud of and that could use work. So when we all feel we are perfect that is when we can start judging one another.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd I can tell you that my (married) mother had a doctor-mandated abortion in '75 that ruined her life and her marriage to my father, that its mental-health effects led to her too-early death at 48, and that the repercussions continue in my life and the lives of my siblings.
And then the next commenter can chime in with her/his anecdotal evidence, claiming the opposite. And on, and on.
That's what the meta-analysis is for: weighing individual cases one by one. The findings show that in more cases, abortion negatively affects the mental health of the mother.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm sorry for your situation, but an objective reading of the article yields no example of judgment or finger-pointing, simply a report of the facts. The same with the commments below. I would suggest that perhaps the sense of being judged is the product of your conscience.
Unfortunately, with this type of study it is very difficult to sort out cause and effect. It seems just as likely that women prone to these negative behaviors would also be those most likely to end up in a position where they would even need to consider an abortion. I would be willing to bet that more women that are happy and well-adjusted act responsibly and never face this decision.
I believe that abortion is a terrible tragedy for women and society. However, this type of story reminds me of headlines declaring that smoking shortens life spans by ten years. They often fail that those that choose to smoke are also more likely drink heavily, see doctors less, exercise less, and take more risks to their physical safety. These individuals would have shorter life span even if they never lit up.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse