Talk:Abortion and mental health

This is not a forum for general discussion of abortion. Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to the suggestions on how to improve the content of this article.

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

Coleman's new meta-analysis

Anupam (talk · contribs) is attempting to add, rather prominently, a meta-analysis by Priscilla K. Coleman. Firstly, I would appreciate it if he or anyone else could email me the full text of the article. Secondly, considering her history, I don't believe we should be inserting any study of Coleman's as if it were fact. The article just came out; surely we can wait a month or two before responses come in from the BMJ, NEJM, etc? If you really want to go ahead and add it now, please suggest how we can incorporate into the appropriate article section. NW (Talk) 14:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

It is available here.

Hello User:NuclearWarfare, I would request that you kindly revert your edit. I did present the information neutrally as evidenced by my edit. The meta-analysis was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry and is a peer-reviewed reliable source. As such, the position should be presented, along with the current information in the article. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

According to our article about the Br. J. Psych., it is open access after a 12 month embargo. Per wp:NOTNEWS, we can wait to see what it contains, and what the peers have to say.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:REDFLAG indicates waiting would be prudent. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence. - ArtifexMayhem (talk) 18:58, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Which we're very unlikely to get from Coleman, since a) her studies have been criticized by the APA for their faulty methodology, b) in at least one case, researchers using Coleman's dataset were unable to obtain her results c) the supposed meta-analysis is largely of Coleman's own studies, so it's pretty worthless anyway. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:01, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your claims, Roscelese? Thanks Geremia (talk) 01:24, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Which ones? Look at the studies in the paper you yourself linked - of 22 studies, 10 are by Coleman herself and another few are by her close colleagues. The other "claims" are already mentioned and cited in Wikipedia's article on Coleman, which you're obviously aware of since you edited it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

There are currently some of the reasons for including Coleman in this article:

1. Coleman's study is the largest meta-analysis to date.
2. There is absolutely no mention of studies, old or new, that claim to show a correlation between abortion and mental health problems

Geremia (talk) 01:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Why should there be? No reputable body supports the claim, and many of the individual studies have been discredited. Please see WP:FRINGE: we are not required to give equal weight to fringe theories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:41, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

To quote directly from that page: "The neutral point of view policy requires that all majority and significant-minority positions be included in an article." Currently, this article includes no "significant-minority positions," and Coleman, being the biggest meta-analysis, certainly is a "significant-minority position." If it is not, then what is? Whatever is should be included or else it would remain a violation of NPOV. Thanks Geremia (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article already does mention studies which found a correlation. What more do you want to add? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Where? Geremia (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

"While some studies have reported a statistical correlation between abortion and clinical depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviors, or adverse effects on women's sexual functions for a small number of women, these studies are typically methodologically flawed and fail to account for confounding factors. Higher-quality studies have consistently found no causal relationship between abortion and mental-health problems." I think that's the best you can ask for, since it mirrors expert scholarly opinion on the topic. Every reputable expert body that's examined the literature has concluded that there's no evidence that abortion causes mental-health problems. It's inappropriate to highlight individual studies to try to "debunk" or rebut expert opinion (see WP:MEDRS). If Coleman's paper is as substantial as you believe it to be, then expert bodies will revise their opinions. MastCell ^Talk 02:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The claims in this section you quote are completely uncited. Who said the studies are "are typically methodologically flawed and fail to account for confounding factors" and that "Higher-quality studies have consistently found no causal relationship between abortion and mental-health problems"? And the citation given to support these claims is a research paper. We could just as easily make a non sequitur citation of Coleman to prove the opposite of these claims. This isn't the only occurrence of a "non sequitur" citation. See, e.g., citation #5; what does Reagan's politics have to do with whether there is scientific evidence or not? We have not come to a consensus on this, which is why "cleanup-rewrite" tags are needed in order to alert others to help and contribute to this discussion and make this article comply with NPOV. Geremia (talk) 06:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The claims are not "completely uncited". Can we start by acknowledging the reality that there is a citation supporting these claims? There's a footnote immediately following them, linking to PMID 19014789. Maybe we can move on from there. MastCell ^Talk 19:26, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

As I said on 06:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC): how could one not cite a study like Coleman's to support the opposite claim? Viz., I could say, citing Coleman, that studies she used are not "typically methodologically flawed" nor do they "fail to account for confounding factors" and that "Higher-quality studies have consistently found" a "causal relationship between abortion and mental-health problems." No? Thanks Geremia (talk) 16:18, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite following you. Coleman's paper has, at present, no demonstrable impact on the viewpoints of expert medical and psychological bodies. It is inappropriate for us, as Wikipedia editors, to highlight her paper to "rebut" those expert bodies. If her paper is, in fact, taken seriously by the relevant expert communities, then they will revise their viewpoints. And we will revise this article accordingly. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

One such community is the American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians & Gynecologists (AAPLOG), a special interest group of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Geremia (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, AAPLOG is a partisan organization accorded essentially zero weight by independent, reputable scientific or lay sources. I think that giving AAPLOG's opinion equal weight with position statements from the APA et al. is sort of the canonical violation of WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Does Coleman's study fall under the Post-Abortion Syndrome section? She certainly does not use that terminology in her paper. This was my justification for moving it to the Current and historical reviews section, but some users here think otherwise. Thanks Geremia (talk) 19:30, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This article still doesn't cite any scientific papers that show a correlation. I ask again: Isn't that a blatant violation of WP:NPOV? Geremia (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I ask yet again: Doesn't this article blatantly violate WP:NPOV by failing to mention Coleman's study? Geremia (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The inclusion of cleanup tags

Some have been opposed to the inclusion of cleanup tags in this article because they think the WP:POV, WP:WEIGHT, citations, and Wikipedia quality standards issues have been met in this article, but judging from the numerous unresolved WP:POV discussions in the archive and the pleas to rewrite this article, these issues have not been resolved; therefore, cleanup tags must remain until they are resolved. Geremia (talk) 06:53, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The most reliable and authoriative sources that could be found for the lede first sentence are a New York Times article and NOW on PBS a cancelled newsmagazine program, there must surely be something outside of the American News Media that could be used. The BCoP is probably more reliable than news media but surely there are also other scholarly sources that could go with it?DMSBel (talk) 18:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, NOW (in this instance) is a reputable news program on PBS, and not the National Organization of Women. And since the first sentence describes political controversy surrounding the issue, surely high-quality mainstream news sources like the New York Times and PBS are reasonable to support it? On the other hand, if you've identified similarly high-quality sources outside the American news media, I think people would be receptive to including them. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

News media is the last place I would begin for reliable non-partisan sources on a controversial political issue. But if I find anything more scholarly I'll suggest it here.DMSBel (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I don't understand how anyone would have mixed up NOW on PBS when I linked to it, with the National Organisation of Women?DMSBel (talk) 18:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, you altered your original post to add that link here. I was responding to your initial post (which suggested possible confusion about NOW), and didn't expect you to alter it ten minutes later. The talk-page guidelines discourage you from doing that sort of thing; it makes it hard for people to respond to you when you go back and change your comments and then wonder how anyone could have been confused by them. But OK.

Reputable mainstream media sources are fairly useful for covering political controversies; I think you'll find them in widespread use around Wikipedia, in some of our best articles. If you prefer non-American scholarly sources, there's PMID 21557713, a recent review from a European medical journal. The political controversy (for example, over laws requiring physicians to provide dubious "information" about the mental-health risks of abortion) has been covered in the New England Journal of Medicine, among other scholarly sources ([1]). Do you think those would be useful? MastCell ^Talk 18:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

But you clearly come down on one side of the political debate in your both your article selections, and pick articles that are partisan to the discussion. Yet that is what you are harping on about others doing all the time. Why should I listen to you? DMSBel (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps these items were suggested not because of their content, but because of their coming from high quality sources outside the American news media, as was requested. What other sources of similar quality (published in peer reviewed academic literature, etc. - wp:MEDRS) would you suggest? Zodon (talk) 20:36, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood. Did you just call the New England Journal of Medicine and The European Journal of Contraception and Reproductive Health Care "partisan to the discussion"? NW (Talk) 20:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you misunderstood, I clearly refered only to the articles not the journals.DMSBel (talk) 02:10, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Again, I feel that I am misunderstanding. You are referring to articles in NEJM and Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care as being biased and partisan? NW (Talk) 02:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

In my experience articles that I have seen in reproductive health journals do tend to come down on one side of the political debate acknowledged in the first sentence of this article, in other words where it is said that abortion is a reproductive health choice marks a particular political position taken. Journals such as the BJPysch publish from respected researchers on both sides, including reputable studies that might go against a current scientific consensus. The "logic" I see at work in some editors is that reputable = in agreeance with current scientific consensus. Not in agreeance = not reputable. That "logic" can seem scientific but absolute adherence to it is scientific dogmatism. At least thats how I look at it. DMSBel (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand your personal viewpoint, but I'm not clear on how you're suggesting we put it into practice. Are we to downplay articles from "reproductive health journals" because you consider them biased? And prioritize studies from the British Journal of Psychiatry because you consider it praiseworthy? MastCell ^Talk 05:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A particular political position is reflected in the two articles suggested as alternatives. The NEJM also highlights a particular localised issue, that won't be of much interest to readers outside the US. For that reason they would not be suitable to reference the lede. So I suggest we leave the refs under discussion (such as they are) as they are for now.DMSBel (talk) 18:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the more constructive tone of this comment, but I disagree with your view of these sources. PMID 21557713 does not reflect a "political position". It is a review article from the medical literature, and it clearly summarizes the scientific and scholarly viewpoint on abortion and its risks. It also describes the prevalence of inaccurate and misleading claims about the safety of abortion - a trend which, I would hope, Wikipedia does not contribute to. Your disagreement with the article's content does not make it "political". The NEJM piece is commentary, and is clearly labeled as such, but we need to be a bit more scrupulous about calling sources "political" simply because they don't agree with our personal viewpoints.

That said, I'm fine with the existing sources as well. I provided these additional sources in an effort to meet your request for scholarly sources outside the U.S. lay media. Given that you've now also attached a requirement that the sources reach, or avoid, specific conclusions, I think I'm done for now. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

How are we defining "political" here? Science isn't immune from politics. This article itself proves that point. Because Sam Rowlands's name and papers seem to appear more in pro-choice news articles and conferences with other pro-choice (e.g., NARAL) speakers than pro-life ones, wouldn't that mean his science more reflects the pro-choice stance? Similarly, just because Priscilla Coleman's paper was virtually ignored by the pro-choice press and scientists and hyped by the pro-life press, wouldn't that make her science reflect more the pro-life stance? This article needs to do a better job disentangling the science from the politics. This is one of the main reasons why I still maintain it violates WP:NPOV (Conservapedia concurs.); it lacks the science that reflects the pro-life stance, of which post abortion syndrome is only a subset. If all mention of pro-life or pro-choice were deleted, then the article would certainly conform to WP:NPOV. Geremia (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We disentangle scientific opinion from political opinion by looking at how reputable expert scientific bodies have assessed the evidence. Citing Conservapedia isn't really a great way to support your argument. As anyone who's read Conservapedia will recognize, their standards and policies are quite different from Wikipedia's. Your idea that the article needs more "pro-life" science to balance "pro-choice" science is an attitude that's completely at odds with this site's policy. In fact, it's that attitude that causes the confusion you mentioned between political and scientific findings. MastCell ^Talk 04:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

So Wikipedia is pro-choice? Geremia (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Certainly Conservapedia is different, but it does offer another viewpoint on this article that most people here seem blind to, and this is the WP:NPOV issue everyone's been ignoring. Geremia (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, qui bene distinguit, bene docet ("he who distinguishes well, teaches well"). I'm not sure if that is a Wikipedia policy, but it is something this article could do better. It could distinguish between all these things better, instead of making it seem the scientific community and pro-choicers are 100% agreed on this matter and everything else is pseudoscience and pro-life politics. That is what I understand this article saying. Geremia (talk) 01:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

← Your first two posts are probably better ignored. Regarding your third point, I think you're looking for a degree of scientific support for the "pro-life" position that doesn't actually exist. I get the sense that you're trying to frame scientific opinion as more divided on the topic than it actually is, and failing that, to discredit scientific opinion as somehow "pro-choice" and thus partisan.

Why don't we start with an overview of the actual facts on the ground, so we can decide how to communicate them? I would summarize them thus:

• Some scientific papers have found statistical associations between abortion and mental-health problems, while others have not.
• When independent expert groups have reviewed this literature, they have concluded that the studies reporting an association contain methodologic flaws, often quite severe ones. As a result, independent expert bodies have synthesized the existing literature to conclude that there is no evidence that abortion is a threat to women's mental health.
• Some elements of the pro-life lobby do not accept that scientific opinion, and have continued to claim that abortion causes mental-health problems.

Do those statements seem like accurate representations of reality to you? MastCell ^Talk 20:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Why are my "first two posts are probably better ignored"? Are you saying you just ignore my WP:NPOV concerns? Isn't that negligence itself a violation of WP:NPOV?

I comment on your summary in red:

• Some scientific papers have found statistical associations between abortion and mental-health problems, while others have not. [Okay]
• When independent expert groups [Who exactly? Just the ones mentioned in the article as it currently stands?] have reviewed this literature, they have concluded that the studies reporting an association contain methodologic flaws [And these groups do not align with the pro-life position, right?], often quite severe ones. As a result, independent expert bodies have synthesized the existing literature to conclude that there is no evidence that abortion is a threat to women's mental health.
• Some elements of the pro-life lobby [So, by implication, a "pro-life lobby" cannot be an "independent expert group"?] do not accept that scientific opinion, and have continued to claim that abortion causes mental-health problems.

Thanks Geremia (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

One last question regarding MastCell: Is a person or group pro-life or pro-choice just because they claim they are or because they don't explicitly claim they are but their science, ideology, etc., aligns with either pro-life or pro-choice? Thanks Geremia (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it is actually quite easy to identify reputable expert bodies. The American Psychological Association, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists all qualify as such bodies in their respective fields. It is similarly fairly easy to figure out when an body is low-profile, dedicated to a single partisan purpose, or lacking in scientific credibility.

Furthermore, I don't share your concept of science being either "pro-life" or "pro-choice". Science is silent on the question of whether abortion should be legal or illegal, whether it should be subject to various restrictions, or whether it is morally justifiable. What science tells us is that abortions do not cause breast cancer or mental-health problems. That does not necessarily imply that abortion should be legal - after all, if one believes that life begins at conception, then presumably one believes that abortion should be illegal regardless of its health risks to the woman. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

If AAPLOG is too small to mention, what about ACOG?

Is the ACOG also "a barely notable or non-notable partisan group"? Their silence "on the mental health impact of abortion in its official publications" should not be mentioned? —Geremia (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a clear difference between ACOG - the major professional and scholarly organization of obstetricians and gynecologists in the U.S. - and AAPLOG. If there is serious doubt that ACOG is a reputable expert body, then I despair for our ability to ever produce reasonably serious encyclopedic, high-quality coverage of the medical aspects of this topic. Presenting AAPLOG's opinion in the lead, as equal to (and even as a rebuttal to) that of ACOG, is sort of a canonical violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT. MastCell ^Talk 21:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

So AAPLOG is not a "major professional and scholarly organization of obstetricians and gynecologists in the U.S."? How is it not "a reputable expert body"? Is it because it openly aligns itself with the pro-life position? Thanks Geremia (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait, you're joking, right? AAPLOG is exactly equivalent to ACOG? I haven't heard anything this funny since someone suggested that the Catholic News Agency was just like the New York Times! –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

On a serious note, whether ACOG's not commenting should be mentioned depends on whether an anti-abortion activist (she's the president of an activist group which was formed specifically because ACOG didn't cater to the founders' political position) writing in an advocacy publication is considered a reliable source, which would be...questionable. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

It's also nonsense that ACOG has been silent on the issue, FWIW. For example, in 2008 South Dakota was considering a bill which would impose drastic restrictions on abortion access and compel physicians to "counsel" patients with inaccurate information about the health risks of abortion. The South Dakota chapter of ACOG took a stand on the issue ([2]), writing in part:

The ban’s claim that an abortion “subjects the pregnant woman to significant psychological and physical health risks” is not supported by over two decades of published research on mental health and abortion. In fact, a report released in August of this year by the American Psychological Association confirms there is no evidence that an abortion causes significant mental health problems. Extensive reviews have also concluded that there are no documented negative psychological or medical sequlae to abortion among young women, who are not at greater risk of complications in future pregnancies, future medical problems, or future psychological problems.

I'd hardly call that "silence". MastCell ^Talk 00:18, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

A chapter of ACOG is not ACOG, though. Geremia (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

A chapter of ACOG is a chapter of ACOG. And the statement is hosted on ACOG's website, confirming that it bears the organization's imprimatur. Let's be serious, please. MastCell ^Talk 03:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How am I not being serious? Please assume good faith; I am certainly trying to make good faith edits to fix this article's WP:NPOV problems. Thanks Geremia (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I assume good faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary, just like the guideline says. You've been blocked twice this month for edit-warring on this article and relentlessly tried to evade your block with sockpuppets. Surely it's a bit much to cite WP:AGF at me at this juncture? MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

97 publications supporting a correlation between abortion and mental health problems

There are at least 97 publications, including Priscilla Coleman's 2011 meta-analysis, supporting a correlation between abortion and mental health problems. How can people say here that giving these studies any weight outside the seemingly pseudo-scientific and politically-charged section of Post-Abortion Syndrome is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:WEIGHT?

Selected primary sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Allanson, S., & Astbury, J. (2001). Attachment style and broken attachments: Violence, pregnancy, and abortion. Australian Journal of Psychology, 53, 146-151. Amaro H., Zuckerman B, & Cabral H. (1989). Drug use among adolescent mothers: profile of risk. Pediatrics, 84, 144-151. Barnett, W., Freudenberg, N., & Wille, R. (1992). Partnership after induced abortion: A prospective controlled study. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 21(5), 443-455. Bianchi-Demicheli, F et al (2002). Termination of pregnancy and women’s sexuality. Gynecol Obstet Invest, 53, 48-53. Boesen, H.C., Rorbye C., Norgaard, M., Nilas, L. (2004). Sexual behavior during the first eight weeks after legal termination of pregnancy. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 83, 1189-1192. Bradley, C.F. (1984) Abortion and subsequent pregnancy. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 29, 494. Bradshaw, Z., & Slade, P. (2003). The effects of induced abortion on emotional experiences and relationships: A critical review of the literature. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 929-958. Bradshaw, Z., & Slade, P. (2005). The relationship between induced abortion, attitudes toward sexuality, and sexual problems. Sexual and Relationship Therapy, 20, 390- 406. Brockington, I. F. (2005). Post-abortion psychosis, Arch Womens Ment Health 8: 53–54. Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2004). Psychological impact on women of miscarriage versus induced abortion: A 2-year follow-up study. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(2), 265-271. Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005a). The course of mental health after miscarriage and induced abortion: A longitudinal, five-year follow-up study. BMC Medicine, 3, 18. Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2005b). Reasons for induced abortion and their relation to women’s emotional distress: A prospective, two-year follow-up study. General Hospital Psychiatry, 27(1), 36-43. Broen, A. N., Moum, T., Bodtker, A. S., & Ekeberg, O. (2006). Predictors of anxiety and depression following pregnancy termination: A longitudinal five-year follow-up study. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 85(3), 317-323. Burnell, G. M., & Norfleet, M. A. (1987). Women’s self-reported responses to abortion. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 71–76. Butlet, C. (1996). Late psychological sequelae of abortion: Questions from a primary care physician. Journal of Family Practice, 43, p. 396-401. Campbell, N., Franco, K. & Jurs, S. (1988). Abortion in Adolescence. Adolescence 23, 813-823. Cohan, C. L., Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Lydon, J. (1993). Pregnancy decision making: Predictors of early stress and adjustment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 223-239. Coleman, P. K. (2006a). Resolution of unwanted pregnancy during adolescence through abortion versus childbirth: Individual and family predictors and psychological consequences. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35, 903-911. Coleman, Priscilla K. (2011). "Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995–2009" (PDF). The British Journal of Psychiatry. 199 (3): 180–186. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077230. Archived from the original on 1 September 2011. Retrieved 2 September 2011. Coleman, P. K., Maxey, C. D., Rue, V. M., & Coyle, C. T. (2005). Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among lowincome mothers. Acta Paediatrica, 94(10), 1476-1483. Coleman, P. K., & Nelson, E. S. (1998). The quality of abortion decisions and college students’ reports of post-abortion emotional sequelae and abortion attitudes. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 17, 425-442. Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. (2002). The quality of the caregiving environment and child developmental outcomes associated with maternal history of abortion using the NLSY data. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 43, 743-757. Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. R. (2005). Substance use among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psychology, 10(2), 255-268. Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Rue, V. M., & Cougle, J. (2002a). A history of induced abortion in relation to substance use during subsequent pregnancies carried to term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 187, 1673-1678. Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C, Rue, V. M., & Cougle, J. (2002b). State-funded abortions versus deliveries: A comparison of outpatient mental health claims over 4 years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 141-152. Coleman, P. K., Reardon, D. C., Strahan, T., & Cougle, J. R. (2005). The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health, 20, 237-271. Congleton, G. K., & Calhoun, L. G. (1993). Post-abortion perceptions: A comparison of self-identified distressed and non-distressed populations. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 39, 255-265. Congleton, G. & Calhoun, L. (1993). Post-abortion perceptions: A comparison of selfidentified distressed and non-distressed populations. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 39, 255-265. Conklin, M. P., & O’Connor, B. P. (1995). Beliefs about the fetus as a moderator of postabortion psychological well-being. Journal of Social & Clinical Psychology, 14, 76-95. Cote-Arsenault, D., Dombeck, M. T. B. (2001). Maternal assignment of fetal personhood to a previous pregnancy loss: Relationship to anxiety in the current pregnancy. Health Care for Women International 22, 649-665. Cougle, J. R., Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2003). Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: A long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort. Medical Science Monitor, 9(4), CR105-112.79. Cougle, J. R., Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2005). Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: A cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 19, 137-142. Cozzarelli, C. (1993). Personality and self-efficacy as predictors of coping with abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1224-1236. David, H., Rasmussen, N. & Holst, E. (1981). Postpartum and postabortion psychotic reactions. Family Planning Perspectives, 13, 88-91. Fayote, F.O., Adeyemi, A.B., Oladimeji, B.Y. (2004). Emotional distress and its correlates. Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 5, 504-509. Fergusson, D. M., Horwood, L. J., & Ridder, E. M. (2006). Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 16-24. Fielding, S. L., & Schaff, E. A. (2004). Social Context and the Experience of a Sample of U.S. Women Taking RU-486 (Mifepristone) for Early Abortion. Qualitative HealthResearch, 14, 612-627. Franz, W., & Reardon, D. (1992). Differential impact of abortion on adolescents and adults. Adolescence, 27(105), 161-172. Gissler, M., Hemminki, E., & Lonnqvist, J. (1996). Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: Register linkage study. British Medical Journal, 313, 1431-1434. Gissler, M., et al. (2005). Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000. European Journal of Public Health, 15, 459-463. Guilbert, E., & Rotter, D. (1997). Assessment of satisfaction with induced abortion procedure. The Journal of Psychology, 131, 157-166. Harlow, B. L., Cohen, L. S., Otto, M. W., Spiegelman, D., & Cramer, D. W. (2004). Early life menstrual characteristics and pregnancy experiences among women with and without major depression: the Harvard Study of Mood and Cycles. Journal of Affective Disorders, 79, 167176. Hemmerling, F., Siedentoff, F., & Kentenich, H. (2005). Emotional impact and acceptability of medical abortion with mifepristone: A German experience. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology, 26, 23-31. Henshaw, R., Naji, S., Russell, I., & Templeton, A. (1994). Psychological responses following medical abortion (using mifepristone and gemeprost) and surgical vacuum aspiration: A patient-centered, partially randomized prospective study. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica, 73, 812-818. Hittner, A. (1987). Feelings of well-being before and after abortion. American Mental Health Counselors Association Journal, 9, 98-104. Hope, T. L., Wilder, E. I., & Terling Watt, T. (2003). The relationships among adolescent pregnancy, pregnancy resolution, and juvenile delinquency. Sociological Quarterly, 44, 555-576. Husfeldt, C., Hansen, S. K., Lyngberg, A., Noddebo, M., & Pettersson, B. (1995). Ambivalence among women applying for abortion. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologia Scandinavica, 74, 813-17. Kero, A., Hoegberg, U., Jacobsson, L., & Lalos, A. (2001). Legal abortion: A painful necessity. Social Science and Medicine, 53, 1481-1490. Kero, A., Hoegberg, U., & Lalos, A. (2004). Wellbeing and mental growth – long-term effects of legal abortion. Social Science and Medicine, 58, 2559-2569. Kero A, Lalos A. (2000). Ambivalence – a logical response to legal abortion: a prospective study among women and men. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology; 21, 81-91. Kitamura, T., Toda, M. A., Shima, S., & Sugawara, M. (1998). Single and repeated elective abortions in Japan: A psychosocial study. Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 19, 126-134. Lauzon, P., Roger-Achim, D., Achim, A., & Boyer, R. (2000). Emotional distress among couples involved in first-trimester induced abortions. Canadian Family Physician, 46, 2033-2040. Lazarus, A. & Stern, R. (1986). Psychiatric Aspects of Pregnancy Termination” Clinics in Obstetrics & Gynaecology 13, 125-134. Lazarus, A. (1985). Psychiatric Sequelae of Legalized Elective First Trimester Abortion. Journal of Psychosomatic Ob&Gyn, 4, 141-150. Lemkau, J. P. (1988). Emotional sequelae of abortion: Implications for clinical practice. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 461–472. Lewis, W. J. (1997). Factors associated with post-abortion adjustment problems: Implications for triage. The Canadian Journal of Human Sexuality, 6, 9-17. Llewellyn, S. P., & Pytches, R. (1988). An investigation of anxiety following termination of pregnancy.Journal of Advanced Nursing, 13, 468–471. Lodl, K. McGettigan, A. & Bucy, J. (1985). Women’s Responses to Abortion. Journal of Social Work & Human Sexuality, 3, 119-132. Lydon, J., Dunkel-Schetter, C., Cohan, C. L., & Pierce, T. (1996). Pregnancy decisionmaking as a significant life event: A commitment approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 141-151. Major, B. (1989). Self-blame, Self-efficacy and Adjustment to Abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5, 1059-1068. Major, B.,Cozzarelli, C., Cooper, M.L., Zubek, J., Richards C., Wilhite, M., & Gramzow, R.H. (2000).Psychological responses of women after first trimester abortion. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57, 777-84. Major, B. Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, A. M., Cooper, M. L., Testa, M., & Mueller, P. M. (1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 186-197. Major, B.,& Gramzow, R. H. (1999).Abortion as stigma: Cognitive and emotional implications of concealment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,77, 735-745. Miller, W. B. (1992). An empirical study of the psychological antecedents and consequences of induced abortion. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 67-93. Miller, W. B., Pasta, D. J., & Dean, C. L. (1998). Testing a model of the psychological consequences of abortion. In L. J. Beckman and S. M. Harvey (eds.), The new civil war: The psychology, culture, and politics of abortion. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Morgan, C., Evans, M., Peter, J. R., & Currie, C. (1997). Mental health may deteriorate as a direct result of induced abortion. British Medical Journal, 314, 902. Moseley, D. T., Follongstad, D. R., Harley, H., & Heckel, R.V. (1981). Psychological factors that predict reaction to abortion. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37, 276-279. Mueller, P. & Mufel, N., Speckhard, A. & Sivuha, S. Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Abortion in a Former Soviet Union Country. Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psych & Health,17, 41-61 (2002). Ney, P. G., Fung, T., & Wickett, A.R. (1993). Relations between induced abortion and child abuse and neglect: Four studies. Pre and Perinatal Psychology Journal, 8, 43-63. Ney, P. G., Fung, T., Wickett, A. R., & Beaman-Dodd, C. (1994). The effects of pregnancy loss on women’s health. Social Science & Medicine, 38, 1193-1200. Ostbye, T., Wenghofer, E. F., Woodward, C. A., Gold, G., & Craighead, J. (2001). Health services utilization after induced abortions in Ontario: A comparison between community clinics and hospitals. American Journal of Medical Quality, 16, 99-106. Patterson, M. J., Hill, R. P., & Maloy, K. (1995). Abortion in America: A consumerbased perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 21, 677-694. Pedersen, W. (2008). Abortion and depression: A population-based longitudinal study of young women. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, Vol. 36, No. 4, 424-428. Pedersen, W. (2007). Addiction. Childbirth, abortion and subsequent substance use in young women: a population-based longitudinal study, 102 (12), 1971-78. Pope, L. M., Adler, N. E., & Tschann, J. M. (2001). Post-abortion psychological adjustment: Are minors at increased risk? Journal of Adolescent Health, 29, 2-11. Posavac, E., & Miller, T. (1990). Some problems caused by not having a conceptual foundation for health research: An illustration from studies of the psychological effects of abortion. Psychology and Health, 5, 13-23. Prommanart, N., et al. (2004). Maternal grief after abortion and related factors. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 87, 1275-1280. Reardon, D. C., & Coleman, P. K. (2006). Relative treatment for sleep disorders following abortion and child delivery: A prospective record-based study. Sleep, 29(1), 105-106. Reardon, D. C., Coleman, P. K., & Cougle, J. R. (2004). Substance use associated with unintended pregnancy outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 30(2), 369-383. Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. R. (2002a). Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: A cohort study. British Medical Journal, 324(7330), 151-152. Reardon, D. C., & Cougle, J. R. (2002b). Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: A cohort study: Reply. British Medical Journal, 324(7345), 1097-1098. Reardon, D. C., Cougle, J. R., Rue, V. M., Shuping, M. W., Coleman, P. K., & Ney, P. G. (2003). Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 168, 1253-1256. Reardon, D. C., & Ney, P. G. (2000). Abortion and subsequent substance abuse. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse, 26, 61-75. Reardon, D. C., Ney, P. G., Scheuren, F., Cougle, J., Coleman, P. K., & Strahan, T. W. (2002). Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: A record linkage study of low income women. Southern Medical Journal, 95(8), 834-841. Rees, D. I. & Sabia, J. J. (2007) The Relationship Between Abortion and Depression: New Evidence from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. Medical Science Monitor 13(10): 430-436. Remennick, L. I., & Segal, R. (2001). Sociocultural context and women’s experiences of abortion: Israeli women and Russian immigrants compared. Culture, Health, And Sexuality, 3, 49-66. Rue, V. M., Coleman, P. K., Rue, J. J., & Reardon, D. C. (2004). Induced abortion and traumatic stress: Preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Medical Science Monitor, 10, SR5-16. Schleiss, L., Mygind, K. A., Borre, R. V., & Peterson, B. H. (1997). Psychological consequences of induced abortion. Ugeskrift Laeger, 159, 3603-3606. Sivuha, S. Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Following Abortion in a Former Soviet Union Country. Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psych & Health,17, 41-61 (2002). Slade, P., Heke, S., Fletcher, J., & Stewart, P. (1998). A comparison of medical and surgical methods of termination of pregnancy: Choice, psychological consequences, and satisfaction with care. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 105, 1288-1295. Soderberg, H., Andersson, C., Janzon, L., & Slosberg, N-O. (1997). Continued pregnancy among abortion applicants. A study of women having a change of mind. Act Obstetricia Gynecologica Scandinavia, 76, 942-947. Söderberg H, Janzon L and Sjöberg NO (1998). Emotional distress following induced abortion. A study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmö, Sweden. European Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biology 79, 173-8. Speckhard, A. & Mufel, N.(2003) Universal responses to abortion? Attachment, trauma, and grief in women following abortion. Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psych & Health, 3-37. Speckhard, A. C., & Rue, V. M. (1992). Postabortion syndrome: An emerging public health concern. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 95-119. Suliman et al. (2007) Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia versus intravenous sedation. BMC Psychiatry, 7 (24), p.1-9. Tamburrino, M. B., Franco, K. N., Campbell, N. B., Pentz, J. E., Evans, C. L., & Jurs, S. G. (1990). Postabortion dysphoria and religion. Southern Medical Journal, 83, 736-738. Thorp, J. M., Hartmann, K. E., & Shadigin, E. (2003). Long-term physical and psychological health consequences of induced abortion: Review of the evidence. Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, 58(1), 67-79. Tornbom M. and Moller A. (1999). Repeat abortion: A qualitative study. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics and Gynecology, 20, 21-30. Turell, S., Armsworth, M., & Gaa, J. (1990). Emotional Response to Abortion: A Critical Review of the Literature.Women & Therapy 9, 49-68. Urquhart D.R., & Templeton, A. A. (1991). Psychiatric morbidity and acceptability following medical and surgical methods of induced abortion. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 98, 396-99. Williams, G. B. (2001). Short-term grief after an elective abortion. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, 30(2), 174-183. Wilmoth, G. H., deAlteriis, M., & Bussell, D. (1992). Prevalence of psychological risks following legal abortion in the U.S.: Limits of the evidence. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 37–66. Yamaguchi, D., & Kandel, D. (1987). Drug use and other determinants of premarital pregnancy and its outcome: a dynamic analysis of competing life events. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 49, 257–270.

Thanks —Geremia (talk) 21:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Please take a look at Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines, including WP:PSTS and WP:MEDRS. We don't base our presentation on search-engine counts. Where there is extensive published literature on a topic, we look to reputable expert bodies to see how they have synthesized the available data. On this topic, obviously, the studies you cite have failed to sway experts in the field. That's presumably because a) many of these studies have serious and even invalidating methodologic flaws, and b) a similarly large literature, which you've failed to cite, reaches different conclusions.

Cherry-picking a list of primary sources that support your viewpoint, dumping them on the talkpage to overwhelm other editors with sheer mass, and using them to editorially "rebut" reputable expert opinion in the field - these are editorial behaviors that are specifically discouraged in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MastCell ^Talk 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for putting them in a {{hat}}. —Geremia (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Rename this Article? Split article?

I have seen some reference to WP:MEDRS here. Indeed this article mentions the medical aspect, but it also mentions the political aspect at least as much, judging from its first sentence ("The relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy"). Is this article on the politics of abortion and mental health—in which case shouldn't we rename it, e.g., "Politics of abortion and mental health"? Or is it on the medical aspect of abortion and mental health—in which case we shouldn't we split off the politically related parts into "Politics of abortion and mental health"? Thanks Geremia (talk) 02:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

This article can, and should, cover both aspects. I am not convinced that we have enough well-sourced material for two articles, nor that we need two. Since the medical and political aspects are closely intertwined, the most informative approach is probably to handle them in one article. Appropriate sources for medical information may differ from appropriate sources for coverage of the political aspects, but I think (or at least I hope) we can handle that with a small dose of common sense. MastCell ^Talk 03:49, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

How is there not "enough well-sourced material for two articles"? Thanks Geremia (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose split. I see no clear rationale, and there would be needless redundancy. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Chili Study

Dr. Elard Koch, an epidemiologist on the faculty of medicine at the University of Chile compared data from 1957 and 2008 about maternal mortality for abortion. His studies showed that the latter reduced 97.6% in the last 51 years. After the prohibition of abortion in 1989 there was a reduction of 13.62 to 1.25 per 100,000 live births, which means a 87.9% [Copyrighted text from "Safe motherhood owes nothing to legal abortion" and "Friday Fax: Permissive Abortion Laws May Be Hazardous To Mothers"] C-FAM cites other examples from its analysis of the WEF report which prove the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.247.171.181 (talk • contribs)

Do you have a citation for this "Chili study"? And can you think of any reasons besides the prohibition of abortion that maternal mortality might be lower in 2008 than 1957? For example, have there been any significant advances in medical care in the past 51 years? I guess I could keep going - for instance, the idea that the U.S. has "virtually no restrictions on abortion" seems entirely divorced from reality, and this entire argument seems to confuse correlation with causation, and seems about as statistically sound as claiming that Storks Deliver Babies (p=0.008). Moreover, this has nothing to do with abortion and mental health... and what's more... but I'll stop there. MastCell ^Talk 03:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I remember removing this material from Abortion in Chile a while back. Couldn't find it anywhere but in anti-abortion materials. (Also, remind me, do copyvio rules apply to talk pages? The IP didn't write this paragraph.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

A PubMed search for Elard Koch suggests he's authored 5 articles (one in Medical Hypotheses, a non-peer-reviewed journal), none of which deal with abortion. And a Google search confirms Roscelese's observation that the claims in question seem limited to partisan anti-abortion websites. So this is a claim that seems to have no scholarly presence, but is instead a partisan political talking point - all of which suggests that it's a poor fit for a serious reference work. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So only scientific papers aligned with the pro-choice viewpoint fit here? Geremia (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Your comment seems both inflammatory and divorced from reality. As far as I can tell, Koch has published no scientific papers at all on abortion, from any viewpoint. If you know of any scientific papers he's published on the subject, please present them and educate me. MastCell ^Talk 03:26, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Also...how is this relevant to abortion and mental health? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Because the words "pro-choice" and "pro-life" are used numerous times in the article Geremia (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2011 (UTC)