| Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D. Bowling Green State University August 13, 2008 The charge of the APA Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health was to collect, examine, and summarize peer-reviewed research published over the last 17 years pertaining to outcomes associated with abortion. Evidence described below indicates an extensive, politically motivated bias in the selection of studies, analysis of the literature, and in the conclusions derived by the Task Force. As opposed to bringing light to a complex literature, the misleading report carries enormous potential to hinder scientific understanding of the meaning of abortion in women's lives. The report should be recalled and at a minimum, the conclusion changed. There is sufficient data in the world's published literature to conclude that abortion increases risk of anxiety, depression, substance use, and suicide. At this juncture, the APA can not be trusted to provide accurate assimilation of information. Problematic Features of the Report Substantiated in this Critique:
1) The conclusion (in quotes below) DOES NOT follow from the literature reviewed "The best scientific evidence published indicates that among adult women who have an unplanned pregnancy the relative risk of mental health problems is no greater if they have a single elective first-trimester abortion than if they deliver that pregnancy." They also note "Rarely did research designs include a comparison group that was otherwise equivalent to women who had an elective abortion, impairing the ability to draw conclusions about relative risks." Here are a few comments from a participant, for starters: Friends -- The APA Council took up the question of whether or not to receive the Report of the Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion at about 10:45 today (Wednesday, August 13, 2008). There were six people who spoke on the Report. Four were for it and talked about how very much it was the best of psychologists, and we needn't worry that it included researchers reviewing their own work because the specific individuals did not review their own specific work for the Task Force. One speaker said that while he thought it should be accepted, we really had ought to watch out for the appearance problem that comes from having researchers reviewing their own work. Mine was the lone voice of dissent; I approached the mike and got permission to speak as a non-Councilmember -- but only briefly, so what I could say was minimal. And apparently irrelevant. The vote was a show of hands that included almost everyone. I thought I saw a few hands for "no" votes, but a journalist I spoke to afterward thought those were all absentions; he counted 6. One of the speakers did make reference to the letters all Council had received, the response to which was basically a smirk on the part of the group. At this point, of course, we're beyond the issue of abortion itself into the issue of the competence of APA itself, which is an additional problem in being convincing. The reporter who flagged me down afterward said he was from the National Psychologist, a publication for practitioners. He said that perhaps I could have been more convincing if I had been given more time. Whether that's true or not, it says something about what he was thinking. I spoke with him for about 15-20 minutes. The Report is now received, and the vote was not anywhere near close enough to make me feel bad that I didn't do more lobbying. The press release concerning it has already gone out. The report is now up on the web, and the new position will presumably go up there soon as well. I have no information about plans for journal publication. Note: This document is not copyrighted and may be distributed or quoted directly without the author's permission. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Critique of the APA Task Force on Abortion and Mental Health |