By Dave Andrusko
Readers of National Right to Life News Today will remember that the largest, most definitive analysis of the mental health risks associated with abortion—and there were many—was published September 1 in the prestigious “British Journal of Psychiatry.”
Conducted by Dr. Priscilla Coleman, “Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research” examined twenty-two studies published between 1995 and 2009 involving 877,181 women, of whom 163,831 had abortions.
Dr. Coleman’s qualitative review of the studies found that aborting women showed an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, with particular risks (e.g., substance abuse, suicide) even higher. Moreover, Coleman’s meta-analysis showed that 9.9% of the incidence of mental health problems in the population group of aborted women was directly attributable to abortion. This also included 34.9% of suicides in this group!
Dr. Coleman’s meta-analysis weeded out weak and potentially biased studies by including only studies that (1) were published in a peer-reviewed journal, (2) had at least 100 participants in the sample, (3) used a comparison group (e.g., women who had given birth, women who had not had an abortion), (4) measured one or more outcomes, such as depression, substance abuse or suicidal behavior and (5) controlled for other variables, such as prior history of mental health problems or exposure to violence.
The usual suspects hammered Coleman’s scrupulously fair conclusions in letters to the editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry. But there was a breath of fresh air from one self-described pro-choicer: Dr. David Fergusson.
The particulars of Dr. Fergusson’s analysis go well beyond my expertise. But we can summarize the major points of his critique criticizing the critics in this way.
One letter, representative of others, which wrote to challenge Dr. Coleman “follows a well-trodden strategy which has been used in a number of reviews to dismiss any evidence suggesting that abortion may have adverse effects on mental health,” Fergusson writes. In layman’s terms, it’s a strategy of discounting many solid studies in favor of a small number of supposedly “high quality” studies.
In truth, “What will be clear to any alert analyst [of Coleman’s meta-analysis] is that there is a clear statistical footprint suggesting elevated risks of mental health problems amongst women having abortions, irrespective of the comparison group used or the outcome studied,” Fergusson writes. “This evidence clearly challenges the conclusions drawn from the reviews cited above.”
Fergusson explains that he and his colleagues then “conducted a more refined analysis” to address some of the critics’ concerns. Results?
“The implications of this analysis are inescapable: despite the claims made in previous reviews about the absence of association between abortion and mental health, when data are pooled across studies there is consistent evidence suggesting that women having abortions are at modestly increased risks of mental health problems when compared with women coming to term with unplanned/unwanted pregnancies.”
For those who did not read any of the three stories we wrote about Dr. Coleman’s meta-analysis, let me conclude with the final two paragraphs of Susan Wills’ thoughtful review:
Health care professionals have a duty to advise patients of the benefits and risks of a procedure [quoting Dr. Coleman] “in a manner that reflects the current scientific literature,” so patients can make an informed choice. As former abortion clinic staff attest, and as undercover journalists in the U.S. and U.K. have discovered, counselors at abortion clinics conceal mental and physical health risks—as well as the fact that the procedure will violently end a child’s life—in order to sell abortions.
Thanks to Dr. Coleman, the current scientific literature now proves that the increased risks to mental health from abortion outweigh any imagined “benefit” to women. Women considering abortion deserve to be told these facts—but they won’t hear them once they’re inside the clinic. It is up to us to get the word out.
Your feedback is so very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha