Reclaiming Our Children: A Blog About Healing After Abortion

CHAIR OF APA ABORTION REPORT TASK FORCE VIOLATES APA
ETHICS RULES

Lead Author Refuses to Release Abortion Data Collected
Under Federal Grant

Springfield, IL (August 13, 2008) – The credibility of a
new report on the mental health effects of abortion from
the American Psychological Association is tarnished by
the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has
violated the APA's own data sharing rules by
consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion
and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other
researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has
even evaded a request from the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to deliver copies of data she
collected under a federal grant. Because her study of
emotional reactions two years after an abortion was
federally funded, the data she collected is actually
federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS
request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself
from delivering the data writing, "It would be very
difficult to pull this information together."

However, a researcher familiar with Major's work, David
Reardon of the Elliot Institute, has seen portions of
Major's unpublished findings. Reardon, who has published
over a dozen studies on abortion and mental health,
believes Major is withholding the data to prevent her
findings supporting a link between abortion and
subsequent health problems from coming to light.

"Brenda's last published study using this data set was
released in 2000, after she moved to her present
facility in 1995," said Reardon. "Immediately after that
publication one of my colleagues requested a break down
of details which had only been superficially summarized
in one her tables. One of her grad students replied on
her behalf with the additional summary statistics we had
requested within 48 hours. So it clearly wasn't at all
difficult for her team to access the data. Plus, with
modern electronic data bases and multiple backup
procedures in place at universities like hers, it is
nearly impossible to lose such data."

According to Reardon, Major has not responded to any
further requests regarding the data since early in 2000.
"I know of a number of experts in the field who have
requested the data, even within the last six months. But
she simply doesn't respond to their calls, emails, or
letters," said Reardon.

"This is very troubling on two counts. First, it the
APA's own ethics rule, 8.14, requires research
psychologists to share their data for verification of
findings. Secondly, she is the chair of the APA Abortion
Task Force which is, at least in theory, supposed to
bring full and clear light to this issue. But how can we
trust the objectivity of a report prepared by a task
force composed exclusively of pro-choice psychologists,
especially when the chair and lead author has a history
of withholding data and findings which may undermine her
ideological preferences?"

According to Reardon the additional details from Major's
study released in 2000 actually revealed that a
significant number of women interviewed by Major did
attribute negative reactions to their abortions, but
those findings have never been published.

"There is no doubt that she has selectively reported her
findings," said Reardon. "We have seen in the
unpublished tables details about specific negative
reactions which were obscured in her published report by
combining them with three to eight other reactions to
create watered down, composite scores.

"In my view, it is irresponsible not to report the
significant findings associated with individual
symptoms. For example, she found that a number of women
reported that they tried to cope with negative feelings
about their abortions by drinking more or taking drugs.
But she has never not fully shared the details on these
reactions in any of her published studies, and by
refusing to share her data for reanalysis by others, she
has prevented anyone else from reporting these findings
either."

Reardon believes that the newly released APA Abortion
Task Force report is also flawed by a pattern of wording
and reporting which tends to obscure rather than clarify
what researchers have found about the mental health
effects associated with abortion. The primary conclusion
of the report, as highlighted in the APA news release,
is that "There is no credible evidence that a single
elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of
itself causes mental health problems for adult women…"

According to Reardon, this nuanced statement is intended
to convey a message that abortion has no mental health
risks but those familiar with the literature will see
that it actually admits that there is compelling
evidence that there are negative effects for:

* women who have multiple abortions, which accounts for
about half of all abortions); * women who abort of a
wanted pregnancy because of coercion or pressure to
abort from third parties and may account for about
20-60% of all abortions; * minors who have abortions;
and * women with preexisting mental health problems in
which case abortion may not "in and of itself" be the
sole cause of mental health problems but may instead
trigger or aggravate preexisting problems.

"Even the modifier that there is 'no credible evidence'
of mental health risks in the ideal case of a low risk
abortion patient is an admission that there is indeed
some evidence that a single abortion can pose a risk to
the mental health of a emotionally stable, adult woman,"
said Reardon. "In fact, the report itself identifies a
whole host of studies providing such evidence, but it
mutes a clear presentation of the findings of these
studies by focusing on the limitations of each study's
methodology, which all studies have, in order to justify
ignoring their clear implications."

While Reardon agrees that the body of the report
includes admissions that abortion does negatively impact
some women, he is deeply concerned that the summary
introduction and conclusion and press releases all fail
to emphasize five key points which are clear in the
literature and even explicitly or implicitly stated
within the 91-page Task Force report.   The five points
he believes should be made, without room for controversy
are:

1. Some women suffer emotional harm from abortion.

2. Some women feel pressured into unwanted abortions.

3. There are well established risk factors identifying
the women most likely to suffer negative psychological
factors to abortion, including being pressured into an
abortion, and that it is incumbent on therapists
treating women considering an abortion, and abortion
clinics, to screen for these risk factors and to give
appropriate counseling in light of any identified risk
factors.

4. A nationally funded longitudinal prospective study
(such as recommended by Koop in 1989) of psychological
factors related to reproductive health (including
abortion) is long overdue and should be undertaken as
soon as possible.

4. Therapists should be alert to unresolved issues
associated with a past abortion and should sensitively
give women the opportunity to discuss such issues and
should provide appropriate care or referrals whenever
such issues are raised.

"By failing to call on therapists to be alert and
sensitive to the negative emotional experiences women
attribute to their abortions, the Task Force has allowed
ideology to trump sensitivity," says Reardon. "Instead,
they are ignoring the reality of how and why abortions
take place and are instead focused on drawing
conclusions regarding the safety of abortion for an
emotionally stable, pro-choice, adult woman who is
freely choosing a wanted abortion without any moral
qualms. But that doesn't reflect the reality of most
abortion situations."

"The fact is that coerced abortions are more common than
wanted abortions. Studies show that over 60% of American
women are having abortions, often against their moral
beliefs, because they feel pressured into it by third
parties. These women need therapist and family members
to be open to and responsive to their pain, not
dismissive of it as an anomaly. Sadly, this is an
ideological report that simply ignores the concerns and
needs of those women for whom abortion has been a
heartache rather than a triumph."

# # #

APA's "Ethical Principles Of Psychologists And Code Of
Conduct" regarding Sharing Research Data for
Verification' (
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#8_14)

Copy of HHS letter and Brenda Major's Response:
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/BrendaMajorHHSletters.pdf

Elliot Institute
PO Box 7348
Springfield
IL 62791
United States
http://www.afterabortion.info