{"id":85216,"date":"2016-01-14T16:47:19","date_gmt":"2016-01-14T21:47:19","guid":{"rendered":"\/news\/?p=85216"},"modified":"2016-01-14T14:54:40","modified_gmt":"2016-01-14T19:54:40","slug":"media-matters-hypes-amicus-briefs-fail-disprove-abortion-regret","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.liveaction.org\/news\/media-matters-hypes-amicus-briefs-fail-disprove-abortion-regret\/","title":{"rendered":"Media Matters hypes amicus briefs that fail to disprove abortion regret"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

\"mediamatters-square\"\u201cNever let facts get in the way of a good narrative\u201d is the opposite of how things should work at a real media watchdog organization, but that\u2019s exactly how they see it at Media Matters, where Sharon Kann declares<\/a> the specter of abortion regret \u201cdebunked\u201d by amicus briefs filed in the Supreme Court\u2019s consideration of Texas\u2019s abortion regulations:<\/p>\n

\n

In a January 5 article, MSNBC noted that the personal stories in many of the amicus briefs were meant to combat the generalization that women systemically regret their choice of abortion and suffer “severe depression.” Beyond influencing Kennedy, the article also said that the briefs challenged the stigma and backlash surrounding abortion that “persist in society and in state legislatures.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

She goes on to quote MSNBC as reporting that \u201ca task force by the American Psychological Association reviewing the actual research found that adult women who have abortions are at no greater risk of mental health problems than if they chose to give birth,\u201d and argues that the \u201csheer volume of women\u201d relaying positive abortion stories in the briefs proves that \u201cpost-abortion syndrome\u201d is a sham.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

However, none of this makes her case. First, Kann was helpful enough to quote one of the objects of her scorn, Justice Anthony Kennedy\u2019s recognition of abortion regret in 2007\u2019s Gonzales v. Carhart<\/em>, the partial-birth abortion ban case:<\/p>\n

\n

While we find no reliable data to measure the phenomenon, it seems unexceptionable to conclude some women come to regret their choice to abort the infant life they once created and sustained. Severe depression and loss of esteem can follow.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\u201cSome women.\u201d \u201cCan follow.\u201d So Kennedy didn\u2019t even make any sweeping generalizations about the percentage of women who suffer psychologically from abortions. All he did was recognize the possibility\u2014which is obviously true. Even a handful of regretful abortion experiences<\/a> is enough to fully vindicate him here.<\/p>\n

Second, these briefs are personal stories from individual women\u2014in other words, purely anecdotal. They\u2019re not data that tells us anything conclusive about the majority of abortion experiences. I don\u2019t doubt there are a great many women who feel positively about their abortions and never have a single twinge of regret about them.<\/p>\n

But we know there are also a great many women with the opposite reaction, with scores of their stories collected by groups like Silent No More<\/a>, Rachel’s Vineyard<\/a>, After Abortion<\/a>, Abortion Recovery International<\/a>, and Abortion Changes You<\/a>. No amount of feel-good abortion tales can somehow prove that the negative ones don\u2019t exist or don\u2019t matter.<\/p>\n

Third, what of the overall picture? Kann invokes the American Psychological Association in her corner, but Live Action explained way back in 2011<\/a> that the APA\u2019s work on the subject was teeming with methodological shortcomings that made it far from authoritative. For instance:<\/p>\n

\n

The samples of studies introduced to the reviews were either overly broad, \u201cresulting in incorporation of results from numerous weaker studies,\u201d or the studies were too specific, resulting in unjustified elimination of sound studies.\u201d The review from the American Psychological Association, the largest literary review, illustrates both of these problems: the criterion that was chosen for the study with a comparison group was only a report based on provisional research on induced abortion \u201cwith at least one mental health measure in peer-reviewed journals in English on US and non-US samples.\u201d However, non-US samples were completely evaded for another type of study (which lacked a comparison group) without any sufficient reasoning, so dozens of relevant international studies were disregarded.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

We have also identified similar shortcomings in other studies purportedly proving abortion\u2019s mental harmlessness, such as a much-hyped one out of UC-San Francisco. Cassy Fiano exposed<\/a>\u00a0this one as focusing on three-year windows before which longer-term fallout would have manifested, and having a sample group disproportionately consisting of people favorably disposed to abortion.<\/p>\n

In that post, Cassy also looked at another study<\/a>, from the journal Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences in July 2013, which \u201canalyzed all scientific trials published since 1995, that evaluated the psychological and psychiatric health of women who had had an abortion, compared with those who had either given birth to a baby or those who had had a miscarriage,\u201d and concluded \u201cit seems difficult to argue that abortion has no psychological or psychiatric consequences.\u201d<\/p>\n

What are some of those consequences? Glad you asked. ClinicQuotes.com owner and Live Action contributor Sarah Terzo compiled here<\/a> and here<\/a> quite a few of them, from mainstream peer-reviewed academic sources not affiliated with the grand patriarchal conspiracy Media Matters pretends is responsible for all information contradicting their agenda:<\/p>\n