Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Letters

Abortion perils debated

David C. Reardon
CMAJ July 22, 2003 169 (2) 102-103;
David C. Reardon
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

With few words to respond to these letters on my article1 and Brenda Major's commentary,2 I refer readers to Forbidden Grief3 wherein my literature review provides a context for the interpretation of our results. See also Stephen's Guide to the Logical Fallacies,4 giving attention to fallacies of distraction, ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority.

Our methodology was identical to David and colleagues.5 Both David and Major were on the American Psychological Association (APA) panel established in 1987 to defend abortion's safety during the inquiry conducted by US Surgeon General C. Everett Koop. All members of that panel have publicly advocated for liberal access to abortion. They especially cited David's study as an example of important research. To dismiss our study one must dismiss the expertise of both David and the APA panel that relied on his work.6

In 1989, after reviewing that report, Koop concluded the available research was inadequate for drawing definitive conclusions. That his nonconclusion continues to be distorted by ideologues into evidence that abortion has no psychological risks is a sign of desperation.3

We welcome critical analyses. The claim that abortion is beneficial to women should be reviewed similarly. Even-handed critics will quickly discover that the assumed benefits of abortion rest solely on anecdotal evidence. There are no studies documenting significant, statistically measurable benefits. Even smoking was once thought to have health benefits.7

Major and Gail Erlick Robinson explain our results with the hypothesis that mentally disturbed women are more likely to choose abortion. If true, this argument merely strengthens our conclusion that a history of abortion is a marker for mental illness.

Major's own research team has concluded that abortion can be the direct cause of post-traumatic stress disorder.8 Three of my coauthors (Vincent Rue, Martha Shuping and Philip Ney) regularly treat women suffering from abortion-related psychiatric illnesses.

More research is clearly needed. Publication should not hinge on political litmus tests.

David C. Reardon Elliot Institute Springfield, Ill.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Reardon DC, Cougle JR, Rue VM, Shuping MW, Coleman PK, Ney PG. Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. CMAJ 2003;168(10):1253-6.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. 2.↵
    Major B. Psychological implications of abortion — highly charged and rife with misleading research [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;168(10):1257-8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  3. 3.↵
    Burke T, Reardon DC. Forbidden grief: the unspoken pain of abortion. Springfield (IL): Acorn Books; 2002.
  4. 4.↵
    Stephen's guide to the logical fallacy [web site]. Available: www.datanation.com/fallacies/index.htm (accessed 2003 June 23).
  5. 5.↵
    David H, Rasmussen N, Holst E. Post-abortion and postpartum psychotic reactions. Fam Plann Perspect 1981;13(1):32-4.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. Psychological responses after abortion. Science 1990; 248:41-4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. 7.↵
    Mahaney FX Jr. Oldtime ads tout health benefits of smoking: tobacco industry had doctors' help. J Natl Cancer Inst 1994;86(14):1048-9.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    Major B, Cozzarelli C, Cooper ML, Zubek J, Richards C, Wilhite M, et al. Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2000;57(8):777-84.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 169 (2)
CMAJ
Vol. 169, Issue 2
22 Jul 2003
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Abortion perils debated
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Abortion perils debated
David C. Reardon
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (2) 102-103;

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Abortion perils debated
David C. Reardon
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (2) 102-103;
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • No related articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Moving surgical care out of hospitals to reduce wait times
  • Coexisting failures do not diminish the stature of a giant
  • Dare we hope
Show more Letters

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Women's health (including abortion)

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire