Abortion perils debated

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.