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

Brenda Major
CMAJ July 22, 2003 169 (2) 103;
Brenda Major
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

As Stephen Genuis observes, “it is sometimes difficult to objectively determine what is factual and credible scientific information and what represents sexual and philosophical ideology.” Researcher bias clearly can affect the research process. Nowhere is this more obvious than in research on abortion. David Reardon has quite explicitly stated his intentions to use data such as those he reported in CMAJ1 to affect abortion-related legislation, bring litigation against physicians who perform abortions and reduce women's access to abortion.2

It is an error, however, to assume that because researcher neutrality is difficult to achieve, what passes for “evidence” on both sides of politically charged issues is likely to be equally valid and deserving of equal airing. Not all research is biased. It is possible to distinguish good science from bad. Good science is based on established scientific methods, eliminates confounders and uses appropriate control or comparison groups. The study by Reardon and his associates1 is not good science.3 It inappropriately used women who carried a (likely wanted, planned) pregnancy to term as a comparison group for women who aborted a (likely unwanted, unplanned) pregnancy. More appropriate comparison groups include women who carried a pregnancy to term and gave the child up for adoption, and women who wanted an abortion but who were denied one or did not obtain one because of external pressures or guilt, as Aaron Keshen points out in his letter.

Reardon and associates also failed to control adequately for demographic, social and psychological differences that likely existed at the time of the pregnancy between women who subsequently aborted versus those who carried their pregnancies to term. The inference that the abortion procedure itself caused postpregnancy differences observed between these 2 groups is faulty scientific reasoning and misleading. The studies referred to by Annie Banno, all of which were conducted by Reardon, are plagued by similar methodological problems.

Brenda Major Department of Psychology University of Santa Barbara Santa Barbara, Calif.

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.↵
    Reardon, DC. Making abortion rare. Springfield (IL): Acorn Books; 1996.
  3. 3.↵
    Major B. Psychological implications of abortion — highly charged and rife with misleading research [editorial]. CMAJ 2003;168(10):1257-8.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
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
Brenda Major
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (2) 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
Brenda Major
CMAJ Jul 2003, 169 (2) 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.
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Coexisting failures do not diminish the stature of a giant
  • Dare we hope
  • Highlighting obesity as a risk factor for endometrial cancer
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