Evidence Doesn't Matter"

[cmotherofpirl]

Evidence Doesn't Matter" in APA Abortion Advocacy



Special to LifeSiteNews.com from the Elliot Institute

SPRINGFIELD, IL, Springfield, IL (Feb. 15, 2005) -- According to a spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, the APA's pro-choice position, first adopted in 1969, is based on a civil rights view, not on scientific proof of any mental health benefits arising from abortion.

The admission that ideology, not science, governs the APA's support for abortion came in response to a request by a Washington Times columnist for the organization's reaction to a new study linking abortion to mental illness. The study tracked 25 years of worth of data on women born in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The researchers had expected that their data, drawn from one of the largest and most comprehensive longitudinal studies in the world, would definitively refute a recent series of studies linking abortion to higher rates of mental health problems. The Christchurch team, led by a self-professed "pro-choice atheist," Prof. David M. Fergusson, expected to find that any mental health problems occurring after abortion would be fully explainable by prior mental health problems, which some believe are more common among women who have abortions. Instead, the New Zealand research team found the opposite. Even after the researchers controlled for this and numerous other alternative explanations, abortion was clearly linked to elevated rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior.

The findings so surprised Fergusson's research team that they began reviewing the studies cited by the APA in its claims that abortion is beneficial, or at least non-harmful, to women's mental health. The researchers concluded (1) that the APA's publications defending abortion are based on a small number of studies that had major methodological shortcomings (a view that echoes former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop's complaint in 1987 that the research on abortion was too inadequate to draw any definitive conclusions), and (2) that the APA appeared to be consistently ignoring a body of studies published in the last seven years that have shown negative effects from abortion.

The Christchurch team's criticism of the APA's selective and strong assurances of the mental health benefits of abortion prompted Warren Throckmorton, a psychologist and newspaper columnist, to call the APA for comment on Fergusson's criticisms. He was referred to an APA expert and spokesperson on abortion and women's issues, Dr. Nancy Felipe Russo. Russo was among the leaders within the APA who, in 1969, led the organization to adopt an official position in favor of abortion as a civil right. She has subsequently been active in research and advocacy efforts opposing parental notification and mandatory informed consent statutes related to abortion.


APA Is Not Neutral On Abortion Science

When asked to comment on the New Zealand study and the pro-choice authors' criticisms of the APA, Russo told Throckmorton that the APA's position on abortion was established on the view that abortion is a civil right. As quoted in Throckmorton's Washington Times column, Russo explained that the Christchurch study would have no effect on the APA's position because "to pro-choice advocates, mental health effects are not relevant to the legal context of arguments to restrict access to abortion."

In the first draft of Throckmorton's column, which he sent for comment to another expert on abortion research, Dr. David Reardon of the Springfield, IL-based Elliot Institute, Russo was quoted more bluntly, saying, "it doesn't matter what the evidence says." Throckmorton and Russo subsequently agreed to the clarification of her statement as it appeared in the Washington Times.

According to Reardon, an author of several of the studies on abortion that have been ignored by the APA, Russo's statements "confirm the complaint of critics that the APA's briefs to the Supreme Court and state legislatures are really about promoting a view about civil rights, not science. Toward this end, the APA has set up task forces and divisions that include only psychologists who share the same bias in favor of abortion."

Reardon believes the APA's task forces on abortion have actually served to stifle rather than encourage research. "When researchers like Fergusson or myself publish data showing abortion is linked to mental health problems, members of the APA's abortion policy police rush forward to tell the public to ignore our findings because they are completely out of line with their own 'consensus' statements which are positioned as the APA's official interpretation of the meaningful research on abortion," he said.


When is Relief Not Relief?

Reardon is especially disturbed by what he decries as the "one note" optimism found in position papers by the APA, Planned Parenthood, and other organizations supporting abortion.

Among the studies most frequently cited by abortion supporters are those that have asked women to check off a list of feelings they have after their abortions, often within just a few hours, a week, or a month of the procedure. The list may include words like "relief," "regret," "guilt," and "happiness." These studies have found that the most commonly reported reaction after abortion is relief. Indeed, the phrase, "the most commonly reported reaction is relief," frequently shows up in information and consent forms for abortion.

"All the emphasis on women experiencing relief is misleading because most women reporting relief also report negative reactions," Reardon said. "Indeed, when you add up the number of women reporting negative reactions, it regularly exceeds the number of women reporting relief."

The problem, Reardon says, is that while statistics on "relief" may have value in marketing or lobbying for abortion, they have little or no value as a scientific measure.

"Women are simply presented with this single word," he said. "So women who feel relief that they survived an unpleasant surgery, relief that they will no longer face their boyfriend's badgering to have an abortion, relief that they are no longer having morning sickness, or relief from any number of other stresses, are all lumped into the same category, even though their experiences are different. Lumping all forms of relief together helps to makes it sound like most women are reporting that abortion has fundamentally improved their lives, but it's a sloppy and misleading data variable. In fact, when you really look at the data, most of the very same women who are reporting 'relief' are also reporting grief, shame, traumatic reactions, or other negative feelings."

"Thirty-five years ago, when the APA joined in the effort to legalize abortion, they were promising more than just 'relief,'" he added. "They were insisting that abortion would fundamentally improve women's mental and physical health by sparing them the burden of unwanted children. But 38 million abortions later, there is still not a single statistically-validated study that has shown that abortion has actually improved the lives of women who abort compared to those who carry to term.

"Instead, if you look at the data instead of consensus opinions, depression rates are up, not down, among women who have had abortions. Suicide and substance abuse are up, not down. Premature deliveries are up, not down. But instead of including this data in their statements on abortion, the APA's self-selected panels of abortion advocates continue to distract the media from the all hard evidence linking abortion to higher rates of suicide, substance abuse, depression and anxiety by promoting meaningless statistics about relief."

Reardon says he is thankful that Russo has finally helped to call attention to the fact that the APA's position on abortion is principally based on a commitment to defend abortion as a civil right.

But this admission, he says, "should be weighed in light of criticisms against the trend toward 'consensus science' as a means of influencing politics. As one critic, best-selling author Dr. Michael Crichton, creator of Jurassic Park and ER, has succinctly observed: 'The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics.'"


******************************

CONSENSUS SCIENCE IS NOT SCIENCE

Outside the context of the abortion debate, best selling author Michael Crichton, M.D., a 1969 graduate of the Harvard Medical School, described the disturbing trend of "consensus science" at a Caltech lecture in 2004, a brief portion of which is excerpted below:

I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.

Excerpted from Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming," Caltech Michelin Lecture, Jan. 17, 2003. (available online)


# # #


Sources:

David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, and Elizabeth M. Ridder, "Abortion in young women and
subsequent mental health," Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(1): 16-24, 2006.

Warren Throckmorton, "Abortion and mental health," Washington Times, January 21, 2005.
[url="http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/20060120-091648-6456r.ht.."]http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/200601...1648-6456r.ht..[/url].

David, H., " Retrospectives" From APA Task Force to Division 34," Population & Environmental Psychology Bulletin 1999, 25(3):2-3.
[url="http://web.uvic.ca/~apadiv34/contents/PEPB/PEPB253.pdf"]http://web.uvic.ca/~apadiv34/contents/PEPB/PEPB253.pdf[/url]





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© Copyright: LifeSiteNews.com is a production of Interim Publishing. Permission to republish is granted (with limitation*) but acknowledgement of source is *REQUIRED* (use LifeSiteNews.com).

NEWS TIPS to lsn@lifesitenews.com or call 1-866-787-9947 or (416) 204-1687 ext. 444

Donate to LifeSiteNews.com at [url="http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/"]http://www.lifesite.net/contribute/[/url]

[avemaria40]

So sad They care more about their own beliefs rather than the health of women

[MilesChristi]

[quote]According to a spokesperson for the American Psychological Association, the APA's pro-choice position, first adopted in 1969, is based on a civil rights view, not on scientific proof of any mental health benefits arising from abortion.[/quote]

The APA is worthy of no credibility. A scientific organization which holds a position based upon no proof has clearly abandoned its principles and become the servant of an agenda.

[crazymaine catholic]

as someone who has decided to major in psychology, i am so disgusted. whatever happened to being scientific? man i can't wait until i graduate so i can do what i want in psychology, and not deal with the apa and their bull poo.

[Semalsia]

Well that is a perfectly rational response, I think, since abortion is entirely an moral issue and not an scientific one. No science or evidence can show what is right and what is wrong. I believe it's called the Hume's Law.

[quote name='avemaria40']So sad They care more about their own beliefs rather than the health of women[/quote]

Of course, the same could be said about catholics. Like in respect of the use of contraceptives. Even something that has positive effect cannot be used, if it is deemed as morally wrong by the church.

[quote name='LifeSiteNews.com']abortion was clearly linked to elevated rates of depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior.[/quote]

I'd be interested in knowing whether all that was caused directly by the abortion or indirectly by social and psychological reasons. For example, do any of those who have no moral objections to abortion and were not pushed into it by boyfriends/relatives/etc show any of these symptoms?

[quote name='LifeSiteNews.com']there is still not a single statistically-validated study that has shown that abortion has actually improved the lives of women who abort compared to those who carry to term.[/quote]

I believe such a study would be impossible. And I don't even think that's the point of abortion.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Feb 18 2006, 03:39 PM']Well that is a perfectly rational response, I think, since abortion is entirely an moral issue and not an scientific one. No science or evidence can show what is right and what is wrong. I believe it's called the Hume's Law.
[right][snapback]891284[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Then Hume's Law should be repealed.

[Semalsia]

[quote]Then Hume's Law should be repealed.[/quote]

Good luck with that.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Feb 18 2006, 03:46 PM']Good luck with that.
[right][snapback]891288[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Whatever laws exist in science must reflect the eternal truth. To make a scientific law which states that science cannot testify to the moral truth is to make a scientific law which states that there is no truth. Therefore, such a law contradicts its source and is invalid.

[3n1]

I would have given up on the field of pyschology if it weren't for catholics like Fr. Groeshel and Dr. Raymond LLoyd Richmond.

This site of Dr. Richmond puts the science in its place charitably pointing out its strengths and weaknesses [i]and [/i]dependence on the Faith.

[url="http://www.guidetopsychology.com/intro.htm"]Catholic Pyschology[/url]

[Semalsia]

[quote name='Raphael']Whatever laws exist in science must reflect the eternal truth. To make a scientific law which states that science cannot testify to the moral truth is to make a scientific law which states that there is no truth. Therefore, such a law contradicts its source and is invalid.[/quote]

You seem to assume that every truth must be knowable by science. That is incorrect. Since science is study of natural phenomena, it is reasonable to state that science can know natural truths, but not metaphysical or supernatural ones.

But if you say it can, then how do you propose science could study metaphysical truths?

Edited February 18, 2006 by Semalsia

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Semalsia' date='Feb 18 2006, 04:06 PM'][quote name='Raphael']Whatever laws exist in science must reflect the eternal truth. To make a scientific law which states that science cannot testify to the moral truth is to make a scientific law which states that there is no truth. Therefore, such a law contradicts its source and is invalid.[/quote]

You seem to assume that every truth must be knowable by science. That is incorrect. Since science is study of natural phenomena, it is not reasonable to state that science can know natural truths, but not metaphysical or supernatural ones.

But if you say it can, then how do you propose science could study metaphysical truths?
[right][snapback]891302[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I don't propose that everything can be knowable by science. I do, however, say that science can testify to moral truth. For instance, science can tell us that a baby feels pain in the womb during an abortion, at which point, our values and our moral wisdom demand that we call abortion an abomination.

Similarly, when science proves that abortion can lead to mental problems in women, that testifies to a moral point, since it provides a basis for a moral reaction.

One who says that scientific proofs cannot be applied morally takes away all reason to use scientific conclusions in the moral process and thus essentially makes a part of truth irrelevant to the whole of truth, thus putting them at odds, thus invalidating science.

Science is not invalid (although pseudoscience is)...it can and must be used for good, including the moral good. The truth it provides cannot be kept from supporting the other causes of truth.

[cmotherofpirl]

Abortion is a moral issue: should we murder children before they are born?

Science tells us how [i]things[/i] are, morals tell us how [i]we[/i] are. The APA has no morals that I or other catholics should support.
Remember, the APA people supported euthenasia of undesirable people before Hitler did, so they have no credibility with me on anything.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Feb 18 2006, 04:15 PM']Abortion is a moral issue: should we murder children before they are born?

Science tells us how [i]things[/i] are, morals tell us how [i]we[/i] are. The APA has no morals that I or other catholics should support.
[right][snapback]891311[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Exactly...and how [i]things[/i] are should help us decide how [i]we[/i] should act.

[Semalsia]

[quote]For instance, science can tell us that a baby feels pain in the womb during an abortion, at which point, our values and our moral wisdom demand that we call abortion an abomination.[/quote]

Right, but that is an emotional response and not a logical or scientific one. You cannot directly conclude from the simple fact that something causes pain that it is wrong to do that thing. To get there you need the premise that causing pain is wrong. And that is the moral truth which cannot be scientifically proven.

And you certainly don't feel the same about killing animals. Even though it could be argued that they might feel even more pain than the human baby. Which just goes to show that such things are subjective and non-scientific.

I'm not saying that there's something wrong with emotional responses of this sort. I'm just saying that you can't prove your moral laws by science.

[quote]Similarly, when science proves that abortion can lead to mental problems in women, that testifies to a moral point, since it provides a basis for a moral reaction.
[/quote]

As far as I know, people are still free to do things that are bad to them. Even in catholic theology people are free to choose even hell, if they so desire.

[quote]One who says that scientific proofs cannot be applied morally takes away all reason to use scientific conclusions in the moral process and thus essentially makes a part of truth irrelevant to the whole of truth, thus putting them at odds, thus invalidating science.[/quote]

I don't think it does. I consider the moral process to be in combining natural truths with the moral premises. Only then can you conclude what is right and wrong.

And I'll just add that I don't believe moral premises need to be proven true.

Edited February 18, 2006 by Semalsia

[toledo_jesus]

psychology is my major, and the main reason i'm not going to do anything with psych is because of the APA.

[ironmonk]

Just one of the many reasons why I stopped persuing the path to psychologist.

The APA (both of them) are seriously erroneous and so many people act like they are infallible.

I was a chem/psych major, but then just psych... and now CIS. The APA's are seriously deficient in common sense and logic. It is a shame common sense cannot be taught.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[ironmonk]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Feb 19 2006, 11:17 PM']psychology is my major, and the main reason i'm not going to do anything with psych is because of the APA.
[right][snapback]892359[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

You can do a lot with a psych major in the business world. So many people do not realize what all they can do with their degrees...

Check this out... it's a list of majors with pdf's of what you can do with your degree...
[url="http://www.saintleo.edu/resources/docs/career/majors/default.htm"]http://www.saintleo.edu/resources/docs/car...ors/default.htm[/url]

Here's the psych pdf...
[url="http://www.saintleo.edu/resources/docs/career/majors/information/psychology.pdf"]http://www.saintleo.edu/resources/docs/car.../psychology.pdf[/url]

God Bless,
ironmonk

[morostheos]

First, for those of you involved with Psych, you should check out the Institute for Psychological Sciences, it's 100% Catholic. [url="http://www.ipsciences.edu"]http://www.ipsciences.edu[/url]

Now, to the science and morality thing. In general, I'd have to agree more with semalsia. Science cannot prove anything supernatural or metaphysical, morals included in that. It is outside of the realm of science.

HOWEVER, as Catholics, we believe morality is revealed through natural law, and natural law can be supported by scientific studies. Science can't say what's right and what's wrong, but it can say what is healthy, what is beneficial, and what is unhealthy and not beneficial. Because God wants our happiness above all things, what is morally right is also what we believe to be most beneficial in the long run. Science can certainly support that.

[1337 k4th0l1x0r]

I think the proper point of the article is that the APA has a stance on abortion that is based on a testable statement and has a tendency to deny evidence that proves the statement is false. While the morality of abortion cannot be tested by science, a statement like "abortion is beneficial, or at least non-harmful, to women's mental health" can be tested. If a viewpoint is based on that statement and the statement is proved wrong, then the viewpoint should be re-evaluated. The fact that they are sticking to their viewpoint means that their stance is entrenched not in science, but perhaps in civil rights.

As far as the relief part of abortion, I can attest to the fact that relief is often not associated with happiness. When my wife miscarried a couple weeks ago, we had to wait for the results of a blood test to know for sure. When we got the bad news, we were sad, but also relieved that we knew what really happened.

[Semalsia]

[quote name='morostheos']HOWEVER, as Catholics, we believe morality is revealed through natural law, and natural law can be supported by scientific studies. Science can't say what's right and what's wrong, but it can say what is healthy, what is beneficial, and what is unhealthy and not beneficial. Because God wants our happiness above all things, what is morally right is also what we believe to be most beneficial in the long run. Science can certainly support that.[/quote]

Doesn't seem to apply to masturbation, though.