facebook twitter RSS
Menu
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission and Vision
    • History
    • Board of Directors
    • Board of Advisors
    • Contact Us
    • Close
  • Fellows
    • E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil. – E. Christian Brugger is a Senior Fellow of Ethics and Director of the Fellows Program at the Culture of Life Foundation in Washington, D.C. and the J. Francis Cardinal Stafford Professor of Moral Theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado. He has Master degrees in moral theology and moral philosophy from Seton Hall, Harvard and Oxford Universities and received his D.Phil. (Ph.D.) in Christian ethics from Oxford in 2000.  Christian has published over 200 articles in scholarly and popular periodicals on topics in bioethics, sexual ethics, natural law theory, as well as the interdisciplinary field of psychology and Christian anthropology.  He lives on a farm in Evergreen, Colorado, with his wife Melissa and five children.
    • Helen Alvaré, J.D. – Helen Alvaré, J.D. is Honorary Fellow in Law at the Culture of Life Foundation.   Helen is an Associate Professor of Law at the George Mason University School of Law in Arlington, Virginia where she teaches and publishes in the areas of property law, family law, and Catholic social thought. Professor Alvaré serves as Consultor for the Pontifical Council for the Laity, Senior Fellow at the Witherspoon Institute where she chairs the Conscience Protection Task Force, is President of the Chiaroscuro Foundation and most recently Editor and Co-Author of Breaking Through: Catholic Women Speak for Themselves.From 2000 to Spring 2008, Professor Alvare taught at the Catholic University Columbus School of Law. Professor Alvare also lectures widely in the United States and Europe on matters concerning marriage, family and respect for human life. She is a consultant to ABC News and to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops’ (USCCB) Marriage and Pro-Life Committees. In 2008, Pope Benedict XVI named Professor Alvare a Consultor to the Pontifical Council for the Laity.From 1987-2000, Professor Alvare was an attorney with the USCCB’s General Counsel Office and director of information and planning for the Secretariat for Pro-Life Activities. In these positions, she testified before the…
    • Jennifer Kimball Watson, Be.L. – Jennifer Kimball Watson joined Culture of Life Foundation as Executive Director in November of 2007. She is an Adjunct Professor of Bioethics at the Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, F.L.. Previous to her work with the Culture of Life Foundation Jennifer was a Wilbur Fellow of the Russell Kirk Center for Cultural Renewal located in Michigan. Jennifer earned a Licentiate in Bioethics from the Pontifical Athenaeum Regina Apostolorum School of Bioethics in Rome.  Her prior undergraduate studies were in International Administration and Government Policy at the Evergreen State College in Washington State.Jennifer’s areas of specialization include Eugenics in Artificial Reproductive Technologies, Heterologous Adoption and Transfer of Embryos, The Womb in Reproductive Technologies, and the Role and Significance of The Medical Act. She interviews with National Conservative and Christian Radio Syndicates as well as several foreign and secular reporters. Jennifer has spoken on the dignity of women and women’s social issues to various audiences since 1999 and has spent several years in advocacy work with various international organizations in the field of life sciences. From 2000 to 2006 she recruited and coordinated grass-roots social policy efforts that consisted of a public and private sector network of professionals and academics…
    • Margaret Datiles Watts, J.D. – Margaret Datiles Watts, J.D., is Culture of Life Foundation’s Associate Fellow in Law. Maggie is member of Washington, D.C. and Maryland bar associations.  She holds a B.A. in Philosophy (Phi Beta Kappa and Magna Cum Laude) and a Certificate in Classical Philosophy from the University Honors Program at The Catholic University of America. She earned a Juris Doctorate from Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America, where she served as a Research Fellow at CUA Law’s Marriage Law Project. She also studied Roman Law and EU Law at Magdalene College, University of Oxford, England.A former Fellow and Staff Counsel for Americans United for Life, Datiles co-authored an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark partial birth abortion case, Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood, et al., companion case to Gonzales v. Carhart (2007). She also advised legislators, policy groups and the media (radio and newspapers) on abortion and bioethics laws and drafted pro-life model legislation.Her areas of research and/or publication include legal issues surrounding abortion, government funding restrictions for abortion, contraception, healthcare rights of conscience, stem cell research, artificial reproductive technology, population decline, physician-assisted suicide, euthanasia, and same-sex marriage.She currently publishes articles…
    • William E. May – William E. May is Senior Research Fellow of the Culture of Life Foundation and emeritus Michael J. McGivney Professor of Moral Theology at the John Paul II Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family at The Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C., where he taught the academic years from 1991 through 2008 after teaching for 20 years at The Catholic University of America. He is the author of more than a dozen books. The 2nd edition of his Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life was published by Our Sunday Visitor (2008), and a substantively revised 3rd edition is scheduled for publication in 2013. In 2003 Our Sunday Visitor published a revised and expanded edition of his Introduction to Moral Theology. Among his other books are: Marriage: The Rock on Which the Family Is Built (San Francisco: Ignatius, 1995; 2nd revised edition, 2009)); and, with Ronald Lawler OFM Cap and Joseph Boyle, Catholic Sexual Ethics (rev. and enlarged ed. Huntington, IN: Our Sunday Visitor, 1998; 2nd rev. edition, 1998; a 3rd edition, substantively revised by May alone, was published in 2011); Theology of the Body: Genesis and Growth (Boston: Pauline Books & Media, 2010) He has published more…
    • Frank J. Moncher, Ph.D. – Dr. Frank Moncher received his Ph.D. in Clinical-Community Psychology from the University of South Carolina in 1992, following which he spent several years on faculty of the Medical College of Georgia, with a focus on Adolescent Intensive Services. In 2000 he moved to the Washington, DC area to teach at a graduate school of psychology which had a mission of integrating the science of psychology in the context of the Catholic Christian view of the human person. Concurrent with this, over the past 12 years he has consulted with 11 different religious orders and 4 dioceses to provide psychological evaluations of aspirants and candidates, as well as consulting with different diocesan marriage tribunals.His research interests include the integration of Catholic thought into psychotherapy, child and family development issues, and integrated models of assessment of candidates for the priesthood and religious life. Frank is published in Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services, Adolescence, Journal of Interpersonal Violence, Edification, and the Journal of Psychology and Christianity, as well as contributing to several book chapters on children, families, and religious issues.Since 2010, Dr. Moncher has worked for the Diocese of Arlington and Catholic Charities as a psychologist and consultant.  His…
    • Steve Soukup – Fellow in Culture and Economy Steve Soukup is the Vice President and Publisher of The Political Forum, an “independent research provider” that delivers research and consulting services to the institutional investment community, with an emphasis on economic, social, political, and geopolitical events that are likely to have an impact on the financial markets in the United States and abroad. Mr. Soukup has followed politics and federal regulatory policy for the financial community since coming to Washington in 1996, when he joined Mark Melcher at the award-winning Washington-research office of Prudential Securities. While at Prudential, he was part of the Washington team that placed first in Institutional Investor magazine’s annual analyst survey for eight years in a row. Mr. Soukup left Prudential with Mr. Melcher to join Lehman Brothers in the fall of 2000 and stayed there for two years, before leaving early in 2003 to become a partner at The Political Forum. While at Lehman, Mr. Soukup authored macro-political commentary and followed policy developments in the Natural Resources sector group, focusing on agriculture and energy policy. He also headed Lehman’s industry-leading analysis of asbestos litigation reform efforts. At The Political Forum, Mr. Soukup was initially the editor and junior partner,…
    • Dr. Pilar Calva, M.D. – Dr. Calva is a medical doctor specializing in Human Genetics with a Cytogenetics subspecialty from The University of Paris, France. In Paris, she was the under-study to the world-renowned Professor Jerome Lejeune, who is considered by some to be the father of modern genetics. In 1958, Lejeune discovered that an extra 21st chromosome is responsible for Down syndrome, or Trisomy 21. Lejeune dedicated his life tirelessly and unfailingly to defend the unborn, especially those with Down syndrome, testifying before scientific conferences and lawmakers. He was appointed by Pope John Paul II as the first President of the Pontifical Academy for Life. In Dr. Calva’s own words: When I arrived in France, I lived a life divided between faith and reason. I thought that from Monday to Saturday, I put on my white coat for my scientific tasks, and Sunday was the day I took off the white coat, put on my crucifix and dedicated myself to my religious duties. Professor Lejeune truly converted me, making me see that one can wear the white coat and the cross, at the same time. That is, one can fly with the wing of faith and the wing of reason. Inspired by the life…
    • Elyse M. Smith – Elyse M. Smith is an associate attorney with a northern Virginia law firm working in nonprofit and church law, estate planning, and civil litigation. Ms. Smith graduated magna cum laude from Ave Maria School of Law in Naples, Florida, where she served on Law Review and was published in the Ave Maria International Law Journal. She was named “Most Dedicated Editor” for her work on Law Review. Ms. Smith earned her bachelor’s degree in Foreign Affairs from the University of Virginia.  
    • Close
  • Life
  • Human Sexuality
  • Marriage & Family
  • Bioethics
  • Religious Liberty
  • Blog
  • Contribute

How are we doing?

Most Viewed Blog Posts

  • The #MeToo Movement And Sexual “Morality”
  • Medical Health Risks of Contraception
  • Facebook And The Intellectual High-Ground
  • Italy Debates The Definition Of “Family”…A Half-Century Too Late
Subscribe
Thanks for signing up!

  >  Issue Briefs  >  Bioethics  >  Coleman critique available

Coleman critique available

Posted: January 3, 2012
By: William E. May
Read  
Print This Post
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn

 

A Critique of the Systematic Review

Of Induced Abortion and Mental Health

Released by the Royal College of Psychiatrists

 

Priscilla K. Coleman, Ph.D.

December 13, 2011

The Royal College of Psychiatrist’s recently conducted review of scientific literature published from 1990 to the present on abortion and mental health is hauntingly similar to the American Psychological Association Task Force Report released in 2008. The report by the RCP is, however, far more complex and on the surface it may appear to be more rigorous than the APA report.  An enormous amount of time, energy, and expense has been funneled into a work product that was not undertaken in a scientifically responsible manner. In this critique, I provide evidence that should incite scientists and clinicians to reject the conclusions of the report and work together to provide an accurate and truly exhaustive review of the peer-reviewed research.

Unjustified Dismissal of Studies

The RCP review incorporates four types of studies: 1) reviews of the literature; 2) empirical studies addressing the prevalence of post-abortion mental health problems; 3) empirical studies identifying risk factors for post-abortion mental health problems; and 4) empirical studies comparing mental health outcomes between women who choose abortion and delivery. In each category, there are studies that are ignored and large numbers of studies that are entirely dismissed for vague and/or inappropriate reasons. With regard to the first type of study, only 3 reports are considered (APA Task Force Report, 2008; Charles et al., 2008; Coleman, 2011). The authors of the RCP report “missed” 19 reviews of the literature (listed at the end of this document), published between 1990 and 2011. Moreover, no criteria were identified for selection of particular reviews to discuss and to provide context for the current report. In relation to the third type of study, only 27 studies are included in the RCP report. At the end of this document, citations to 20 relevant and unmentioned articles published in highly respected peer-reviewed journals are provided. They are not listed in Appendix 7 of the RCP report, which contains all included and excluded studies.

Among the scores of studies identified and excluded across study types 2 through 4 above, the most common reasons are the nebulously defined “no usable data” and “less than 90 days follow-up.” The latter resulted in elimination of 35 peer-reviewed studies in each of the prevalence, risk factor, and comparison study types. The RCP authors state that “Because the review aimed to assess mental health problems and substance use and not transient reactions to a stressful event, negative reactions and assessments of mental state confined to less than 90 days following the abortion were excluded from the review.” This is highly problematic for various reasons. First, elimination of studies that only measured women’s mental health up to 90 days, does not effectively remove cases of transient reactions. Just because the authors of these dozens of studies did not follow the women long-term, it does not mean that the women were not still suffering quite significantly beyond the early assessment. Moreover, when investigating the mental health implications of an event, it is logical to measure outcomes soon after the event has occurred as opposed to waiting months or years to gather data. As more time elapses between the stressor and the outcome(s), healing may naturally occur, there may be events that moderate the effects, and more confounding variables may be introduced. Finally, focusing only on mental health events that occur later in time effectively misses the serious and more acute episodes that are effectively treated soon after exposure.

Ironically, many of the studies removed from the analyses due to the abbreviated length of follow-up, had incorporated controls for prior psychological history and other study strengths. As a result, the samples of studies included in each section of the RCP review were not representative of the best available evidence and many of the eliminated effects coincidentally revealed adverse post-abortion consequences. In the category wherein the authors sought to derive prevalence estimates, only 34 studies were retained, including 27 without controls for previous mental health. In contrast, in the Coleman review, 14 out of the 22 studies had controls for psychological history.

Factual Errors

Perhaps even more disturbing than the elimination of large segments of the literature, are the factual inaccuracies that are present in the RCP report. As the author of the Coleman (2011) review cited in the report, I was alarmed to see the content in “Section 1.4.4:  Summary of Key Findings from the APA, Charles, and Coleman Reviews.” The first 6 points are not reflective of the conclusions derived from the meta-analysis and the 7th and final point in this section wrongly states, with reference to the meta-analysis that “previous mental health problems were not controlled for within the review.” In fact, as noted above, the meta-analysis incorporated more studies into the final analyses with controls for prior psychological problems than the current review. Moreover, the conclusions derived from the meta-analysis were based on more studies with controls for prior psychological history than the Charles and the APA reviews as well.

I do not have the time or interest in identifying all errors present, but a few others jumped out at me. First, several studies are eliminated from the RCP report, because the outcome(s) assessed are lifetime estimates of mental health problems, deemed inappropriate by the RCP team. Nevertheless, the Coleman et al. (2009) and the Mota et al. (2010) articles, which relied upon lifetime estimates, are included in the prevalence section of the report. Inclusion reflects an inaccurate read of the two studies. I also noticed my affiliation is stated as the Department of Psychiatry at Bowling Green State University. I wish we had a medical school, it would make retrieval of articles much less expensive, but unfortunately we do not.

Problematic “Quality Assessments”

This review is being pitched as methodologically superior to all previously conducted reviews, largely because of the criteria employed to critique individual studies and to rate the overall quality of evidence. However, the quality scales employed to rate each individual study are not well-validated and require a significant level of subjective interpretation, opening the results to considerable bias.  The main problems with the quality scale employed to rate the individual studies are as follows: 1) the categories used are missing key methodological features including initial consent to participate rates and retention of participants across the study period; 2) the relative importance assigned to  the included criteria is arbitrary, as opposed to being based on consensus in the scientific community; 3) the specific requirements for assigning a “+” or “-” within the various categories are not provided; 4) the authors fail to explain (as their predecessors, Charles et al. 2008 did) how combinations of pluses and minuses in the distinct categories add up to an overall rating ranging from “Very Poor” to “Very Good.” Incredulously, the Gilchrist et al. (1995) study received a rating of “Good”, when very few controls for confounding 3rd variables were employed, meaning the comparison groups may very well have differed systematically with regard to income, relationship quality including exposure to domestic violence, social support, and other potentially critical factors. Further Gilchrist et al. reported retaining only 34.4% of the termination group and only 43.4% of the group that did not request a termination at the end of the study. No standardized measures for mental health diagnoses were employed and evaluation of the psychological state of patients was reported by general practitioners, not psychiatrists. The GPs were volunteers and no attempt was made to control for selection bias. Despite these facts, the study received a mark of “+ thorough” for confounder control, a “+” for representativeness, and a “+” for validated tools. I can provide a similar rebuttal to many more of the individual study ratings provided by the RCP; and the reader should not trust these “quality” assessments.

Similarly, when it came to evaluating the quality of evidence associated with specific outcomes, such as anxiety, depression, suicide ideation, drug or alcohol abuse, psychiatric treatment, etc. with regard to the comparative studies, “Grade Working Group grades of evidence” were employed by the RCP. The anchors on this scale are vague and oftentimes only one reason is identified as the basis for a “Very Low” rating.  For example, in the category of “Any Psychiatric Treatment,” which actually only included the Munk-Olsen et al. study (p.104), the basis for the “Very Low” (very uncertain about the estimate) rating was not controlling for pregnancy intention. As if this isn’t problematic enough, when the study is again evaluated (see pages 198 and 199), it is rated as “Good” in the comparison category. There are loose, poorly conceived rationales and inconsistencies like this throughout the report and the problem lies in the application of an inadequate quality assessment protocol for individual studies and for the body of evidence.    

Faulty Conclusions

Each section in the RCP report includes conclusions that are based on a very small number of studies that are not properly rated for quality. The results should, therefore, not be trusted as a basis for professional training protocols or health care policy initiatives. To illustrate how incomplete and misleading the conclusions provided by the RCP are, I will use one example. I recently identified 119 studies published between 1972 and 2011 using the MEDLINE, PubMed, and PsycINFO data bases specifically related to risk-factors associated with post-abortion psychological health. Below is a list of the most common risk factors derived from the 119 peer-reviewed journal articles identified.

a.     Timing during adolescence or younger age (18 studies confirm: 2 studies do not)

b.     Religious, frequent church attendance, personal values conflict with abortion (18 studies confirm; 1 study does not)

c.      Decision ambivalence or difficulty, doubt once decision was made, or high degree of decisional distress (29 studies confirm; 3  studies do not)

d.     Desire for the pregnancy, psychological investment in the pregnancy, belief in the humanity of the fetus and/or attachment to fetus (21 studies confirm; 1 does not)

e.     Negative feelings and attitudes related to the abortion (16 confirm; 1 does not)

f.      Pressure or coercion to abort (10 studies confirm; 1 does not)

g.     Conflicted, unsupportive relationship with father of child (24 confirm; 6 do not)

h.     Conflicted, unsupportive relationships with others (28 confirm; 7 do not)

i.       Character traits indicative of emotional immaturity, emotional instability, or difficulties coping including low self-esteem, low self-efficacy, problems describing feelings, being withdrawn, avoidant coping, blaming oneself for difficulties etc. (42 studies confirm; 1 study does not)

j.       Pre-abortion mental health/psychiatric problems (35 studies confirm; 3 studies do not)

k.     Indicators of poor quality abortion care (feeling misinformed/inadequate counseling, negative perceptions of staff, etc.) (10 studies confirm)

The RCP conclusions relative to studies addressing risk factors for post-abortion mental health problems make no mention of most of the variables described above. They simply state (based on 27 studies) that “The most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems is having a history of mental health problems prior to abortion” and “A range of other factors produced more mixed results, although there is some suggestion that life events, pressure from a partner to have an abortion, and negative attitudes towards abortion in general and towards a woman’s personal experience of the abortion, may have a negative impact on mental health.” I am one academic, without a lab full of graduate students and with a heavy teaching load (not a Department of Psychiatry), yet I was able to find all these studies. Why wasn’t this high powered research team able to do a better job? Simply glancing at titles and abstracts to determine which studies merit further attention will not yield the information needed and resulted in a short-sighted view of the available evidence.   

Before I leave this section on poorly developed conclusions, I should note how curious it    was to read one of the conclusions under the risk factor section: “Women who show a negative emotional reaction immediately following an abortion are likely to have a poorer mental health outcome.” How can this “conclusion” be derived if studies that only examined women in the first 3 months following abortion were eliminated? Moreover, if this is true, why would these studies have been eliminated in the first place? Shouldn’t the researchers be most concerned with those most likely to be adversely impacted?

 

Appropriateness of Meta-Analysis

Counter to the claims of the authors of this report, a quantitative review or meta-analysis can be performed when there is heterogeneity present in the effects one wishes to summarize. The random effects model is specifically designed to address heterogeneity. In addition, separate meta-analyses, based on distinct comparison groups and outcomes can be performed. There is no excuse not to perform extensive meta-analyses from the vast literature that has accumulated.  Such an approach is much more reliable and the results derived yield more valid conclusions than a narrative review; data that can be translated more readily into practice.

A Call for Change

The bottom-line conclusion of the RCP review, based on only 4 studies, is that abortion is no riskier to women’s mental health than unintended pregnancy delivered. When this report was released a few days ago, several of my colleagues emailed “Here we go again…” Many of us are left wondering, how many of these purposefully driven “systematic reviews” have to be published with results splashed all over the world, before women’s psychological health will finally take precedence over political, economic, and ideological agendas?  This report constitutes no less than a crafty abuse of science and if the merits of this report are not seriously challenged, we will shamefully grow more distant from our ability to meet the needs of countless women. Until there is acknowledgement than scores of women suffer from their decision to undergo an abortion, we will remain in the dark ages relative to the development of treatment protocols, training of professionals, and our ability to compassionately assist women to achieve the understanding and closure they need to resume healthy lives. 

Narrative Reviews Not Addressed

1)   Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. Science 1990 6; 248(4951):41-4. Psychological responses after abortion.

2)   Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. Psychological factors in abortion. A review. Am Psychol. 1992;47(10):1194-204.

3)   Adler NE, Ozer EJ, Tschann J. Abortion among adolescents. Am Psychol. 2003; 58(3):211-7.

4)   Allanson S, Astbury JJ. Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1995;16(3):123-36.The abortion decision: reasons and ambivalence.

5)   Bhatia MS, Bohra N. The other side of abortion. Nurs J India. 1990; 81(2):66, 70.

6)   Cameron S. Induced abortion and psychological sequelae. Best Practice & Research. Clinical Obstetrics & Gynaecology 2010; Vol. 24 (5), pp. 657-65.

7)   Coleman PK, Reardon DC,  Strahan T, Cougle R. The psychology of abortion: A review and suggestions for future research. Psychology & Health 2005; 20(2), p237-271.

8)   Dagg PK. The psychological sequelae of therapeutic abortion–denied and completed. Am J Psychiatry. 1991;148(5):578-85.

9)   Harris AA. Supportive counseling before and after elective pregnancy termination.  Midwifery Women’s Health. 2004; 49(2):105-12.

10)                  Lie ML, Robson SC, May CR. Experiences of abortion: a narrative review of qualitative studies. BMC Health Serv Res. 2008; 8:150.

11)                  Lipp A. Termination of pregnancy: a review of psychological effects on women. Nursing Times 2009; 105 (1), pp. 26-9.

12)                  Major B, Appelbaum M, Beckman L, Dutton MA, Russo NF, West C. Abortion and mental health: Evaluating the evidence. Am Psychol. 2009; 64(9):863-90.

13)                  Major B, Cozzarelli C.  Psychosocial Predictors of Adjustment to Abortion. Journal of Social Issues 1992; 48 (3), p121-142.

14)                  Robinson GE, Stotland NL, Russo NF, Lang JA, Occhiogrosso M. Is there an "abortion trauma syndrome"? Critiquing the evidence. Harvard Review of Psychiatry 2009; 17 (4), pp. 268-90.

15)                  Rosenfeld JA. Emotional responses to therapeutic abortion. Am Fam Physician. 1992; 45(1):137-40.

16)                  Speckland A., Rue V. Complicated Mourning: Dynamics of Impacted Pre and Post-Abortion Grief," Pre and Perinatal Psychology Journal 1993; 8 (1):5-32.

17)                  Stotland NL.Clin Obstet Gynecol. Psychosocial aspects of induced abortion.1997 Sep;40(3):673-86.

18)                  Turell SC, Armsworth MW, Gaa JP. Emotional response to abortion: a critical review of the literature. Women Ther. 1990;9(4):49-68.

19)                  Zolese G, Blacker CV. The psychological complications of therapeutic abortion.

            Br J Psychiatry. 1992; 160:742-9.

 

Studies of Statistically Validated Risk Factors Not Addressed

1)   Allanson S. Abortion decision and ambivalence: Insights via an abortion decision balance sheet. Clinical Psychologist 2007; 11 (2), p50-60.

2)   Brown D, Elkins TE, Larson DB. Prolonged grieving after abortion: a descriptive study. J Clin Ethics 1993; 4(2):118-23.

3)   Fielding SL, Schaff EA. Social context and the experience of a sample of U.S. women taking RU-486 (mifepristone) for early abortion. Qualitative Health Research 2004; 14 (5), pp. 612-27.

4)   Hill RP, Patterson MJ, Maloy K. Women and abortion: a phenomenological analysis. Adv Consum Res. 1994; 21:13-4.

5)   Kero A, Lalos A. Ambivalence–a logical response to legal abortion: a prospective study among women and men. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2000; 21(2):81-91.

6)   Linares LO, Leadbeater BJ, Jaffe L, Kato PM, Diaz A. Predictors of repeat pregnancy outcome among black and Puerto Rican adolescent mothers. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1992;13(2):89-94.

7)   Mufel N,  Speckhard AC, Sivuha S. Predictors of posttraumatic stress disorder following abortion in a former Soviet Union country. Journal of Prenatal & Perinatal Psychology & Health 2002; 17(1), pp. 41-61.

8)   Osler M, David HP, Morgall JM. Multiple induced abortions: Danish experience. Patient Educ Couns. 1997; 31(1):83-9.

9)   Østbye T, Wenghofer EF, Woodward CA, Gold G, Craighead J. Health services utilization after induced abortions in Ontario: a comparison between community clinics and hospitals. American Journal of Medical Quality 2001; 16 (3), pp. 99-106.

10)                  Prommanart N, Phatharayuttawat S, Boriboonhirunsarn D, Sunsaneevithayakul P. J Maternal grief after abortion and related factors. Med Assoc Thai. 2004;87(11):1275-80.

11)                  Remennick L, Segal R. Socio-cultural context and women’s experiences of abortion: Israeli women and Russian immigrants compared. Culture, Health & Sexuality 2001; 3(1), p49-66.

12)                  Slade P, Heke S, Fletcher J, Stewart P. Termination of pregnancy: patients’ perceptions of care. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care. 2001;27(2):72-7.

13)                  Tamburrino MB, Franco KN, Campbell NB, Pentz JE, Evans CL, Jurs SG. Postabortion dysphoria and religion. South Med J. 1990;83(7):736-8.

14)                  Thomas T, Tori CD. Sequelae of abortion and relinquishment of child custody among women with major psychiatric disorders. Psychol Rep. 1999; 84(3 Pt 1):773-90.

15)                  Törnbom M, Ingelhammar E, Lilja H, Möller A, Svanberg Repeat abortion: a comparative study. B.J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1996; 17(4):208-14.

16)                  van Emmerik AA, Kamphuis JH, Emmelkamp PM. Clin Psychol Psychother. 2008; 15(6):378-85.

17)                  Vukelić J, Kapamadzija A, Kondić B. Investigation of risk factors for acute stress reaction following induced abortion. ed Pregl. 2010; 63(5-6):399-403.

18)                  Wiebe ER; Adams LC. Women’s experience of viewing the products of conception after an abortion. Contraception 2009; 80 (6), pp. 575-7.

19)                  Wiebe ER, Trouton KJ, Fielding SL, Grant H, Henderson A. Anxieties and attitudes towards abortion in women presenting for medical and surgical abortions. J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2004;26(10):881-5.

20)                  Wells N. Pain and distress during abortion Health Care Women Int. 1991; 12(3):293-302.

This entry was posted in Bioethics by William E. May. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
William E. May
How are we doing?

Most Viewed Blog Posts

  • The #MeToo Movement And Sexual “Morality”
  • Medical Health Risks of Contraception
  • Facebook And The Intellectual High-Ground
  • Italy Debates The Definition Of “Family”…A Half-Century Too Late
Subscribe
Thanks for signing up!

Culture of Life Foundation
Contribute

About Us

  • Mission and Vision
  • History
  • Questions and Testimonials
  • Board of Directors
  • Board of Advisors
  • CLF Team

Issue Briefs

  • Most Viewed
  • Subscribe
  • Life
  • Human Sexuality
  • Marriage & Family
  • Bioethics
  • Religious Liberty

CLF Fellows Program

  • About the Fellows Program
  • Jennifer Kimball Watson, Be.L.
  • E. Christian Brugger, D.Phil.
  • Helen Alvaré, J.D.
  • Margaret Datiles Watts, J.D.
  • William E. May
  • Frank J. Moncher, Ph.D.
  • Steve Soukup
  • Dr. Pilar Calva, M.D.
  • Elyse M. Smith

Person and Polis Blog

  • About Steve Soukup
  • Most Viewed

Press Inquiries

P.O. Box 320637
Alexandria, VA 22320
(202) 289-2500
  • communications@cultureoflife.org

Culture of Life Foundation

PO Box 320637
Alexandria, VA 22320
(202) 289-2500

info@cultureoflife.org

Copyright © 2019 Culture of Life Foundation

 

Privacy Policy