Post-Abortion Syndrome and The APA. 2008.

Report of The APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion

"The TFMHA evaluated all empirical studies published in English in peer-reviewed journals post-1989 that compared the mental health of women who had an induced abortion to the mental health of comparison groups of women (N=50) or that examined factors that predict mental health among women who have had an elective abortion in the United States (N=23). This literature was reviewed and evaluated with respect to its ability to address four primary questions: (1) Does abortion cause harm to women’s mental health? (2) How prevalent are mental health problems among women in the United States who have had an abortion? (3) What is the relative risk of mental health problems associated with abortion compared to its alternatives (other courses of action that might be taken by a pregnant woman in similar circumstances)? And, (4) What predicts individual variation in women’s psychological experiences following abortion?"

Spoiler:

"Nonetheless, it is clear that some women do experience sadness, grief, and feelings of loss following termination of a pregnancy, and some experience clinically significant disorders, including depression and anxiety. However, the TFMHA reviewed no evidence sufficient to support the claim that an observed association between abortion history and mental health was caused by the abortion per se, as opposed to other factors."

Fun Activity:

Print this off and leave it on the table of your local CPC!

How "Pro-Life" is "Pro-Life"?

From The New York Times:

Abortion Battle Shifts to Clinic in Nebraska

The national battle over abortion, for decades firmly planted outside the Kansas clinic of Dr. George R. Tiller, has erupted here in suburban Omaha, where a longtime colleague has taken up the cause of late-term abortions.

Since Dr. Tiller was shot to death in May, his colleague, Dr. LeRoy H. Carhart, has hired two people who worked at Dr. Tiller’s clinic and has trained his own staff members in the technical intricacies of performing late-term abortions.

Dr. Carhart has also begun performing some abortions “past 24 weeks,” he said in an interview, and is prepared to perform them still later if they meet legal requirements and if he considers them medically necessary.

“There is a need, and I feel deeply about it,” said Dr. Carhart, visibly weary after a day when eight patients had appointments at his clinic here.

The late-term abortions, coming after the earliest point when a fetus might survive outside the womb, are the most controversial, even among some who favor abortion rights. A few of Dr. Carhart’s employees quit when he told them of his plans to expand the clinic’s work.

Opponents of abortion, who had devoted decades to trying to stop Dr. Tiller’s business with protests and calls for investigations, are now turning their efforts to stopping Dr. Carhart. Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group, said he had traveled from the group’s headquarters in Wichita, Kan., to Nebraska six times in recent months, portraying this suburb of fewer than 50,000 as a new battlefield in the abortion fight.

“We’re trying to get criminal charges against him, to get his license revoked, and to get legislators there to look at the law,” Mr. Newman said of Dr. Carhart.

State law in Nebraska bans abortions in cases when a fetus clearly appears to have reached viability, except to “preserve the life or health of the mother.”

Abortion-rights advocates say the need exists for late-term abortions, in cases of extraordinary genetic defects and other dire health circumstances, and some had worried that only a few physicians would be willing to provide such care after Dr. Tiller’s killing, an act prosecutors say was carried out by an abortion foe.

“He’s standing up, and so are some others,” Vicki Saporta, president of the National Abortion Federation, said of Dr. Carhart.

A few other doctors have long performed late-term abortions, and some said both the threats against them and their efforts at security had increased since Dr. Tiller’s death.

Dr. Carhart, 68, knew Dr. Tiller for years, and would make regular trips to his clinic in Wichita to perform abortions there, as other physicians did. Though Dr. Tiller’s clinic was not the only one in the country performing late-term abortions, it was a focal point for controversy. Operation Rescue even moved its headquarters to Wichita because of Dr. Tiller’s practice.

Dr. Carhart, who has been performing abortions since the 1970s, is no stranger to the debate; he has been a litigant in two abortion-related cases decided by the United States Supreme Courtover a particular method of abortion referred to by critics as “partial-birth abortion.” And immediately after Dr. Tiller’s killing, Dr. Carhart offered to continue operating his clinic, but the Tiller family decided to close it.

Still, in the months since the killing, Dr. Carhart has made changes at his clinic and to his lifestyle as he has openly moved to take up Dr. Tiller’s cause.

Visitors to the clinic here must pass through a metal detector, new security cameras scan outside the building and a security consultant is employed full time. Dr. Carhart says he goes out publicly only on short, unscheduled trips and rarely eats out (and when he does, he says he stays less than 30 minutes). Dr. Carhart, an Air Force veteran, said his daughter was wed this fall on a nearby military base, mainly for security and privacy.

“We do everything differently now,” he said.

Dr. Carhart declined to provide specifics on how late in a pregnancy he would be willing to perform an abortion. Dr. Tiller performed them, in some cases, as late as in the third trimester of pregnancy. Dr. Carhart’s fee schedule lists prices for abortions up to 22 weeks and 6 days (at that point, $2,100 in cash or $2,163 on a credit card), but notes that abortions after 23 weeks are available “after consultation with our doctor,” and that abortions after the 27th week may take four days.

At his clinic in the past, Dr. Carhart said, he had performed abortions up to about 22 weeks into gestation — considered by some to be near the earliest point at which a fetus can survive outside the womb, a notion known as viability and one that is cited in many laws related to abortion.

Dr. Carhart’s opponents insist that late-term procedures violate state and federal statutes as well as professional rules. They have approached officials in Nebraska seeking an investigation. Mr. Newman, who had regularly called for investigations into Dr. Tiller’s work but strongly denounced his killing, has submitted a complaint about Dr. Carhart to Jon Bruning, Nebraska’s attorney general. In it, Mr. Newman accuses Dr. Carhart of using improper operating procedures under shoddy conditions.

Representatives of Mr. Bruning would not comment on whether an investigation was taking place. Marla Augustine, a spokeswoman for the State Department of Health and Human Services, which regulates physicians, said Dr. Carhart had no formal disciplinary actions on his record.

(In 1993, she said, he signed an assurance of compliance with the state, promising not to do certain things, like talk on the phone during surgical procedures, but the agreement says it did not mean he had admitted committing any violations and was not considered a disciplinary action.)

Dr. Carhart, meanwhile, said he had heard nothing lately from state officials. “Anybody can file a claim,” he said.

A brochure for his clinic shows a photograph of Dr. Carhart beside Dr. Tiller, and says that the clinic dedicates “our services to women in honor of” Dr. Tiller. Asked whether he feared a similar fate as Dr. Tiller’s, Dr. Carhart said he had signed up for this life.

“They have never targeted me more,” he said of abortion opponents. “But to me, the most dangerous response would be for me to stop what I am doing. The thought that killing Tiller might also succeed in closing another clinic — that’s my main reason for keeping open.”

Emphasis mine.
One of the pictures in the article show protesters at Dr. Tiller's funeral holding signs that say "Abortion is Bloody Murder" and "God Sent The Killer".
Anyone else see something wrong with this?

Why Illegalizing Abortion Will Not Save Any Money.

I practice ob-gyn in new york, and estimate that about 80% of the abortions we do at my hospital are covered by Medicaid - probably similiar stats in the other 16 states where medicaid will cover it. With [the Stupak-Pitts Amendment], that coverage might disappear, if medicaid gets pulled into the exchange. Most of my patients will not have the money for an abortion. They will go to the pharmacy and buy medication to induce an abortion under the counter (widely available in our latino neighborhood).

They will come to the hospital with bleeding, probably denying that they took anything, but stuck somewhere in the process of the abortion, what we call “incomplete”. Most will be perfectly stable. But even those who are fine will require follow up ultrasounds, clinic visits and possibly a d&c to complete the process, as well as many expensive lab draws if the fetus is passed by the time they come to the hospital, because then we have to make sure it isn’t an ectopic pregnancy which requires weeks of follow up.

So, your not wanting to have your dollars go to pay for a $500 abortion has now turned into you paying $1500-$2000 in medicaid hospital bills for management of an “incomplete miscarriage” or “rule out ectopic.” You have saved yourself exactly NO tax dollars. Congratulations.

How do I know this exact sequence? Because we already do this exact thing between 3-5 times a week for women who already do this, because they don’t know abortion is legal, they don’t know medicaid will pay here, they have a friend who did it that way. If they take away the medicaid option, I’ll just be running my ass down to the ER to see these ladies about 200 times more often, and all you abortion-hating taxpayers will still be footing the bill.

Via: 1

Dear People,

Okay, wow. I am apparently such a huge disturbance that it requires four different people to try and refute me.

That’s fine, but I’m a busy girl, please understand that I won’t be able to reply right away and I’ll have to give you guys single-comment replies. I can’t respond to all of you individually as much as I’d like to.

Let’s start with Bror, who keeps mixing up your and you’re. Here’s a tip, if what you mean to say is ‘you are’ then you turn the ‘a’ into an apostrophe and make it you’re.

I think that the Back Porch, with its insistence on women getting outside counseling (only the people there are not actually counselors) should at the very least make sure that the women they’re offering cookies to know that this will make it so they can’t have their surgery that day.

You claim “these women eat a cookie and have another day to think about the whole thing” but you’re ignoring the fact that Options does not only cater to local women. Women from poor communities in the North have to find a way to Options if they want an abortion. When The Back Porch feeds these women they are often taking away the only chance a poor woman has for a safe abortion. This usually means that those women are going to have unsafe abortions, which kill women.

I’m not the one denying PAS. The governing body of psychological and psychiatric research denies PAS. It simply doesn’t exist. Your experience as a pastor is biased because you are only encountering women who feel guilt afterwards. You are not talking to the women who feel relieved afterwards. Odds are the women you’re talking to had some sort of condition before the abortion (like say an abusive partner). You’re also not talking to the women who were forcibly impregnated by an abusive partner and the abortion was a welcome relief.

And your comment about murder is ridiculous. Abortion is not murder.

Now Bridgette,

Please find me one doctor who has a degree in abortion giving. No such thing exists. As for the doctors who perform abortions at that clinic, why do you care how old they are? My grandfather is over 80 and he still works on his farm. Is he too old to be working? You can’t state that just because someone is working at a particular age that they haven’t been doing their job right.

The Planned Parenthood article is mostly irrelevant to this argument. As I’ve stated the woman’s story is full of holes. She’d been caught removing patient files not long before she had ‘a change of heart’. It’s also questionable how she became the director of Planned Parenthood if she was apparently unaware of how abortions were performed. And I really don’t care how long the government expects you to keep receipts. The point is that abortions have never been a large part of Planned Parenthood. The cost of birth control over two years is way higher than that of an abortion. And Birth control takes far fewer staff members to hand out. It simply doesn’t make sense for abortions to be a large part of Planned Parenthood.

Any yes, Bridgette I am pro-choice and against the Back Porch. I think the Back Porch has a place, no doubt. But by refusing to give simple directions and by not warning the women in advance about the consequences of the cookies and lastly by spread false, fear-mongering, information they are far over-stepping their boundaries.

And Steve,

A six month old cannot survive alone, true, but it can be cared for by a myriad of other people. It is also separate from its mother, it is no longer inside the mother and it is no longer dependant on the mother and the mother alone. That’s why abortion is a choice a woman can make.

And lastly Amanda,

Again and again you insist that your only purpose is to educate women. But your actions have made it clear that you do not actually want women to make an informed decision. You want women to not have an abortion, period. You will do whatever it takes to make a woman ‘choose’ to keep the child.

You refuse to give any information on the risks of childbirth and the mental trauma of adoption. The CDC has shown that bearing a child is 13 times more likely to kill a woman than having an abortion. Let’s also not forget Post Partum Depression, do you have any pamphlets on that?

And once again I will state that I am not the one denying PAS. The governing body of psychology and psychiatry is the one denying PAS. The APA and countless per-reviewed, scientific and statistically sound studies after it, have shown that while some women do experience grief, those numbers are vastly outweighed by the women who feel relief. I’m not saying that there are not women who experience grief. But while you mention three women who had an abortion(s) and regretted it, I know three who have had abortions and did not regret it. And I don’t even run a clinic/ministry.

The women you see are not a proper sample. A quick statistics lesson for you; the women coming into your ministry are not a random sample. Without a random sample no correlation can be claimed.

So just because you see women who are unhappy with the counseling at WHO and just because you see women who feel grief does not mean that all women who have abortions are grieving and are unhappy with their choice.

You don’t want women to make an informed decision, this I know because you don’t address the risks of both options, only one. This is ironic, because you’re focusing on the procedure that is the safer of the two.

You are anti-choice, I know this because you spread false information and it breaks your heart every time a woman makes an informed choice.

I am pro-informed-consent-on-all-options, not just abortion. By only portraying the risks of one procedure you are fear-mongering. If you were at all interested in women making an informed choice you would be educating just as fiercely about the (much more common and deadlier) compilations of pregnancy.

Love,

Rabble

Via: 1, 2, 3

Reply to: "How 'pro-choice' is 'pro-choice'"

"In relation to the last several preceding posts. This was a recent story related to the economics of abortion industry.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,571215,00.html?test=latestnews

It reminds me a little bit about our involvement in the dental industry. I don't want to cast dispersions on the profession. But there are a variety of competing interests and always a variety of choices in treatment. There is the patient; there is counseling; there is informed consent; there is everyone's welfare; and there is profit; there are always judgment calls; and there is what insurance covers or not.

It takes strong individuals not to have the profit motive be number one concern. It is only human. Always take it into account. You are putting your welfare into the hand of people who run a business. Ethics are a huge thing that vary from organization to organization and individual to individual. Don't be duped and don't be rushed and don't be pressured. Get another opinion when you feel you need one.

TAKE YOUR TIME. Try praying,too. You might think and listen more and discover entirely different and surprising options. You might discover you have courage and hope and support."

My Reply is as Follows:

Hey there, it's lucky I checked back. You see, you never actually posted my comments, so I never got the e-mail that told me they were up.
But I sometimes check back and in this case it's good that I did.
So anyways to speak to the points you made:
First and foremost, abortion is not an "industry" least of all in Canada. In Canada, abortion is fully covered by the healthcare system. This is why the term "abortion doctor" is a misnomer. There are no doctors whose entire profession is abortion. There are OB/Gyns who preform abortions in addition to giving paps and delivering babies.
Heck, even in the States, where abortion isn't covered it's not an industry. The big money is in birth-control.
As for the story you've got there from Fox, I've seen it around and I've seen many questions raised about it. For example: How did she become a Planned Parenthood director when she was apparently unaware of how abortions are preformed? There are also many inconsistencies with her claims of executive pressuring her into making more girls have abortions.
Anyhow, I'd like to point out that you are equating abortion with the pro-choice movement. It's a common mistake, but you see, abortion is only one of three different choices a woman has. Pro-choice is about ensuring women have access to all three choices and may decide when they reproduce. This includes access to birth control, pre-natal care, adoption agencies (both closed and open), abortion services and post-natal care.
Anyhow, I'm glad I popped in, next time just post the comment so that I get the e-mail, tagging things 'Dear Rabble' sadly doesn't send them to my inbox.
Love,
Rabble
Note the lack of profanity. I was a very good girl, apparently certain combinations of letters can deeply offend some people. Despite the fact that they put those words up on the front of their blog.

What You Probably Didn't Know About "Partial-Birth" Abortions!

This was not written by me. It was written by a woman who is not only incredibly smart and a very talented writer, but also a good friend of one of my Tumblr followers on LiveJournal. Her name is Grace. The following is her personal reason for being pro-choice.

- - - - -

Here’s the deal. I very, very likely have fertility issues. My infertility isn’t set in stone because, hey, things like that pretty much can’t be if everything is present and not super-cancerous - but I probably have a 50/50 chance of being infertile, and if I ever do conceive it’s very likely that my pregnancy will end in a miscarriage. God, even that is a stupidly passive way of saying it. What I mean is that, if I somehow manage to become pregnant, I likely have a very high chance of ending up lying on the floor of my bathtub in excruciating pain, vomiting, bleeding profusely, and suicidally depressed due to the loss of my probably wanted child in between bouts of unconsciousness when I pass out from pain, blood loss, and a high fever. If I am lucky - if I am lucky - I will pass all of the fetal tissue, in semi-recognizable chunks, along with incredible amounts of blood. That doesn’t sound traumatizing at all. If I am unlucky (which is actually pretty likely!) I will not pass all of the fetal tissue on my own. In that case, I would need to go to the hospital and seek a D&C.

A D&C is, despite not being the termination of a live pregnancy, technically considered to be “abortion” by doctors. In my case, a D&C would be the main thing standing in between me and a uterine infection that might end up fatal in the event of an incomplete miscarriage. This is especially true if the miscarriage doesn’t result in contractions on its own - something which is also extremely likely.

Long story short, abortion legality means that I get to not die bleeding and alone on my bathroom floor. Or, for that matter, anywhere, with anyone; not from a miscarriage, anyway.

Miscarriages occur in 20% of recognized pregnancies. Not all of these miscarriages end up requiring medical assistance, but many do. Do you have any idea what kind of number that is? If your answer is “huge,” then you’re getting warmer.

About ten or eleven paragraphs down this article there’s some information about “partial-birth abortion,” such as it is. Read it and come back. I’ll wait. ♫♪♫ Okay, you’re back? Great! Okay, so that procedure - ID&X - is what I would likely pursue if my hypothetical miscarriage occurred in the late second trimester or third trimester of my wanted pregnancy. It’s important to me to a) say goodbye to my child intact and b) be able to bury it. I realize this sounds like the subversive rantings of a murderer, but bear with me here. The banning of the ID&X/”partial-birth abortion” does not ban “late-term abortion” - women still are able to seek abortions following the 22nd week, but these are typically only performed for medical reasons. The banning of the ID&X procedure bans only the extraction of an intact fetus. Meaning that its banning means that, even if a woman who spontaneously miscarried due to nothing she did or did not do needed medical assistance to evacuate her uterus, her child would have to be, legally, cut up before it was removed. Gross! Thanks, crazypants pro-life contingent (and my mom :D), I really appreciate you seeking the desecration of the corpse of my hypothetical child! That’s so goddamn moral of you.

The story brought up by people with a pro-life stance is of the promiscuous woman who uses abortion as “a form of birth control” or a tool to get out of an “inconvenience.” In my case, if I were to get pregnant with an unwanted child and I considered myself for whatever reason unable to take care of it (financial issues, living situation issues, issues with abuse, instability, etc), I would probably seek an abortion, and not for convenience. For one, 1 in 5 pregnancies end in a miscarriage. As I’ve already explained, my chances of having a miscarriage are likely much, much higher. If I conceived and the pregnancy was not only unwanted but, if brought to term, would bring a child into a bad situation, I would seek to lower my chances of that whole “bleeding, vomiting, and contracting painfully in the bathtub” scenario. It would, more likely than not, be a nonviable pregnancy.

Other people’s reasons for abortion are their own. But I cannot with a clear conscience be pro-life, knowing what I know about my own situation. My situation is not uncommon, and while it is worse than some, miscarriages are bad for anybody. My issues with a pro-life stance are separate from my reasons to be pro-choice - I don’t think I’ll ever discuss them here, because a lot of my opinions are rude and stupid generalizations based on idiots waving signs on the street.

Abortion and Health Care Costs

Post Here
For the love of fucking GOD.
You people are stupid!
You can't not pay taxes for something you don't support. That's like going to the zoo and saying "Well I don't think tigers should be in captivity, so here's $15.50". Admission is $20 fuckers.
If you get to fucking opt-out of taxes for safe, legal medical procedures, then I get to opt out of the taxes that supply service to your churches, or your fucking Crisis Pregnancy Centers or hell to your house. Can I do that? Where on my taxes is the form that let's me tick off people and services I don't want funded by my money.

I also like how the argument is that is could save the system money.
Only, abortions don't go away. De-funding abortion does not magically erase the need for it.
In fact, restrictions do nothing to reduce abortion rates. Instead, they wind up being done in back-alleys, these procedures kill 70,000 women every year. They also cost the health care system millions.
Do you see how fucking stupid this is?
Love,
Rabble

Odds are you'll never see it, seeing as the comments have to go through the owner for approval.