Talk:Abortion and mental health/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 →

Contents

Recent edit

This edit constitutes WP:POINT vandalism. I'm all out of GF. Rather than raise WP:Wikistress levels, I suggest we move on to WP:WQA or WP:RfC/U - anyone? --Phyesalis (talk) 00:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think RfC/U will end the cycle of edit warring. миражinred (speak, my child...) 00:18, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I apologize. That edit was intended to go to the discussion page but I was in the wrong window. When called away I hit save page rather than preview. Haste makes not only waste, but badly formatted and placed edits. Sorry. --Strider12 (talk) 01:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Everyone makes mistakes, and this one was easily rectified. However, as to the larger question, I'm willing to cosign an WP:RfC/U at any point. It is probably long overdue. MastCell Talk 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I, of course, second that emotion.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I see, everyone makes mistakes. миражinred (speak, my child...) 02:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for apologizing, Strider - it happens. I still support some form of community response on this in order to reduce stress levels. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Anchor links in lead

I'm not getting involved in this again, but just a quick note: It's usually not proper to include anchor links in the lead of an article, in order to direct readers downward to other sections of the same article (links that begin with #). The lead is meant to summarize the rest of the article, not serve as its table of contents. The auto-generated ToC serves anchor links to each section already. Peace Equazcion •✗/C • 16:07, 9 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Tagging of problems

As virtually all of my attempts to contribute verifiable material get blanked, I've added a number of tags identifying key problems. All have been discussed by me in the archives. In many cases, as with the Stotland section, [opinion needs balancing] would more appropriately mean [full sense of source not shown], in that additional balancing material from the same source is being deleted in order to present only a cherry-picked view. That is also the case in the Koop section which now omits both his conclusion that NO conclusions for safety nor risk could be drawn from the studies, as all were methdologically flawed, and his statement that he has no doubts that some women do suffer severe psychological problems.

I won't repeat myself further regarding the many problems which I have tried to address in the past, and will continue to address in the future.--Strider12 (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You've made the same arguments endlessly. You solicited outside input via a highly slanted RfC, and the responding uninvolved editors unanimously found your edits and contentions problematic at best. Now you've resorted to tag-bombing. You've already been allowed to tendentiously stall this article for far too long. I'm going back to a much earlier version, as the article has turned into an incomprehensible mess; the earlier version at least has the benefit of being relatively readable and informative. Before we start re-accumulating layers of he-said-she-said primary sources, maybe we can take it one step at a time. MastCell Talk 21:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
This version is not as bad as what I tagged, but is still unbalanced and has many errors. I'd ask you to take a look at this proposed starting point Abortion Mental Health Summary It frames the issue in what I believe is a more balanced fashion. Due to the resistance of some editors to acknowledgeing virtually any negative effect associated with abortion, I've listed multiple peer reviewed studies that have independently found the negative effects. For better readability, these could be included in single footnotes for each symptom.--Strider12 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, this article is amazingly awful. I find it hard to believe that anyone could write that, "abortion has generally positive or neutral effects on womens' mental health." How can anyone possibly believe that abortion has generally positive effects on mental health?? The truth is that abortion is utterly devastating to many women, which is why outfits like Project Rachel stay busy, and why nearly all CPCs offer or post-abortion counseling or else refer clients to someone who does. They offer the service because it is in demand. NCdave (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
While improvements in some mental health parameters have been reported after abortion, a better way to phrase it might be that "Most studies have concluded that the psychological risks associated with abortion are no greater than those of carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term." As to "how anyone can believe" that abortion might have positive effects on mental health, you could ask Francis Beckwith, who told the New York Times: "For every woman who has suffered trauma as a result of an abortion, I bet you could find half a dozen who would say it was the best decision they ever made." How much "post-abortion counseling" is based on real demand, and how much is a political strategem, is debatable, I suppose. Certainly the number of women seeking such counseling is miniscule in proportion to the number who undergo abortion on a yearly basis, as the above-cited article makes clear. I would be open to other reliable sources on the subject. MastCell Talk 20:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
(post EC)You know why it was written? Because that's what reliable, neutral studies show. Once upon a time everyone knew that women were prone to hysteria and vapors, after all. We're not looking at the emotional responses to pregnancy, which are varied, but the mental health issues - namely, do they go "insane" from having an abortion? Abortion can be a very difficult decision, sure, and it can be a very sad time in the person's life, of course, and they might want help coping with the sadness, but are they mentally ill afterwards? Is their mental health impacted? On the contrary, like a natural miscarriage, most women recover and go on to live healthy, productive lives. Kuronue | Talk 20:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hanna Söderberg -- Reactions One Year Post-Abortion

I've restored this section, which MastCell deleted. It is pertinent and well-sourced, and adds just the tiniest bit of desperately needed balanced to a hideously POV-biased article. NCdave (talk) 20:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Hideously POV-biased" of course meaning it doesn't conform to your biased POV that "All abortion is a horribly traumatic experience to women", naturally. I've edited it to conform to what the abstract actually says, pending more people with access to the actual article. Kuronue | Talk 20:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi again, NCdave. That's exactly the problem. You (and Strider12) are employing the study to "balance" what you perceive as a POV problem and to further your own POV on the underlying issue. In fact, the study did not examine the risk of negative psychological reactions. A sentence has been cherry-picked from the introduction of the article to suggest that it shows that many women suffer negative psychological effects. In fact, the study was designed to look at how many women who failed to respond to a survey after abortion went on to become pregnant again in a short time. The thrust of their article was that the health-care system needs to do a better job of engaging this subset of women - not that abortion itself is a psychologically harmful procedure. The authors do hypothesize in one paragraph that "some women" may become pregnant again to cope with a sense of guilt about the abortion; this is hardly the main point of the study, but it's the one you're using it to advance.
Additionally, the edit which you and Strider12 keep making includes a quote that "An answer very often given was: ‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'." This quote appears nowhere in the cited source that I can find. Perhaps you can either point me to where this quote occurs in the cited article, or explain why you and Strider12 are edit-warring to reinsert a non-existent quote. Strider12 has a history of this sort of misrepresentation, but I'm curious if I'm missing something here. MastCell Talk 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Since you have access, could you add the results of their study with regards to becoming pregnant again? We might as well mention what they did find, and let it sit there a while instead of edit-warring over it. Kuronue | Talk 20:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Sure - I'll do it here on the talk page for now. The conclusions are pretty much those spelled out in the abstract: the 1/3 of women who did not participate in follow-up intervals were disproportionately those who were young, unmarried, of low educational status, and unemployed. The pregnancy rate was 12.2% in the non-responders vs. 7.7% in the responders at 1 year. The authors conclude by focusing on why these women did not participate. They point to the "inability of the health care system to establish trustful relationships with these women", and note that "support from the women's surroundings and the adviser the women met at the public health care system clearly influenced the women's psychological reactions after the abortion. It is therefore important to ascertain to what extent the management of abortion applicants in fact fulfils their individual needs and expectations." That is, the focus is on how to improve the health-care delivery system for women undergoing abortion, not on the idea that abortion causes any sort of psychological or psychiatric syndrome. MastCell Talk 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
MastCell gives only one of the studies and falsely states that Soderberg does not address "idea that abortion causes any sort of psychological or psychiatric syndrome." In fact, here is a link to her study distress following induced abortion: a study of its incidence and determinants among abortees in Malmö, Sweden. in which the abstract conclusions state: "CONCLUSIONS: Thus, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases. The risk factors identified suggest that it may be possible to ameliorate or even prevent such distress." But this is a fact that MastCell and others have purged numerous times.--Strider12 (talk) 02:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


The quote, "for many of the women, the reason for non-participation seemed to be a sense of guilt and remorse that they did not wish to discuss. An answer very often given was: ‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'." is from page 15 of Urban women applying for induced abortion: Studies of epidemiology, attitudes and emotional reactions by Hanna Soderberg, M.D., Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Community Medicine, Lund Universtiy, University Hospital, Malmo Sweden 1998. page 15. This is a bound copy of all Soderberg's studies plus her complete dissertation on this data set. She mailed me a copy many years ago. She will probably provide a copy if you contact her. I apologize for not more carefully citing the quote.--Strider12 (talk) 17:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Given the... precedents you've established, let's stick with what's been published in the literature and is readily verifiable by all of us. MastCell Talk 20:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Does that mean you'll drop the quote and keep the two other citations to Soderberg in? So far I only see you deleting everything rather than just what you can't verify.--Strider12 (talk) 02:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Verifiability is one issue. I'm not against citing Soderberg per se. I am against mining the study for a few pieces that support one editor's argument and abusing the source to advance a point that is, at best, tangential to the one the authors actually addressed. MastCell Talk 02:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why don't YOU insert a summary of Soderbergs findings. Perhaps IAA won't be so quick to delete it if is your edit. I'd suggest particular attention to the conclusion described in her abstract: "Thus, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases. The risk factors identified suggest that it may be possible to ameliorate or even prevent such distress." Quoting her own summary certainly qualifies for an NPOV edit. --Strider12 (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Koop and the lead

I feel like the lead is rather weak in that it doesn't really summarize the article, as a lead should. I also feel like we spend way too much space discussing Koop. I'm also interested in hearing what others think about using the lead of this article (once it is improved and stable) to replace the summary section of Abortion#Mental_health.-Andrew c [talk] 23:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Both the Koop lead and the Koop section are definitely problematic and misrepresent his full views. He rejected the report prepared by his staff as unreliable and wrote that no definititve conclusions could be made. He also stated that he believed some women do have negative reactions but how many could not be determined. I've added the following in the past, but it was deleted...of course.
Those links in no way justify excluding her. Show me links where she has been exposed for fraud in her research and then I will agree to exclude her. Otherwise, all you are showing is that others disagree with her, which does NOT justify excluding her expertise and opinions. Do you really not understand that reliable sources mean "peer reviewed," not "pro-choice"?--Strider12 (talk) 23:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
===Surgeon General Koop's Letter===
In 1987 President Reagan directed U.S. Surgeon General, C. Everett Koop to issue a report on the health effects of abortion on women. Koop subsequently began review of over 250 studies pertaining to the physical and psychological impact of abortion. In a letter to President Reagan in January of 1989 Koop stated that he could not issue a conclusive report because the available "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women."[1] [2] To address the inadequate research in the field, he recommended a $100 million dollar prospective study would be required to conclusively examine the mental health effects of abortion. In the letter Koop also stated the view that "In the minds of some [abortion opponents], it was a foregone conclusion that the negative health effects of abortion on women were so overwhelming that the evidence would force the reversal of Roe vs. Wade."[2]
In subsequent testimony before a congressional committee regarding his review of the literature, Koop stated that while the scientific studies available at that time were not methodologically sound enough to draw unimpeachable conclusions, "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."[3] In yet a subsequent Congressional hearing, when Koop was pressed to address the question of whether his view of the inadequate studies he had reviewed indicated that abortion posed a public mental health threat, Koop stated that in his opinion it was "miniscule from a public-health perspective."cite needed--Strider12 (talk) 23:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: the question Andrew c actually asked - we could axe Koop from the lead and cover his report elsewhere in the body of the article, in the interest of being concise. In terms of summary, the APA's position is probably the most relevant and WP:WEIGHTy. I'll take a shot at it. Strider12, your proposed revision of the Koop paragraph excludes this reliable secondary source from New Scientist (a respectable and neutral source), which suggests that "not enough evidence" was political cover when Koop's review failed to produce the results desired by the pro-life movement. At the same time, you're not shy about citing priestsforlife.org. Therefore I don't think your proposal is an improvement. MastCell Talk 20:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I took out Koop and APA. There are other studies done on abortion and mental health. Why should Koop and APA be included among others? миражinred (speak, my child...) 20:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell that the APA study is relevant in the lead, and I think it should stay.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The APA is particularly relevant since it's the major professional organization of psychologists in the U.S., so their findings reflect expert opinion on the topic in the same way that the American Academy of Pediatrics might be expected to be the final word on the mainstream view of health issues affecting children. At the moment, the edits are flying way too fast to get anything done, though. Can we slow down? I've been trying to consolidate the references, which are duplicated all over the place, but these keep getting overwritten. MastCell Talk 21:03, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry!--IronAngelAlice (talk) 21:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Soderberg

SHoney/MarginRed, Soderberg's study used "structured interviews" (meaning a consistent format for evaluating the women) and this technique is an accepted and highly valued way of doing STUDIES and gathering RELIABLE DATA, and YES it was published in a peer reviewed journal. Please stop deleting stuff that you don't understand just because you don't like the findings. Deleting peer reviewed material because YOU don't think it is reliable is a form of original research in which you are imposing your opinion (researched or unresearched)over that of the peer reviewers who actually have expertise in this field.--Strider12 (talk) 05:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Listening to you is like a broken record. миражinred (speak, my child...) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly Unbalanced Sections

The sections regarding Koop, Stotland, and the APA 1990 article need to be balanced with quotes from the SAME sources which put the currently used cherry-picked quotes into proper perspective. The statements from all three are not nearly as one sided as portrayed. The following MUST be incorporated into the article if there is to be any hope of correcting the obvious imbalance which currently dominates this article.

Koop

It is especially important that the principle point made by Koop in his letter to President Reagan should be made. Specifically, Koop stated that he could not issue a conclusive report because the available "scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women."[4] [2]

Secondly, if anything further is to be said about Koop's opinion, it would also be necessary to include that he stated in subsequent congressional committee hearings that while the scientific studies available at that time were not methodologically sound enough to draw unimpeachable conclusions, "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."[5] Clearly, if this article is to report Koop's opinion, this "no doubt aout the fact that some people have sever psychological effects" is relevent...especially given the tone of the current article which tries to hide this fact or to portray it as simply an anti-abortion myth.

Finally, regarding Koop's reported statement at some hearing that the mental health "miniscule from a public-health perspective."cite needed, I must say that I have never seen the full statement quoted, only this blurb. All other statements Koop made consistently emphasized the impossibility of drawing any conclusions because of inadequate research. I suspect he was pressed to give his "best guess" or something of the sort, which would clearly diminish the value of this quote. Or perhaps he was asked to summarize the conclusions of his staff's report...which Koop rejected and decided not to publish, in which case he is stating one of his staf member's conclusions...nothis own. I'd appreciate anyone giving me the committee member's question and the full response of Koop from the Congressional record.

APA

The following quote from the 1990 Adler Science article should also be included in that it demonstrates an admission that SOME women do have significant negative reactions and that these occur in at least three groups of women who are at higher risk. (Nobaly, these groups may respresent a large portion of all women having abortions.)

"Case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion" but "severe negative reactions are infrequent in the immediate and short-term aftermath, particularly for first-trimester abortions. Women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand may be a relatively higher risk for negative consequences."

Omitting these statements distorts the full report into a complete denial of any significant emotional effects. The current summary of this eighteen year old review is a misrepresentation of the literature.

STOTLAND

The Stotlan section is also cherry-picked, and statements she has made both in her commentary and in subsequent writing which provide balance and perspective to her much quoted "myth" comment continue to be deleted without warrant.

First, in her JAMA commentary, she also She identified only three groups of women as being at risk: "Significant psychiatric illness following abortion occurs most commonly in women who were psychiatrically ill before pregnancy, in those who decided to undergo abortion under external pressure, and in those who underwent abortion in aversive circumstances, for example, abandonment. Lask attributed the adverse reaction in 11% of the subjects he studied to these factors." (Stotland, 1992)

Notably, she is citing B. Lask, "Short-term psychiatric sequelae to therapeutic termination of pregnancy," Br J Psychiatry. 1975; 126:173-177 (1975). Ib fact, Lask found 34% of the patients studied had "unfavourable" emotional adjustments when evaluated six months after their abortions, of whom one third (11% overall)fit into the higher risk categories identified by Stotland. More inconvenient evidence for that abortion-mental health linkd eniers, but something even Stotland admits and should therefore clearly be included in this article. But it's been deleted a half dozen times already.

Also, in a subsequent 1998 paper, Stotland describes treating a patient who experienced a severe delayed reaction to a prior abortion following a subsequent miscarriage. She reports discovering first-hand "the psychological complexities of induced abortion" and concludes that the failure to address these issues "leaves the person vulnerable to reminders and reenactments, to difficulties that may surface in life and in subsequent psychotherapy." Despite a woman's political or moral views of abortion, she writes, "abortion is experienced by that woman as both the mastery of a difficult life situation and as the loss of a potential life. There is the danger that the political, sociological context can overshadow a woman's authentic, multilayered emotional experience."[60] This is an important article by Stotland and repeated deletions of this subsequent source, simply because it shows a more cautious and refined veiwpoint than "abortion trauma syndrom is a myth" is unwarranted.

Until the sections on Koop, the Adler Science article and Stotland are corrected by inclusion of these balancing quotes from the SAME sources cited, these sections should remain tagged as unbalanced.

BEyond these three sources, other expert opinions, like those from Soderberg, Wilmoth, Fogel, Rue, Speckhard, and many others should also have a place in this article. But again, the broad puging of inconvenient evidence has so far resulted in persistent deletion of these verifiable, peer reviewed sources. As noted many times, such deletions have been defined by ArbCo as disruptive.--Strider12 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC) --Strider12 (talk) 04:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your past behavior has eroded your credibility substantially, so a lengthy list of things the rest of us MUST do to achieve "balance" is not particularly compelling. I've said this before, but repetition seems to be in order: take one item, focus on it until it's resolved, and then move on to the next. Throwing dozens of things against the wall to see what sticks, running 5 different talk page threads at once, and reverting 3-5 times per day against consensus do not make for a good article or editing environment.
In that spirit, I'll address your first point about Koop. We can quote fully from his statement, including "no conclusive data" and the "no doubt... but anecdotes don't make good scientific material." At the same time, you need to drop the objection to the "miniscule from a public health perspective" quote; I've already provided a source for this (the New York Times); your personal, speculative attempt to impeach the Times as a reliable source on the basis of your personal beliefs is depressingly familiar but irrelevant. All 3 quotes can be included. At the same time, the New Scientist article suggesting that Koop downplayed or understated his actual findings to keep the issue alive for pro-lifers is clearly relevant and a reliable secondary source, and needs to be included and referenced here. MastCell Talk 07:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My response is nowhere near as eloquent as MastCell's, so I'm sorry if what I say reads like a broken record, much like all of your threads. How many times can I say it? Your tendentious editing is getting old. You do not slash and burn articles, but you bloat the article with your POV-pushing, which you seem to think neutralize the oh-so-rampant Planned Parenthood bias. You do not even have the basic courtesy to deliver your comments with brevity. миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 07:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Koop

It now has come to light that Koop did not use the phrase "miniscule" it was used by Weiss in questioning. It is being WRONGLY put into Koop's mouth because he did not object to it. Following is the exchange:
Congressman Ted Weiss: "And yet the American Psychological Assocation's conclusion that severe long-term psychological effects of abortion are rare seems to be consistent with your remarks at several meeting on this topic in which you refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective."
Koop: "From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming. All this leads up to my conclusion to the President that we don't know what we are talking about, and if you want to know what you are talking about and feel certain about what you are saying you have to do a prospective study..."[6]
So once again we see a spin by the media and other pro-abortion sources to put words into Koop's mouth downplaying his views on the effects of abortion on women while also cutting his other statements acknowledging the seriousness of the issue. It is this policy of cherry-picking and obsufication that many editors of this article insist on pursuing.--Strider12 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No. Koop did use the phrase "miniscule from a public health perspective." Not only is it sourced to numerous reliable secondary sources including the New York Times Magazine and New Scientist, but in your source Weiss says: ... in which you [Koop] refer to the psychological problem as "miniscule" from the public health perspective. In other words, they're amplifying on Koop's statement to that effect. Your claim that Koop did not use the phrase is directly contradicted by the source you provide. As to cherry-picking, this quote was used, in exactly this form, in numerous reliable secondary sources including the New York Times Magazine. "Cherry-picking" would be combing through the transcript, mining a few words which all of those reliable secondary sources deemed less relevant, and then highlighting them here. Next. MastCell Talk 20:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
You're just reinforcing how unreliable your secondary sources are. Search the congressional hearing for the word "miniscule" and you will see that Koop NEVER actually used the word himself. It is used only once, by Weiss. And only Weiss uses the phrase "miniscule from a public health perspective." It's true that Weiss is trying to get into the record something that presumably true thatKoop used the word "miniscule" in some off the record comments to others...perhaps with APA members during his research before drawing any conclusions...but Koop never said it on the record nor as part of his own conclusions. Instead, when confronted with Weiss' take on what he heard that Koop had said Koop, while not denying that he is unconvinced that the problem is a significant public health issue, rushes on to BALANCE this assertion with a statement emphasizing how devastating abortion is to individuals--a fact that gets omitted from all your sources in preference for putting Weiss's words into Koop's mouth. And here you are, once again, deleting Koop's real sentiments in favor of pushing the spin of pro-choice media outlets on Koop and Wikipedia readers. This fear of facts is pretty pathetic.--Strider12 (talk) 02:35, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
If you can rephrase this comment in a civil and reasonably constructive manner, I will be happy to respond. MastCell Talk 02:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Differentiation between negative effects and mental health effects

Consider the following: your much-beloved family cat is run over by a car in front of your eyes. This is, of course, a painful and sad event. But will it scar you for life, causing you to have mental health issues later in life? Of course not. You grieve, and you move on.

Well that's exactly what a lot of women do with their abortions.

This article does not claim that all abortions are positive or neutral experiences for women - merely that they have positive or neutral mental health effects, which is to say, after the abortion is complete and the women have moved on, they are healthier or as healthy as those who have carried an unwanted pregnancy to term. This makes sense - one event is easier to overcome than 18 years of raising a child you never wanted, being forced into poverty, dropping out of school, or whatever other effects that can come from unwanted pregnancies. At the worst, it's about the same, as far as mental health. Of course people have strong emotions about the abortion, sometimes stronger than about the unwanted pregnancy - but research is showing that it's the unwanted pregnancy itself, a lot of the time, rather than the abortion, that causes issues. As such, this article rightfully speaks of the positive or neutral mental health effects found in reliable studies, rather than reflecting emotional responses or overall life impact. Kuronue | Talk 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did a brief search for long-term effects of abortion, but haven't yet found a source folks here would accept as NPOV. I will say that I still remember every day a young woman who died over 32 years ago, even though we were never that intimate. Simesa (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but would you say that you're mentally ill because of it? That's the key. Human beings don't often forget people or events that were important to them, but after a while they move on with life rather than remain paralyzed in the past - unless they're traumatized, which is a type of mental health issue. There's a difference between saying you remember her and saying that her death gave you PTSD. Kuronue | Talk 21:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Let's say I still feel the pain, and that it changed my life in very large and significant ways. Simesa (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
With all due respect, could we keep commentary focused on the article? --Phyesalis (talk) 00:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course. My point is merely that if we focus too much on negative emotional effects we'll naturally come to different conclusions than if we focus on mental health issues, and thus the article will seem lopsided, NPOV, or just plain wrong. Kuronue | Talk 04:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
[1] and [2] (both abstracts) look interesting. Both have tiny sample sizes (16 and 17 women respectively). The second says "Some women were highly satisfied with their experience. Others lived with traumatic effects." It would appear that there is a risk but not always a negative outcome. Simesa (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
In another discussion, the NYT article [3] is referenced. "Several women in the postabortion group said that they did not favor a ban on abortion, for fear of back-alley procedures, but said that women should have more information about abortion's psychological impact - perhaps a video of women like themselves. Seven of the eight women said they had considered suicide over their abortion." stands out. Simesa (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure how one could get anything useful out of the abstracts supplied, particularly in response to Kuronue's point about the difference between short-term negative effects and more chronic mental health effects. The NYT example is not a scientific sample. I'm not sure what your point is. --Phyesalis (talk) 05:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

List of reactions

I'm adding the following with MULTIPLE, independent studies confirming the findings so there can be no dispute about the fact that these are reported in reliable sources.

In the twenty years since Koop's review of the literature, prospective and case-control studies have now found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment[7][8][9][10] anxiety,[11][12][13] depression,[11][14][7]alcohol use,[15][16][17][18], post-traumatic stress disorder,[19][20][21] drug use,[11],[22][17] increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health,[9][23][24][25] suicidal thoughts[11][26] completed suicides, [27][28] and child maltreatment.[29][30][31][32] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Once again I see MastCell deleting all of these reliably sourced symptoms simply because they do not conform with the expectations of the 1900 APA article and Stotland 1992 commentary. Findings from the last decade are to be held hostage to twenty year old opinions? These deletions are not justifiable.--Strider12 (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, there is a good article in here waiting to get out. However, it's entirely obvious that you are not interested in collaborating; you're on Wikipedia to advance a fairly obvious and narrow agenda, and your approach is geared toward making a symbolic point, game-playing, and point-scoring. You insert an awkward paragraph which suggests, entirely erroneously, that scientific opinion on the matter has shifted dramatically since Koop's report. When I disagree with this edit, variations of which you've been making without any support from anyone for about 4 months now, you say: "Look, MastCell PURGED a PEER-REVIEWED SOURCE!" and add another entry to your "disruption log". No - I'm not playing this game anymore. If you can't function collaboratively, within policy, and stop using Wikipedia as a soapbox, then I'm not interested. Four months of this is long enough. MastCell Talk 03:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Supplying complete congressional quote in footnote

Mastcell recently made this reversion of my very first and only edit of this article. Mastcell's edit summary is as follows: "Please stop using primary sources to try to undermine or re-contextualize what's been published by multiple reliable secondary sources."

Mastcell, is it acceptable to say in the text that the Koop quote was from congressional testimony? That is where the cited Mooney reference says it is from. May we please mention that in the text, as my edit did? If so, then we can address why you think providing the full quote in a footnote is somehow improper. Are there any Wikipedia policies you can cite that prefer truncated quotes to full quotes?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant to revert Strider's edit and your edit unfortunately was sandwiched in between hers and MastCell's reversion. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It is acceptable to note the quote is from Congressional testimony. It is not acceptable to utilize a primary source (the transcript) to editorially undermine, rebut, or "recontextualize" what reliable secondary sources have said. Not even in a footnote. See one thread down. MastCell Talk 16:59, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
But it is acceptable to remove a quote taken from a secondary source that has been proven to be unreliable by reference to a primary source which contradicts the reporting in the secondary source. We should not perpetuate sloppy reporting.--Strider12 (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
It hasn't been proven "proven to be unreliable". MastCell Talk 23:44, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a few days off from Wikipedia, and am now back. I continue to view this debacle as a failure of common sense, and a failure to follow Wikipedia guidelines. I will not speculate right now about motives, although I think it is fairly clear that Mastcell does not hold me in high regard. Wikipedia rules say:

“ Primary sources that have been published by a reliable source [1] may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. For that reason, anyone—without specialist knowledge—who reads the primary source should be able to verify that the Wikipedia passage [2] agrees with the primary source. Any [3] interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. To the extent that part of an article relies on a primary source, it should: [4] only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is [5] easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make [6] no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source. (Emphasis and numbering added) ”

I have never disputed that a quote directly from a hearing report is a "primary" source; these Wikipedia rules explicitly say that primary sources [1] may be be used, when done properly. Obviously, the material currently in this Wikipedia article, and the material that I have requested to add to this Wikipedia article, [2] agree 100% with the primary source; there is no inconsistency whatsoever. Additionally, the material that I am requesting to insert into the footnote of this Wikipedia article would not be [3] interpreted by this Wikipedia article --- it would simply be presented without interpretation. The footnote would begin with a simple [4] descriptive claim that the quote is from the hearing. Links are provided so that [5] any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge can verify that the footnoted material is exactly what is in the hearing report. This Wikipedia article would make [6] no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the requested footnote.

So much for the Wikipedia rules. As for common sense, it makes no sense to say that I am trying to "undermine" anything. It is not plausible to assert that a full Koop quote "undermines" a subset of that quote.

The Surgeon General made a statement here about public health problems. Then he clarified (i.e. he said that he was not referring to other types of health problems, which are of a different magnitude). In the interest of fairness and accuracy and completeness, the clarification should very obviously be included here in this article. And as described above, not one syllable of Wikipedia policy stands in the way of being truthful and honest here.

And I am exceedingly weary of being accused of having some kind of agenda here. I am talking about allowing Dr. Koop's full answer to be presented, and I am not the one attempting to censor. If I wanted to slant this article, I would urge that the article only include his statement about "overwhelming" health effects, without the sentence about "miniscule" health effects. I urge inclusion of BOTH, and I fail to understand how inclusion of MORE information for readers somehow amounts to POV-pushing on my part. How on Earth is it wrong to give readers the links so they can go read what Koop said? If you can explain this, I will be most amazed.Ferrylodge (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't shout; consider using brevity to highlight your salient points instead. Your argument is based on the supposition that the incident you cite is the only time the word "miniscule" came up, and that you can determine the proper context based on that assumption. I cannot verify your assumption, nor can most readers, not having access to the entire 340+ pages of the hearing transcript. I strongly suspect that your presumptions are incorrect: for example, re-reading our secondary sources, I note that the Science paper reads:

As former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop testified before Congress... such responses can be overwhelming to a given individual, but the development of significant psychological problems related to abortion is "miniscule from a public health perspective."

(See PMID 2181664) The Science paper footnotes Koop's quote to page 14 of the House report. You continually cite page 241 as the "only" instance where the "miniscule" quote could have come from ([4]). It appears that either Science (along with the New York Times, New Scientist, and Washington Monthly) is wrong, or you are.
There are 3 take-home points here:
  1. Your entire argument in favor of using a primary source here was based on an apparently inaccurate summary of the transcript - thus demonstrating why it is always a bad idea to mine primary sources to try to "contextualize" or contradict what multiple reliable secondary sources have reported.
  2. For a number of reasons, including episodes like this, your credibility is not such that you can expect other editors to blindly accept your summary of a lengthy and inaccessible primary source as accurate, or as superceding multiple solid secondary sources.
  3. The Science quote actually supports including the "overwhelming" context; if you were willing to spend a fraction of your time reviewing available reliable secondary sources instead of wikilawyering over inappropriate use of primary sources to advance your viewpoint, we would all benefit. However, instead of looking for common ground and appopriate sources, we end up answering a deluge of argumentation about the letter of policy.
As to my opinion of your editing on these articles, since you raise the issue, it was perhaps best expressed by the Arbitration Committee. This episode hasn't changed my mind. MastCell Talk 19:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll make this initial brief reply. First of all, if you cannot convincingly rebut what I say without constant and relentless reference to events prior to the ArbCom decision in my case, it certainly does not make your arguments appear convincing. Secondly, I did not mean to be rude when I used bold text, but rather was mainly trying to show how the present requested footnote satisfies each of the major requirements of Wikipedia policy. I've replaced the bold face with numbering. Regarding your further comments, I'll consider them carefully, but they do not appear persuasive on a first read.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Science article suggests that Koop's quote exists and comes from a different section of his testimony than that which you've focused on. If you don't find material printed in Science to be any more convincing than that in the New York Times, New Scientist, and Washington Monthly, then I'm not sure where we can go from here. In any case, as to the actual content issue, I've edited the article to include reference to "overwhelming", as I've found this reported as context in an actual reliable secondary source. Which is all that I was requesting. MastCell Talk 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Mastcell, you've repeatedly said that either various reliable sources are wrong, or I am. What are you referring to? Where did the New York Times and/or the Washington Monthly say that Koop did not make this statement at page 241 of the hearing report to which I linked? And is there a way to access the Science article for free?[5] I spent a good deal of time searching freely available resources, and those are the types of resources that I prefer to provide in footnotes for Wikipedia readers.Ferrylodge (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, the New York Times Magazine, New Scientist, and Washington Monthly are all freely available, but you've been insisting on using a transcript which I have not been able to find freely available to "contextualize" the freely available sources. But in any case: my institution provides free access to Science. If you go to the Science website and can't access the article, then that won't work from your location. The best place to look is an academic library - they may have online access through their computers, and they'll definitely have hard copies of back issues. Many non-academic libraries carry Science as well, I think, as it's one of the 2 or 3 highest-impact scientific journals out there. MastCell Talk 22:04, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The transcript is not completely inaccessible. Two pertinent excerpts are here and here, as I've said all along. And the only context I've provided is from the mouth of the Surgeon General. I downloaded the Science article for ten dollars, whereas I obtained the hearing excerpts for free, and I find the hearing excerpts much more illuminating about Koop's answer to Congressman Weiss. I wish I could say that this whole incident has only cost me ten bucks!Ferrylodge (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mika Gissler

The article states "A government record-based study of all Finnish women found that in the year following a pregnancy outcome the rate of suicide was six times higher in women who had an abortion compared to those who gave birth." Can we get a supporting quote on that? --Phyesalis (talk) 03:55, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

You won't find it anywhere in the abstract. Strider12 just changed the raw figures into 6x. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
My original contribution was directly from the paper:
A record-based study of Finnish women found that in the year following a pregnancy outcome the rate of suicide following abortion was 34.7 per 100,000 compared to 5.9 per 100,000 for women who gave birth, 18.1 per 100,000 for women who had miscarriages, and 11.4 per 100,000 for women who had not been pregnant in the prior year. [33]
I still prefer just giving the original reported rates. Someone however removed all details and neutered it just higher. Many other sources (for example the Thorpe review article) have since published commentaries on Gissler's study descriing it 34.7 vs 5.9 as six times higher if you want me to supply some.--Strider12 (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"Little scientific controversy"

I don't think it's entirely accurate to say that there's "little scientific controversy". Aside from the ongoing production of evidence on both sides, the APA has issued a summary of the evidence and is in the process of issuing an updated summary. Those steps indicate that there is a real ongoing scientific controversy here. Contrast to the rejected idea of a link between abortion and breast cancer, or the health effects of secondhand smoke, where there is virtually no ongoing scientific controversy and a more monlithic scientific consensus. MastCell Talk 19:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Definitely some "peacocking" of the intro. It is also untrue that a "smaller number of studies" have reported correlations to negative problems. Virtually ALL studies have found 10-20% of women reporting negative problems.--Strider12 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Mastcell, the opening sentence is definitely subjective, and I think that it should be reworked. But, I also think that to include (in the first sentence esp) a claim that there is a scientific controversy would be playing more into a political tactic than having a discussion about the scientific literature or lack there of. It is akin to claiming there is a "scientific controversy around global warming." There are a few scientists who believe that global warming is not caused by humans, but the vast majority of scientists agree that it is caused by human activity. In our case, Reardon, Rue and Coleman are the "scientists" in a tiny minority.

The inclusion of the clause "little scientific controversy," is backed up in the sources I referenced, as well as in the studies we reference in the bottom half of the page. Even the Finnish study does not make a claim of causality, and is, therefore, not terribly controversial.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Koop and Congress

You are quite simply wrong here: [6]. I know you've signed on to Ferrylodge's argument that his reading of the transcripts is correct, and that of Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and Washington Monthly are all incorrect. But please see my recent comment on the talk page; Ferrylodge's claims about the transcipt are mistaken. I've found a reliable secondary source which includes the "overwhelming" quote, which is what you all should have been working on as well all of this time instead of trying to carefully parse a primary source to support you and override multiple reliable secondary sources. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Good. I think the "overwhelming" comment should be included to represent the balance of Koop's views.
Regarding the "minimal" statement, what source, equal to the transcript, have you found showing that Koop used the "minimal" phrase? I don't doubt that he thought that was probably true, but he did NOT use the phrase, and moreover since he repeatedly emphasized that even the evidence was so bad that nobody could be sure what they were talking about so even that assessment was preliminary or a "probably" view. But instead, it's being portrayed as a definitive view, which again is a distortion of Koop's views.
Secondary sources use secondary sources all the time...which is how misattributions occur all the time. Indeed, many or perhaps most of the sources you cite may not have examined the transcripts. I can easily imagine that Weiss's office put out a news release stating the Koop agreed that it was "miniscule from the public health perspective" (technically true, but misleading and not his words) and that got morphed into Koop saying it. Clearly, when question arise the best evidence is the TRANSCRIPT, which is why they are kept, and it clearly shows the phrase in someone else's mouth. We should stop perpetuating a misattribution.--Strider12 (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Which source quotes him saying "overwhelming"? There are currently four sources for one statement.Strider12 (talk) 20:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
The Science paper states that: "As former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop testified before Congress... such responses can be overwhelming to a given individual, but the development of significant psychological problems related to abortion is "miniscule from a public health perspective." It's in the discussion, next-to-last paragraph of the paper. Since at least one reliable secondary source has provided this context, I'm fine with putting it in the article. I'm not going to further pursue your claims that all of these sources (Science, New York Times Magazine, New Scientist, Washington Monthly) are mistaken, based on a reading of the transcript by you and Ferrylodge which I'm unable to verify. But since the content issue is settled, I don't think it will be productive to continue beating that particular dead horse. Let's move on. MastCell Talk 21:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify

Mastcell, please stop misrepresenting what I have said. I never said once that Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, or Washington Monthly are incorrect.[7][8] Please stop repeatedly making this assertion, because it is NOT TRUE. I simply made the eminently sensible claim that a quote from the hearing transcript will provide MORE info than is provided in those publications. I still believe that, and still believe that the quote from the hearing should be included in this Wikipedia article, because it provides further info, and because it is freely available.

Additionally, Koop's congressional "miniscule" testimony does not appear to have been quoted at page 14 of any government document. I have not looked at the Science article because I don't know how to obtain it for free. However, I have looked at Chris Mooney's book "The Republican War on Science" (which is available online). Mooney says at Page 47 of his book that Koop made the minuscule statement to stakeholder groups,[9] and then Mooney's endnotes say that this fact is found at page 14 of a committee report.[10] Thus, it appears that the congressional testimony is NOT quoted at page 14 of any committee report, contrary to what you have asserted.

In any event, I emphasize yet again that I have NEVER said that there is anything false in Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, or Washington Monthly. Why do you insist on saying I have? Does that somehow help you justify the present administrative actions that you are forcing me to endure?Ferrylodge (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, this discussion has been repeated Ad nauseam. Please stop waisting our time. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
IAA, I would be delighted if you would stop wasting your time here. Please do. Unfortunately, this matter is presently before ArbCom at the behest of Mastcell, and therefore he has considerably raised the level of this matter's importance.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Then let ArbCom decide. We don't need to rehash everything for the 4th time.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If Mastcell were not being truthful about what you said, perhaps you would not be so complacent. Mastcell has not responded once to my complaint about his misrepresentation. IAA, I would prefer if you would not rehash ANYTHING. I do not find your participation in this discussion helpful, nor do you, so why continue? That was a rhetorical question.Ferrylodge (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to belabor your accusations of untruthfulness, or the fact that I "have not responded to your accusations" in the hour since you've posted them. I had thought to disengage, since I found a source supporting the content you wanted to include. Evidently, despite the actual content issue being resolved here, you are unwilling to drop the personal dispute at hand. I will only say that your comments in this thread speak for themselves - you argued incorrectly that the quote was taken from p. 241 specifically, which would mean that all of those sources were misquoting Koop. You didn't suggest that the transcript simply "provided more info" - you made a preemptive accusation of bias, misrepresentation, and intentional contextomy which poisoned the well. That's why I reported your behavior to ArbCom as a violation of the indefinite sanctions against you. I'm not interested in any more legalistic games, hairsplitting, goalpost-moving, sentence-parsing, or revisionism. The content issue is settled - with the content you preferred, and which I find acceptable now that I've found secondary sources to support it - and I'm not going to respond any further to your attempts to keep this personalized. MastCell Talk 21:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Mastcell, you've just said that you don't intend to continue this conversation, so I'll be brief. I obviously was not criticizing you above for the fact that you "have not responded." I was explaining to IAA why it was premature to terminate the conversation, given that you had not yet responded. A bit of tolerance and understanding on your part would go a long way, pal.
And in your comment above, you said: “You argued incorrectly that the quote was taken from p. 241 specifically....” But I never said that the New Scientist quote was taken from p. 241. I said that the Washington Monthly quote (i.e. "miniscule from a public health perspective”) and the New York Times Magazine quote (i.e. “minuscule from a public-health perspective”) were taken from p. 241.
Here’s what page 241 says: “Mr. Weiss. [Y]ou refer to the psychological problem as minuscule from the public health perspective. Dr. KOOP. From a public health perspective, that is true. From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming."[11] Thus, Koop said at page 241 that the psychological problem is "minuscule from the public health perspective".
I don’t particularly like your excerpt from Science magazine. It requires a fee to access online, and it does not provide Koop’s full answer. And yes, I continue to believe that it was outrageous to exclude a quote of Koop's answer from the primary source.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:15, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't like everything printed in Science either, and I wish all journals were freely accessible to everyone, but a reliable source is a reliable source. This is Wikipedia, after all. MastCell Talk 22:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

"... requires a fee"

I'm not sure I understand why we need to underscore that accessing the full text of Science "requires a fee". Science is cited hundreds, if not thousands, of times on Wikipedia - should all of these citations include the information that full text requires subscription or institutional access? Should every one of the non-free sources cited on Wikipedia include this information in the footnote? I don't see much harm it there for now, which is why I haven't reverted it, but I'm not clear on why it's important to note in this particular context and not Wikipedia-wide. MastCell Talk 22:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

People who don't want to pay a fee can save considerable time and effort by being told up front that a fee is required. I don't know what Wikipedia policy is on this (I'll find out), but I did want to mention right away that alerting people about a fee can save a lot of time and effort. Also, it signals Wikipedia editors that they may want to substaitute an alternative source that's free, assuming hypothetically that they're aware of such a source.Ferrylodge (talk) [22:51, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Most print sources would require a fee to access or have a reproduction sent, unless you went and found them at a library or something. There's really no special need here to state this. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:06, 25 Feb 2008 (UTC)
The added note in ref 5 duplicates the footnote PMID link to the abstract and has a WP:NPOV problem because the fee note gives the study special treatment vs (ie 7 & 8) as has been discussed, WP:NOT#GUIDE might also be considered. Footnotes 7 and 8 have WP:NPOV problems however because their added notes editorialize in the footnote section. Arguments or material should be presented in the article not in the footnotes. Ward20 (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)The main point here is that I had to go hunting for the location online where I could purchase this article. If that online location had been included in the footnote (and indicated as such), then I would not have needed to waste ten minutes locating where to purchase the article.

Incidentally, if anyone's interested, there are several hundred Google hits for "subscription required" and "fee required" in Wikipedia articles.[12][13]Ferrylodge (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Then suggest <ref name="APA89">{{cite journal |author=Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE |title=Psychological responses after abortion |journal=Science |volume=248 |issue=4951 |pages=41–4 |year=1990| url=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/248/4951/41 |pmid=2181664 |doi=}}(Subscription required)</ref> to make it compatible with the examples. Ward20 (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
That would be fine with me.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2008 (UTC)