Changes

APA's Official News Release - [http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.html APA TASK FORCE FINDS SINGLE ABORTION NOT A THREAT TO WOMEN'S MENTAL HEALTH: Calls for Better-Designed Future Research]

APA's Official News Release - [http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.html APA TASK FORCE FINDS SINGLE ABORTION NOT A THREAT TO WOMEN'S MENTAL HEALTH: Calls for Better-Designed Future Research]

A full copy of the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion's report may be accessed at [http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.pdf this link].

A full copy of the APA Task Force on [[Mental Health]] and [[abortion|Abortion's]] report may be accessed at [http://www.apa.org/releases/abortion-report.pdf this link].

==Conclusion==

==Conclusion==

Suffice to say, there is clear evidence of bias in reporting and in keeping with the rather transparent agenda of discrediting studies showing negative effects regardless of their true methodological rigor.  

Suffice to say, there is clear evidence of bias in reporting and in keeping with the rather transparent agenda of discrediting studies showing negative effects regardless of their true methodological rigor.  

In 2005, Russo and Denious described the promotion of post-abortion syndrome as part of a campaign to develop a rationale for suing physicians who provide abortions and thus deterring the provision of legal abortion services. The authors wrote that: "There is no scientific basis for constructing (sic?) abortion as a severe physical or mental health threat," describing as "most worrisome... the publication of deeply flawed studies that contain miscoded data and meaningless findings (e.g., Reardon & Cougle, 2002) which are then used as 'evidence' that abortion is harmful to women."<ref name="JSoc2"> Russo, Denious. Journal of Social Issues. 2005  </ref>

In 2005, Russo and Denious described the promotion of post-abortion syndrome as part of a campaign to develop a rationale for suing physicians who provide abortions and thus deterring the provision of legal abortion services. The authors wrote that: "There is no scientific basis for constructing (sic?) abortion as a severe physical or mental health threat," describing as "most worrisome... the publication of deeply flawed studies that contain miscoded data and meaningless findings (e.g., Reardon & Cougle, 2002) which are then used as 'evidence' that abortion is harmful to women."<ref name="JSoc2"> Russo, Denious. Journal of Social Issues. 2005  </ref>

    

    

Reardon and Cougle have denied that their studies are flawed, miscoded, or meaningless and have accused Russo of slanting the findings of her own studies to promote a pro-abortion agenda by recoding the data to exclude women who were pressured into unwanted abortions while also adding women who had subsequent abortion into the control group, omitting mention of a 60% concealment rate, failing to describe a large body of studies, including others done by Russo, which have confirmed a persistent association between abortion and depression, and for exaggeration of the importance of satistically insignificant results.<ref>[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/331/7528/1303#120455 Study Fails to Address Our Previous Findings and Subject to Misleading Interpretations] Reardon, BMJ, Rapid Responses 2005</ref>

Reardon and Cougle have denied that their studies are flawed, miscoded, or meaningless and have accused Russo of slanting the findings of her own studies to promote a pro-abortion agenda by recoding the data to exclude women who were pressured into unwanted abortions while also adding women who had subsequent abortion into the control group, omitting mention of a 60% concealment rate, failing to describe a large body of studies, including others done by Russo, which have confirmed a persistent association between abortion and depression, and for exaggeration of the importance of statistically insignificant results.<ref>[http://www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/331/7528/1303#120455 Study Fails to Address Our Previous Findings and Subject to Misleading Interpretations] Reardon, BMJ, Rapid Responses 2005</ref>

 

 

 

<references/>

<references/>