Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:15, 20 February 2008

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Should we add or expand coverage of a particular aspect of abortion? It is likely that we have already done so. There was so much information on abortion that we decided to split it all into separate articles. This article is concise because we've tried to create an overview of the entire topic here by summarizing many of these more-detailed articles. The goal is to give readers the ability to pick the level of detail that best suits their needs. If you're looking for more detail, check out some of the other articles related to abortion. This article seems to be on the long side. Should we shorten it? See above. The guidelines on article length contain exceptions for articles which act as "starting points" for "broad subjects." Please see the archived discussion "Article Length." Should we include expert medical or legal advice about abortions? No. Misplaced Pages does not give legal or medical advice. Please see Misplaced Pages:Medical disclaimer and Misplaced Pages:Legal disclaimer for more information. Should we include or link to pictures of fetuses and/or the end products of abortion? No consensus. See the huge discussion on this topic in 2009 here. Consistently, there has been little support for graphic "shock images"; while images were added in 2009 the topic remains contentious, and some images have been removed. Should we include an image in the lead? No consensus. Numerous images have been proposed for the article lead. However, no image achieved consensus and the proposal that garnered a majority of support is to explicitly have no image in the lead. Should we mention the "death of the zygote/embryo/fetus/child/etc." ? No - It is not mentioned because it is well known and understood by everyone that this happens. To explicitly mention it is POV of anti-abortionists. No one believes that in an abortion procedure the embryo will be transplanted to another woman's uterus or transferred to an artificial placenta so that it can then gestate to term and be birthed. Are the terms "safe" and "safety" used correctly in this article? Yes - please see this RfC on the topic.

	Abortion was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones Date Process Result December 26, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 14, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Archives
Chronological archives
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
Topical subpages
First paragraph (active) Archives:1, 2, 3, 4, 5 To-do items (active)
Notable precedents in discussion
"Unborn"/"human" vs. "embryo"/"fetus" "Fetus" vs. "foetus" Graphic pictures, 2, 3, 4 "Death" in intro (see First paragraph & archives)

Abortion's effect on crime rates not sourced

This appears early in the article: "Aspects of this debate can include the public health impact of unsafe or illegal abortion as well as legal abortion's effect upon crime rates..." When I read this I became curious about exactly what effect legal abortion has on crime rates, but no links or sources are provided, leaving my curiosity unsatiated. Not very encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 (talk) 21:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I found the subsection later, but a link to that subsection (or better yet, its article) would be convenient.

Also, I thought the last sentence in that subsection was out of place. "Such research has been criticized by some as being utilitarian, discriminatory as to race and socioeconomic class, and as promoting eugenics as a solution to crime. Levitt states in his book Freakonomics that they are neither promoting nor negating any course of action — merely reporting data as economists.

Researchers have observed changes in heart rates and hormonal levels of newborn infants after circumcision, blood tests, and surgery — effects which were alleviated with the administration of anesthesia. Others suggest that the human experience of pain, being more than just physiological, cannot be measured in such reflexive responses."

It goes from economics, data, and studies right into fetal pain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.159.18.237 (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Needing Sources/References

I would be interested in creating the following articles: Abortion in China, Abortion in Japan, Abortion in Indonesia, Abortion in Singapore, and Abortion in Thailand. However, I need sources/references. If somebody could list some references or sources for me to use for the articles, I would gladly create the articles. Thanks! --Grrrlriot (talk) 17:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Mental Health - More Balanced Revision

Below is what I would suggest as a more balanced summary of the controversy over abortion and mental health. Due to the controversial nature of this issue, you will see that I put in multiple, independent peer reviewed sources for all of the negative effects which have been shown to be associated with abortion. The multiple sources could be included in single footnote to clean up the text.

If anyone wants to help refine it, I created a draft page here. In the meantime, I'm putting an unbalanced tag on the section in the article.

Abortion and Mental Health

The issue of abortion and mental health is very controversial. In 1989, Surgeon General C. Everett Koop reported that no definitive conclusions could be made regarding either the positive or negative mental health effects related to abortion because all available research at that time was too methodlogically flawed. A year later, a team of psycholgists with the American Psychological Association published their own review of the literature. They concluded that the "The weight of the evidence does not pose a psychological hazard for most women" but also noted that "case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion." They also noted that certain groups of women were at higher risk of experiencing negative reactions, including: "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."

In a 1992 review of research on abortion and mental health lead editor concluded that "here is now virtually no disagreement among researchers that some women experience negative psychological reactions postabortion," and that the issues of disagreement are centered on (1) how prevelant negative reactions are, (2) the severity of negative reactios, (3) determination of what level of negative reactions consitutes a public or mental health problem, and (4) how severe reactions should be classified.

In the subsequent ten years, case-control studies have found that abortion is associated with higher rates of psychiatric treatment anxiety, depression,alcohol use,, post-traumatic stress disorder, drug use,, increased requests for medical treatement and worsening of general health, suicidal thoughts completed suicides, and child maltreatment.

Self-esteem scores are not significantly affected by abortion. Students who abort an unintended pregnancy are significantly more likely to complete high school than similar classmates who choose to give birth.

It is has not been conclusively shown if the mental health problems staistically associated with abortion are directly caused by the abortion itself, by experiences associated with the unintended pregnancy, or if the abortion related experiences may only serve to aggravate, trigger, or in some manner contribute to pre-existing mental health problems. An alternative explanation is that the statistical associations between abortion and psychiatric illnesses are entirely incidental. Along these lines it has been proposed that women who already have mental problems are more likely to have unwanted pregnancies ending in abortion.Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).

Post-abortion counseling programs are offered by a wide number of peer support groups and professional counseling services. Many programs reflect a pro-choice perspective which attempt to help women deal with negative reactions while validating the choice to abort. Others reflect a pro-life perspective which includes an element of repentance for the abortion choice.

The controversy over abortion and mental health is fueled by the potential effects this issue may have on the political and judicial debate over abortion. In it's most recent ruling on abortion, Gonzales v Carhart the majority opinion indicated that abortion was "fraught with emotional consequences." The minority opinion, however, while acknowleding that "for most women, abortion is a painfully difficult decision" insisted there is no reliable evidence that women who regret their abortions suffer from "evere depression and loss of esteem."

1. Koop's Stand on Abortion's Effect Surprises Friends and Foes Alike THE NEW YORK TIMES January 11, 1989
2. Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. Psychological responses after abortion. Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.
3. Wilmoth G. Abortion, Public Health Policy, and Informed Consent Legislation. J Social Issues. 48(3):1-17 (1992).
4. ^ Reardon DC, et al, Psychiatric admissions of low income women following abortion and childbirth. CMAJ 168:1253-6, 2003.
5. Coleman PK, et al. State-funded abortions vs. deliveries: A comparison of outpatient mental health claims over five years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2002, Vol. 72, No. 1, 141-152.
6. ^ Berkeley D, Humphrey PL, Davidson C, Demands made on general practice by women before and after an abortion. JR Coll Gen Pract. 34:310-315, 1984.
7. Badgley, et.al.,Report of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law (Ottawa:Supply and Services, 1977)pp.313-321.
8. ^ Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Ridder EM, Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 47:16-25, 2006.
9. Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK. Generalized anxiety following unintended pregnancies resolved through childbirth and abortion: a cohort study of the 1995 National Survey of Family Growth. J Anxiety Disord. 2005;19(1):137-42.
10. Ellen W. Freeman et al., Emotional Distress Patterns Among Women Having First or Repeat Abortions, 55 Obstetrics & gynecology 630 (1980)
11. Cougle JR, Reardon DC, Coleman PK. Depression associated with abortion and childbirth: a long-term analysis of the NLSY cohort. Med Sci Monit. 2003 Apr;9(4):CR105-12.
12. Drower SA, Nash ES, Therapeutic abortion on psychiatric grounds. S. Afr Med J 54:604-8, 1978.
13. Reardon DC, Ney PG, Abortion and subsequent substance abuse. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse 26:61-75, 2000.
14. ^ Priscilla K. Coleman et al., History of Induced Abortion in Relation to Substance Use During Pregnancies Carried to Term, 187 Am. J. Obstetrics & Gynecology 1673 (2002);
15. Elizabeth R. Morrissey & Marc A. Schuckit, Stressful Life Events and Alcohol Problems Among Women Seen At a Detoxication Center, 39 J. Stud. Alcohol 1559, 1567, 1570 (1978);
16. Major B, Cozzarelli C, Cooper ML, Zubek J, Richards C, Wilhite M, Gramzow RH. Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2000 Aug;57(8):777-84.
17. Suliman S, Ericksen T, Labuschgne P, de Wit R, Stein DJ, Seedat S (2007). "Comparison of pain, cortisol levels, and psychological distress in women undergoing surgical termination of pregnancy under local anaesthesia versus intravenous sedation". BMC Psychiatry 7: 24.
18. Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ, Reardon DC. Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women.Med Sci Monit, 2004 10(10): SR5-16.
19. Reardon DC, Coleman PK, Cougle JR. Substance use associated with unintended pregnancy outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Am. J. Drug and Alcohol Abuse. 2004; 26(1):369 - 383.
20. Ney PG, Fung T, Wickett AR, Beaman-Dodd, Effects of pregnancy loss on women's health. Soc Sci Med 38: 1193-1200, 1994.
21. Truls Ostbye et al., Health Services Utilization After Induced Abortions In Ontario: A Comparison Between Community Clinics and Hospitals, 16 Am. J. Med. Quality 99 (2001).
22. Warren B. Miller et al., Testing a Model of the Psychological Consequences of Abortion, in The new civil war: the psychology, culture, and politics of abortion. 235, 244 (Linda J. Beckman & S. Marie Harvey eds., 1998).
23. Christopher Morgan et al., Suicides After Pregnancy: Mental Health May Deteriorate as a Direct Effect of Induced Abortion, 314 BRIT. MED. J. 902 (1997).
24. Gissler M, Hemminski E, Longuist J, Suicides after pregnancy in Finland. BMJ 313:1431-34, 1996.
25. Reardon DC, Ney PG, et al, Deaths associated pregnancy outcome; a record linkage study. Southern Med J. 96:834-41, 2002.
26. Coleman PK et al, Associations between voluntary and involuntary forms of perinatal loss and child maltreatment among low income mothers. Acta Peadiatr 94:1476-83, 2005.
27. Ney PG, Fung T, Wickett AR, Relationship between induced abortion and child abuse and neglect: four studies. Pre and Perinatal Psychology J 8:43-63, 1993.
28. The quality of caregiving environment and child development outcomes associated with maternal history of abortion using the NLSY data. J Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 2002; 43(6):743-57. Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Cougle JR.
29. M. Benedict, R. White, and P. Comely. Maternal Perinatal Risk Factors and Child Abuse, Child Abuse and Neglect, 9:217-224(1985).
30. Russo NF, Zierk KL. Abortion, childbearing, and women's wellbeing. Professional Psychol Res Pract. 1992;23:269-280.
31. Fergusson DM, Boden JM, Horwood LJ. Abortion among young women and subsequent life outcomes. Perspect Sex Reprod Health. 2007 Mar;39(1):6-12.
32. Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?, by Emily Bazelon. Published in the New York Times Magazine on January 21, 2007;
33. Gonzales v Carhart. 2006

Please see abortion and mental health page regarding Strider

Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I was highly concerned about creating a disparity between the summary section and the main article. Specifically, it is inappropriate to have content here that isn't in the main article. There is nothing mentioned of "counseling" in the main article, nor about the SCOTUS case Gonzales v. Carhart, so the last two paragraphs need to go. Also, the Wilmoth info is nowhere to be found in the main article. High school isn't mentioned anywhere. I could go on... I want to emphasize that it is not acceptable to have so much content in a summary section that is not mentioned, let alone explained in fuller detail in the main parent article. How about this as a compromise. I propose: to replace the current summary section with the lead from the current Abortion and mental health. And once there are stable changes that are made to that lead, we can always update the summary section here. That way we make sure that the content here is actually at the main article, and we avoid bypassing consensus on the main parent article.-Andrew c  23:22, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

The lead from the "main" artice on Abortion and Mental Health is totally inaccurate and biased. Reliable sources, such as the Wilmoth summary, have been consistently deleted by POV pushing editors. I'm all for including this material in the "main article," but IronAngel, MastCell, and MarginRed continue to disrupt the addition of any material that does not agree with their four preferred sources. Over the last six months the PAS / Abortion Mental Health has been, to use the words employed by the editors advocating it, "purged" of over 22 references to peer reviewed studies which document the links between abortion and mental health problems. The current distorted summary from the "main article" should not replicate or spread inaccuracies.--Strider12 (talk) 16:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

((Broken Record - again)) Strider has been working on a revision of the abortion and mental health page on his/her user page to circumvent the bothersome task of building consensus and acknowledging POV on both the abortion and mental health and David Reardon pages. Please see the talk page of the "Abortion and Mental Health" article for more information on this, and also note this conversation.----IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Strider, please consider the dispute resolution options. You may just need a RfC for more eyes on the subject, or perhaps things need to go to mediation. However, I strongly feel that we need content to be consistent across wikipedia. You can't move on to another article and try to insert content which was rejected at another forum. Who is to say that they won't simply follow you here and prevent that content from showing up here (looks like IAA is involved already). Please don't bring conflict here, but instead try to settle all disputes at the parent article first. And keep in mind your dispute resolution options. I'd be glad to discuss this further on my talk page, but I don't want to fill up more space here discussing issues you may be having with other editors on other articles. Thanks.-Andrew c  01:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your interest in consistency. But that is also a reason to tag both the main article and the summary in this overview. The main article has become totally unbalanced following the relentless purging of all peer reviewed articles and citations to experts, even pro-choice experts, whose opinions do not conform with the "deniers" POV. Literally scores of reliable peer reviewed sources I have added have also been relentlessly deleted for violating the WEIGHT which MastCell insists must define the article. Due to a policy of aggressive reverts, all editors critical of abortion, except myself. I'm not familiar with the mediation or arbitration process. But clearly it can be seen that the summary material in the article is totally out of line with the summary material and sources I have been TRYING to include. Perhaps you can recommend a pro-life oriented editor who has worked well on the abortion articles to mediate. Or have pro-lifers generally been driven out of all these pages?--Strider12 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure of individual editor's political positions. The best bet is to go for a RfC to draw in users who typically don't edit this subject matter, or likewise go for mediation (and ask for mediators who have edited abortion related topics to recuse themselves). Just read up on the WP:DR page to see and weigh your options. -Andrew c  04:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FAQ

The FAQ at the top of this talk page has info about images. Several prior discussions are linked, regarding so-called "shock" images. So, I think it is pretty well-established that there has been a consensus not to include any images here of aborted fetuses, or to even include any links to where an interested person can find such images. However, those linked discussions contain little (if any) discussion about whether it would be appropriate for the present article to include an image of an intact fetus before it is aborted. I clarified this point in the FAQ, and was reverted. Maybe such an image will someday be included in this article, and maybe not, but the linked prior discussions have not settled the point.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there a particular image you have in mind? Personally, I think the appropriate place for intact fetuses is over at fetus or pregnancy both of which are linked to from here. --Phyesalis (talk) 05:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't looking to get this argument going right now, but rather just wanted to straighten out the FAQ. As I mentioned previously at this talk page, Susan Faludi, in her book "The Undeclared War Against American Women" (1991) said: "The antiabortion iconography in the last decade featured the fetus but never the mother." In contrast, the present article now features iconography of the mother but not of the fetus, and I think this situation needs some balancing. Probably the best way to do it would be to calculate the average gestation at which women get abortions, and include an image shortly before and shortly after that point, simply to illustrate what it is that's being aborted.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, didn't we have this exact conversation already? I recall you making the exact same argument not long ago. We also had this discussion on the Fetus page where the images already exist. There is no need to also post them here in order to make a political statement. The fetus page gives us more of an opportunity to qualify the images. For example, while we show an 8 week old fetus that has the beginnings of eyes and feet, we can also inform the reader that a fetus doesn't feel pain, can't control motor function, is not sentient, etc. We also talk about the length of the fetus at 8 weeks (30 mm or 1.2 inches). In short, there is absolutely no need to duplicate the fetus images here. Fetus images here make a political statement, not a medical one.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

IAA, I am not interested in pursuing this subject with you now. I merely corrected the FAQ to reflect that this issue has not yet been definitively settled. Frankly, though you frequently accuse others of bias and politicization, I have never encourntered any editor at the abortion-related articles who is more biased and politicized than yourself, but I simply don't have sufficient time to deal with it right now.Ferrylodge (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

So sorry Ferrylodge. I completely jumped the gun in a rush to celebrate Valentine's day.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 17:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone who cares: I was recently reverted here by an editor, whom I subsequently contacted here about the FAQ.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Abortion Counseling

In List of counseling topics there is an entry for Abortion counseling that is red-lined. Was there an article? Should there be an article, or appropriate text here? Simesa (talk) 16:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

See Pregnancy options counseling.-Andrew c  04:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, you're correct that is the best article name. However, it doesn't appear anywhere in the Abortion article. How should we put it in? Simesa (talk) 22:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that under == Health considerations == we add the simple section:

=== Abortion counseling ===

{{main|Pregnancy options counseling}}

This will inevitably mean a battle and semi-protecting in that article, but I can't see ducking the issue. Simesa (talk) 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Alternatively, we could make a subheading:

== Abortion alternatives ==

{{main|Pregnancy options counseling}}

My ultimate goal is to somehow lead the reeader to alternatives such as An adoption scholarships foundation. While I take no side in the debate, that such alternatives and opportunities exist is of encyclopedic interest. Simesa (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, wikipedia shouldn't try to lead readers, per WP:NPOV. Second, I'm pretty sure that the external link you suggest wouldn't fit anywhere in this article. That said, I think an internal link to pregnancy options counseling in the see also section would be great, and even if we could come up with some prose to explain the topic a little better (no more than a paragraph I don't think), that could be placed somewhere. Though we have to keep in mind, this being the top tier article, we need to make sure our content is international. I'm only familiar with pregnancy option counseling in the states. I'm not sure of the extent of that sort of counseling in other countries. -Andrew c  02:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I do see your points; yes, the link by itself was significantly spammy even if it's a charitable organization - it was the concept that such options existed that I thought was (in conjunction with other options) encyclopedic. But let's start with the wikilink and let things grow. I'm afraid I'm not adept with prose, but how about, as a first conceptual cut, something like:

== Abortion alternatives ==

The possible alternatives to abortion center basically on four options: keeping the offspring with the mother or a close relative of hers, putting the offsping up for adoption, placing the offspring under state supervision in a setting such as a foster home or an orphanage, or the increasingly rare infanticide. The decision is also increasingly being made by the mother, often with counseling by professionals (see pregnancy options counseling) or with input and/or offers of assistance by charitable organizations or directly from couples seeking to adopt. International adoptions are now also common, although sometimes governmentally discouraged.

I didn't provide any cites for the above text, but I believe the perceptions to be correct and that they could be found. Feel free to rewrite as appropriate. Simesa (talk) 03:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that I've suggested additions regarding this to Abortion, Adoption, Crisis pregnancy center and Pregnancy options counseling. It would appear to be germane to all four. How should we approach this? Is a "Main" article called for? Do we have someone competent to write one? Simesa (talk) 11:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, that last line should be broken out into:

=== International adoptions ===

{{main|International adoption}}

Simesa (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A harmless little experiment

This article was recently edited to say the following:

This is about as biased and misleading a statement as can be, but I will not attempt to correct it. Instead, as a harmless experiment, I'll provide the full quotation from Dr. Koop, with citation, and we'll see if the people who control this article have the slightest interest in providing any neutrality whatsoever. Here's what Koop said before a few of his words were yanked out of context by the people who control this article:

Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.

As I said, I won't try to correct this article now. I'm curious to see whether anyone else will correct it, or whether they prefer it to be grossly misleading and biased in this and so many other ways. And incidentally, the cited sources do not say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Pres. Reagan; but, who cares about accuracy, right?Ferrylodge (talk) 22:23, 19 Fe bruary 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge, your penchant for the dramatic and over-stated is engaging. I don't see how Koop is misquoted here. He plainly says that from a public health perspective, negative effects of abortion are "miniscule." Koop's charge is public health - not personal health. In other words, if a woman (or even several hundred women), say she suffers from post-abortion syndrome, the job of the Surgeon general isn't to rush out and proclaim a public health emergency. Please consider the following:

• http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DE0DF163FF932A15750C0A96F948260
• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_36/ai_n6335767/pg_8
• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416951.000-reagans-officials-suppressed-research-on-abortion-.html

The job of the surgeon general is to take the best possible medical research about public health concerns and advise those who make public policy on how best to deal with public health, or, in this case, to explain to those who make policy that there is no public health crisis. It is becoming more and more the case that medical researchers understand claims about abortion on mental health are coming from Fundamentalist (Evangelical) Christian, and Roman Catholic sources. So, when Koop says, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming," essentially, what he is saying is that if you are a Fundamentalist or Catholic, you may experience anguish after an abortion - it is a confounding factor. Or if you are getting an abortion because your boyfriend broke up with you, or because he insists you get an abortion, you are probably going to be depressed. But the abortion is not the cause of the mental anguish. There is nothing in the abortion procedure that effects one's physiology or mental health negatively. Guilt is not a mental health crisis. As a result, Koop was compelled to say that negative mental health problems after abortion abortion are "minuscule from the public health perspective." More than 40% of American women will have an abortion during her lifetime. For the vast majority of these women, will not experience any stress from abortion outside of "normal life stresses."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 22:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than including pro-choice NY Times editorials in this Misplaced Pages article, and misrepresenting what those editorials say because they are not pro-choice enough to satisfy you, perhaps you might instead spend a minute finding out what the job of the Surgeon General is.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't think it was I who included the New York Times article on the "Abortion and Mental Health" page where the paragraph originated. Of note, there are two other references that say pretty much the same thing, and those aren't editorials. You may want to focus on those articles. Also, see above with regards to the charge of the Surgeon General. And if you look on the website you just provided, you will see that the the Surgeon General is charged with "public health," and nothing else is mentioned.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else is mentioned? Try the first sentence: "The Surgeon General serves as America's chief health educator by providing Americans the best scientific information available on how to improve their health and reduce the risk of illness and injury." There is nothing about "public health" in that sentence. Koop testified under oath to Congress in his official capacity that there are overwhelming psychological problems associated with abortion, even though the public health aspect of this problem is miniscule. But you only want to mention that last, miniscule part of what he said.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Attention Admins: Would you mind pointing out to IronAngelAlice that the article should not contain unsupported and unverified statements? None of the cited sources say that Koop used the word "miniscule" in any letter to Reagan. And when a speaker clarifies a statement, as Koop did here, it is dishonest to completely exclude the clarification. This little incident is symptomatic of rampant POV editing in the abortion-related articles; I may well be criticized for pointing this out, but such is Misplaced Pages. It appears to be Misplaced Pages policy for admins to look the other way.Ferrylodge (talk) 00:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't the argument you were raising. The changes you made to the article were substantive and changed the meaning of what was said. Whether Koop said what he said in a congressional committee or in a is not relevant to the over-all meaning of the sentence, and a small mistake about the setting where Koop made his claim is easily fixed without discussion. FL, you are getting a bit over-the-top here in your accusations. Let's get reasonable.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 00:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not over the top to say that when Misplaced Pages quotes a sentence which was immediately clarifed by the speaker, then Misplaced Pages should not omit the clarification. To do otherwise is dishonest. And it's also not over the top to mention that a NY Times editorial is not a neutral source. You put it into this article, not me. It's no excuse that you copied it from some other Misplaced Pages article.

You also put Koop into this article, on February 14. Copying material from other Misplaced Pages articles without checking it for accuracy is wrong, and against Misplaced Pages policy. I pointed out that the material you inserted inaccurately described a letter from Koop to Reagan, and you subsequently edited this article without bothering to correct that glaring inaccuracy. This is a replay of what has occurred at the fetus article, where you have resisted correction of even the most glaring errors. I don't intend to spend much more time at this article in the near future. There is insufficient willingness here to provide balanced, neutral, and verifiable information.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)It is also unfair, counterproductive, and against Misplaced Pages policy to edit your comments after they have already been replied to, by adding huge amounts of new material. Try inserting such material after the latest response.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Because there has been so much back-and-forth and editing conflict, I simply misplaced the paragraph on the surgeon general - which you characterized as "adding huge amount." It seems to me unproductive to be making personal attacks, and creating drama around truly tangential issues. And if that is what this "discussion" has boiled down to, I see no further reason to respond to you, FL. At least not until you can come up with substantive arguments about the topic at hand.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You should not regard it as a "personal attack" when someone asks you to comply with guidelines. "Altering a comment after it has been replied to robs the reply of its original context. It can also be confusing." Kind of like quoting a Surgeon General out of context.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have absolutely no issue with deleting the NY Times article. But that wasn't your original argument, and now you are trying to insert a bunch of claims that weren't in your original argument. If your contention is that the article should say "congressional committee" rather than a "letter to Ronald Regan" - no problem! It's been fixed. If you would like to delete the NY Times article, fine, but there are two other non-editorial references that are proper. The fact remains, you initially tried to change the meaning of the sentences about Koop's findings. However, the reliable resources don't support your claims.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

As you can easily verify, I have been objecting to use of the NY Times editorial all along. You inserted into this article in the first place, I removed it, and you restored it. Now that you have finally agreed to its removel, I will remove it again, and hopefully it will stay removed.

Regarding the incorrect description of the letter from Koop to Reagan, you also inserted that into this article. I removed it, and you restored it. I specifically objected to it at this talk page, and you edited the article without removing it. Now that you have finally corrected it, thanks.

Regarding inclusion of the rest of the Koop quote, when Misplaced Pages quotes a sentence which was immediately clarifed by the speaker, then Misplaced Pages should not omit the clarification. To do otherwise is dishonest.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your characterization of what happened is not accurate. I reverted your edits because they changed the meaning of what was being claimed. I don't care about a single NY Times article, or whether Koop said what he did in a letter or Congressional Committee. Your changes were disruptive to the meaning of the article, not just changes to honest mistakes made on the "Abortion and Mental Health" page - which, btw, is where we've collectively decided to get the text for this, the "Abortion," article.

Again, FL, if you can't form an argument around what you want this article to say using reliable resources, I think this conversation is done.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent)As I said at the beginning of this section, I want this article to include Koop's clarification, instead of cutting him off. Here's what Koop said:

Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.

This article presently excludes the last sentence. Koop said that there is an overwhelming psychological problem associated with abortion. When Misplaced Pages quotes a sentence which was immediately clarified by the speaker, it is not honest for Misplaced Pages to omit the clarification.

Evidently, you prefer the article to be grossly misleading and biased. Ferrylodge (talk) 01:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no consensus for inclusion of the misleading and out-of-context quote from C. Everett Koop. Normal Misplaced Pages guidelines would therefore not allow inclusion in this article. However, normal Misplaced Pages rules apparently do not apply at the abortion-related articles.Ferrylodge (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(repaste from above)

The job of the surgeon general is to take the best possible medical research about public health concerns and advise those who make public policy on how best to deal with public health, or, in this case, to explain to those who make policy that there is no public health crisis. It is becoming more and more the case that medical researchers understand claims about abortion on mental health are coming from Fundamentalist (Evangelical) Christian, and Roman Catholic sources. So, when Koop says, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming," essentially, what he is saying is that if you are a Fundamentalist or Catholic, you may experience anguish after an abortion - it is a confounding factor. Or if you are getting an abortion because your boyfriend broke up with you, or because he insists you get an abortion, you are probably going to be depressed. But the abortion is not the cause of the mental anguish. There is nothing in the abortion procedure that effects one's physiology or mental health negatively. Guilt is not a mental health crisis. As a result, Koop was compelled to say that negative mental health problems after abortion abortion are "minuscule from the public health perspective." More than 40% of American women will have an abortion during her lifetime. For the vast majority of these women, will not experience any stress from abortion outside of "normal life stresses."

Furthermore, the quote we use is pretty much directly from the investigative Mooney article:

• http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1316/is_10_36/ai_n6335767/pg_8

And the general information comes from this source:

• http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg12416951.000-reagans-officials-suppressed-research-on-abortion-.html

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The quote you use was immediately clarified by the speaker. You are refusing to include that clarification in this article, and you are insisting on including the truncated part without a consensus to include it. This is entirely typical of you, based on my experiences with you at the fetus article. But there's apparently some kind of policy to let you do whatever you want, so I give up.Ferrylodge (talk) 04:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I am simply making an argument for why the text says what it does. And we simply disagree - nothing more and nothing less. If a consensus is made (among more people than just you and I) to include the entire quote with no context, I would be happy to change the text myself. My objection continues to be that the main point of the paragraph concerns the causal relationship between abortion and negative mental health effects. It is clear that Koop does not believe abortion causes negative mental health effects from a public health perspective - the only perspective on which he is qualified to speak in his capacity as Attorney General. --IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not support including "the entire quote with no context." Please don't twist what I have said. The quote as it stands is out of context. The full quote is: "Mr. Weiss. 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." You have omitted the last sentence, and thus eliminated the context.

Strider12 and myself have objected to inclusion of your incomplete quotation. It seems to me that there is no consensus for you to include your truncated and out-of-context quote in the article.

I have edited the main article to include the full title of your allegedly neutral source.Ferrylodge (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The sentence we have now is, "Koop summarized his findings to a congressional committee by saying that the psychological effects were "miniscule" from a public health perspective." This is accurate, and speaks to the only thing that Koop is qualified to speak about - public health. In his position, he does not speak on behalf of individual American family members, and his later comment was an editorialization.

Also, the full title of the article which quotes Koop the same way we do is, "Research and Destroy: How the religious right promotes its own 'experts' to combat mainstream science." The article is not an editorial, and it mostly talks about David Reardon and Joel Brind. So, I'm confused - are you disputing the veracity of the facts in the article, which is published by the Washington Monthly, a reputable publication with fact checkers? Do you also object to a discussion of people like David Reardon and Joel Brind who do bend science to fit their religious agendas? Or do you simply object to the inclusion of the term "religious right" and believe that because the article identifies the religious right it is therefore POV?--IronAngelAlice (talk) 05:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IAA, why do you think that you know better than the Surgeon General what he is qualified to speak about? He testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming", and yet you refuse to let that be mentioned in this Misplaced Pages article. Do Surgeon Generals normally testify under oath about subjects that they are not qualified to speak about? You presumably believe that Koop is a reliable source on some matters, so why is he not a reliable source about what he is qualified to speak about?

In answer to your questions, I have not thus far disputed the technical accuracy of your source, I have not objected to its discussion about subjects other than Koop, and I am sure that many other articles use the term "religious right" while having an NPOV.

Now, IAA, why do you insist on including your truncated "miniscule" quote, when you do not have consensus to include it in this article? Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Misplaced Pages articles, regardless of how many people object?Ferrylodge (talk) 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FerryLodge, you write "He testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming" - actually, he did the exact opposite. He said in terms of public health, the problem is "miniscule." Most reasonable people (including the members of the particular sub committee, most of whom were pro-life, and the members of the media who were covering that committee meeting) agree that when Koop said, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, is overwhelming," he was editorializing, and not speaking from a scientific view (read further down the page at why Koop was compelled to testify in front of Congress). In short, Dr. Koop impressed upon the subcommittee that from a scientific perspective (Koop reviewed 250 studies), the public health problem is miniscule. This is why we, and many others, do not include the editorialization regarding the "personal perspective" being "overwhelming"--IronAngelAlice (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Further reading about Koop and abortion that supports the above comments:

• New York Times - Reporting from capital Hill This is not an editorial. A quote from this article:

  "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." and "There is no doubt about the fact that some people have severe psychological effects after abortion, Dr. Koop told the hearing, but anecdotes do not make good scientific material."

• Guttmacher Research Institute Quote from the article:

  Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.
  
  Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president."

• U.S. House of Representative testimony on the mental health effects of abortion The person giving the testimony quotes Koop exactly the way we do. Quote from the testimony:

  President Ronald Reagan appointed C. Everett Koop, M.D., as the Surgeon General of the United States and asked him to produce a report on the effects of abortion on women in America. Dr. Koop was known to be opposed to abortion, but he insisted upon hearing from experts on all sides of the issue. The American Psychiatric Association assigned me to present the psychiatric data to Dr. Koop. I reviewed the literature and gave my testimony. Later, I went on to publish two books and a number of articles based upon the scientific literature.
  
  Dr. Koop, though personally opposed to abortion, testified that "the psychological effects of abortion are miniscule from a public health perspective." It is the public health perspective which with we are concerned in this hearing, and Dr. Koop's conclusion still holds true today.
  
  Despite the challenges inherent in studying a medical procedure about which randomized clinical trials cannot be performed, and despite the powerful and varying effects of the social milieu on psychological state, the data from the most rigorous, objective studies are clear: abortions are not a significant cause of mental illness.

• The academic book called "Re-Thinking Abortion," quotes Koop exactly the same way we do:

  In spite of these difficulties, the majority of women do seem to 'cope' with abortion, to the point where even a US Surgeon General, who did not support liberal legislation, nevertheless testified to Congress that the problem was 'miniscule from the public health perspective' (Koop 1989:211, cited in Adler et al)"

The book goes on to make some more interesting claims

• An academic book called "Abortion: between freedom and necessity" also quotes Koop exactly the same way we do:

  "Koop reviewed more than 250 published research articles, but his conclusion came as a shock. Far from bolstering the president's anti-abortion prejudices, Koop declined to issue a report at all, saying that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data on the effects of abortion on woman." Eventually in 1989, a congressional committee compelled Koop to release his report and ordered him to testify. Koop told the committee that the problem of adverse psychological effects on women was "miniscule from the public health perspective."

--IronAngelAlice (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You continue to avoid answering a very simple question: Do you believe that you are entitled to insert whatever you like into Misplaced Pages articles, regardless of how many people object? You know that more than one editor has objected to your inclusion of the out-of-context "miniscule" quote, and yet you have refused to remove it. Why is that? You've done it time and time again in the fetus article. Is it because you're able to succeed with this steamrolling that you continue to do it? Misplaced Pages is supposed to operate according to consensus, rather than according to whatever one particular editor likes.

It seems obvious that when a Misplaced Pages article quotes a statement which is immediately thereafter clarified by the speaker, then Misplaced Pages should include the clarification. This is essential for accuracy. I personally don't have a view one way or the other about how big or small these pschological effects are. And it doesn't matter what you or I think. The goal is to provide a neutral and verifiable description. I don't make any money or have any fun working on these abortion-related articles; I volunteer because of the principle that people should get accurate information, not distorted propaganda.

Your recently added news article from the NY Times says: "Surgeon General C. Everett Koop told a Congressional hearing today that there was not enough evidence to assess the psychological effects of abortion and that an unimpeachable scientific report was not possible." Point is correct; he did tell the committee that. However, point is obviously incorrect, and is not even consistent with your bare assertion that Koop testified the public health effects were "miniscule". If he thought they were miniscule, then obviously he did believe there was enough evidence to assess psychological effects. Your cited sources thus contradict each other. Koop has complained about the news reporting about this matter, and has emphasized that point is incorrect.

You deny that Koop testified under oath that the psychological problems associated with abortion are "overwhelming." Well, here's the direct quote yet again:

Mr. Weiss. 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.

Medical and Psychological Impact of Abortion, Committee on Government Operations, United States Congress, House of Representatives, page 241 (1989). Excerpts available from Google Books here and here.

Why not let Misplaced Pages reader judges for themselves what Koop was saying, instead of you trying to spin it and truncate it? Or leave the whole thing out entirely. You don't have a consensus to insert your out-of-context quote. Does that matter at all to you?Ferrylodge (talk) 08:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

1. Family Planning and Perspectives by Nancy Adler

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Delisted good articles
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists