Michele Walk, Associate Editor
Ideology: Moderate Ex-Democrat | Writing From: George Washington University
If abortion were a medication, what would the listed side effects be?
Anxiety and panic disorders. Flashbacks, nightmares, and insomnia. Drug and alcohol abuse. Suicidal thoughts and actions. Decreased fertility. Emotional problems. Difficulties or inability to bond with children and future partners. Depression. Post-traumatic stress disorder. Regret.
Those are just some of the documented psychological and physical effects of having an abortion. But one would never hear any of these disturbing statistics from a supposedly “pro-women’s rights” group such as Planned Parenthood. I am a woman and strongly in favor of women’s rights. I used to consider myself pro-choice, but after discovering the horrifying effects of abortion on women, it is clear that abortion hurts women more than it helps them. Not only that, knowledge of the destructive side-effects are suppressed by pro-choice organizations, and the after effects of abortion are much graver than the pro-choice community would like us to believe. Women have the right to know about the negative consequences of abortion.
In the 1970s, abortion was presented by women’s advocates as a right and as something that would help women’s lives. Now, almost forty years after Roe vs. Wade, there is a mounting body of evidence suggests that not only does abortion hurt the baby, it often hurts the woman for years to come. There is a growing chorus of women who are speaking out about the effects of abortion. Organizations such as Silent No More, Operation Outcry and Feminists for Life provide resources for women and give them a forum to express the difficulties they have had in their lives after they had their abortions. At least half of women who have abortions regret them, and this is not to even mention the effect on men, who are beginning to tell their stories of how they “regret [their] lost fatherhood.”
But you would never hear such stories from regret from Planned Parenthood, the supposed guardian of “choice” and women’s rights. It implicitly encourages women to get abortions but skirts comprehensive discussion about the dangerous after effects. Their website scares women away from crisis pregnancy centers – clinics that provide resources for women who choose to keep their babies – and implicitly attempts to dissuade women from parenting or giving their children up for adoption by asking them if they will “be able to cope with the sense of loss that [they] may have” – but conveniently ignores the sense of loss felt by women who have abortions. And even though they present adoption as a “choice,” abortion referrals outnumber adoption referrals by 62 to 1. A young single woman unsure about keeping her pregnancy would surely be steered toward abortion after reading on the Planned Parenthood website that “many parents find it difficult to support their children” and that they will be unable to have a career, finish school, have a stable relationship, or be able to sleep if they have the baby. Planned Parenthood presents the argument that if a child isn’t conceived under absolutely perfect circumstances, it should not be born. Abortion, on the other hand, is said to bring feelings of “relief” and to carry the same risks for emotional problems as giving birth – claims that studies show simply aren’t true. And according to Planned Parenthood, any feelings of regret or depression are due to “hormonal changes” and are only temporary – but many women feel regret and emotional trauma decades after having abortion. Furthermore, we cannot forget that Planned Parenthood is, first and foremost, a business. They make over a third, or over $375 million dollars every year, of their income from abortion referrals. Planned Parenthood, instead of providing women with resources to make informed decisions about the future of their babies, instead steers them blindly into having an often-traumatizing procedure. How is that “choice”?
Instead of pressuring women to have abortions, we should instead be strengthening reproductive resources, such as access to prenatal care, mandatory paid maternity and paternity leave, comprehensive sex education that include abstinence and contraceptives, and increased awareness and support for adoption and foster care agencies. Without access to such resources, abortion can unfortunately appear to be the only “choice” for women. The current system, however, with the help of pro-abortion organizations such as Planned Parenthood, pressures women into making a “choice” that will likely scar them for the rest of their lives, and there is nothing pro-women about that. Planned Parenthood’s promotion of abortion without presenting all of the negative side effects is nothing short of deceptive and is an affront to women’s rights and health. Real choice can only happen when women have all of the facts.
In addition to being an Associate Editor of the Politicizer, Michele Walk is the Membership Director for the Colonials for Life, The George Washington University’s pro-life student organization.
It actually goes much further than this. I once read a peer-reviewed study that suggested that even women who become pregnant as a result of a rape suffer greater pschological harm if they abort the fetus than if they carry it to term and deliver the rapist’s baby.
You have to admit that if raising your rapist’s child still isn’t as hard on your emotional health as an abortion, perhaps it’s a much tougher choice than some would be willing to concede.
I personally refuse to take a position on abortion because I think the entire issue is flawed beyond belief in this country, but the clinical observations of abortion “patients” after the fact are so horrifying that I’d never wish that on anyone, and it’s absolutely mind boggling that abortion is so popular, irrespective of one’s views on whether it ought to be legal.
Tim, I absolutely agree. One study I read said that having an abortion simulated being raped (a strange, masked man inserting things and prying with a woman’s body) – even for women that hadn’t been raped. For those that had, the experience was even more traumatic. And further on that point, abortion can frequently be used to cover up cases of rape/incest/abuse.
Wow, the third rail of American politics.
The “choice” is defined incorrectly.It’s not about to have the baby or not have the baby, It’s about the right to have the procedure in safe, clean, medical facility with competent medical care for those who choose it/need it. You have had the luxury of growing up female in a post Roe world with access to medical care and lots of family planning options. Before Roe v Wade it was back alley type abortions, leading to infection, infertility, death of the woman with substandard medical care. Think coat hangers. And birth control was not that advanced beyond the pill, condoms, and contraptions that required some type of messy goop. Very romantic. oh, then there’s abstinence. (!)
One can be pro-choice and still be against abortion– all it requires is that one accept that the woman who does choose, is entitled to get appropriate medical attention.
By the way, have you spoken –first hand– to any of the women in the stats you cite? Believe me, I know lots of women that have the procedure. I have not heard one of them describe the ordeal you discuss. Regret? somewhat that it was necessary–birth control failed, inappropriate partner, whatever–. Right decision now in hindsight? maybe maybe not. Access to quality medical care–Very grateful.
Your view would send us back to coat hangers in back alleys.
My second comment to our discussion
True, that there is trauma from the procedure and afterwards. I would argue that the trauma is not much different than trauma experienced after any other life changing medical condition/procedure. HAve you compared, say the depression rate, for women who have repeated miscarriages, without abortion? or insomnia post partum (that’s a joke) or after other trauma? Trust me, it happens.
I have seen read the studies on breast cancer and have a quarrel with the stats. Just because something is statistically significant doesn’t mean its clinically significant or really relevant. (Lies, damn lies, and statistics.)
Compare the statistics on infertility, death, and increased later miscarriages with the stats for the same effect pre-Roe.
Your sample seems skewed. Have you spoken to the same sampling of women at pro-choice rallies?
The unfortunate outcome of your line of reasoning is that abortion hurts women, so lets outlaw safe and effective abortion so we don’t hurt women.
Sorry Debra, but I just don’t buy it.
Countries throughout the world have much stricter laws on who can get an abortion and for what reason, and there aren’t 13 year old girls getting closet abortions with coat hangers in the alley. This is nothing but a fear ploy to convince people that have a legitimate point (that there should be fewer abortions because it is highly correlated with bad things) that their point is entirely illegitimate because the only other option is a coat hanger in the alley.
Abortions are safer because they are legal, but the tradeoff is that they are much more popular. Additionally, whatever psychological harm may come from abortions (which can range from none to suicidal and everywhere in between) is a factor that has to be weighed in any serious, pragmatic analysis of the social consequences of any policy.
I’m not saying that anything should change or that it should stay the same. But to suggest that the current status quo or coat hangers are the only option is ridiculous. If a constitutional amendment banned abortions in the United States tomorrow, there would not be a million abortions a year in this country. There probably wouldn’t even be a hundred thousand. Yes, some truly awful things would happen to some people if the black market couldn’t take care of the ones who sought a legitimate, qualified abortion doctor. But you’re completely lying to yourself if you think that we’d have anywhere near the numbers of abortions we have without robust protection for the “right” to abort one’s fetus on demand prior to viability in this country.
We wanted available, safe, and rare. What we got was underground (because social conservatives cant stand that abortion clinics even exist), quite a bit safer, and anything but rare. Was it worth it? You decide. I have no clue. But I can honestly say that if even 20% of what the psychology literature is correct about what abortion does to women (even putting aside the physiological factors), the social consequences of abortion and the negative effects it has had on the population must be immense.
I used to think all Pro-lifers were “right wing,” whack-job, religious, fundy wing-nut men. And while the most vocal opposition to abortion might come from these people, I’m willing to bet that the largest demographic of Pro-lifers (the plurality of Americans) simply view it as an interest balancing where the fetus outweighs the other consideration.
Like I said before, I think th entire issue is screwed up in this country because the people controlling the debates are people like you with signs bearing coat hangers and red circles and cross lines in them, and the other side are fundamentalist, religious nut jobs that are trying to enforce their moral code on everyone.
I’ve never considered myself pragmatic, but this is an issue that the sides have no common ground on and no reason to budge.
“Compare the statistics on infertility, death, and increased later miscarriages with the stats for the same effect pre-Roe.”
Are you serious? Do you really want to compare these statistics from prior to 1973 to now, and claim that abortion is the causal factor that makes the biggest difference?
You’ve got to be kidding me. Let me know how many people die from bubonic plague this year compared to the 1300s, or the proportion of the world that does.
Since fewer people died in 2008 from bubonic plague than in 1340, it must be because the sky is blue. There couldn’t possibly be a world of difference in technology.
The strides made in human reproductive biology ince the Roe days are truly astonishing. The Y chromosome wasn’t even discovered until the 1950s. And it wasn’t until the 1980s that the gene on the Y chromosome that is the determinant of the male sex.
If we just discovered 20 years ago how biology makes a man into a man pre-birth, it should be obvious why women’s reproductive systems are much healthier in 2009 than they were in 1973.
I guarantee you wouldn’t have taken the birth control pills they had then, either. Yeah, they worked, but if you think modern birth control has side effects, you should see what they were giving women then.
“I have seen read the studies on breast cancer and have a quarrel with the stats. Just because something is statistically significant doesn’t mean its clinically significant or really relevant.”
This is nothing but ignorance about inferential statistics and how they are used, combined with general ignorance about the philosophy of science. While one can never guarantee that a single study has a truly random and representative sample, this is the reason why experiments must be repeatable. And while the evidence may, as of now, be inconclusive, the damage that abortion has caused to women worldwide is real and not yet fully understood.
“The unfortunate outcome of your line of reasoning is that abortion hurts women, so lets outlaw safe and effective abortion so we don’t hurt women.”
This is wrong as well. I haven’t observed anyone jumping to conclusions except you here. I have even said that I’m not taking a side. I’m merely pointing out that denying that there exist negative consequences on both sides is irresponsible.
Michele,
This is a wonderful analysis of one of America’s toughest problems.
You raise an excellent point, that even pro-choicers should be concerned about: women after abortion.
Planned Parenthood seems only concerned with the 2,000-5,000$ they get from each abortion – rather than warning a women what might be coming her way. I wouldn’t have such disdain for the organization if they treated abortions like the life-altering decision that it is, rather than just a “procedure”
Where is the counseling from PP? Where is the post-abortion support groups? Where is the outcry about women going into post-abortion depression? It’s the pro-life groups, who are against abortion in the first place, who actually end up helping those women who struggle after abortion (not all do) to get back on their feet and back to where they want to be.
Who is more pro-woman there, Debra?
Planned Parenthood, who acts like the pregnant girl simply had a band-aid put on, or the pro-life groups who, despite their opposition to abortion, continue to reach out to post-abortion women who struggle.
Tim: Don’t they teach metaphors at GW? Coat hanger is symbolic for all of the back alley methods of terminating a pregnancy before a woman could get appropriate care in a professional medical facility.. It’s not fear mongering. I remember pre Roe.
And PP does more than just abortion. How about birth control, education.
Ok, let’s get back to the assumptions, generalizations and unsupported facts in the article.
1.If abortion were a medication- what would the label say- how the clinical study was run, what was included, excluded, underlying illness: For example: Suicidal thoughts? what percentage? what percentage attributable to other causes or underlying mental illness. So, Where is the study? Where is the data, was it peer reviewed and published in a credible journal. Was one event more prevalent than other? Was it symptomatic of the procedure, preexisting, controlled for? How did the study sponsor account for subjectiveness–Regret? come on.
2. Are these “Side effects” attributable to induced abortion? What about spontaneous abortion? Did those women also feel regret? at what percentage? Depression? Did it resolve, how?
3. How do you know that planned parenthood doesn’t tell you this information, if in fact it is true? What happened to “informed consent’? They have to tell the patient all the medically known issues–based on clinical studies–if they are not telling it, in that manner, then there is most likely no credible scientific study or evidence based medicine that proves it…I could go on.
4. Mounting body of evidence that..abortion hurts the woman. (note the bias by use of hurt the baby)
What evidence? Where? Show me the studies– the breast cancer link has been completely debunked-I can send you the studies.. Hormonal induced depression? You bet your bippy-any pregnancy termination-by abortion, (induced or spontaneous) or child birth results in hormonal changes, that can include depression (perhaps we need a label on child birth? May cause depression! I had kids, I still bear the emotional scars!)
A business- of course–don’t you guys advocate capitalism?! Shouldn’t they get paid for providing safe, clean medical care?
“instead steers them blindly into having an often-traumatizing procedure” How does the author know this?
Pressure? How?
Of course, I wholly support prenatal care, maternity/paternity leave–my friends in Sweden think its great–but then they have government supported healthcare and benefits…
And finally, TIm, I did see what they were giving for birthcontol. I was there in early 1970′s, I marched for women’s right to safe abortion in a medical facility-if she chose it. I remember friends having abortions, and I remember the difficulty in getting contraception, even when married–that a husband had to agree and sign for certain forms for the wife.
Only choice: the author went to pains to argue that these wonderful prolife groups are out there just waiting to help…so PP and abortion are not the only choice.
Where is the description of the women who had abortions and were relieved to have it done, fared better than if they had not, don’t suffer depression, insomnia, etc. –are just at peace with their decision?
There are lots of reasons for induced abortion, failed birth control, rape, health of the mother, unfortunate problems with the pregnancy, yes even timing, bad relationship-it’s a decision that should be weighed (hence the 24 hr rule), but it is also private, personal for the woman inconsultation with her doctor, and performed in facility on par with any other medical issue. I think informed consent is essential, but make sure the informed is truly scientific, evidence based data that is being used, not half truths, and generalizations.
Appropriate care in a professional medical facility requires more than simply terminating the pregnancy. Therein lies the problem. You think once the fetus is gone, the problem is over.
This couldn’t be further from the truth.
You begin by denying an overwhelming body of evidence in #1. It isn’t just one study, and of course they’re peer reviewed and published by top scholars of psychology, medicine, and neuroscience. Abortion is highly destructive. If you ever met someone who can even talk about having had an abortion, this should be common knowledge. Since it’s not, I suggest that you read the literature. You’ll find it. Lots of it. And you won’t find overbroad conclusions by crazy whack jobs, either. The fact of the matter is that “choosing” to terminate one’s pregnancy is not something that women take lightly.
There is no law nor requirement for them to advise you as to anything. You pay them about $400 and they will give you an abortion.
Clinical depression and progesterone are not heavily correlated, to my knowledge.
Next you mount an attack on a three word phrase taken out of a several hundred word post. Is that really all you have? And are you really trying to claim you’re objective after you just attempted to question the credibility of studies that show emotional trauma from abortion?
“Where is the description of the women who had abortions and were relieved to have it done, fared better than if they had not, don’t suffer depression, insomnia, etc. –are just at peace with their decision?”
They’re notably absent from the empirical evidence (aka, they don’t exist). As I stated before, even rape victims, on average, regret aborting their rapists’ fetus.
If you think the 24 hour rule is a sufficient response to a life-changing decision like this one, often made by very young people, sometimes not even adults, etc., you’re even more ignorant than I thought before. Plenty of people raise their right hand and join the military. If you think they feel the exact same way after they watch their friend bleed out on the battlefield, you’ve got something coming.
You continue to make false analogies and the best you have is to try to attack the credibility of the peer reviewed journals in which these studies exist. You obviously can’t respond to the facts, so you resort to this. I have to say this is shameful fundamentalism on your part.
I think this article is among the most thoughtful I’ve ever read on the topic. Your attacks are weak at the very least.
There are a few points I feel I should clarify about this article.
I never meant to disparage women who have had abortions – ever – and I apologize if that argument could be inferred from what I wrote. This article grew out of a concern both for women who have had abortions and women in general. As someone who used to be pro-choice, I have been exposed to pro-choice arguments. In my experience, it was only talked about as a “right” and something that was universally beneficial to women. I am eternally grateful for the women like Debra who fought for increased women’s rights on all fronts in the 1960s and 1970s, without whom I would probably not have access to many of the opportunities that I, and millions of other women, are able to enjoy today. However, with regards to abortion, I feel that as the years have gone by and the potential effects of the procedure have come to light, we need to re-examine whether this is something that hurts or helps women. I do not argue that the medical abortion procedure is safer than it was pre-Roe; however, it is still far from a universally harmless procedure, as is frequently presented by pro-choice groups and Planned Parenthood.
I do not claim to know what every woman who has had an abortion feels and experiences. I have never been in that situation, nor have I personally interviewed every woman who has had an abortion, and I apologize for misunderstandings on that part. I do not argue that some women feel relieved and nothing else after having an abortion. However, it is worth pointing out that not every woman feels relieved, and has a more complicated response, psychologically, physiologically or both, to the experience. Information on such experiences, however, by nature is difficult to come by, whether it be that the woman doesn’t want to discuss her experience or the fact that the differences between correlations and causations can be difficult and potentially impossible to discern in some cases.
However, it is worth pointing out that there ARE women who have a seriously damaging experience after having an abortion. Regardless of statistics or not, the very fact that there are scores of women (see Silent No More for testimonies; Operation Outcry for affidavits) who have had negative experiences because of their abortions and were not properly prepared for such effects disproves the notion that abortion is a harmless procedure.
This article was borne out of frustration that a) women’s post-abortion wellbeing has not received its due attention and b) the pro-life community is often presented as anti-women. As I stated before, I wouldn’t have written this article if I weren’t deeply concerned about my fellow women who find themselves unsure what to do about their unwanted pregnancies. Some women feel relief, other women become depressed, etc – every woman has a different experience, but the important thing to note is not every woman is unaffected by having an abortion, as is often claimed by the pro-choice community. The only side that seems to be actively concerned about the potential for negative side effects is the pro-life side (of course this stems from their angle general anti-abortion angle, but I feel it is necessary to point out that they do also have views that can be perceived as pro-women). I am first and foremost concerned about the mental and physical health of women, and I apologize if that wasn’t properly communicated.
I closed by arguing that we need greater resources for women because that’s really the most important part. If we had greater access to and education about preventative and supportive resources, every woman would be in a better health situation. Preventing situations that could lead to abortion is, in my mind, the most important problem to tackle. The next thing to insure is that, because abortion is still a legal procedure, whatever decision the woman does make is informed by a comprehensive understanding of the effects of any decision. I go back to my main argument, that the negative effects of abortion have been largely suppressed, and that women have the right to know that there are a long list of potentially (though not necessarily automatic) life-altering after effects of having an abortion.
One final note: this debate has highlighted the generational shift that has occurred on abortion. The Baby Boomer generation is much more pro-choice than the younger (18-30) generation, and it is likely that, though we both have the health of women as one of our foremost concerns, we will never understand why the other generation perceives the issue as they do (and certainly will not in the space of a mere few paragraphs).
“One final note: this debate has highlighted the generational shift that has occurred on abortion. The Baby Boomer generation is much more pro-choice than the younger (18-30) generation, and it is likely that, though we both have the health of women as one of our foremost concerns, we will never understand why the other generation perceives the issue as they do (and certainly will not in the space of a mere few paragraphs).”
There’s a lot of reasons for that, and you’re right.
I don’t think I’m “pro-life,” however. I’m just sick of everyone acting like the termination of pregnancy (whether by miscarriage, abortion, or birth) is an easy thing, either psychologically or physiologically. It’s not.
well, I’ve been learned, but not swayed from my standpoint. I think that all facts/evidence/ etc for both sides should be presented in an unbiased way to a woman who is trying to decide to have an abortion or no. Then, once all (known) facts have been presented, allow the woman to choose which she believes would be ‘best’.
And yeah, aborting a baby isn’t like “oh gee i wonder what I’ll do-OH i know! abortion! ” It’s an incredibly difficult decision, and the after effects of that decision may or may not suck depending on the person. Abortion should be the very final option, and should not be presented right away. Giving it up for adoption might not be easy, but it’s nice to do if you can’t properly care for the baby (also, hey, it allows a family that may not be able to have kids to care for one! woo!). The only thing i worry about is abusive adoption parents and/or the care a kid/baby might receive at an orphanage.
and nothing is ever ‘right’. Never assume that for anything, because it’s just not true. everything in this world is dialectical, and there’s never any real ‘right’ answer.