Abortion Contributes to Mental Health Problems

1. Abortion Contributes to Mental Health Problems

2. Springfield, IL (October 31, 2018) – Both pro-choice and pro-life researchers agree that abortion contributes to mental health problems, at least for some women, according to a new comprehensive review of more than 200 medical studies on abortion and mental health. There is no disagreement over the fact that abortion may trigger, worsen, or exacerbate mental health problems, but rather the main controversy is over whether abortion is ever the sole cause of severe mental illnesses, according to David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute and author of the review published in Sage Open Medicine. Additional conflicts arise over how known facts are best interpreted and over the definition of key terms. The review of abortion and mental health (AMH) issues identifies twelve findings around which researchers on both sides of the debate agree. These include:

3. Abortion contributes to mental health problems in some women. There is insufficient evidence to prove that abortion is the sole cause of the higher rates of mental illness associated with abortion. The majority of women do not have mental illness following abortion. A significant minority of women do have mental illness following abortion. There is substantial evidence that abortion contributes to the onset, intensity, and/or duration of mental illness. There is a dose effect, wherein exposure to multiple abortions is associated with higher rates of mental health problems. There is no evidence that abortion can resolve or improve mental health. Risk factors exist that identify women at higher risk. A history of abortion can be used to identify women at higher risk of mental health issues who may benefit from referrals for additional counseling. No single study design can adequately address and control for and address all the complex issues that may be related to the AMH issues.

4. Beyond these points of consensus, there is ongoing controversy over the definition of terms, differences in emphasis, and political objectives between what Reardon describes as AMH proponents and AMH minimalists.  AMH proponents tend to interpret the data in ways that emphasize the need for better screening and counseling of women seeking abortions, whereas AMH minimalists generally oppose any change in abortion services as an unnecessary burden on women’s “right to choose.”