News

New study finds that choice to abort nearly doubles the risk of mental illness

6 Comments
Unborn baby scheming about prestigious research papers
Unborn baby scheming about a new research paper

Here is the study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. (H/T Mary)

Abstract:

Background Given the methodological limitations of recently published qualitative reviews of abortion and mental health, a quantitative synthesis was deemed necessary to represent more accurately the published literature and to provide clarity to clinicians.

Aims To measure the association between abortion and indicators of adverse mental health, with subgroup effects calculated based on comparison groups (no abortion, unintended pregnancy delivered, pregnancy delivered) and particular outcomes. A secondary objective was to calculate population-attributable risk (PAR) statistics for each outcome.

Method After the application of methodologically based selection criteria and extraction rules to minimise bias, the sample comprised 22 studies, 36 measures of effect and 877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion). Random effects pooled odds ratios were computed using adjusted odds ratios from the original studies and PAR statistics were derived from the pooled odds ratios.

Results Women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81% increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10% of the incidence of mental health problems was shown to be attributable to abortion. The strongest subgroup estimates of increased risk occurred when abortion was compared with term pregnancy and when the outcomes pertained to substance use and suicidal behaviour.

Conclusions This review offers the largest quantitative estimate of mental health risks associated with abortion available in the world literature. Calling into question the conclusions from traditional reviews, the results revealed a moderate to highly increased risk of mental health problems after abortion. Consistent with the tenets of evidence-based medicine, this information should inform the delivery of abortion services.

Life News has more about the study.

Excerpt:

A new study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry by leading American researcher Dr. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University finds women who have an abortion face almost double the risk of mental health problems as women who have their baby.

Coleman’s study is based on an analysis of 22 separate studies which, in total, examine the pregnancy experiences of 877,000 women, with 163,831 women having an abortion. The study also indicated abortion accounts for one in ten of every adverse mental health issue women face as a whole.

“Results indicate quite consistently that abortion is associated with moderate to highly increased risks of psychological problems subsequent to the procedure,” the study says. “Overall, the results revealed that women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10 percent of the incidence of mental health problems were shown to be directly attributable to abortion.”

The peer-reviewed study indicated abortion was linked with a 34 percent chance of anxiety disorders, and 37 percent higher possibility of depression, a more than double risk of alcohol abuse (110 percent), a three times greater risk of marijuana use (220 percent), and 155 percent greater risk of trying to commit suicide.

When compared to unintended pregnancy delivered women had a 55% increased risk of experiencing any mental health problem.

[…]“The paper is being published in a very prestigious journal, the British Journal of Psychiatry, which is considered one of the top psychiatry journals in the world. This means the paper has been extensively scrutinized by well-respected scientists and the results of studies are trusted by practitioners throughout the world,” Coleman said.

I was always told when debating the abortion issue not to talk about the effects on women, because the studies conflict. Some women have positive reactions after an abortion (relief) and some have negative reactions (guilt). This paper tips the balance in favor of the view that abortion is harmful to women. It confirms other recent studies that showed that abortion does have a negative impact on women’s mental health.

Abortion and breast cancer

Recent studies have also confirmed that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.

Consider this article in the UK Daily Mail.

Excerpt:

An abortion can triple a woman’s risk of developing breast cancer in later life, researchers say. A team of scientists made the claim while carrying out research into how breastfeeding can protect women from developing the killer disease. While concluding that breastfeeding offered significant protection from cancer, they also noted that the highest reported risk factor in developing the disease was abortion. Other factors included the onset of the menopause and smoking. The findings, published in the journal Cancer Epidemiology, are the latest research to show a link between abortion and breast cancer. The research was carried out by scientists at the University of Colombo in Sri Lanka. It is the fourth epidemiological study to report such a link in the past 14 months, with research in China, Turkey and the U.S. showing similar conclusions.

[…]There has been an 80 per cent increase in the rate of breast cancer since 1971, when in the wake of the Abortion Act, the number of abortions rose from 18,000 to nearly 200,000 a year.

Earlier this year, Dr Louise Brinton, a senior researcher with the U.S. National Cancer Institute who did not accept the link, reversed her position to say she was now convinced abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by about 40 per cent.

Note that there were only 300 people in the new study, so it is a small study. But it confirms the Turkey study that I blogged on before, and the China study that I blogged about before, and the American study that I blogged about before.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

News

Obama administration regulations causes outsourcing of manufacturing jobs

Leave a comment

Here’s the news story.

What causes outsourcing?

Democrats cause outsourcing:

  • regulation of private companies
  • massive government spending
  • high corporate taxes
  • high income taxes
  • EPA carbon taxes
  • forced unionization
  • NLRB interference
  • interfering with bankruptcy contracts
  • massive national debt
  • legal uncertainty
  • appointing anti-business judicial activists
  • one word: CZAR

They hate businesses and that’s why we have such a high unemployment rate – double what it was under Bush in 2006.

News

Journal editor resigns after publishing paper critical of global warming

2 Comments

From Secondhand Smoke.

Excerpt:

This appears to me to be the scenario in the resignation of the editor of a journal that published a paper by warming skeptics claiming NASA measurements showed that the earth sheds more warming into space than models predicted.  From the BBC story:

The editor of a science journal has resigned after admitting that a recent paper casting doubt on man-made climate change should not have been published. The paper, by US scientists Roy Spencer and William Braswell, claimed that computer models of climate inflated projections of temperature increase. It was seized on by “sceptic” bloggers, but attacked by mainstream scientists.

Wolfgang Wagner, editor of Remote Sensing journal, says he agrees with their criticisms and is stepping down. “Peer-reviewed journals are a pillar of modern science,” he writesin a resignation note published in Remote Sensing. “Their aim is to achieve highest scientific standards by carrying out a rigorous peer review that is, as a minimum requirement, supposed to be able to identify fundamental methodological errors or false claims. “Unfortunately, as many climate researchers and engaged observers of the climate change debate pointed out in various internet discussion fora, the paper by Spencer and Braswell… is most likely problematic in both aspects and should therefore not have been published.”

Interestingly, the paper was not retracted, so I guess it still stands despite the resignation.  I mean, if the paper was really unworthy of publishing, it should be withdrawn.  Perhaps that is because the authors would sue and all the external pressure would come to light?  I’m just askin’.

Here’s what paper’s co-author, warming skeptic Roy Spencer, said about the brouhaha. From his blog:

But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal

But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate.

All of this reminds me of what happened to my friend and colleague Richard Sternberg after he published an intelligent design peer reviewed paper while an editor at the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.  Boy did “the scientists” pounce! The Smithsonian was pressured to punish him for his heresy–and even though Sternberg’s work for the Institute was not in question, he consequently came under terrible pressure, eventually resigning when it became clear that he would be allowed to do nothing useful there in the future. The U.S. Office of Special Council found that Sternberg was indeed punished politically. Read the whole letter.  It reveals vividly how politicized science destroys those whom it disdains for giving safe harbor to dissidents.

Global warming and Darwinism research seem to operate more like an academic theocracy, in which the twin religions of socialism and naturalism are protected from scientific inquiry by ensuring that dissenters are publicly shamed and excommunicated by a religious Inquisition.

See my previous post on the recent CERN research that two significant causes of global warming are related to humans. This should be obvious because of the Medieval Warming Period and the global warming on Mars which coincides with the warming cycles on Earth. But just think of all the taxpayer money that’s been wasted propping up these ideologies.