In addition to my work in sexual identity issues, I am quite interested in policy relating to the psychological reactions of women who have had abortions.
I have observed over the past several years that women who associate their abortion with mental health distress have approached the American Psychological Association with their concerns and stories. I blogged about an effort like this in 2007. Briefly, the letter sent by advocacy group, Silent No More, offered to put APA researchers in touch with women who had adverse reactions and asked for a meeting with the APA to discuss means of helping women with post-abortion problems. Georgette informed me that 600 women signed the letter. However, Georgette’s group received no response from the APA.
Another group, Lumina: Hope and Healing After Abortion, led by Theresa Bonopartis, sent a letter to each member of the Mental Health and Abortion Task Force requesting the opportunity to provide information about post-abortion reactions. She also received no response.
Contrast the reaction of the APA to women who believe abortion has triggered harm with the APA reaction to clients who report harm as a result of participation in reparative therapy and/or ex-gay ministries. The APAs (both the psychiatric and psychological groups) have been quite responsive to them, crafting advisories and almost banning reparative therapy in advance of publications systematically demonstrating harm. The major study of adverse reactions by Ariel Shidlo and Michael Shroeder took 5 years to solicit nearly 200 reports of various types of harm. In addition to this study, groups representing glbt people have met with and requested assistance from the APA to oppose reparative therapies.
Before I go on, I need to say that I am in favor of the APA taking seriously client concerns regarding reparative therapy and ex-gay ministries. I have been a persistent critic of reparative approaches as a general response to same-sex attraction. Further, I have consistently acknowledged that harm has been done by various methods to attempt sexual reorientation. The APA should vigorously pursue concerns about client welfare which are presented by clients and their advocates. Due respect should be shown to those who seek such services and ministries, but nonetheless, reports of adverse reactions should be addressed and investigated.
Having noted the appropriateness of the professional groups to attend to reports of adverse psychological reactions, I ask why the APA has not responded to the reports of adverse psychological reactions to abortion? These reports are common and compelling. Many more studies have found adverse reactions associated with abortion than have found such negative reactions to reparative therapy. I recognize that abortion is a much more common procedure than is reparative therapy but this fact should prompt an energetic response. In this context and speaking about APA conclusions about abortion and adverse reactions, I want to quote again a provocative question (see letter #2) from Bill Samuel, President of Consistent Life to APA president Alan Kazdin:
Is there any other phenomenon where the conclusion is based on those who do not have problems rather than on the therapeutic needs of those who do?
I might be misinformed, and in fact have an email in to the APA to check this, but I can find no indication that the APA has met with or responded directly to groups representing women who experienced adverse psychological reactions they attribute to abortion.
Now for some discussion. Am I missing something here? Is there something so different about these adverse reactions that could explain the differential response? At this point, I am thinking out loud…
Ann,
I will repeat myself – I’ve read your posts, and I cannot piece together what you think from all the different messages. I’ve got some idea, but I’d love it if you could nutshell your thoughts for me. State exactly how you view this issue in one post. If you don’t have the time I understand and we can let this issue between us go.
Jayhuck,
If you read my posts, you will know my thoughts on the subject of this thread.
Ann,
My point didn’t have anything to do with a specific quote of yours – although your statements where you said you weren’t a statistician BUT…. and where you started off, For some… come close to this. The point wasn’t about YOU specifically Ann.
You haven’t answered my question. I’m simply curious to know how you specifically feel about this issue and about the women involved. I think you and I probably share more viewpoints in common then you realize, but I’d still like to know how you feel instead of trying to piece together what you think from going back and reading so many different posts.
Please refer me to which post I have said anything close to this about all or most women. I have said just the opposite – some women do feel emotional suffering while others do not.
My point also still stands – neither YOU nor I can know how ALL, or even MOST WOMEN who’ve had abortions feel about this issue, or how they experience depression. That is not an argument against you, it is a statement of fact.
Ann,
By the same token, please don’t suggest things about me that aren’t true!
I’m curious – since I have read all of your old posts and I still seem to be missing your point, could you please nutshell your point for me. What are you trying to say regarding this issue. Perhaps we can clear this up quickly 🙂
Jayhuck,
Please read the posts I asked you to and you will see that your above statement has no merit regarding the assumptions you say I am making. I am asking you again not to say things about me that are untrue.
Unwanted SSAs – however – IS a different animal however. Ken is right on that point.
Ann,
If you had read some of MY posts above, you would see that I am most definitely a proponent of women getting the post-abortion therapy they need, when they need it.
Ann,
I’m not assuming anything – it is you that seems to be making assumptions. I’m not trying to attack you Ann, I’m pointing out a fact – that we do NOT know how ALL women feel regarding their depressive feelings surrounding abortion. I do know a few women who have had abortions and I am MORE than willing to listen to them and to others and to find out how they feel. By the same token, please don’t make assumptions about me or put words into my mouth.
Jayhuck,
Please stop all the assumptions about me – they are incorrect and I have told you so – please stop as you are now being redundant and attacking me instead of the subject. Uncool and unnecessary.
Many woman suffer in silence from the decision to abort their baby, many women suffer from post partum depression, many people suffer with the emotional scars from war – all of these things and the people involved have kept silent for far too long. In creating awareness of these specific conditions, including unwanted SSA, hopefully, targeted treatment can be provided to them. Unless you have walked in their shoes or want to listen to their stories and try to understand them, then it is best not to assume the vailidity of how they feel or whether they should be provided the acknowledgement they need to get the treatment they deserve.
Ann – for the record – I can’t say that there aren’t women who fit your descriptions though. In fact, I’m fairly certain there are
For some, the emotional pain that wells up before the abortion is excruciating, for others there is no emotional pain before but it kicks in afterward and is intense and enduring and rarely shared with anyone, for others there is no real thought put into the decision except to get it done immediately and then afterwards it is considered a relief that is soon never thought of again, and if so, with indifference.
Absolutely Ann – although its still misleading and belies your own beliefs to say that those who don’t put any thought into it are the only ones for whom the procedure is a relief – or that only those who think about it suffer from depression. Again, that’s not what you specifically said, but you seem to be suggesting it in the quote above.
Ann,
Sorry about that last response – it sounds a bit harsh. I wasn’t trying to be harsh, rather to make a point – that you seem to have some very passionate feelings regarding abortion – most people do. We can’t, however, know how all the women who experience depression from this “procedure” really feel, or why they feel it, or the extent to which they feel it.
Jayhuck,
Please read #’s 11720, 117482, 117555, 117865, 117867, 117872, 117905, 118821 before writing me something like you just did.
Ann,
She has an insurmountable sense of guilt that seems like it will never be lifted. At times the tears come without relief when thinking that a different decision could have been made if only she knew what she knows now. To equate that with an unwanted pregnancy is unconscionable.
This quote and your others seem to suggest more about YOUR personal views on abortion then they do about women who MAY be depressed because they had an abortion. I agree that women should definitely have post-abortion therapy made available to them – and I fully realize you didn’t suggest this, but not all women ARE depressed after having abortions, and I’m fairly certain not all of them experience their own depression in exactly the same way – I’m betting there is a spectrum of depressive feelings regarding this issue, so describing these women as you did above, as if they all feel the same way or the same things is a bit misleading. How in the world do YOU know that ALL women experience the depression resulting from abortion in a way that is entirely distinct from the depression or level of depression one might have from an unwanted pregnancy – the fact is, you don’t.
Ken,
We are not even reading the same book, let alone being on the same page. I tried my best to explain to you something that you will never experience so you could understand it and you have chosen to meet it with indifference – therein lies the problem of how so many of these women feel – you just gave us a front and center view of it. Your insensitivity is staggering.
Ann asked in post 119677:
o you think he deserves to have this very real condition acknowledged and be treated theraputically for it or do you feel it is invalid and should be ignored?
no his condition shouldn’t be ignored, nor should that of anyone else who is suffering psychologically, including women suffering due to an unwanted pregnancy or the loss of a child (and I don’t mean an embryo or a fetus). And these people should receive therapy if they want. However, I don’t believe that every distinct case of psychological distress requires a unique diagnostic category. And so far, my opinion of those claiming that distress due to an abortion does require a new category are doing so more for political reasons than from a desire to help those women.
Ann said in post 119671 :
Like many of those seeking counselingtherapy for unwanted same gender attractions, women who suffer emotional distress from abortions want this condition acknowledged and treated.
First off, lets address the same gender attractions. Treatment for unwanted same gender attractions is not the same thing as treatment for emotional distress about unwanted same gender attractions. The 1st case includes highly controversial treatments of questionable efficacy. The 2nd case would be a treatment program for dealing with emotional distress (and its negative effects: depression, suicidal or harmful behaviours etc) and would draw on well-known and accepted treatment plans for dealing with emotional distress.
Now as to your claims about abortion, there is not sufficient scientific evidence to show that women who suffer depression after an abortion are significantly different than women suffering from depression for other reasons (ex. an unwanted pregnancy, the death of a loved one, etc), let alone enough evidence to warrant a distinct, new illness classification. To be clear, I am not saying all forms of depression are the same and that they should all be treated the same way. However, not every distinct cause of depression requires a completely separate diagnostic classification. And from the abstract (I haven’t been able to access the full study), even the Pedersen study Warren cited doesn’t seem to separate out women who had an abortion from women who had an unwanted pregnancy.
Ken,
I don’t know any way to finesse this to make it sound better – the difference between women who suffer from choosing an abortion and suffering from an unwanted pregnancy is this – one has to live the rest of her life knowing she ended the life of a living, innocent child who’s heart was beating and with her decision, that heart stopped beating. For the rest of her life, and, many times silently, her own heart feels like it is going to break when she thinks about the regret and remorse. She has an insurmountable sense of guilt that seems like it will never be lifted. At times the tears come without relief when thinking that a different decision could have been made if only she knew what she knows now. To equate that with an unwanted pregnancy is unconscionable. In one scenario, no one has to live with the knowledge they ended a life, the other scenario one does. Try to think of men who go to war – some come back ok, others do not. The ones who are emotionally scarred are usually those who have killed others and no matter how justifiable it might have been – they still suffer because of it. Often this kicks in many, many years later. Others who have had the same experience do not suffer as much because the experience has not affected them in the same way. In either case going to war was not a good experience, however, one soldier’s life has been adversly affected far more than the other soldier. He might need counseling/therapy to help him cope with what he has and continues to experience in the aftermath of war. Those who have not had the same feelings might not understand or view it as too unpleasant to think about. Do you think he deserves to have this very real condition acknowledged and be treated theraputically for it or do you feel it is invalid and should be ignored?
Like many of those seeking counselingtherapy for unwanted same gender attractions, women who suffer emotional distress from abortions want this condition acknowledged and treated. For those who cannot relate – try to respect another person’s reality even if you do not understand it. You might want/need them to respect you at another time when they do not understand what you are experiencing.
Health professional should provide post-abortion counseling for those women who feel they need it? Were you thinking that health professionals should do something else Warren?
Vicki said in post
For 25 years I have provided care to women struggling after abortions.
An interesting choice of words here, you said “after abortions” rather than “because of abortions”. Yet, the rest of your argument implies the problems are cause by abortions.
Further you said:
In Japan there have been mourning ceremonies for those involved in abortion since the 1950s. This predates any sort of outreach in the US by 30 years.
I’m not sure what sort of “outreach” you are referring to, but the US was significantly involved with Japan since the 1940s, when it rebuilt the nation after WWII.
we use the figure of 40 million abortions since 1973 and we assume only 1% to be troubled, that would be 400,000 women. That number would deserve attention in my opinion. If we push the number to 10%, that would mean 4 million women have some sort of reaction.
What specifically do you mean by “some sort of reaction”? And you believe these reactions (of all 4 Million you cite, not a significantly smaller sub-set) are on par with the problems faced by those with breast cancer, lung cancer, HIV, etc?
From a Jan. 2007 NYT article (I haven’t had the chance to find the original research, so this info. may not be completely reliable):
Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome?
Now, I would agree there may problems that are specific to women who had an abortions rather than women who had an unwanted pregnancy. However, why is it everyone here only seems to want to focus on the women who had an abortion. Don’t the other women who had unwanted pregnancies deserve the same concern?
I think it is ironic that once again the voices of women can not be heard because perhaps it is not politically expedient to let them speak the truth of their experience.
How are these women’s voices being prevented from being heard? What is stopping them from speaking?
Friends,
I read this with great interest. For 25 years I have provided care to women struggling after abortions. I have spoken to thousands of women who have contacted me seeking assistance with their discomfort. I can not dismiss what I have seen first hand! I personally do not like the language of post-abortion syndrome that raises hackles. I prefer to speak about abortion’s aftermath. There are always consequences to decisions we make. What may have made sense when we are 20 or 30 may change it’s meaning as the circumstances of our life change.
The first people who wrote about this seriously many years ago were the experts in grief, who recognized this for what it is, a disenfranchised grief issue that involves prenatal loss. (Doka, Peppers, Worden, Rando, Sanders, Gray, Lasance, and Woods). It seems that it is part of the journey of the human female that we may revisit our biological childbearing history at various times in our life. There is fascinating research that indicates that mothers carry cells from every child they conceive the rest of their lives. This is called human microchimerism. It is feasible then that on a biological level the woman may not be able to forget what happened. This is science that most people do not seem to know anything about. For a comprehensive article on this phenomena, see Scientific American, Feb. 2008.
When we get into the issue of whether the pro-life movement or Christians induce guilt in women, I believe we need a broader perspective. In Japan there have been mourning ceremonies for those involved in abortion since the 1950s. This predates any sort of outreach in the US by 30 years.This is hardly a Christian country nor was there an active pro-life movement in those times. In Taiwan, there are “baby spirit” programs to appease the souls of those children who were aborted and can not move on in the process of reincarnation and now cause mischief within their families. The types of mischief are the same sorts of experiences that women here report. Both countries seemed to realize that there were possible consequences to the choice to have an abortion and responded.( Book resources:The Haunting Fetus: Abortion, Sexuality and The Spirit World in Japan by Musckovitz, Liquid Life; Abortion and Buddhism in Japan by Lafleur and Marketing the Menacing Fetus in Japan by Hardacre.) I have had the opportunity to travel the world, speaking about the aftermath of abortion in the context of grief and I have found women in every culture who struggle. These are women who have been forced by governmental policies and women who live in countries where abortion is readily available and has been for many years. The women have shared with me multitudes of reasons for having abortions and yet they explain the same sort of reactions to me. They can be severe and border on psychiatric and yes, often these are women with multitudes of wounds and tragedies in their lives. Most however, are in a continuum from mild to severe. Would I say all women struggle? I would have to say I don’t know, but I do know that it can come up at different life points and for some , it does not arise until old age.
We in the US, view abortion as a political hot potato. It is closely allied with so many facets of women’s liberation and social change that I believe we steer away from the hard questions of what about those women who suffer afterwards? If only one to 10% of women who have had abortions have a problem as some people suggest, we need to recognize that having had more than 40 million abortions occur since it was legalized–and let me point out, that abortions have occurred since time immemorial–that being the reason that the original Hippocratic Oath forbad physicians from performing them, we would have a sizeable number of women with a problem. If we use the figure of 40 million abortions since 1973 and we assume only 1% to be troubled, that would be 400,000 women. That number would deserve attention in my opinion. If we push the number to 10%, that would mean 4 million women have some sort of reaction. That is a very large number. To do a comparison, one HIV-AIDS site says that 1,014,797 cases have been diagnosed in the U.S. (The new guidelines will change that number.) The number of new cases of breast cancer diagnosed in the US in 2008 was 182,460. The total number of cases of Scleroderma in the US is estimated to be between 40,000 and 165,000. However, I use these figures just as a comparison points. That many people with one disorder are considered a health crisis needing attention and deserving of real research.
What are we afraid of? If we think that women who struggle after abortion being heard and recognized is going to change the law of the land, I think we are mistaken. The reality of lung cancer has not removed tobacco from the market place, though there are warnings.
I think it is ironic that once again the voices of women can not be heard because perhaps it is not politically expedient to let them speak the truth of their experience. That is very sad!
John,
What does false guilt mean and who does it apply to? Why wouldn’t a woman feel natural guilt for having an abortion if that is what her conscience tells her? The abortionists will feel however they feel about their part in ending a life but that is very independent of the woman’s feelings about the procedure.
Thanks David. And after reading Ann’s posts, I agree I was too simplistic, though I am still concerned about the religious right imposing false guilt on some of these women. To me, it is the abortionists who should feel guilty, not the women who undergo the procedure.
John
David,
Well said – thank you!
John,
You are clearly a thoughtful man.
I would like to note that psychodynamic theory has always been an evolving theory and so to tie it to Freud, overlooks many great minds and theorists who have supplemented the theory. In it’s current form I believe it is the most practiced theoretical orientation by therapists (citation?).
Psychodynamic theory has always held that their are biological and developmental components to mental illness.
Therapist who work with clients with unwanted SSA are sometimes psychodynamic, interpersonal, behavioral, cognitive behavioral, RET and so on.
In my brief time at Narth I tried to introduce intersubjective analysis to SSA, I think it has some merit.
Regarding your Assertion about Guilt and Distress about Abortion and SSA:
You are assuming that a great majority of guilt is externally driven and religiously created….
I think that is much too simplistic. It is even more simple than the Reparative Therapy model which tries to explain SSA.
Moral development and moral training are complex phenomenon. Guilt is both neurotic and existential. Intrinsically we are moral creatures. As such we have created institutions to train us in moral development.
I suspect that there is a maternal instinct that comes into play in at least some women. We’ve all heard stories of women who intended to give up their child for adoption only to find that they couldn’t.
Of course the tales of women leaving their infants in trash bins suggests that this is not a universal experience.
And, to some extent, the objection to abortion is cultural and religious.
I’m sure everyone knows that in some cultures it was normal to leave an unwanted child exposed to the elements to die. This wasn’t considered inhumane or peculiar but rather a pragmatic approach to an unwanted (by the father) pregnancy. Interestingly, this practice seems to have been around during the writings of the Epistles and yet didn’t warrent mention.
I suspect that more than one factor is at play in the feelings of post-abortion women.
John,
This is underestimating an individual’s ability to have a conscience and think on their own and listen to that small, still voice. Please do not discout them. Yes, religious institutions have a lot to do with how people make decisions and how they feel but others have feelings and make decisions independent of these institutions and they deserve the right to be acknowledged as well. When you say no one bothers to ask why – that is an untrue statement – most do not ask, they assume, however, some do ask and know and can write accurately about it.
John,
Respectfully, you are incorrect.
I do not believe religious guilt is involved in every case.
Dr. Throckmorton,
It isn’t and that is a fact.
Warren,
One need not be religious to be affected by how religious thought has shaped Western culture. I am not religious, yet I carry enormous guilt for not conforming to that culture. I am sure that with many, though not all, of these women, the same applies.
PS – John, you also addressed the guilt issue. Again read the testimonies of these women. Some were not at all religious and still felt loss and depression. I do not believe religious guilt is involved in every case.
@John Weaver: As for why women get abortions, I am quite sure social pressure is behind some of it. However, I urge readers to consider the stories of women who have had abortions to get an idea of what their lives were and are like.
This debate also reminds me of the classic argument about why we should allow reparative therapy to happen. “Because many gays are unhappy being gay”. No one bothers to ask the question why they are unhappy being so. If they did, the obvious answer would be because religious instiutitions are telling gays (and women who are having abortions) that their actions are wrong.
Respectfully, I disagree, Ann. The women who feel guilty about their abortions, I believe, feel that way primarily because of religious strictures telling them such acts are wrong. And I’m sorry, but abortion is much more than a matter of simple inconvenience. That’s simply pro-life propaganda. While many women do abort for silly or insufficently reasoned principles, many women do so simply out of a matter of economic neccesity. Furthermore, it isn’t surprising that many poor women keep their children, since socio-class analysis has tended to support that many working class women are deeply religious, and thus would feel deep repugnance at aborting a child. I’m a pro-lifer, but I think pro-lifers do a disservice to the movement when they act like there aren’t often very real economic, personal, and mental health issues that may lead a women to seek an abortion. I remember watching a former head of NARAL on CSPAN tell how she had to get an illegal abortion because she wouldn’t have enough money to feed the child she had in the womb. And it is inconsistent for the pro-life movement to claim it cares about abortions in working class areas, and then support the neo-con economic policies that sometimes make these abortions feel like a neccesity to women. Obviously, many socially conservative organizations do care for the working class, but they do so through a laissez faire capitalist viewpoint of charity and government’s relationship to the welfare system. That’s why the pro-life movement is never going to have much success until it starts acknowledging the fundamental social inequities in our country. These inequities are certainly not the cause for all abortions, but they cause enough abortions for the left to be justly reticent about the supposed “principled” economic conservatism of the religious right.
All that being said, I’d stilll like to see abortion outlawed, but without the kind of S.D. brainlessness and lack of compassion that has characterized the religous right in recent years.
John,
Shouldn’t this be an individual issue and not a collective one? I sincerely doubt, IMHO, that social pressure is as strong as a women’s desire not to be inconvenienced by an unwanted pregnancy as to why they have an abortion. In the best of circumstances, women have abortions if they do not want to be pregnant, give birth, or become a parent. Conversely, women in the worst of circumstances chose to continue the life of their pre-born child based on their personal morals and beliefs. Two completely different ways of thinking.
Please understand, I am not saying repartive therapy and biblical counseling are the same, just that they are similar.
Dr. Wilson also suggested to me that there is greater “sexual pliability” among women than men, which is why evolutionary biologists have had an easier time explaining committed lesbian relationships than they have had explaining male homosexual relationships. But that does not mean, of course, that there aren’t potential biological causes for male homosexuality as well.
I don’t know enough about Kinsey to say what the effects of his studies were, but I seriously doubt they can be worse than Cameron’s, which stopped little short of calling for scarlet A’s to be implanted on to gays who happened to have AIDS. And I doubt that Kinsey, however bad a human being he was, was as bad a one as Cameron.
Warren,
I think pro-choice people could legitmately argue that mental health problems caused by abortion are really actually caused by social pressure to see abortion as wrong. Thus, what you suggest would only compound the problem, if abortion is not actually a moral wrong. I personally am pro-life, but I could see how they could make such an argument.
David,
I agree that Warren’s therapeutic regimen is not the same as reparative therapy. While I do not personally approve his form of therapy either, I would stipulate that there is a difference. As for religious vs. non-religious reparative therapy, I think it must be pointed out that from the evidence we have, reparative therapy is primarily supported by religious organizations, and even groups like NARTH are substatnially involved in reparative therapy. Furthermore, the psychodynamic model from which reparative therapists borrow is more than forty years out of date . . . and for me personally, psychodynamicFreudian therapy has always been a little bit religious in and of itself, by nature of the heavily metaphorical terms Freud inappropriately injected into psychodynamic therapy to begin with. I’m not saying Freudian-derived therapy never works, nor am I saying Freud himself was religious (a big error), but I do find it suspect that evangelicals borrow from what is probably the least scientifically oriented of the major psychological schools of thought (with the possible exception of Rogerian therapy). Whatever the flaws of behavioral-cogntive and evolutionary psychology, both theories are at least amenable to scientific critique. A psychodynamic theory of reparative therapy – unless things have changed since the days of Moberly and company – relies on questionable assertions about over-domineering mothers and distant fathers . . . terms that as you must realize, are not really scientifically quantifiable. I have a DVD from Exodus of Dr. Harren (I forget her first name), from only a few years ago, that relies on this same kind of critique. Indeed, what makes Warren’s therapeutic method better than reparative therapy (although still unattractive to me) is that it emphasizes making one’s values conform to their religious beliefs, which is honestly all that reparative therapy is interested in doing, but Warren is more honest in his depiction of his therapeutic regimen, and more realistic about its potential for success. As it stands now, reparative therapy is intwined with the most pseudo-scientific of the major psychological models, and therefore will make anyone deeply suspicious, even current psychodynamic thinkers, who after all have updated Freud considerably from the forty year old material Moberly was using to make her case. I’m not surprised the APA did not try to conduct a study of reparative therapy, since it would be almost impossible for that organization to get an honest sampling from groups like Exodus.
Yes – then an accurate assessment can be made and I think it would arrest some of the assumptions that have heretofor been counted as knowledge.
How can this be ethical, let alone have accurate information?
Ken,
The only comparison I can see is how the people experiencing it, perceive it. For instance, it is astounding and sobering to realize how differently women can feel about their decisions to have an abortion. For some, the emotional pain that wells up before the abortion is excruciating, for others there is no emotional pain before but it kicks in afterward and is intense and enduring and rarely shared with anyone, for others there is no real thought put into the decision except to get it done immediately and then afterwards it is considered a relief that is soon never thought of again, and if so, with indifference.
I believe many people who struggle daily with their same gender attractions and desires can have some of the same moral dilemmas about what to do with the circumstances they have. Other people in the same set of circumstances experience less of a struggle and less of a moral dilemma. I do not know what is the foundation for either set of feelings – I just know it is there.
The women who suffer from post abortion emotional pain can tell a very real and intense version of this issue and have been silent for too long. They live with unspoken regret that affects them in ways that are immeasurable. Those who do not feel the same way find it difficult to believe but it is true. The same for those who do not struggle with their same gender attractions and desires – it might be difficult understand the very real pain and moral struggle that is felt daily by those who do.
In either scenario, I hope the APA can provide ethical therapy to those who want it.
Nice to see David Blakesee admit this: “We are all responsible for both the dearth of research on change and the poor quality of it.”
NARTH, especially, has been guilty of this on the “reparative therapy” side of the debate. NARTH accepts theories as facts, associates with very questionable “experts” and researchers like Cameron, Schoenewolf, Berger, etc — and then whines that the APA won’t give them any respect as a “scientific” organization. Come on. What do they expect? And what does any “researcher” who associates with them expect?
They have to separate their prejudice, presumptions and relgious bias from their “science” if they ever hope to be thought of as legit “scientists”. Until then, the APA is right to slam the door in their face.
Timothy is right on when he observes: “The best study of reparative therapy (through religious efforts, at least) revealed that they are almost universally unsuccessful at changing orientation (as based on attractions, not identity). Behavior change? Yes, Lifestyle change? Sure. “Identity” change, I guess. But gays losing their exclusive homosexual attractions in place of totally heterosexual ones? Maybe — and maybe Bigfoot exists, too.
Ann,
Exactly. It seems a woman who feels forced to have a secret abortion would experience more adverse psychological effects from influences outside of the medical procedure itself. So, I’m not sure how a study of abortions would differentiate between psychological harm caused by the procedure and harm caused by other influences.
Warren said in post 117543:
Ken – You write as if the consequences of pregnancy and miscarriage a matter of equal controversy or dispute. We both know this is not so.
I did no such thing. What I did was point out that the psychological consequences of abortion is much more closely related to those of pregnancy than to those of reparative therapy and that your attempt to compare abortion and reparative therapy was inappropriate.
The APA should meet with representatives of women’s groups made of those who believe abortion created a mental health problem for them. These groups would like to see their experience validated and their pain count for something.
Really, the impression I am getting (and I suspect the APA as well) is that these groups (and you) are looking more for ammunition in a fight against abortion than you are in finding ways to help these women.
If you are serious about wanting to help these women, then instead of attacking the APA with ridiculous comparisons, you should look for other ways to get the issue studied. If you think it is because of the political issue of abortion, then expand the scope to be problems associated with unwanted pregnancies. The problem is that too many Pro-Life groups don’t want to go any further than claiming the problem is associated with abortion. They don’t seem to want to dig a little deeper and consider that their tactics might actually be contributing to the psychological problems women who have aborted may face.
And what about you Warren, are you willing to look deeply into the mirror and consider whether your primary interest is in helping these women, or in using them as pawns to further your own political interests? Based on what you’ve said here in this blog, I don’t think you’d like what you see.
I am not a statistician, however, I would venture to say if there were 10 women from any walk of life open to be interviewed on this subject, about 4 would say they have had an abortion and out of those, about half would say it is a closely held secret that NO one knows about and about the same number would say they feel emotional pain every day relating to the decision to have an abortion while the other part would say it is something they never think about. Women talk about these things with each other in a way that they would rarely talk about the same thing to men.
Ken – You write as if the consequences of pregnancy and miscarriage a matter of equal controversy or dispute. We both know this is not so.
The APA should meet with representatives of women’s groups made of those who believe abortion created a mental health problem for them. These groups would like to see their experience validated and their pain count for something. One such something would be better ethical guidelines surrounding informed consent of potential mental health problems for classes of women at high risk.
Here is my educated guess: the report coming out will opine about these women without having actually talked to any of them.
Timothy,
I believe the study I saw was just a report in Newsweek, which could have presented the data wrong (or that I could remember wrong). I personally do not believe that reparative therapy works, though I would not be surprised if reparative therapy does have a limited success rate do to the presence of bisexuals in reparative therapy programs. But as I said to Mr. Blakesee, I personally feel the therapy, like biblical counseling, is at its core at least manipulative, and perhaps abusive (though that may not be the motivation behind the counseling).
John
David and John,
I’m unfamiliar with the study that yielded a 1/3 success rate.
I have heard a claim before of 1/3 success, but it was not supported by client tracking, follow ups, clear definitions of “help”, or even a show of hands. It was just a guess on the part of the person making the claim.
The only study I know of which tried to apply some form of structured measurement is the Jones and Yarhouse research. And even that was muddied by combining a retrospective sample with a prospective sample.
But using J&Y and looking solely at the prospective sample, there was little to no statistically valid movement in orientation from homosexual to heterosexual. And in that handful of individuals that J&Y reported as having changed their perceptions to the point that they self-identified as heterosexual, they still reported that they battled with same-sex attraction.
In other words, the best study of reparative therapy (through religious efforts, at least) revealed that they are almost universally unsuccessful at changing orientation (as based on attractions, not identity).
John,
So sorry about missing the Carman joke and conflating that with Cameron…Wow, what a miss….
What do you specifically want the APA to do, Warren? All I’m seeing are vague insinuations about bias in the APA. You imply that they are turning a blind eye to a serious problem, yet you give no specifics. You urge people to contrast the APA’s reactions (none of which you listed) to a completely unrelated topic (reparative therapy). Why not ask about the APAs reactions to reports about a related topic: ex. post-partum depression? Or other psychological complications due to pregnancy?
It seems we have a new category by means of our discussion: Religious Reparative Therapists.
This is different from Reparative Therapists
This is different from Biblical Counseling (Jay Adams).
That is certainly different from SIT.
I believe the evidence for SSA in women suggest more pliability in attraction than for men.
Regarding blaming the biblically oriented and reparative therapists for shoddy research….
The APA decided long ago to forgo such analysis of “treatment” of homosexuality. We are all responsible for both the dearth of research on change and the poor quality of it.
Regarding Kinsey, do you agree that his research was as flawed as any reparative therapists research (biased sample, agenda driven)? Do you think there have been powerful negative consequences to the sexual revolution that he helped spawn and endorsed? (STD’s, fatherless homes, domestic violence and deepening objectification of women….).
There is plenty of evil in the world and the weak are exploited and neglected by the intelligent and the powerful; some of whom are members of the religious and scientific community.
I know who Cameron is, but I was not actually referring to him. The draino incident happened, not because a therapist asked someone to do it, but because the patient felt so guilty for having homosexual thoughts that they poured it on themselves. That guilt was caused by reparative therapy. Which again, is a similarity with biblical counseling. Bib. counselors tell people who have OCD (like myyself) that if they are obsessing, they are sinning, asking them to change a thought process that is literally at the very least environmentally hard wired into them. I fail to see how that is any different in principal from what religious reparative therapists do.
David,
I didn’t conflate the two. I realize that reparative therapy acknowledges the reality of mental illness, whereas biblical counseling does not. What the two theories do have in common is a common therapeutic methodology (and whatever biblical counselors say, they are engaging in therapy – unlicensed at that). According to the evolutionary biologists I’ve talked to – which includes Douglas Sloane Wilson, one of the foremost biologists in the United States – while homosexuality is not exclusively biological, there is a quite strong biological component, particularly among lesbians – though (if I understand him correctly) the research is not yet conclusive. And clearly there is little evidence to argue that homosexuality is primarily environmental. Or – and forgive me if I misunderstand you – is heterosexuality also environmentally created, according to reparative therapists. I’ve read Sasz, but frankly I think the anti-psychiatry movement he founded is a drop in the bucket compared to biblical counseling (which he helped spawn). Type in biblical counseling on Google and you get over a million hits. I do think that there are very clear and blatant similarities between the Jay Adams model of biblical counseling and reparative therapy, though I realize their conceptualizations of mental illness ((and homosexuality) are fundamentally different. Both theories lack rigorous scientific analysis (in the case of biblical counseling that is deliberately intentional. Both theories (and please note that I am talking about religiously based reparative therapy here, since lets face it, that’s the prime motivation for almost all reparative therapists, save a few psychodynamic diehards at NARTH) focus on client change, with the onus for change being placed on the client. Both therapeutic methodologies skirt legal loopholes. Reparative therapy claims to be psychological, but is actually usually heavily dependent on religion (again barring NARTH). Bib. counseling claims to be spiritual, but is heavily psychological, borrowing heavily from reality therapy (Mowrer). Again, if one assumes homosexuality is environmental, it would be strange not to assume that heterosexuality is not also envirronmental, and that both orientations are almost impossible to change (dont’ know many ex-straights). Thus, like biblical counseling, religiously based reparative therapy is predicated on changing a behavior that may very well be biological, and is certainly deep-seated, with little to no proof that the therapy is effective, and a great deal of anecdotal evidence that it is harmful. And fundamentally evangelical psychophobia and homophobia are motivated by the same factor: the fear of what the possible “naturalness of these behaviors will mean for evangelical theology. If the mind is controlled by the brain, biblical counselors ask, are people still responsible for sin? If homosexuality is even partly genetic, how could a loving God deliberately create a gay person?
There is no way I can use anything but anedotal evidence , so long as rep. and bib. counselors do not conduct honest studies.
I didn’t understand the Cameron reference. I don’t understand how you can claim Kinsey has done more damage, though I’m not a big fan either.
I know who he is, but I don’t believe One Nation Under God was referring to him, though I could be wrong.
Norm,
Or this could be exactly the reason she would opt for an abortion – to avoid the stress and pressure that would be inflicted on her in the form of shame for getting pregnant to begin with. What is preached outwardly does not always equate to what is heard within four walls.The outside pressure can go both ways.
John,
Using movies and personal experience as support for your accusations is reasonable, and understandable, but it has limited use when you make bold scientific assertions.
Regarding draino, there is no cure for people using things for their unintended purpose…and this is not behavior exclusively performed by “abused clients of Biblical therapists.” Self-mutilation due to self-hatred, emotional flooding, mysticism and religious devotion is with us and will stay with us…I don’t think it is an endorsed intervention by Biblical Counseling (Jay Adams) or Reparative Therapists.
I like Christian music…and God grieves when we harm a little one…it is better that we tie a millstone around our neck and throw ourselves into the ocean.
I am sorry for your exploitation by others and the deceptions they used. Hopefully our conversations here can protect people like you sooner.
John,
“Biblical Counseling” is not reparative therapy. We may not endorse reparative therapy at this site, but it is a specific intervention with a specific theory and without Biblical guidelines, you are wrong to conflate the two.
I condemn Cameron, did not create him…he is his own creation; cut the slander.
Kinsey is his own creation…and by comparison has done much more damage than Cameron.
Thomas Sasz, an existentialist, argues that there is no mental illness either…so don’t make “Biblical Counseling” carry all the weight on that one.
Homosexuality nearly exclusively biological? You are in trouble with the research there.
It seems obvious why the APA would choose not to respond to a political/religious group’s demand for dialogue. Any response, other than a promise to conduct research, would encourage more action from the activist group.
Instead of targeting a particular politically/religiously-controversial medical procedure, it seems a more realistic approach would be to study the psychological aftermath of all the unwanted pregnancy options (abortion, adoption, raising, etc.).
Also, like the gay issue, a study would also have to take into account the outside pressure women who have unwanted preganancies endure. Obviously a pregnant woman in a conservative church, family, and legal system would be under much greater stress to have the baby and would be psychologically affected by outside forces.
John – You have posed a possibly insoluble problem 🙂
Just a wry note after listening to Christian music this morning. Secular culture may have produced homosexuality (eh gads), but you, my former co-religionists, produced Carman. Which I ask you, is the greater sin?
Sorry, just wanted to bring a smile to your faces.
Dear David,
The research I’ve seen reports a (probably generous) 2/3 failure rate for reparative therapy, though I’ve also seen the data you suggest as well – which still basically amounts to a 2/3 failure rate, no matter how you slice it.. As for dishonest therapists, one need look no farther than the documentary One Nation Under God, which points out (and I believe the more neutral Tanya Erzen confirms this) that Christian therapists in the seventies and eighties only picked the most ideal patients for certain studies, so that the result would be favorable.
In any case, I don’t need statistical studies to tell me the harm reparative therapy does to people. I grew up with the beloved biblical counseling movement, which though it rejects the concept of mental illness, relies on essentially the same distortions of data (there is no such thing as mental illness, chemical imbalances do not exist, mental illness is a sin, etc.) as reparative therapy. Both therapeutic regimes revolve around inducing guilt feelings in people whose “condtions” are heavily, if not exclusively, predetermined by biology. I’ve seen how many people have become suicidal through biblical counseling, and I’ve heard enough anecdotal evidence about reparative therapy, both from ex-gays and ex-ex gays, to know that it induces the same sort of feelings in people. I don’t mean to be gross here (again quoting One Nation Under God), but a thereaputic practice that leads a person to pour draino over their reproductive organs for fear of sinning probably has some serious flaws in it.
I agree that there is no hard data about dishonesty among these professionals (I use that word loosely. Warren has proven himself to be a professional, but he also is not really a reparative therapist). Howver, going again on my experience with biblical counseling, I don’t find that surprising. There has been no major study on biblical counseling (according to Jay Adams) because no one knows how to properly conduct one. I might suggest that there hasn’t been one because any study would not be in biblical counselors best interest, since the theory is bad science, and worse theology. Reparative therapy, though more nominally psychological than Jay Adams, Wayne Mack, and company, is fundamentally based on the same principles, and therefore reparative therapists are hesitant about engaging in studies that they know can only disprove their theories and their sincerely held religious beliefs about homosexuality.
“I thought that too but then it occurred to me that both are interventions designed to alter a non-pathological state”
Wow…to the point.
Regarding “Reparative therapy failing 2/3 of the time…and dishonest therapists.”
I think the first is an important distortion of the data and the second is an undocumented accusation.
I believe some research reports that 1/3 report an increase in heterosexual attraction and one third report a decrease in same sex attraction and 1/3 report no change.
“Dishonest Therapist”…don’t know the data on that.
pam – I thought that too but then it occurred to me that both are interventions designed to alter a non-pathological state. Pregnancy is not pathological and neither is homosexuality. Something in the person may lead to a felt need for the intervention. Social pressure may be at work in both.
One intervention is psychological (as you point out)and the other is medical which would provoke interest from different elements within APA. However, the APA should be concerned with psychological trauma and its resolution, no matter what the cause. The fact that so many women have come forward with similar symptoms should provoke some kind of Shidlo and Schroeder like research from abortion researchers no matter what their view of the civil rights of abortion.
The big difference that I see is that reparative therapy is actually a “therapy”……it is a purposeful foray into the psychology of an individual….which makes it fall more directly under the scope of things that the APA is concerned with….whereas abortion is a life-altering event that does have psychological impact.
I’m not saying the APA shouldn’t be concerned, but I do see a difference.
I am skeptical about Post-Abortion Syndrome (or whatever misnomer is currently used to describe those who are emotionally troubled after an abortion).
John,
There is really nothing to be skeptical about – it is very real for those experiencing it for a lifetime and not real at all for those who do not share the same emotional or moral thoughts about their decision.
I think the difference might lie in the relative harm of each procedure (mentally speaking) to the prospective client. Abortion clearly does harm women mentally in some cases, but it may be unclear how many. On the other hand, what research there is out there (that I’ve seen) suggests that reparative therapy fails at least 2/3 of the time (and considering the dishonesty of many reparative therapists, the actual number is probably far higher). We know from anecdotal evidence, case studies, etc. the harm that reparative therapy has done to people. Plus, with reparative therapy, there is a much greater chance of an individual being pressured into undergoing the therapy (which is not to say that there aren’t women who are pressured into having abortions).
Frankly, although I am a pro-lifer, I am skeptical about Post-Abortion Syndrome (or whatever misnomer is currently used to describe those who are emotionally troubled after an abortion). And as I have said here before, before evangelicals start inventing new mental disorders, perhaps they should do a better job of taking care of the truly mentally ill in their own churches, who routinely suffer discrimination at the hands of church officials.
All that being said, I do agree with Warren that the APA’s stance here is likely more motivated out of politics than science – unlike its stand on reparative therapy.
I’ve linked to your post from McCain vs Obama on right to life
I have read a number of blogs with first person accounts, the issue is one that needs serious attention.
Liberal hegemony leads to blind spots.