A developmental psychologist told CNA that a study claiming most women do not regret their abortions is flawed, and does not accurately represent how women experience abortion.
The study, known as the Turnaway Study, is the subject of a new book titled “The Turnaway Study: Ten Years, a Thousand Women, and the Consequences of Having—or Being Denied—an Abortion,” by Diana Greene Foster, PhD. The book was published on June 2, 2020.
The Turnaway Study originated from Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH), which is based at the University of California, San Francisco. ANSIRH conducts scientific research domestically and abroad on topics related to reproductive health.
The study describes itself as “the first study to rigorously examine the effects of receiving versus being denied a wanted abortion on women and their children,” and studied women from 30 abortion clinics nationwide who either were denied an abortion because they were past the gestational limit; were initially denied an abortion as they were past the gestational limit but later received one; and those who received a first-trimester abortion.
In January 2020, the authors of the study reported that approximately 95% of women who had abortions did not regret their decision five years after the fact, even if they did initially experience regret.
“This debunks the idea that most women suffer emotionally from having an abortion,” claimed Corinne Rocca, PhD, MPH, an associate professor at the USCF’s Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. But Dr. Priscilla Coleman, a professor of human development and family studies at Bowling Green State University disagrees with the study’s conclusion and methodology. She told CNA she believes the methodology of the study is “highly problematic.”
“In any other field, you wouldn’t be able to publish this stuff,” Coleman told CNA. She said the “politically correct” conclusions found by the Turnaway Study are why it has received widespread acceptance.
Coleman has testified as an expert on abortion and mental health in state and civil cases involving abortion, in state legislative hearings on abortion, before a U.S. Congressional committee, and to legislatures in the United Kingdom and Australia.
According to Coleman, the composition of the sample studied is one of the biggest flaws associated with the data.
“Initially, only 37.5% of the women who were invited to participate agreed to participate,” said Coleman. “And then, across the study period, 42% dropped out. So the final results are based on 22% of eligible women.”
Coleman was also critical of other research methods used by the authors of the Turnaway Study. As the legal limit to terminate a pregnancy varies from state-to-state, the study may have put two women who had abortions at considerably different points in their pregnancies together in the same research group. She said that many of these delineations were not made clear by the study’s authors, which further complicates their conclusions.
“Most of the literature–the peer-reviewed scientific articles–indicate that a significant percentage of women are at risk for regretting their abortions,” the sociologist told CNA.
Full story at Catholic News Agency.
Sounds like statistics babble. Throw enough numbers around and one can appear to prove almost anything. Or as Harry Truman is reputed to have said, ‘lies, damn lies, and statistics’
The “abortion distortion” never stops. Strive for a predetermined conclusion, and cooking the study sufficiently, one will achieve the desired results.
Kind of like faith? Nothing can disprove it? Predetermined conclusion? Sauce for the goose, after all.
Anonymous (8:08), there are fairly stringent standards in statistical study that must be achieved so that the conclusions can be considered reliable. Said another way, to the degree that the methodology is flawed, so also the purported conclusions. Dr. Coleman has listed problems with the study that can be discussed rationally in an effort to verify or deny the claims. The only leap of faith would be when one stubbornly holds to conclusions that in the end are not warranted. How statistical analysis led you to level both barrels at faith in our Lord Jesus Christ is a mystery to me. The Christian faith rests on events in history. The crucifixion of Jesus is historical fact, attested by Roman authorities. The resurrection of Christ from the dead is also an event in history upon which the entire Christian faith rests. Arguing for its historicity can and has been done many times over. Could it be disproved? Theoretically, yes. Has it, most certainly not! But that is a story for another time.
Blindness expects to find nothing, and so it does.
Turnaway Study Author:
“Hey, how did you like my NEW study on Confirmation Bias ??”
Abortion True-Believer:
“It was OK – but it only proved what I ALREADY knew.”