The American Psychological Association (APA) has been reviewing their position on mental health after abortion for over a year. They are considering all the new research since 1990. There’s much for them to consider, all published in peer-reviewed journals.
Consistent Life has been writing letters to the APA to ask how it is that the APA can hold a clearly political stand, at the same time as they purport to act as unbiased arbiters of the research:
APA has held a position of abortion as being a civil right for women since 1969, and therefore has a clear political stand.
Meanwhile, pro-abortion psychologists bemoan those conniving pro-lifers who are, doggone it, getting published in peer-reviewed journals. Make’s ’em “seem credible”:
Since then, says Adler, anti-abortion advocates have become more world-wise. “They’re using scientific terminology,” she points out. They’re also gaining credibility by getting published in mainstream journals.
Oh the shame. Imagine that, research being reviewed and published–even when it suggests there are negative effects to having an abortion.
Let’s stop for a second–indicating there are negative repercussions, mental health or otherwise, is not a pro-life or a pro-choice thing to say. If it turns out a certain type of heart surgery is risky, no one declares the researcher to be against heart surgery. If a weatherman predicts rain, it doesn’t mean he’s against the sun. This is how crazy pro-abortion types get at the mere suggestion that their beloved “right” might not always be pain-free.
So they slam the research. Women who have abortions, they say, are not randomly selected. True. But neither are those who undergo heart surgery: There may be genetics, or health factors involved. We still study the thing.
Slamming the research means one of two things: it’s either an admission that the peer review process is flawed and I’d be open to that, having seen one study where fully fifty per cent of the study sample was lost and yet the authors still managed to declare abortion does not harm women–see Major et al, “Psychological Responses of Women After First-Trimester Abortion” for an example.
But more likely, it is a pro-abortion elite declaring their bias is AOK; a pro-life bias is not.
Before the APA undertook this, they ought to have dropped their anachronistic old-school statement, that abortion is a civil right. Abortion never was a right, not then, not now. And if they keep that sort of statement, it casts a pallour on their work regarding abortion and mental health.
Watch for the final APA report, which should come out this August.
by 
My question is this? Who are the men and women that are pro-abortionists? Would I be out to lunch to guess that they are women and men who have chosen to abort? If that is the case then they can’t ,without facing the fact that they have killed their unborn children, ever agree with pro-lifers. They have stuck their heads in the sand so they do not have to face the reality of what they have done. I speak as a person who has faced this horrid fact that I did kill my unborn with government approval. How sad.