Isn't That Exactly What You Are Doing?

"If the goal is to help women, program and policy decisions should not distort science to advance political agendas." Vignetta Charles

& while that could apply to the claims about embryonic stem cell research, in this case it is about abortion & depression.

"A team at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore reviewed 21 studies involving more than 150,000 women and found the high-quality studies showed no significant differences in long-term mental health between women who choose to abort a pregnancy and others. " (Abortion not seen linked with depression)

The other day I wrote a post, I Can Guarentee That PP Will Attack This As Flawed... In it I discussed the fact that a new study came out linking abortion & depression. I don't know if they looked at this study, but even if they did I suspect they already planned on dismissing it.

In fact I would like to know exactly what studies they did look at, who did them & what their slant on abortion was. Supposedly: "The researchers reviewed all English-language, peer-reviewed publications between 1989 and 2008 that studied relationships between abortion and long-term mental health."

Another claim: "They analyzed those that included valid mental health measures and factored in pre-existing mental health status and potentially confusing factors."

So, what is their definition of valid measures?

The next paragraph of the article answers that. "The best quality studies indicate no significant differences in long-term mental health between women in the United States who choose to terminate a pregnancy and those who do not." In other words, only those things that don't prove a connection were the best quality.

But"...studies with the most flawed methodology consistently found negative mental health consequences of abortion." The flaw, that it proved that the mental & emotional harm done by abortion does happen.

1 of the big clues that this wasn't exactly unbiased is the name of the journal it was published in, Contraception. Another is who was on the team that did the Johns Hopkins Study.

"The university department of Population, Family, and Reproductive Health, where three of the four study authors hail from, is funded by Planned Parenthood of Maryland. Raising more suspicions about the validity of the study is the presence of co-author Robert Blum, who heads up one of the most heavily funded population control programs in the world -- worth roughly $1 billion. Blum has been a long-time supporter of unrestricted abortion, including his service on the Guttmacher Institute's Board of Directors from 1989 to present and as Chair from 1999-2002. He has testified in several statutory challenges against any parental involvement in a minor child's abortion decision. " (A Study in Abortion Bias) Not exactly a group to claim that it is unbiased, is it?

& it gets better. "Blum's review of 21 surveys conveniently omitted the stacks of research published in peer-reviewed journals that showed an association between abortion and negative mental health effects." Didn't the Johns Hopkins group claim it reviewed all the studies & only found 21. Their claims & the facts just don't add up. But why should they let a few facts stand in the way of their goal, to promote abortion?

The article got it right when it said this about the JH research: "As more evidence pours in contradicting Blum and company, this is just poor science." It is poor science, motivated by politics. It sure looks like Blum is doing the very thing he is claiming to try & counter.

"Just this week, two new articles add to the body of research demonstrating that abortion is associated with increased risk of adverse mental health effects. The two peer-reviewed papers were published in the British Journal of Psychiatry (the 1 I talked about earlier this week) and the Journal of Psychiatric Research. Both had strong methodology and controls for confounding or alternate variables."

This once again proves that those in the "culture of death" don't care a bit about the people they are claiming to help. They will lie, twist the facts & do whatever they want to support their evil agenda to destroy life. & they know that the Main Stream Media is in their corner to aide & abet them.

If there is no harm done by abortion then how do they explain the growing number of groups that provide opportunities for post-abortion healing? Groups like Silent No More, Rachel's Vineyard, Fatherhood Forever Foundation, & Reclaiming Fatherhood, as well as the others I have listed are growing. The damage is there, there is a need for healing. They are providing what the abortion industry lacks, care & compassion. They are ongoing proof that harm is done by abortion. The voice of those harmed by abortion & speaking out is getting louder, & no amount of biased studies to uphold abortion will be able to silence them & keep them from telling the truth.