APA Abortion Report - Revision history

Barb: /* Bias of the APA */

2025-01-23T17:26:51Z

Bias of the APA

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:26, 23 January 2025
Line 85:		Line 85:
	Also ignored were the very excellent studies by [[Soderberg]] Using extensive interviews, Soderberg found that at a 12 month follow-up, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases.		Also ignored were the very excellent studies by [[Soderberg]] Using extensive interviews, Soderberg found that at a 12 month follow-up, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases.

	== Critique of ~~an APA Leader~~, Dr. Rachel MacNair ==		== Critique APA's President of Division 48, Dr. Rachel MacNair ==

	=== '''Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion''' ===		=== '''Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion''' ===
Line 134:		Line 134:

	[http://www.lifenews.com/nat4137.html Also published here]		[http://www.lifenews.com/nat4137.html Also published here]

			== Critique by Dr. Warren Throckmorton ==
			Another useful critique titled "[https://web.archive.org/web/20120601021519/http://www.visionandvalues.org/2007/05/abortion-and-american-psychology/ Abortion and American Psychology]" has been published by psychologist Warren Throckmorton

	== Bias of the APA ==		== Bias of the APA ==

	The APA's president of Division 48, Rachel MacNair has written a critique of the Task Force report, and the process by which it was designed to produce a biased report, in her paper [[Tales from an Insider\|Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion]], with [https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted+and+said+he+didn%27t+recognize+me+as+a+member+of+the+Council%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj83bHqx_LcAhUSbq0KHQY7CCAQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22I%20approached%20the%20microphone%20and%20started%20to%20speak%20as%20others%20had%2C%20but%20the%20president%20interrupted%20and%20said%20he%20didn't%20recognize%20me%20as%20a%20member%20of%20the%20Council%22&f=false more details about efforts to correct the report's over generalizations detailed in documents exchanged here].

	~~Another useful critique titled "[http://www.visionandvalues.org/2007/05/abortion-and-american-psychology/ Abortion and American Psychology]" has been published by psychologist Warren Throckmorton~~



Line 155:		Line 153:
	5. In [http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BIASED AGAINST REPUBLICANS?] ''The New Yorker'' delves into substantial research confirming that the liberal bias in psychology is enforced by conscious and unconscious efforts to exclude opinions and facts which run counter to the majority opinion.		5. In [http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/social-psychology-biased-republicans IS SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BIASED AGAINST REPUBLICANS?] ''The New Yorker'' delves into substantial research confirming that the liberal bias in psychology is enforced by conscious and unconscious efforts to exclude opinions and facts which run counter to the majority opinion.

	6. In one study has found 20 to 44 percent of research psychologists admitted that they or their colleagues would openly discriminate against conservative views when providing peer review, awarding grants, or making hiring decisions.(Inbar Y, Lammers J. Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(5):496–503.) The authors note: “[i]t is easier to detect bias in materials that oppose one’s beliefs than in material that supports it (Lord, Ross & Lepper, 1979). Work that supports liberal politics may thus seem unremarkable, whereas work that supports conservatism is seen as improperly ideological.”		6. In one study has found 20 to '''44 percent of research psychologists admitted that they or their colleagues would openly discriminate against conservative views''' when providing peer review, awarding grants, or making hiring decisions.(Inbar Y, Lammers J. Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012;7(5):496–503.) The authors note: “[i]t is easier to detect bias in materials that oppose one’s beliefs than in material that supports it (Lord, Ross & Lepper, 1979). Work that supports liberal politics may thus seem unremarkable, whereas work that supports conservatism is seen as improperly ideological.”


	=== More Examples of Political Bias in "Official Scientific Consensus" ===		=== More Examples of Political Bias in "Official Scientific Consensus" ===
Line 172:		Line 169:

	:“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” says Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”		:“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” says Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at the University of Virginia. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”


	===Fudging by Scientists is Common===		===Fudging by Scientists is Common===

Line 181:		Line 176:

	See also [http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.] Science 28 Aug 2015: Vol 349, Issue 6251.		See also [http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aac4716 Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science.] Science 28 Aug 2015: Vol 349, Issue 6251.


	===Refusals to Share Data===		===Refusals to Share Data===

Barb: /* Critique of an APA Leader, Dr. Rachel MacNair */

2025-01-23T17:18:56Z

Critique of an APA Leader, Dr. Rachel MacNair

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:18, 23 January 2025
Line 87:		Line 87:
	== Critique of an APA Leader, Dr. Rachel MacNair ==		== Critique of an APA Leader, Dr. Rachel MacNair ==

	'''Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion'''		=== '''Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion''' ===
			<blockquote>by Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D.
	by Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D.

	Director, Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, research arm of [http://www.consistent-life.org/ Consistent Life]: An International Network for Peace and Life		Director, Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, research arm of [http://www.consistent-life.org/ Consistent Life]: An International Network for Peace and Life

	Reprinted with permission. Another version of this article appears in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted%22&source=bl&ots=AeaOs57erE&sig=f-thQtzLQ-BQ13qT0PaUe_UAzaI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHqsLCq97cAhUKQ6wKHah1B_4Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=apa%20task%20force%20on%20mental%20&f=false Achieving Peace in the Abortion War]'' By MacNair, Ph. D.		Reprinted with permission. Another version of this article appears in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted%22&source=bl&ots=AeaOs57erE&sig=f-thQtzLQ-BQ13qT0PaUe_UAzaI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHqsLCq97cAhUKQ6wKHah1B_4Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=apa%20task%20force%20on%20mental%20&f=false Achieving Peace in the Abortion War]'' By MacNair, Ph. D.</blockquote>We have known for a long time that the word "choice" in the abortion debate doesn't mean what it means in regular English, having become a euphemism for abortion rather than a matter of actually having options. Now we find that "science" means what the American Psychological Association (APA) says it means, rather than what those of us trained in a university might have been taught.

	~~----~~
	We have known for a long time that the word "choice" in the abortion debate doesn't mean what it means in regular English, having become a euphemism for abortion rather than a matter of actually having options. Now we find that "science" means what the American Psychological Association (APA) says it means, rather than what those of us trained in a university might have been taught.

	We start with the appointment of the Task Force. I'm an APA member, and on the Board of Division 48, peace psychology, though of course not on the APA Council which makes the decisions. Though I keep my ears attuned, the task force membership was appointed and explicitly not open to any more nominations by the time I first heard about it. Actually, there never had been any call for nominations. Membership had been decided by Division 35, psychology of women, and the Council apparently rubber-stamped the selection. I knew the fix was in at that point and subsequent events have confirmed this, but I gamely kept trying to talk about balance and science.		We start with the appointment of the Task Force. I'm an APA member, and on the Board of Division 48, peace psychology, though of course not on the APA Council which makes the decisions. Though I keep my ears attuned, the task force membership was appointed and explicitly not open to any more nominations by the time I first heard about it. Actually, there never had been any call for nominations. Membership had been decided by Division 35, psychology of women, and the Council apparently rubber-stamped the selection. I knew the fix was in at that point and subsequent events have confirmed this, but I gamely kept trying to talk about balance and science.
Line 102:		Line 98:
	Having documented that three members of the task force were outspoken defenders of abortion and the remaining three had no public statements of positions, I immediately brought up the point of lack of the voice of skeptics wherever I could. Consistent Life sent out a [[Letter from Consistent Life\| letter]] to the entire Council last fall on this point, and received no response.		Having documented that three members of the task force were outspoken defenders of abortion and the remaining three had no public statements of positions, I immediately brought up the point of lack of the voice of skeptics wherever I could. Consistent Life sent out a [[Letter from Consistent Life\| letter]] to the entire Council last fall on this point, and received no response.

			=== '''Official Reviews of APA Report on Abortion Ignored''' ===
	I volunteered to be a reviewer of the Report, which means someone that gives feedback from a scientific point of view. They decided I had the credentials to do so, along with Priscilla Coleman and David Fergusson of New Zealand. I don't know the rest of the 20 reviewers; David is self-described as an "atheist pro-choicer," but he shared his review with me and his opinion about the quality of the science therein was roughly the same as mine and Priscilla's.		I volunteered to be a reviewer of the Report, which means someone that gives feedback from a scientific point of view. They decided I had the credentials to do so, along with Priscilla Coleman and David Fergusson of New Zealand. I don't know the rest of the 20 reviewers; David is self-described as an "atheist pro-choicer," but he shared his review with me and his opinion about the quality of the science therein was roughly the same as mine and Priscilla's.

	I got the original November 2 report and to be polite I will say that I spent 30-40 hours giving them careful and relatively gentle line-by-line commentary. Once I got the March 6 revised version, I saw they had re-organized, based a more clearly worded conclusion on a whole different approach, and rather than including my alternative perspectives on several previous arguments for balance, they had simply left them out. But there was one major improvement: the short section on the abortion-as-trauma "conceptual framework" had dropped the grotesque caricature of pro-lifers and instead offered an explanation that left the reader no longer puzzled as to why anybody might think abortion was traumatic.		I got the original November 2 report and to be polite I will say that I spent 30-40 hours giving them careful and relatively gentle line-by-line commentary. Once I got the March 6 revised version, I saw they had re-organized, based a more clearly worded conclusion on a whole different approach, and rather than including my alternative perspectives on several previous arguments for balance, they had simply left them out. But there was one major improvement: the short section on the abortion-as-trauma "conceptual framework" had dropped the grotesque caricature of pro-lifers and instead offered an explanation that left the reader no longer puzzled as to why anybody might think abortion was traumatic.

			=== A Single Study Bias ===
	But I was startled to dig in and realize that the new rationale for the conclusion was based on only one study – using British women where there was a screening requirement we don't have in the U.S. The fact of many methodological flaws in that study isn't really the point, since in the real world all studies have some flaws. Far more important is that the study doesn't support the conclusion, since it did find more drug overdoses in women who had abortions compared to others. Also important is that it doesn't even address the conclusion, since it was only looking at extreme outcomes – drug overdoses rather than over-all substance abuse, for example. (See http://wiki.afterabortion.org/index.php?title=Gilchrist#Weaknesses for discussion of the one study).		But I was startled to dig in and realize that the new rationale for the conclusion was based on only one study – using British women where there was a screening requirement we don't have in the U.S. The fact of many methodological flaws in that study isn't really the point, since in the real world all studies have some flaws. Far more important is that the study doesn't support the conclusion, since it did find more drug overdoses in women who had abortions compared to others. Also important is that it doesn't even address the conclusion, since it was only looking at extreme outcomes – drug overdoses rather than over-all substance abuse, for example. (See http://wiki.afterabortion.org/index.php?title=Gilchrist#Weaknesses for discussion of the one study).

Line 116:		Line 114:
	Consistent Life, upon noting a quarter of Council members had changed with the new year, sent out its letter again. This time it got a response, and sent another response; see http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/07/14/anti-violence-group-expresses-concerns-over-apa-abortion-task-force/. I am aware that many other people sent letters as well, making various points. I also sent a memo to all Council members on the idea that a better report would be one that pointed out where the consensus is and where the controversies still are, rather than taking one side in the controversy.		Consistent Life, upon noting a quarter of Council members had changed with the new year, sent out its letter again. This time it got a response, and sent another response; see http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/07/14/anti-violence-group-expresses-concerns-over-apa-abortion-task-force/. I am aware that many other people sent letters as well, making various points. I also sent a memo to all Council members on the idea that a better report would be one that pointed out where the consensus is and where the controversies still are, rather than taking one side in the controversy.

			=== The Fix Was In ===
	This takes me to the Council meeting of Wednesday, August 13, 2008. This was the first item on the agenda. Speaking for it were endorsers and people commenting that it was good science on the grounds that it was done by good scientists who had really worked hard on it.		This takes me to the Council meeting of Wednesday, August 13, 2008. This was the first item on the agenda. Speaking for it were endorsers and people commenting that it was good science on the grounds that it was done by good scientists who had really worked hard on it.

Line 126:		Line 125:
	The vote to receive the report was near unanimous; I believe 6 abstentions. I asked the president-elect about this later, and he said that the vote was like a ribbon-cutting at a building; the building was already built, all the work had already gone in, so that point in time was too late. I pointed out that I had been making these points all along, and he acknowledged that I had been making valid points all along since he had seen me doing it. I told him APA had made a mistake since it was going to lose lobbying influence as people discounted the idea that it was actually promoting science, and he didn't deny it; he thanked me for trying.		The vote to receive the report was near unanimous; I believe 6 abstentions. I asked the president-elect about this later, and he said that the vote was like a ribbon-cutting at a building; the building was already built, all the work had already gone in, so that point in time was too late. I pointed out that I had been making these points all along, and he acknowledged that I had been making valid points all along since he had seen me doing it. I told him APA had made a mistake since it was going to lose lobbying influence as people discounted the idea that it was actually promoting science, and he didn't deny it; he thanked me for trying.

			=== The Controversy Continues ===
	More studies are coming out, of course. According to the logic of the report itself, if only one study can establish the conclusion, then in theory it should only take one study to knock it down, so long as the new study has the same strengths as the 13-year-old one. But that would be taking the assumption that APA was actually interested in keeping up with real science, an assumption for which at this point I have no evidence.		More studies are coming out, of course. According to the logic of the report itself, if only one study can establish the conclusion, then in theory it should only take one study to knock it down, so long as the new study has the same strengths as the 13-year-old one. But that would be taking the assumption that APA was actually interested in keeping up with real science, an assumption for which at this point I have no evidence.

Barb: /* Selective Use of Foreign Studies */

2025-01-23T17:10:30Z

Selective Use of Foreign Studies

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:10, 23 January 2025
Line 77:		Line 77:
	== Selective Use of Foreign Studies ==		== Selective Use of Foreign Studies ==

	APA report embraces a single foreign study by [Gilchrist]] as the only reliable study on abortion and mental health. Therefore, one should carefully review this posting regarding the [[Gilchrist]] study to understand that it too has flaws.		APA report embraces a single foreign study by [[Gilchrist]] as the only reliable study on abortion and mental health. Therefore, one should carefully review this posting regarding the [[Gilchrist]] study to understand that it too has flaws.

	What is most curious, however, is that the APA also deliberately chose to ignore a number of important foreign studies, precisely because they did not support their agenda.		What is most curious, however, is that the APA also deliberately chose to ignore a number of important foreign studies, precisely because they did not support their agenda.
Line 83:		Line 83:
	This included ignoring the latest New Zealand studies by Fergusson, even though they were provided advanced copies, and also the Suliman 2007 which disclosed about 18% of women had PTSD after an abortion. What is striking about the Suliman study is that it was prompted by abortion doctors at a Marie Stopes clinic noticing a "high" rate of PTSD in their clients which prompted the docs to undertake a study to see if one type or anesthesia or another would make any difference. It didn't. Three months out, 18% of the post-abortive women had PTSD. The authors, apparently pro-abortion, pointed that this was almost one in five, and pointed out that they considered this a "high" rate of PTSD. So, how can the APA be so certain that nobody but nobody ever gets PTSD after abortion which is how they want to spin this.		This included ignoring the latest New Zealand studies by Fergusson, even though they were provided advanced copies, and also the Suliman 2007 which disclosed about 18% of women had PTSD after an abortion. What is striking about the Suliman study is that it was prompted by abortion doctors at a Marie Stopes clinic noticing a "high" rate of PTSD in their clients which prompted the docs to undertake a study to see if one type or anesthesia or another would make any difference. It didn't. Three months out, 18% of the post-abortive women had PTSD. The authors, apparently pro-abortion, pointed that this was almost one in five, and pointed out that they considered this a "high" rate of PTSD. So, how can the APA be so certain that nobody but nobody ever gets PTSD after abortion which is how they want to spin this.

	Also ignored were the very excellent studies by [[Soderberg]] Using extensive interviews, Soderberg found that at a 12 month follow-up, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases.		Also ignored were the very excellent studies by [[Soderberg]] Using extensive interviews, Soderberg found that at a 12 month follow-up, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases.

	== Critique of an APA Leader, Dr. Rachel MacNair ==		== Critique of an APA Leader, Dr. Rachel MacNair ==

Barb: /* Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion */

2025-01-23T17:09:51Z

Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:09, 23 January 2025
Line 85:		Line 85:
	Also ignored were the very excellent studies by [[Soderberg]] Using extensive interviews, Soderberg found that at a 12 month follow-up, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases.		Also ignored were the very excellent studies by [[Soderberg]] Using extensive interviews, Soderberg found that at a 12 month follow-up, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases.

	== Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion ==		== Critique of an APA Leader, Dr. Rachel MacNair ==
	Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D.
			'''Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion'''

			by Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D.

	Director, Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, research arm of [http://www.consistent-life.org/ Consistent Life]: An International Network for Peace and Life		Director, Institute for Integrated Social Analysis, research arm of [http://www.consistent-life.org/ Consistent Life]: An International Network for Peace and Life
Line 92:		Line 95:
	Reprinted with permission. Another version of this article appears in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted%22&source=bl&ots=AeaOs57erE&sig=f-thQtzLQ-BQ13qT0PaUe_UAzaI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHqsLCq97cAhUKQ6wKHah1B_4Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=apa%20task%20force%20on%20mental%20&f=false Achieving Peace in the Abortion War]'' By MacNair, Ph. D.		Reprinted with permission. Another version of this article appears in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted%22&source=bl&ots=AeaOs57erE&sig=f-thQtzLQ-BQ13qT0PaUe_UAzaI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHqsLCq97cAhUKQ6wKHah1B_4Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=apa%20task%20force%20on%20mental%20&f=false Achieving Peace in the Abortion War]'' By MacNair, Ph. D.

	~~===============================~~		----
	We have known for a long time that the word "choice" in the abortion debate doesn't mean what it means in regular English, having become a euphemism for abortion rather than a matter of actually having options. Now we find that "science" means what the American Psychological Association (APA) says it means, rather than what those of us trained in a university might have been taught.		We have known for a long time that the word "choice" in the abortion debate doesn't mean what it means in regular English, having become a euphemism for abortion rather than a matter of actually having options. Now we find that "science" means what the American Psychological Association (APA) says it means, rather than what those of us trained in a university might have been taught.

Barb: /* Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion */

2025-01-23T17:04:16Z

Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:04, 23 January 2025
Line 91:		Line 91:

	Reprinted with permission. Another version of this article appears in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted%22&source=bl&ots=AeaOs57erE&sig=f-thQtzLQ-BQ13qT0PaUe_UAzaI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHqsLCq97cAhUKQ6wKHah1B_4Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=apa%20task%20force%20on%20mental%20&f=false Achieving Peace in the Abortion War]'' By MacNair, Ph. D.		Reprinted with permission. Another version of this article appears in ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&lpg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted%22&source=bl&ots=AeaOs57erE&sig=f-thQtzLQ-BQ13qT0PaUe_UAzaI&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHqsLCq97cAhUKQ6wKHah1B_4Q6AEwAHoECAQQAQ#v=onepage&q=apa%20task%20force%20on%20mental%20&f=false Achieving Peace in the Abortion War]'' By MacNair, Ph. D.
	~~----~~We have known for a long time that the word "choice" in the abortion debate doesn't mean what it means in regular English, having become a euphemism for abortion rather than a matter of actually having options. Now we find that "science" means what the American Psychological Association (APA) says it means, rather than what those of us trained in a university might have been taught.
			===============================
			We have known for a long time that the word "choice" in the abortion debate doesn't mean what it means in regular English, having become a euphemism for abortion rather than a matter of actually having options. Now we find that "science" means what the American Psychological Association (APA) says it means, rather than what those of us trained in a university might have been taught.

	We start with the appointment of the Task Force. I'm an APA member, and on the Board of Division 48, peace psychology, though of course not on the APA Council which makes the decisions. Though I keep my ears attuned, the task force membership was appointed and explicitly not open to any more nominations by the time I first heard about it. Actually, there never had been any call for nominations. Membership had been decided by Division 35, psychology of women, and the Council apparently rubber-stamped the selection. I knew the fix was in at that point and subsequent events have confirmed this, but I gamely kept trying to talk about balance and science.		We start with the appointment of the Task Force. I'm an APA member, and on the Board of Division 48, peace psychology, though of course not on the APA Council which makes the decisions. Though I keep my ears attuned, the task force membership was appointed and explicitly not open to any more nominations by the time I first heard about it. Actually, there never had been any call for nominations. Membership had been decided by Division 35, psychology of women, and the Council apparently rubber-stamped the selection. I knew the fix was in at that point and subsequent events have confirmed this, but I gamely kept trying to talk about balance and science.

	Having documented that three members of the task force were outspoken defenders of abortion and the remaining three had no public statements of positions, I immediately brought up the point of lack of the voice of skeptics wherever I could. Consistent Life sent out a [[Letter from Consistent Life\|letter]] to the entire Council last fall on this point, and received no response.		Having documented that three members of the task force were outspoken defenders of abortion and the remaining three had no public statements of positions, I immediately brought up the point of lack of the voice of skeptics wherever I could. Consistent Life sent out a [[Letter from Consistent Life\| letter]] to the entire Council last fall on this point, and received no response.

	I volunteered to be a reviewer of the Report, which means someone that gives feedback from a scientific point of view. They decided I had the credentials to do so, along with Priscilla Coleman and David Fergusson of New Zealand. I don't know the rest of the 20 reviewers; David is self-described as an "atheist pro-choicer," but he shared his review with me and his opinion about the quality of the science therein was roughly the same as mine and Priscilla's.		I volunteered to be a reviewer of the Report, which means someone that gives feedback from a scientific point of view. They decided I had the credentials to do so, along with Priscilla Coleman and David Fergusson of New Zealand. I don't know the rest of the 20 reviewers; David is self-described as an "atheist pro-choicer," but he shared his review with me and his opinion about the quality of the science therein was roughly the same as mine and Priscilla's.
Line 101:		Line 103:
	I got the original November 2 report and to be polite I will say that I spent 30-40 hours giving them careful and relatively gentle line-by-line commentary. Once I got the March 6 revised version, I saw they had re-organized, based a more clearly worded conclusion on a whole different approach, and rather than including my alternative perspectives on several previous arguments for balance, they had simply left them out. But there was one major improvement: the short section on the abortion-as-trauma "conceptual framework" had dropped the grotesque caricature of pro-lifers and instead offered an explanation that left the reader no longer puzzled as to why anybody might think abortion was traumatic.		I got the original November 2 report and to be polite I will say that I spent 30-40 hours giving them careful and relatively gentle line-by-line commentary. Once I got the March 6 revised version, I saw they had re-organized, based a more clearly worded conclusion on a whole different approach, and rather than including my alternative perspectives on several previous arguments for balance, they had simply left them out. But there was one major improvement: the short section on the abortion-as-trauma "conceptual framework" had dropped the grotesque caricature of pro-lifers and instead offered an explanation that left the reader no longer puzzled as to why anybody might think abortion was traumatic.

	But I was startled to dig in and realize that the new rationale for the conclusion was based on only one study – using British women where there was a screening requirement we don't have in the U.S. The fact of many methodological flaws in that study isn't really the point, since in the real world all studies have some flaws. Far more important is that the study doesn't support the conclusion, since it did find more drug overdoses in women who had abortions compared to others. Also important is that it doesn't even address the conclusion, since it was only looking at extreme outcomes – drug overdoses rather than over-all substance abuse, for example. (See ~~<nowiki>~~http://wiki.afterabortion.org/index.php?title=Gilchrist#Weaknesses~~</nowiki>~~ for discussion of the one study).		But I was startled to dig in and realize that the new rationale for the conclusion was based on only one study – using British women where there was a screening requirement we don't have in the U.S. The fact of many methodological flaws in that study isn't really the point, since in the real world all studies have some flaws. Far more important is that the study doesn't support the conclusion, since it did find more drug overdoses in women who had abortions compared to others. Also important is that it doesn't even address the conclusion, since it was only looking at extreme outcomes – drug overdoses rather than over-all substance abuse, for example. (See http://wiki.afterabortion.org/index.php?title=Gilchrist#Weaknesses for discussion of the one study).

	We don't draw such a sweeping conclusion from only one study. As I said, they all have flaws. We put together a group of studies so that the flaws may balance out. One thing needs to be replicated before it's taken seriously. Setting aside the quality of the study itself, citing only one study in support of a politically-desired conclusion cannot be explained in any other way than a politically-motivated exercise. This is not a debatable point. This is Quantitative Research 101. Here is a quote from the official APA task force on the subject:		We don't draw such a sweeping conclusion from only one study. As I said, they all have flaws. We put together a group of studies so that the flaws may balance out. One thing needs to be replicated before it's taken seriously. Setting aside the quality of the study itself, citing only one study in support of a politically-desired conclusion cannot be explained in any other way than a politically-motivated exercise. This is not a debatable point. This is Quantitative Research 101. Here is a quote from the official APA task force on the subject:

	: "Do not interpret a single study's results as having importance independent of the effects reported elsewhere in the relevant literature. The thinking presented in a single study may turn the movement of the literature, but the results in a single study are important primarily as one contribution to a mosaic of study effects." (Wilkison, L. & Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and expectations. American Psychologist, page 602.		:"Do not interpret a single study's results as having importance independent of the effects reported elsewhere in the relevant literature. The thinking presented in a single study may turn the movement of the literature, but the results in a single study are important primarily as one contribution to a mosaic of study effects." (Wilkison, L. & Task Force on Statistical Inference, APA Board of Scientific Affairs (1999). [http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=main.showContent&view=fulltext&format=PDF&id=1999-03403-008 Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and expectations.] American Psychologist, page 602.

	So I immediately sent out a memo to the APA governance committees who were now reviewing the report, in case they missed it – it was buried on then page 66 (in the actual released report, it's on page 68; look for the conclusion and note the lone citation in parentheses). There was no response.		So I immediately sent out a memo to the APA governance committees who were now reviewing the report, in case they missed it – it was buried on then page 66 (in the actual released report, it's on page 68; look for the conclusion and note the lone citation in parentheses). There was no response.

	Consistent Life, upon noting a quarter of Council members had changed with the new year, sent out its letter again. This time it got a response, and sent another response; see ~~<nowiki>~~http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/07/14/anti-violence-group-expresses-concerns-over-apa-abortion-task-force/~~</nowiki>~~. I am aware that many other people sent letters as well, making various points. I also sent a memo to all Council members on the idea that a better report would be one that pointed out where the consensus is and where the controversies still are, rather than taking one side in the controversy.		Consistent Life, upon noting a quarter of Council members had changed with the new year, sent out its letter again. This time it got a response, and sent another response; see http://wthrockmorton.com/2008/07/14/anti-violence-group-expresses-concerns-over-apa-abortion-task-force/. I am aware that many other people sent letters as well, making various points. I also sent a memo to all Council members on the idea that a better report would be one that pointed out where the consensus is and where the controversies still are, rather than taking one side in the controversy.

	This takes me to the Council meeting of Wednesday, August 13, 2008. This was the first item on the agenda. Speaking for it were endorsers and people commenting that it was good science on the grounds that it was done by good scientists who had really worked hard on it.		This takes me to the Council meeting of Wednesday, August 13, 2008. This was the first item on the agenda. Speaking for it were endorsers and people commenting that it was good science on the grounds that it was done by good scientists who had really worked hard on it.
Line 116:		Line 118:

	That may help account for the fact that once I made points similar to the above, no one commented on them. To this moment, I don't have an answer to the basic point of how one study, whether an excellent study or not, could possibly be reasonably seen as supporting a bold and ideologically-desired conclusion. I'm an outsider who didn't even think to mention my credentials beyond the relevant point of being a reviewer.		That may help account for the fact that once I made points similar to the above, no one commented on them. To this moment, I don't have an answer to the basic point of how one study, whether an excellent study or not, could possibly be reasonably seen as supporting a bold and ideologically-desired conclusion. I'm an outsider who didn't even think to mention my credentials beyond the relevant point of being a reviewer.

	One person did later comment on the letters Council members had received, with a smirk. No content was commented upon.		One person did later comment on the letters Council members had received, with a smirk. No content was commented upon.

	The vote to receive the report was near unanimous; I believe 6 abstentions. I asked the president-elect about this later, and he said that the vote was like a ribbon-cutting at a building; the building was already built, all the work had already gone in, so that point in time was too late. I pointed out that I had been making these points all along, and he acknowledged that I had been making valid points all along since he had seen me doing it. I told him APA had made a mistake since it was going to lose lobbying influence as people discounted the idea that it was actually promoting science, and he didn't deny it; he thanked me for trying.		The vote to receive the report was near unanimous; I believe 6 abstentions. I asked the president-elect about this later, and he said that the vote was like a ribbon-cutting at a building; the building was already built, all the work had already gone in, so that point in time was too late. I pointed out that I had been making these points all along, and he acknowledged that I had been making valid points all along since he had seen me doing it. I told him APA had made a mistake since it was going to lose lobbying influence as people discounted the idea that it was actually promoting science, and he didn't deny it; he thanked me for trying.

Line 127:		Line 129:
	Meanwhile, the report does say that they do know that there are groups that have higher negative aftermath: teenagers, women who are pressured, women who have more than one, those abortions that late-term. This is information we can put forth as at least being a consensus among all reviewers.		Meanwhile, the report does say that they do know that there are groups that have higher negative aftermath: teenagers, women who are pressured, women who have more than one, those abortions that late-term. This is information we can put forth as at least being a consensus among all reviewers.

	Also published here~~<br>~~
			[http://www.lifenews.com/nat4137.html Also published here]

	== Bias of the APA ==		== Bias of the APA ==

Barb at 17:02, 23 January 2025

2025-01-23T17:02:41Z

@@ Line 83: / Line 83: @@
 This included ignoring the latest New Zealand studies by Fergusson, even though they were provided advanced copies, and also the Suliman 2007 which disclosed about 18% of women had PTSD after an abortion.  What is striking about the Suliman study is that it was prompted by abortion doctors at  a Marie Stopes clinic noticing a "high" rate of PTSD in their clients which prompted the docs to undertake a study to see if one type or anesthesia or another would make any difference. It didn't. Three months out, 18% of the post-abortive women had PTSD. The authors, apparently pro-abortion, pointed that this was almost one in five, and pointed out that they considered this a "high" rate of PTSD. So, how can the APA be so certain that nobody but nobody ever gets PTSD after abortion which is how they want to spin this.
 Also ignored were the very excellent studies by [[Soderberg]]  Using extensive interviews, Soderberg found that at a 12 month follow-up, 50-60% of women undergoing induced abortion experienced some measure of emotional distress, classified as severe in 30% of cases.
-<br>
+== Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion ==
 == Bias of the APA  ==

Barb: /* Bias of the APA */

2018-08-16T22:30:06Z

Bias of the APA

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:30, 16 August 2018
Line 89:		Line 89:
	== Bias of the APA ==		== Bias of the APA ==

	The APA's president of Division 48, Rachel MacNair has written a critique of the Task Force report, and the process by which it was designed to produce a biased report, in her paper [~~http://www.deveber.org/sites/default/files/Rachel%20MacNair%20response%20to%20APA%20Report.pdf~~ Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion], with [~~http~~://~~www~~.~~patheos~~.com/~~blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2008/07/14/anti-violence-group-expresses-concerns-over-apa-abortion-task-force/~~ more details about efforts to correct the report's over generalizations detailed in documents exchanged here].		The APA's president of Division 48, Rachel MacNair has written a critique of the Task Force report, and the process by which it was designed to produce a biased report, in her paper [[Tales from an Insider\|Tales from an Insider-Outsider on the Report of American Psychological Association's Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion]], with [https://books.google.com/books?id=hfBBB_VEnFEC&pg=PA105&dq=%22I+approached+the+microphone+and+started+to+speak+as+others+had,+but+the+president+interrupted+and+said+he+didn%27t+recognize+me+as+a+member+of+the+Council%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj83bHqx_LcAhUSbq0KHQY7CCAQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=%22I%20approached%20the%20microphone%20and%20started%20to%20speak%20as%20others%20had%2C%20but%20the%20president%20interrupted%20and%20said%20he%20didn't%20recognize%20me%20as%20a%20member%20of%20the%20Council%22&f=false more details about efforts to correct the report's over generalizations detailed in documents exchanged here].

	Another useful critique titled "[http://www.visionandvalues.org/2007/05/abortion-and-american-psychology/ Abortion and American Psychology]" has been published by psychologist Warren Throckmorton		Another useful critique titled "[http://www.visionandvalues.org/2007/05/abortion-and-american-psychology/ Abortion and American Psychology]" has been published by psychologist Warren Throckmorton

Barb: /* Recommendations for Improving Observational Studies - STROBE */

2018-06-26T15:21:06Z

Recommendations for Improving Observational Studies - STROBE

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:21, 26 June 2018
Line 332:		Line 332:
	:ABSTRACT: Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.		:ABSTRACT: Much biomedical research is observational. The reporting of such research is often inadequate, which hampers the assessment of its strengths and weaknesses and of a study's generalisability. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Initiative developed recommendations on what should be included in an accurate and complete report of an observational study. We defined the scope of the recommendations to cover three main study designs: cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies. We convened a 2-day workshop in September 2004, with methodologists, researchers, and journal editors to draft a checklist of items. This list was subsequently revised during several meetings of the coordinating group and in e-mail discussions with the larger group of STROBE contributors, taking into account empirical evidence and methodological considerations. The workshop and the subsequent iterative process of consultation and revision resulted in a checklist of 22 items (the STROBE Statement) that relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of articles. 18 items are common to all three study designs and four are specific for cohort, case-control, or cross-sectional studies. A detailed Explanation and Elaboration document is published separately and is freely available on the Web sites of PLoS Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Epidemiology. We hope that the STROBE Statement will contribute to improving the quality of reporting of observational studies.

	A number of [http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/3/666?view=long&pmid=17470488 strategies for accessing the quality of observational studies] have been proposed and tested.		A number of [http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/36/3/666?view=long&pmid=17470488 strategies for accessing the quality of observational studies] have been proposed and tested.


			=== Institute of Medicine's Recommendations for Improving Healthcare===

			The Institute of Medicine's (IOM) report ''Crossing the Quality Chasm'', identified 6 aims for improvement in healthcare:

			*1.''Safe:'' avoiding injuries to patients from care that is intended to help them.

			*2.''Effective:'' providing services based on scientific knowledge to all who could benefit, and '''refraining from providing services to those unlikely to benefit''' (avoiding underuse and overuse).

			*3.''Patient-centered:'' providing care that is respectful of and responsive to '''individual patient preferences, needs, and values''' and ensuring that patient values guide clinical decisions.

			*4.''Timely:'' reducing waits and sometimes harmful delays for both those who receive and give care.

			*5.''Efficient:'' avoiding waste, such as waste of equipment, supplies, ideas, and energy.

			*6.''Equitable:'' providing care that does not differ in quality because of personal characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, geographic location, and socioeconomic status.

	==Regarding the Bogus Causality Argument==		==Regarding the Bogus Causality Argument==

Barb: /* Refusals to Share Data */

2017-03-02T18:56:34Z

Refusals to Share Data

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:56, 2 March 2017
Line 149:		Line 149:
	:Openness and transparency are core values of science. As a manifestation of those values, a minimum requirement for publication of any scientific results must be the public submission of materials used in generating those results. As reviewers, it is our responsibility to ensure that publications meet certain minimum quality standards.		:Openness and transparency are core values of science. As a manifestation of those values, a minimum requirement for publication of any scientific results must be the public submission of materials used in generating those results. As reviewers, it is our responsibility to ensure that publications meet certain minimum quality standards.

	[http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/150547 The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review]		[http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/150547 The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review] Morey, RD et al. R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Jan 13;3(1):150547. doi: 10.1098/rsos.150547. eCollection 2016.

	==Articles Related to APA Task Force ==		==Articles Related to APA Task Force ==

Barb: /* Refusals to Share Data */

2017-03-02T18:21:44Z

Refusals to Share Data

← Older revision		Revision as of 13:21, 2 March 2017
Line 136:		Line 136:

	===Refusals to Share Data===		===Refusals to Share Data===

	[http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-activists-push-psychology-journals-towards-open-data-1.21549?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20170302&spMailingID=53538106&spUserID=ODI4MTAwMDMwNDYS1&spJobID=1120320868&spReportId=MTEyMDMyMDg2OAS2 Peer-review activists push psychology journals towards open data] Naik, G. Nature. March 1, 2017		[http://www.nature.com/news/peer-review-activists-push-psychology-journals-towards-open-data-1.21549?WT.ec_id=NEWS-20170302&spMailingID=53538106&spUserID=ODI4MTAwMDMwNDYS1&spJobID=1120320868&spReportId=MTEyMDMyMDg2OAS2 Peer-review activists push psychology journals towards open data] Naik, G. Nature. March 1, 2017

Line 147:		Line 148:
	[https://opennessinitiative.org/the-initiative/ Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative]		[https://opennessinitiative.org/the-initiative/ Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative]
	:Openness and transparency are core values of science. As a manifestation of those values, a minimum requirement for publication of any scientific results must be the public submission of materials used in generating those results. As reviewers, it is our responsibility to ensure that publications meet certain minimum quality standards.		:Openness and transparency are core values of science. As a manifestation of those values, a minimum requirement for publication of any scientific results must be the public submission of materials used in generating those results. As reviewers, it is our responsibility to ensure that publications meet certain minimum quality standards.

			[http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/1/150547 The Peer Reviewers' Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review]

	==Articles Related to APA Task Force ==		==Articles Related to APA Task Force ==