C. Everett Koop - Revision history

Barb: /* NOTES */

2016-10-14T16:53:46Z

NOTES

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 14 October 2016
Line 64:		Line 64:
	===NOTES===		===NOTES===
	The above article includes sections and excerpts of [http://afterabortion.org/1995/revisiting-the-koop-report-2/ ''Revisiting the “Koop Report”''] by David C. Reardon, Ph.D., with permission from the Elliot Institute and excerpts from Wikipedia...reprinted with permission from the public domain.		The above article includes sections and excerpts of [http://afterabortion.org/1995/revisiting-the-koop-report-2/ ''Revisiting the “Koop Report”''] by David C. Reardon, Ph.D., with permission from the Elliot Institute and excerpts from Wikipedia...reprinted with permission from the public domain.

			[http://www.afterabortion.org/pdf/Koop(1989)Letter_to_President_Reagan.pdf Copy of C. Everett Koop’s letter on abortion health effects to President Reagan, Jan 9, 1989.]

	[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/QQBBQZ.pdf Statement of C. Everett Koop, M.D. Surgeon General Before the House Committee on Government Operations. March 16, 1989]		[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/QQBBQZ.pdf Statement of C. Everett Koop, M.D. Surgeon General Before the House Committee on Government Operations. March 16, 1989]

Barb: /* The Koop Letter */

2016-10-14T16:53:04Z

The Koop Letter

← Older revision		Revision as of 11:53, 14 October 2016
Line 70:		Line 70:

	==The Koop Letter==		==The Koop Letter==
	(~~The~~ letter from C. Everett Koop to President Reagan		(Below is the text from a scan of [http://www.afterabortion.org/pdf/Koop(1989)Letter_to_President_Reagan.pdf the letter from C. Everett Koop to President Reagan] regarding the President's request that he prepare a report on the physical and mental health effects of abortion.)
	regarding the President's request that he prepare
	a report on the physical and mental health effects
	of abortion.)

Barb: /* Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter */

2015-05-20T15:17:29Z

Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:17, 20 May 2015
Line 39:		Line 39:


	===Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter===		===Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter and Advocacy of Walter's Report===

	Abortion proponents immediately began to insist that Koop's letter proved there was no evidence of abortion harming women, a misrepresentation that was widely reported in the media.<ref name=NIH>		Abortion proponents immediately began to insist that Koop's letter proved there was no evidence of abortion harming women, a misrepresentation that was widely reported in the media.<ref name=NIH>
Line 45:		Line 45:

	:"It is worth mentioning that the first press release by a wires service after my visit to the White house completely misinterpreted my letter to the President. The release said that there was "no evidence of health effects post-abortion" rather than saying that there was insufficient scientific and statistical evidence on which to base an unimpeachable report. That erroneous news release was picked up by all three major networks and repeated verbatim. Since then, the incorrect conclusions have surfaced periodically and have been used improperly to further notions held by those on one side or other of the abortion argument. I would like to make it clear that the letter I wrote the President did not eliminate his question on psychological sequelae, it merely postponed the answer."<ref name=Koop>[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/QQBBQZ.pdf Statement of C. Everett Koop, M.D. Surgeon General Before the House Committee on Government Operations. March 16, 1989]</ref>		:"It is worth mentioning that the first press release by a wires service after my visit to the White house completely misinterpreted my letter to the President. The release said that there was "no evidence of health effects post-abortion" rather than saying that there was insufficient scientific and statistical evidence on which to base an unimpeachable report. That erroneous news release was picked up by all three major networks and repeated verbatim. Since then, the incorrect conclusions have surfaced periodically and have been used improperly to further notions held by those on one side or other of the abortion argument. I would like to make it clear that the letter I wrote the President did not eliminate his question on psychological sequelae, it merely postponed the answer."<ref name=Koop>[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/QQBBQZ.pdf Statement of C. Everett Koop, M.D. Surgeon General Before the House Committee on Government Operations. March 16, 1989]</ref>


	Then, after submitting the letter to the President, Koop told his staff to discontinue any further efforts on the report because it was simply not possible "prepare a report that could withstand scientific and statistical scrutiny."<ref name="NIH"/> But his instruction were ignored by Walter who revised his draft and again submitted it to Koop who instructed him to shelve the draft and to not release any report other than his letter from his office. Walter subsequently released the draft under Koop's name anyway.<ref name="CD"/><ref name="Koop"/>		Then, after submitting the letter to the President, Koop told his staff to discontinue any further efforts on the report because it was simply not possible "prepare a report that could withstand scientific and statistical scrutiny."<ref name="NIH"/> But his instruction were ignored by Walter who revised his draft and again submitted it to Koop who instructed him to shelve the draft and to not release any report other than his letter from his office. Walter subsequently released the draft under Koop's name anyway.<ref name="CD"/><ref name="Koop"/>
Line 54:		Line 53:
	In his testimony, Koop reiterated his position that the studies on abortion's psychological effects at that time were too flawed to make any estimate regarding how many women were negatively effected by abortion, but he insisted that "there is no doubt about the fact that there are those people who do have severe psychological problems after abortion. I have counseled such people in my own life."		In his testimony, Koop reiterated his position that the studies on abortion's psychological effects at that time were too flawed to make any estimate regarding how many women were negatively effected by abortion, but he insisted that "there is no doubt about the fact that there are those people who do have severe psychological problems after abortion. I have counseled such people in my own life."

	The effort to get Koop to say anything ~~that would~~ further advance their efforts to "close the file" on abortion safety, was exemplified by this exchange:		The effort to get Koop to say anything to further advance their efforts to "close the file" on abortion safety, was exemplified by this exchange:

	:Congressman Ted Weiss: "And yet the American Psychological Association's conclusion that severe long-term psychological effects of abortion are rare seems to be consistent with your remarks at several meeting on this topic in which you refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective."		:Congressman Ted Weiss: "And yet the American Psychological Association's conclusion that severe long-term psychological effects of abortion are rare seems to be consistent with your remarks at several meeting on this topic in which you refer to the psychological problem as "minuscule" from the public health perspective."

Barb: /* The Unwanted Assignment */

2015-05-20T15:14:58Z

The Unwanted Assignment

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 20 May 2015
Line 14:		Line 14:
	Koop, for his part, did ''not'' relish the assignment.<ref name="Whitehead">John Whitehead and Michael Patrick, “Exclusive Interview: U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop,” The Rutherford Institute, Spring 1989, 31-34.</ref><ref name="CD">Christina Dunigan. [http://clinicquotes.com/the-koop-report-the-real-story/ The Koop Report: The REAL Story] Clinic Quotes. August 30, 2012.</ref> On at least two occasions Koop attempted to convince the president to withdraw his request for a report.		Koop, for his part, did ''not'' relish the assignment.<ref name="Whitehead">John Whitehead and Michael Patrick, “Exclusive Interview: U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop,” The Rutherford Institute, Spring 1989, 31-34.</ref><ref name="CD">Christina Dunigan. [http://clinicquotes.com/the-koop-report-the-real-story/ The Koop Report: The REAL Story] Clinic Quotes. August 30, 2012.</ref> On at least two occasions Koop attempted to convince the president to withdraw his request for a report.

	When his petitions were rejected, Koop assigned the task to an assistant,George Walter, explaining that he wanted to “distance” himself from the report.<ref name="NYT">Leary, Warren E. (March 17, 1989). "[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/17/us/koop-says-abortion-report-couldn-t-survive-challenge.html Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge]". New York Times.</ref><ref name="CD"/> Walter obtained a list of articles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), authored mostly by CDC pro-abortion surveillance staff (several of whom moonlighted as abortion providers). It is also reported that Walter consulted with Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.		When his petitions were rejected, Koop assigned the task to an assistant, Commander George Walter, explaining that he wanted to “distance” himself from the report.<ref name="NYT">Leary, Warren E. (March 17, 1989). "[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/17/us/koop-says-abortion-report-couldn-t-survive-challenge.html Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge]". New York Times.</ref><ref name="CD"/> Walter obtained a list of articles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), authored mostly by CDC pro-abortion surveillance staff (several of whom moonlighted as abortion providers). It is also reported that Walter consulted with Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.

	When Walter's report was given to Koop, Koop didn't believe the report had sufficient merit to give it his stamp of approval. Koop, therefore, decided that no final “report” could be given at all.		When Walter's report was given to Koop, Koop didn't believe the report had sufficient merit to give it his stamp of approval. Koop, therefore, decided that no final “report” could be given at all.

Barb: /* Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter */

2015-05-20T15:14:23Z

Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:14, 20 May 2015
Line 49:		Line 49:
	Then, after submitting the letter to the President, Koop told his staff to discontinue any further efforts on the report because it was simply not possible "prepare a report that could withstand scientific and statistical scrutiny."<ref name="NIH"/> But his instruction were ignored by Walter who revised his draft and again submitted it to Koop who instructed him to shelve the draft and to not release any report other than his letter from his office. Walter subsequently released the draft under Koop's name anyway.<ref name="CD"/><ref name="Koop"/>		Then, after submitting the letter to the President, Koop told his staff to discontinue any further efforts on the report because it was simply not possible "prepare a report that could withstand scientific and statistical scrutiny."<ref name="NIH"/> But his instruction were ignored by Walter who revised his draft and again submitted it to Koop who instructed him to shelve the draft and to not release any report other than his letter from his office. Walter subsequently released the draft under Koop's name anyway.<ref name="CD"/><ref name="Koop"/>

	Eventually Congressional hearings were called for and led by pro-abortion Democrats with the explicit goal of trying to make Walter's pro-abortion leaning report part of the official record. Koop distanced himself from Walter's report insisting he had not even read it until preparing for the congressional hearing<ref name="NYT"/> and that it was, in fact, only "Commander Walter's report" not the report of the Surgeon General.<ref name=CR/>		Eventually Congressional hearings were called for and led by pro-abortion Democrats with the explicit goal of trying to make Walter's pro-abortion leaning report part of the official record. Koop distanced himself from Walter's report insisting he had not even read it until preparing for the congressional hearing<ref name="NYT"/> and that it was, in fact, only "Commander Walter's report" not the report of the Surgeon General.<ref name=CR/><ref> See page 223 of

	<ref> See page 223 of
	[http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754076877616;view=1up;seq=1 Medical and psychological impact of abortion : hearing before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations], House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, first session, March 16, 1989. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008523318 </ref>		[http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=pur1.32754076877616;view=1up;seq=1 Medical and psychological impact of abortion : hearing before the Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations Subcommittee of the Committee on Government Operations], House of Representatives, One Hundred First Congress, first session, March 16, 1989. http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008523318 </ref>

Barb: /* Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter */

2015-05-20T15:12:34Z

Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter

@@ Line 41: / Line 41: @@
 ===Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter===
-Abortion proponents immediately began to insist that Koop's letter proved there was no evidence of abortion harming women.<ref name=NIH>
+Abortion proponents immediately began to insist that Koop's letter proved there was no evidence of abortion harming women, a misrepresentation that was widely reported in the media.<ref name=NIH>
-[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/QQ/p-nid/88 The C. Everett Koop Papers: Reproduction and Family Health],</ref>  But Koop himself vigorously denied this, insisting that there was “no doubt in my mind” that there are serious physical complications and “tremendous psychological problems” resulting from abortion.<ref name="Whitehead"/>
+[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/QQ/p-nid/88 The C. Everett Koop Papers: Reproduction and Family Health],</ref>  But Koop himself vigorously denied this, insisting that there was “no doubt in my mind” that there are serious physical complications and “tremendous psychological problems” resulting from abortion.<ref name="Whitehead"/>  In subsequent testimony, Koop stated:
 ===NOTES===

Barb: /* The Unwanted Assignment */

2015-05-19T22:25:34Z

The Unwanted Assignment

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:25, 19 May 2015
Line 12:		Line 12:
	It all began when the President was preparing for a summit meeting with pro-life leaders who were outraged over the firing of JoAnn Gasper from the Department of Health and Human Services. (Mrs. Gasper had been fired for enforcing a hard line interpretation of federal regulations banning abortion funding, a position her immediate supervisors in the Administration did not share.) At the urging of at least one pro-life aide, President Reagan was convinced that pro-lifer’s would be mollified by allowing Koop, one of their own, to produce a report which would prove the negative health effects of abortion on women and thus contribute to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Having personally reviewed a number of post-abortion testimonies himself, Reagan was perhaps so convinced of abortion’s traumatic effects that he assumed that the assignment would be an easy one which Koop would relish. (It is even reported that President Reagan frequently gave copies of post-abortion testimonies to others in defense of his anti-abortion position.)		It all began when the President was preparing for a summit meeting with pro-life leaders who were outraged over the firing of JoAnn Gasper from the Department of Health and Human Services. (Mrs. Gasper had been fired for enforcing a hard line interpretation of federal regulations banning abortion funding, a position her immediate supervisors in the Administration did not share.) At the urging of at least one pro-life aide, President Reagan was convinced that pro-lifer’s would be mollified by allowing Koop, one of their own, to produce a report which would prove the negative health effects of abortion on women and thus contribute to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Having personally reviewed a number of post-abortion testimonies himself, Reagan was perhaps so convinced of abortion’s traumatic effects that he assumed that the assignment would be an easy one which Koop would relish. (It is even reported that President Reagan frequently gave copies of post-abortion testimonies to others in defense of his anti-abortion position.)

	Koop, for his part, did ''not'' relish the assignment.<ref name="Whitehead">John Whitehead and Michael Patrick, “Exclusive Interview: U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop,” The Rutherford Institute, Spring 1989, 31-34.</ref><ref name="CD'>Christina Dunigan. [http://clinicquotes.com/the-koop-report-the-real-story/ The Koop Report: The REAL Story] Clinic Quotes. August 30, 2012.</ref> On at least two occasions Koop attempted to convince the president to withdraw his request for a report.		Koop, for his part, did ''not'' relish the assignment.<ref name="Whitehead">John Whitehead and Michael Patrick, “Exclusive Interview: U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop,” The Rutherford Institute, Spring 1989, 31-34.</ref><ref name="CD">Christina Dunigan. [http://clinicquotes.com/the-koop-report-the-real-story/ The Koop Report: The REAL Story] Clinic Quotes. August 30, 2012.</ref> On at least two occasions Koop attempted to convince the president to withdraw his request for a report.

	When his petitions were rejected, Koop assigned the task to an assistant,George Walter, explaining that he wanted to “distance” himself from the report.<ref name="NYT">Leary, Warren E. (March 17, 1989). "[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/17/us/koop-says-abortion-report-couldn-t-survive-challenge.html Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge]". New York Times.</ref~~><ref name="CT"/~~><ref name="CD"/> Walter obtained a list of articles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), authored mostly by CDC pro-abortion surveillance staff (several of whom moonlighted as abortion providers). It is also reported that Walter consulted with Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.		When his petitions were rejected, Koop assigned the task to an assistant,George Walter, explaining that he wanted to “distance” himself from the report.<ref name="NYT">Leary, Warren E. (March 17, 1989). "[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/17/us/koop-says-abortion-report-couldn-t-survive-challenge.html Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge]". New York Times.</ref><ref name="CD"/> Walter obtained a list of articles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), authored mostly by CDC pro-abortion surveillance staff (several of whom moonlighted as abortion providers). It is also reported that Walter consulted with Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.

	When Walter's report was given to Koop, Koop didn't believe the report had sufficient merit to give it his stamp of approval. Koop, therefore, decided that no final “report” could be given at all.		When Walter's report was given to Koop, Koop didn't believe the report had sufficient merit to give it his stamp of approval. Koop, therefore, decided that no final “report” could be given at all.
Line 24:		Line 24:
	study could be conducted for approximately $100 million over the next five years. A less expensive yet		study could be conducted for approximately $100 million over the next five years. A less expensive yet
	satisfactory study could be conducted for approximately $10 million over the same period of time. This $10 million study could start yielding data after the first year."		satisfactory study could be conducted for approximately $10 million over the same period of time. This $10 million study could start yielding data after the first year."


	===Koop's Moral Bind===		===Koop's Moral Bind===

Barb: /* The Unwanted Assignment */

2015-05-19T22:20:23Z

The Unwanted Assignment

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:20, 19 May 2015
Line 16:		Line 16:
	When his petitions were rejected, Koop assigned the task to an assistant,George Walter, explaining that he wanted to “distance” himself from the report.<ref name="NYT">Leary, Warren E. (March 17, 1989). "[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/17/us/koop-says-abortion-report-couldn-t-survive-challenge.html Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge]". New York Times.</ref><ref name="CT"/><ref name="CD"/> Walter obtained a list of articles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), authored mostly by CDC pro-abortion surveillance staff (several of whom moonlighted as abortion providers). It is also reported that Walter consulted with Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.		When his petitions were rejected, Koop assigned the task to an assistant,George Walter, explaining that he wanted to “distance” himself from the report.<ref name="NYT">Leary, Warren E. (March 17, 1989). "[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/17/us/koop-says-abortion-report-couldn-t-survive-challenge.html Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge]". New York Times.</ref><ref name="CT"/><ref name="CD"/> Walter obtained a list of articles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), authored mostly by CDC pro-abortion surveillance staff (several of whom moonlighted as abortion providers). It is also reported that Walter consulted with Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.

	When Walter's report was given to Koop, Koop didn't believe the report had sufficient merit to give it his stamp of approval. Koop, therefore, decided that no final “report” could be given at all. Instead, he provided a letter to the President Reagan explaining why there was insufficient data on which to base a report. Koop concluded the letter by stating that a prospective five year study, costing between $10 and $100 million would best address the lack of unassailable data. Even in this, however, he was noncommittal. His statements regarding the possibility of a prospective study had the tone of “if you really want to know, this is what should be done.” Nowhere did he actually champion the pressing need for such a study on the grounds that abortion is one of the most common surgeries in America and lack of adequate research about abortion sequelae is simply unconscionable.		When Walter's report was given to Koop, Koop didn't believe the report had sufficient merit to give it his stamp of approval. Koop, therefore, decided that no final “report” could be given at all.

	So, ~~rather than report on what can be deduced from~~ the data~~, Koop chose~~ to ~~concentrate on what is ''not known''. He did this by insisting that any official~~ report ~~from his office could only include “unassailable” data.<ref name=~~"~~Whitehead"/> Because there are no perfect studies, especially in~~ the ~~field~~ of ~~behavioral science~~, ~~there is always room for criticism~~ and ~~dispute. So~~, ~~in hiding behind~~ the ~~demand for “unassailable”~~ data~~, Koop had found his way out~~. ~~By insisting that any report must be based~~ on ~~"unassailable data" when in fact all the studies available had numerous weaknesses~~, ~~Koop was able~~ to ~~focus on those weaknesses in order to avoid drawing any~~ conclusions. ~~This was reflected in his subsequent letter in which he stated “scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women.”~~		Instead, he provided a letter to the President Reagan explaining why there was insufficient data on which to base a report, stating, "the available scientific evidence about the psychological sequelae of
			abortion simply cannot support either the preconceived beliefs of those pro-life or of those pro-choice," and again, "the data do not support the premise that abortion does or does not cause or contribute to psychological problems. Anecdotal reports abound on both sides. However, individual cases cannot be used to reach scientifically sound conclusions."

			In conclusion, Koop wrote that "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women. I recommend that consideration be given to going forward with an appropriate prospective study." In that regard, he stated that "The most desirable prospective
			study could be conducted for approximately $100 million over the next five years. A less expensive yet
			satisfactory study could be conducted for approximately $10 million over the same period of time. This $10 million study could start yielding data after the first year."

	He said it was not a public health issue but a moral one.<ref name="Bloomberg death">Schoifet, Mark (February 25, 2013). "C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General Who Took on Tobacco, Dies at 96". Bloomberg.</ref>

			===Koop's Moral Bind===

			Koop was a well known as a Evangelical pro-life advocate. But he believed abortion should be addressed as a moral issue, not a public health issue.<ref name="Bloomberg death">Schoifet, Mark (February 25, 2013). "C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General Who Took on Tobacco, Dies at 96". Bloomberg.</ref>

	~~Most curiously, in the furor~~ of ~~confusion following~~ his letter, ~~it became clear that Dr.~~ Koop ~~in fact had two positions. His~~ public ~~position was that~~ of ~~the uneasy Sergeant Schultz who claims: “I know nothing!” This non-opinion was all that he could confidently defend as the Surgeon General~~ for the United States. But as he also held the private opinion (which because it was private was somehow above criticism) that there was sufficient and compelling evidence which left “no doubt in my mind” that there are serious physical complications and “tremendous psychological problems” resulting from abortion.3		In an interview with leaders of The Rutherford Institute shortly after release of his letter to the president, Koop sharply criticized the efforts of pro-lifers who were working to increase public awareness of abortion complications for women.

			According to Koop, “I think it is wrong for the prolife forces to get all upset about the health effects of abortion on women and get away from the health effects of abortion on the fetus. This is the marker issue there . . . [A]s soon as you contaminate the morality of your stand by getting worried about the health effects of abortion on women, you have weakened the whole thing…”<ref name="Whitehead"/>

			This view suggests an important reason why Koop did not want to undertake President Reagan's assignment. To Koop, it posed a moral quandary. He believed Reagan's request was not only a strategic mistake . . . it was morally topsy-turvey, threatening to turn attention away the core moral issue, the sanctity of human life, by diverting attention to purely health issues.

			In short, if he had written a report which validated concerns of abortion’s health risks for women, he would have been contributing to the abandonment of the moral high ground. Abortion, he believed, should not be opposed for what it does to women, but for what it does to the unborn.
	~~Koop did not present the draft~~ report to ~~Reagan and claimed he never approved it.<ref name="NYT Leary"/> In March 1989,~~ the ~~"Koop Report" became public after it was [[subpoena]]ed and became part~~ of ~~a [[United States House of Representatives\|Congressional]] subcommittee hearing~~.~~<ref name="NYT Leary"/> Although there were allegations that the report had~~ not ~~been released previously because~~ it ~~was biased~~, the ~~document contained all arguments on both sides of the issue~~.~~<ref name="NYT Leary"/>~~



			===Misrepresentations of Koop's Letter===

			Abortion proponents immediately began to insist that Koop's letter proved there was no evidence of abortion harming women.<ref name=NIH>
			[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/QQ/p-nid/88 The C. Everett Koop Papers: Reproduction and Family Health],</ref> But Koop himself vigorously denied this, insisting that there was “no doubt in my mind” that there are serious physical complications and “tremendous psychological problems” resulting from abortion.<ref name="Whitehead"/>

	===NOTES===		===NOTES===

Barb: /* The Unwanted Assignment */

2015-05-19T21:36:14Z

The Unwanted Assignment

Show changes

Barb: Created page with " ==The Koop Report on Abortion== In July of 1987, President Ronald Reagan asked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, to to prepare a report for the nation on the health risks of..."

2015-05-19T21:24:33Z

Created page with " ==The Koop Report on Abortion== In July of 1987, President Ronald Reagan asked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, to to prepare a report for the nation on the health risks of..."

New page

==The Koop Report on Abortion==

In July of 1987, President Ronald Reagan asked Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, to to prepare a report for the nation on the health risks of abortion for women.

In brief, in a letter to the President seventeen months later, Dr. Koop ducked the assignment claiming that due to an inadequate base of research no definitive statements could be made. The pro-abortion media immediately twisted Koop’s non-report into a claim that no dangers to abortion could be found, ergo, abortion is safe. Similar distortions of Koop’s statements continue to this day particularly in medical journals where pro-abortion researchers frequently cite the Surgeon General’s letter as an “authoritative” review which confirmed the safety of abortion. For his part, Dr. Koop continues to be haunted by the whole matter, facing the sporadic denouncements of conservatives who believe that he “betrayed” the cause.

What really happened? What did Koop really say and what could he have said?

===The Unwanted Assignment ===

It all began when the President was preparing for a summit meeting with pro-life leaders who were outraged over the firing of JoAnn Gasper from the Department of Health and Human Services. (Mrs. Gasper had been fired for enforcing a hard line interpretation of federal regulations banning abortion funding, a position her immediate supervisors in the Administration did not share.) At the urging of at least one pro-life aide, President Reagan was convinced that pro-lifer’s would be mollified by allowing Koop, one of their own, to produce a report which would prove the negative health effects of abortion on women and thus contribute to the reversal of Roe v. Wade. Having personally reviewed a number of post-abortion testimonies himself, Reagan was perhaps so convinced of abortion’s traumatic effects that he assumed that the assignment would be an easy one which Koop would relish. (It is even reported that President Reagan frequently gave copies of post-abortion testimonies to others in defense of his anti-abortion position.)

Koop, for his part, did ''not'' relish the assignment. On at least two occasions Koop attempted to convince the president to withdraw his request for a report. When his petitions were rejected, Koop assigned the task to an assistant explaining that he wanted to “distance” himself from the report. Koop simply did not like being dragged back into the abortion controversy, especially in an official role as an “expert” on the health effects of abortion. He knew, far better than the president, that every piece of evidence, every conclusion, every nuanced statement that Koop might make was going to be dissected and attacked by one side or the other. The forensics experts at the O.J. Simpson trial faced less of a grilling than that which confronted Koop.

Initially, Koop assigned an assistant, George Walter, the task of researching the matter.
<ref name="NYT">Leary, Warren E. (March 17, 1989). "[http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/17/us/koop-says-abortion-report-couldn-t-survive-challenge.html Koop Says Abortion Report Couldn't Survive Challenge]". New York Times.</ref> Walter obtained a list of articles from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), authored mostly by CDC pro-abortion surveillance staff (several of whom moonlighted as abortion providers). It is also reported that Walter consulted with Planned Parenthood's Alan Guttmacher Institute.

Walter report was given to Koop, but Koop didn't believe the report had sufficient merit to give it his stamp of approval.

Koop, therefore, decided that no final “report” could be given at all. Instead, he provided a letter to the President Reagan explaining why there was insufficient data on which to base a report. Koop concluded the letter by stating that a prospective five year study, costing between $10 and $100 million would best address the lack of unassailable data. Even in this, however, he was noncommittal. His statements regarding the possibility of a prospective study had the tone of “if you really want to know, this is what should be done.” Nowhere did he actually champion the pressing need for such a study on the grounds that abortion is one of the most common surgeries in America and lack of adequate research about abortion sequelae is simply unconscionable.

So, rather than report on what can be deduced from the data, Koop chose to concentrate on what is ''not known''. He did this by insisting that any official report from his office could only include “unassailable” data.<ref name="Whitehead">John Whitehead and Michael Patrick, “Exclusive Interview: U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop,” The Rutherford Institute, Spring 1989, 31-34.</ref> Because there are no perfect studies, especially in the field of behavioral science, there is always room for criticism and dispute. So, in hiding behind the demand for “unassailable” data, Koop had found his way out. By insisting that any report must be based on "unassailable data" when in fact all the studies available had numerous weaknesses, Koop was able to focus on those weaknesses in order to avoid drawing any conclusions. This was reflected in his subsequent letter in which he stated “scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women.”

He said it was not a public health issue but a moral one.<ref name="Bloomberg death">Schoifet, Mark (February 25, 2013). "C. Everett Koop, Surgeon General Who Took on Tobacco, Dies at 96". Bloomberg.</ref>

Most curiously, in the furor of confusion following his letter, it became clear that Dr. Koop in fact had two positions. His public position was that of the uneasy Sergeant Schultz who claims: “I know nothing!” This non-opinion was all that he could confidently defend as the Surgeon General for the United States. But as he also held the private opinion (which because it was private was somehow above criticism) that there was sufficient and compelling evidence which left “no doubt in my mind” that there are serious physical complications and “tremendous psychological problems” resulting from abortion.3

Koop did not present the draft report to Reagan and claimed he never approved it.<ref name="NYT Leary"/> In March 1989, the "Koop Report" became public after it was [[subpoena]]ed and became part of a [[United States House of Representatives|Congressional]] subcommittee hearing.<ref name="NYT Leary"/> Although there were allegations that the report had not been released previously because it was biased, the document contained all arguments on both sides of the issue.<ref name="NYT Leary"/>

<ref name="CD'>Christina Dunigan. [http://clinicquotes.com/the-koop-report-the-real-story/ The Koop Report: The REAL Story] Clinic Quotes. August 30, 2012.

===NOTES===
The above article includes sections and excerpts of [http://afterabortion.org/1995/revisiting-the-koop-report-2/ ''Revisiting the “Koop Report”''] by David C. Reardon, Ph.D., with permission from the Elliot Institute and excerpts from Wikipedia...reprinted with permission from the public domain.

[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/QQBBQZ.pdf Statement of C. Everett Koop, M.D. Surgeon General Before the House Committee on Government Operations. March 16, 1989]

[http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/retrieve/Narrative/QQ/p-nid/88 The C. Everett Koop Papers: Reproduction and Family Health]