Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:30, 26 February 2008

User page and other things

Sorry for disrupting your version of article again. Please take your time to read Misplaced Pages:User page#What may I not have on my user page?, which discourages "material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws" on user pages. There is one exception, however, which is dispute resolution, which is always welcome. Quite frankly, I am not too pleased to be quoted as an example of "editors openly advocating the purging of material from peer reviewed journals simply because abortion proponents have accused the authors of bias" or your referring to editors as "high school students or Planned Parenthood interns."

I have not quoted you as an example of anything other than what you wrote, which was to encourage 131.216.41.16 to purge verifable material. If you regret that, why not declare the past efforts to exclude material an error and start supporting the inclusion of all peer reviewed material so we can COLLABORATE in creating an article that is as complete as possible?

Also keep in mind that this is not your place to indefinitely archive your preferred version. I place emphasis on "indefinitely" because you are always welcome to experiment or make changes for future. However, if you keep it there for too long, it may be subject to deletion. миражinred 00:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC) AKA: Saranghae honey, mirageinred

I believe I am free to work with others on this page. As it is a work in progress, it is not an archive. Thanks for stalking me.--Strider12 (talk) 15:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You have said earlier "mirageinred and 131.216.41.16 have openly talked on this page about 'purging.'" And it seems like you are using this space to store your "work in progress" or your preferred version. Again, please show some civility. Thanks. миражinred 21:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

It is customary to keep a "work in progress" like this in a sandbox, rather than on your talk page. I can create one for you, if you don't know the procedure for doing so. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

As noted below, I'd welcome a subpage. But my current sandbox is being used for another article. Can one have more than one sandbox? --Strider12 (talk) 22:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Within reason, sure; but they can't be used as a sub rosa way of turning Misplaced Pages into your webserver or storing your own documents on Misplaced Pages's servers. The main advantage to keeping a draft here, at least briefly, is to double-check your mark-up code. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN/I notice

Hello, Strider12. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. MastCell 20:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Here's a more direct link, though I don't know how long it will work if they archive the page frequently.Strider12 (talk) 23:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Purpose of user talk pages

Strider12, the purpose of your user talk page is to serve as a means of communication with other Misplaced Pages editors. Your draft of the Post Abortion Syndrome article should be moved to a subpage. If you don't know how to do this, I will do it for you. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to learn how to create a subpage. My goal is simply to allow others to collaborate on an article where material will not be deleted simply because it goes against a POV bias.--Strider12 (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you already have a sandbox. It's at User:Strider12/Sandbox. You created it yourself on December 27, around the same time you turned your user talk page into a content fork. MastCell 22:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Strider12, I've moved the material to User:Strider12/Draft. I've also deleted the paragraph where you tell people they need your permission to edit, since that violates Misplaced Pages policy. Let me know if you need more help. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

1. How do you create and access draft pages?

2. I thought Misplaced Pages policy gave one some more autonomy to control his/her own talk page(s). If people can come in and delete content that I am trying to build with persons who are not POV pushers who delete verifiable material, I'm back to square one where it is impossible to have a collaborative work because people keep deleting verifiable material.

3. I actually want to start advocating for a policy that would support "parallel development" for both sides of controversial issues. While similar to MPOV recommendations, it would be intended as primarily a short term solution to let both sides of an argument develop their "versions" with all the evidence they want and then try to merge after substantive work has been done. That would reduce the very frustrating problem of having verifiable material constantly deleted by POV pushers...at least until each side can put their best face forward. As it is, I and others with expertise can't make any significant progress in contributing material without facing constant deletions. Reading about other's frustruations along the same lines, the current process tends to wear out experts who have real jobs to the point where they abandon Wikipeida to the high schoolers and POV pushers who edit with lots of zeal but little insight.--Strider12 (talk) 23:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To create a draft page, just type in the title you want to use, with your user name followed by a slash and the title (e.g. User:Strider12/Sandbox2) into the search box. It will come back as a non-existent page; then just click on "Create this page", which should be one of the options. When you save it, it will be up and running. As to "parallel development", this sort of idea has generally been explicitly rejected as circumventing and defeating the consensus-building process (see WP:POVFORK). As to the current process tending to wear out experts with real jobs in favor of people with lots of zeal and little insight, you're preaching to the choir. MastCell 23:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I understand and approve of the goal of consensus building. But that still requires that all involved have an opportunity to lay their cards on the table, in a coherent fashion, so consensus building can be fully informed. By at least allowing temporary "forks" many advantages can be had. First, editors on each side who understand NPOV can better moderate enthusiasts on "their side" and can better appeal to enthusiasts on the "other side" to work on the other fork and leave theirs alone until it is finished. Then, once both sides get well developed articles, the leadership developed by lead editors on each fork will help lay the groundwork for integrating both sets of facts and authoratitive opinions into a single article that respects NPOV standards. In some very controversial cases, perhaps an integrated article can never be satisfactorily achieved. But in most cases I think it could. But the process of allowing parallel development would assist that goal by not only saving saving time, but more importantly by encouraging participation of people with good material to contribute but not the time to babysit it. The end result could be much more authorative and complete articles. As Misplaced Pages is always a work in progress, even policies may change.--Strider12 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Some answers:

1. Several ways. Maybe the easiest is to go to your own user page, User:Strider12. Then, in the title bar for your browser add a slash and the name of the page you want to create so you have a URL something like http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Strider12/MyNewPage. When you hit return and reach to the nonexistent page, just click the Edit tab and begin editing it. The page will be created automatically.

2. There is some latitude in maintaining your own user space but this latitude doesn't include telling people not to edit. All pages within Misplaced Pages belong to the community; that's non-negotiable.

3. You're welcome to develop drafts and propose them. As a practical matter, merging two strongly conflicting drafts is theoretically possible and has occasionally been attempted but I've never seen a case where it actually worked. Much better to reach consensus on a single draft. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if you have any other questions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Wikinfo does encourage MPOV pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Strider12 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Wikinfo was specifically designed as a fork of Misplaced Pages which would not implement NPOV, but would present each subject in a positive light. MastCell 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Previous warnings deleted and not found in User talk:Strider12_Archive: Talk page etiquette, edit warring and WP:3RR (12/05/07), canvasing, block warning (12/09/07), disruptive editing WP:POINT(12/15/07), WP:SPA, WP:COI - from 4 different editors all for Post-Abortion Syndrome, now called Abortion and mental health.

Strider, might we agree not to edit war? I reverted this edit in a good faith revert (per talk page consensus) as part of WP:BRD. Your edit summary "Please discuss and allow other editors to discuss before deleting" seems somewhat disingenuous given that you just basically contradicted your previous agreements to stub the article, and the fact that the changes you've now brought into force twice now go directly against the consensus of User:Kuronue, User:Saranghae honey, User:MastCell, User:Equazcion, User:Andrew c, User:IronAngelAlice, User:KillerChihuahua (tacitly), and myself (that's just about all of us), thereby re-establishing the same patterns of edit-warring that the stub was designed to avoid.

When I reverted your edit, I noted in my edit summary the consensus and discussion on the talk page. You did not address the consensus to achieve consensus before moving forward with the stub before you reverted back to your original edit (which I noticed you just moved from your sandbox - you know the one you've been working on for a while, all by yourself, the one which now focuses exclusively on PAS, with a ton of info on the minority, one might say, fringe view that abortion is traumatic). This was in no way my failure to "allow other editors to discuss before" I reverted. So might you consider how these recent edits foster good faith toward an editor with your track record? Phyesalis (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Last week the article was stubbed, and I was in agreement. This Monday I find it renamed to Abortion and Mental Health, greatly expanded with a rambling intro, deletion of all balancing materials. So, okay, if there is a new consensus to broaden the topic from PAS to abortion and mental health, I added material regarding the history of the abotion and mental health controversy and moved much of the rambling intro (for example, material related to Koop) into the appropriate sections describing the controversy. I think my recommendation for a section on the history of the controversy provides a real functional basis for organizing material in a coherent NPOV fashion. Instead of deleting my contribution, why not try to refine it and build on it?--Strider12 (talk) 18:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think most of the users disagree with you. And it's not a just a consensus to expand the scope, but to shrink the focus on PAS because it's getting way too much WP:WEIGHT. It is not a legitimate diagnosis. Even you admitted that the incremental accretion of material on this topic has lead to edit-warring. There are a number of other issues to discuss and a number of us are getting tired of reading the same lengthy post about "bias" (see Kuronue's post on the talk page) over and over again. You seem to be pushing a particular POV that is inline with your WP:COI and limited WP:SPA activities. I think this is a problem. I don't think I'm alone (judging by all the warnings you've gotten in relation to this issue). Perhaps you would agree to revert back to yesterday's consensus version and join us in the conversation we've been having? It's a lot easier to discuss these things and actually come to a mutually satisfying compromise if neither side feels compelled to reinstate their "more neutral" version. We've suggested using a mock-up. What do you think? --Phyesalis (talk) 20:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think MastCell and I were close to a one paragraph article on PAS. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Abortion_and_mental_health/Archive_3#More_Stubbing_Needed.3F here" But then people started putting a bunch of unsupported statements in again and broadening the topic. I'd agree to a one paragraph stub while we work on a mock-up, but the current version is loaded with inaccuracies and weasel words. And again, people keep trying to blank veriable material that I've added just because they feel it goes against the WEIGHT that they insist must dominate.Strider12 (talk) 22:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you were. And you haven't gotten enough credit for that. Unfortunately,there has been across the board consensus to change the scope. Technically, because PAS isn't a legitimate diagnosis, it's on thin ice to begin with in the medicine project. If you revert it back to the mutually agreed upon version from last night, we all want to move forward a step (or two) at a time. If you want to take it back to an earlier stub, that's your choice, but people are getting really fed up. I know you think we're all wrong, and I know that is frustrating, but you've kind of dug yourself into a hole with your user page there. (Might I repeat Saranghae honey's request that you remove the other editors' comments from your user page?) Compiling user comments from article talk pages and reposting them as the emblem of your cause can be viewed as a personal attack. Prolonged patterns of edit warring, combined with personal statements acknowledging a possible COI and the emblem/cause cast you in a particularly unfavorable light. Everybody is losing their GF. Sometimes, in order to move forward in good faith, editors have to let it go for a short period of time, leaving the article to remain in a less-than-perfect state while a resolution develops.

And I know, who the heck am I to "lecture" you? I'd just like to point out that I am one of the last remaining person willing to discuss this with you like two reasonable people. I've also tried to make space for you, see my first comment at User talk:IronAngelAlice#Abortion and mental health. I'm willing to do this because I hope we can all get to the point where we can co-edit peacefully, which means that I credit you with wanting to collaborate. So think it over. I really appreciate you talking this out with me. I think this is productive and I hope you do, too. Thank you. --Phyesalis (talk) 23:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

see http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Strider12/policy#Proposed_Editing_Policy_Agreement I welcome your comments before posting it at the article pageStrider12 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding "PAS is not a legitimate diagnosis"...that is not the point. It is a fact that it has been proposed as a diagnosis and is the subject of ongoing research. In that regard, the stub would have been appropriate.Strider12 (talk) 23:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is the point. If PAS had been accepted, then there'd be all sorts of room to play with. Even if this were a new issue thre'd be room. However, for the past twenty years, scientific consensus says it's not, which is to say, PAS has been rejected. Therefore, it should get little play in an article about Abortion and mental health. I'm sorry that I didn't have time to review your post above - but when you're reposting large sections of texts already on WP, it's considered good form to take pity on the servers and just post a link. --Phyesalis (talk) 19:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It took sixty years for PTSD to get into the DSM, even though it was well described as "shell shock" during WW-1. But for sixty years it was argued that the "shock" was due to prior mental weaknesses. In the last seven years, there have been at least seven studies showing PTSD caused by abortion in at least some women. Brenda Major, a pro-choice advocate using very strict criteria, found 1.4% had abortion induced PTSD at two years (following a 50% drop out rate.) Such findings prove both sides right. (1) Most women do not experience abortion as a trauma, but (2) some women, even if a small number, do.

One reason it is not acknowledged in the DSM is that there is no need for it. As MastCell has pointed out, we don't have "post-rape trauma syndrome." There never was a need for a new term. Nonetheless, the concept is being widely accepted and fits into DSM without the formal approval of a "new name."

The Wilmouth quote is a very important one. As he indicates, the real controversy is around defining at what point there are "enough" post-abortion psychological reactions that it warrents notice as a public health or political issue. The pro-lifers argue that any negative reactions justify state intervention to "protect" women. The pro-choicers argue that a few women "regretting" their abortions is no reason to hamper access to abortion for all other women. Those are policy questions, not factual questions. The fact is that there is no doubt that some women have problems.

Here's a part of the APA 1990 (Adler, Science) article you don't see quoted as much:

"Case studies have established that some women experience severe distress or psychopathology after abortion" but "severe negative reactions are infrequent in the immediate and short-term aftermath, particularly for first-trimester abortions. Women who are terminating pregnancies that are wanted and personally meaningful, who lack support from their partner or parents for the abortion, or who have more conflicting feelings or are less sure of their decision before hand may be a relatively higher risk for negative consequences." Adler NE, David HP, Major BN, Roth SH, Russo NF, Wyatt GE. "Psychological responses after abortion." Science, April 1990, 248: 41-44.

See, even one of the major sources used to deny that there is a problem actually concedes there is a problem for some women, particularly women who fall into higher risk categories. In fact, you start investigating these categories and you'll find they include a very large percentage of women having abortions.--Strider12 (talk) 21:20, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The key word is "infrequent". There is no "large percentage". Besides, what you're talking about isn't PTSD. PTSD involves a perceived ontological threat to the subject's existence. Attempts to frame post-abortion stress (correlative, not causative) as PTSD are sensationalistic, not scientifically sound. --Phyesalis (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Abortion and mental health

Just checking in after helping you out with the subpage. It appears things aren't going well. A look at the Abortion and mental health article suggests you may have violated 3RR but I haven't gone into the details. In any event it's clear that you're edit warring on that article and are opposing the consensus of numerous other editors. Please back off a little and attempt to work cooperatively with others. Raymond Arritt (talk) 23:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Please see for the report if interested. --B (talk) 00:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A review of the four edits provided by MastCell will demonstrate that I was adding new and DIFFERENT material each time. This is not a violation of 3RR. Indeed, I notice MastCell did not report Photouploaded who deleted my material in each case. Also, these edits followed a four day rapid and vast expansion of the article from a previous stub in which I did not participate, see here. As others were making many radical changes to the article, this invited, if not demanded, the additional material I added...plus some MINOR corrections I made to material others had contributed. As a general rule, I try to avoid deleting material and focus on adding relevant and verifiable information.

conversation with Mast Cell moved below

Strider12 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

your reason here

Decline reason:

The 3RR complaint shows the edits that you were undoing. These are indeed generally to different sections of the article but they are still undoing someone else's work. This is a clear violation of WP:3RR. — Yamla (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

In general I was trying to avoid undoing anyone elses work and was keeping cited material and reorganizing. I thought 3RR was reverting the same material back and forth. But if the standard is against making three or more changes to someone else's work, I will try to be alert to it and will also start filing 3RR complaints against those who repeatedly delete my contributions. In general, I have tried to tolerate these deletions and to try to find other material that can be added.

Also, as the first accused revert was on the 21st and my last accused revert was Jan 22 at 15:17, why does my 24 hour block last until Midnight the 24th?Strider12 (talk) 15:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The usual procedure for 3RR blocks is that the first time a person is blocked, the block lasts for 24 hours from the time the administrator decides on the validity of the report. If you skim through the decided cases you'll see that most of the ones that result in blocks have a 24 hour duration. Granted it's frustrating to be blocked, but I don't see where you're being treated more harshly than the norm. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tendatious Deletion of Sourced Materials

MastCell likes to accuse me of tendatious editing, which is ironic since she and the POV pushers she defends as part of her "consensus" are the ones who continues to tendatiously delete reliable verifiable materials from peer reviewed journals. Indeed, none of this group has ever denied nor condemned the past openly discussed, and implemented campaign, to "purge" (their words, not mine) over 22 verifiable sources.

MastCell has frequently suggested that I should be requried to get approval from her (and her POV team) for inclusion of any material. This is an example of tendatious editiong as defined on the WP:TEND page which describes such tendatious eidtors as those who "delete the cited additions of others with the complaint that they did not discuss their edits first." But as noted on the page:

There is no rule on Misplaced Pages that someone has to get permission from you before they put cited information in an article. Such a rule would clearly contradict WP:BOLD. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1 Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

It is this disruptom of my well documented material which is causing this conflict. The constant refrain that the WEIGHT defined by a 1990 review article, and promoted by partisan pro-choice advocates, justifies exclusion of literally scores of other reliable and verifiable peer reviewed studies published since is simply ludicrous. MastCell and other in the "deniers camp" simply refuse to follow Misplaced Pages policy that DEFINES peer reviewed articles in academic journals as by definition RELIABLE and VERIFIABLE. The campaign of purging these sources from the abortion and mental health article is nothing less than POV pushing of the worst kind.--Strider12 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to be pedantic, but the word is tendentious, not "tendatious". MastCell 17:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you haven't noticed yet, I don't use a spell checker...but should!--Strider12 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Conversation with MastCell

As will be seen here MastCell and throughout the discussion page, MastCell is leading a campaign to delete verifiable material and references to peer reviewed studies which contradict the four or five sources she insists must define the WEIGHT of the article. See the long history of this article and you will see that editors contributing material documenting abortion and mental health research and experts have been viligently cut and bullied. You will also see that MastCell and others refuse to actually provide evidence beyond a couple sources that the WEIGHT of opinion justifies their brutal censorship tactics. See here.

The fact that there is a hard core of abortion defending editors who insist on censoring material that does not conform with their few sources denying a link between abortion and mental health does not reflect a true "consensus." True collaboration of editors, which I support, would mean finding ways to include all verifiable material rather than slanting the article to what one side insists is the WEIGHT of evidence. Weight should be shown by facts, not declared on the talk page to justify purging and censorship. (As noted, several editors openly discussed and implemented "viligitent purging" of 22 peer reviewed sources months ago...none of which has been allowed back into the article.)

The "consensus" advocated by MastCell reflects nothing more than gang tactics of POV-pushers who refuse to allow presentation of any evidence that conflicts with their POV and and refuse to actually follow wikipedia policy regarding inclusion of reliable verifiable sources (especially peer reviewed material in top medical journals!) For MastCell, the game is to claim WEIGHT is on her side, to ignore all evidence that the weight of both facts and opinion is otherwise, and to start deleting.

This 3RR complaint is just another misleading, manufactured complaint intended to harrass me.

Is there a good way to get some unbiased editors involved in this article who actually believe in letting the evidence be presented?--Strider12 (talk) 15:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's see - first, you canvassed sympathetic editors to "jump in and bring some friends" to fight the "abortion-is-benign crowd" (, , , etc etc). When that failed, you did actually get several unbiased and previously uninvolved editors to comment with the request for comment that you filed. Inconveniently, these unbiased outside editors uniformly felt you were editing disruptively and violating policy to advance your POV. I don't think "unbiased" input is what you're looking for. MastCell 17:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

As you well know, the problem is not that I delete other people's material but that there is a campaign involving only pro-choice editors, to dominate this article and purge it of reliable information that conflicts with what YOU insist the weight of the article should be...a pro-choice slant.

It is this purging campaign which is disruptive. There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1 Instead of removing cited work, you should be questioning uncited information.

Even your 3RR complaint is only about my reinserting reliable, verifiable information that you and others agree should be censored because it conflicts with the bias (which you call WEIGHT) which you, and a gang of other pro-choice advocates--who may well include paid Planned Parenthood interns and the like--are trying to enforce by brute blanking of reliable material.--Strider12 (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In the face of what appears to be a very likely and clear conflict of interest on your part, are you really continuing to make baseless accusations that people disagree with you because they're Planned Parenthood employees? Not only is it a glass-houses issue, but you're using those completely unfounded accusations to deny or rationalize the fact that everyone who's edited with you has found your approach problematic. I know it's easier to go on believing that it's just because we're all Planned Parenthood or NARAL employees, but I can assure you that's not the case. MastCell 18:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are not. But surely since Misplaced Pages has grown to such prominence you can't deny that there are some groups out there with money and resources to put paid staff on the task of monitoring Misplaced Pages regarding articles about their companies, products, or fields of interest. If you were the CEO of a major pharmaceutical company, wouldn't you put someone on the task of zealously "correcting" any "misinformation" on Misplaced Pages? Given PP's zealous use of media and the internet, it is hard to imagine they are not monitoring and getting directly involved in abortion articles. Can you really vouch for all the editors?! If so, then you're involved in an even closer network of editors than I would imagine. The fact that I actually have expertise in this field is not a conflict of interest, it is a benefit which should be welcomed. Do you really want a plumber editing articles on complicated accounting practices. Experts have their place, and SHOULD be subject to editing and collaboration by others, especially other experts. But using fake WEIGHT arguments to block scores of reliable, peer reviewed studies because they demonstrate the falsity of the few biased sources you have identified as "GOSPEL" is just a distortion of Wikipedial policy and goals, and you know it, as evidenced by your inability to find any source that actually has polled experts in the field in a manner supporting your claim of consensus.--Strider12 (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt (in fact, I have concrete examples) of people editing Misplaced Pages specifically to advance an organization's interests, in both paid and unpaid capacities. I can't vouch for anyone except myself, though there are editors I trust more and editors I trust less based on their contribution patterns. For my own part, I can tell you that I've never performed or assisted on abortions in my medical role; I've never been affiliated, in either a paid or unpaid capacity, with any organization which remotely takes any sort of stand on the issue of abortion; and in the interest of full disclosure I have in the past donated money to Planned Parenthood, because they provided a good friend of mine with free birth control and GYN care when she was unemployed and uninsured, and I think that's great. My personal beliefs about the particular issue of abortion and mental health are, I suspect, more moderate that you make them out to be, but that's neither here nor there since the issue is one of sourcing. It is certainly possible that Planned Parenthood has people editing Misplaced Pages - just as it's entirely possible that, say, the Elliott Institute has similar operations. They generally come to attention when the edits in question clearly violate policy. I think much of your editing violates policy, and I don't think I'm alone in this belief. Experts do often have a tough time on Misplaced Pages, particularly if they rely on their expertise to a point which precludes the development of consensus. MastCell 18:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

None of my edits attempt to insert my own opinions. I am content to let FACTS speak for themselves and feel no need to draw connecting lines (OR) as I am confident that the facts do speak for themselves.

My expertise helps precisely because I am already aware of what sources are available and have many of these studies at my fingertips. And I also know how to avoid many of the unsupported inferences that some editors make. And I agree that you are generally much more careful than many others, in that regard.

I fully understand and agree with the policy that any contribution to the articles must reflect only the facts of these studies and (if properly presented as such) the published opinions of the experts, and I take pains to follow that policy.

Also, like you, I am not paid to do this and have no financial gain in it by any means. If I appear to be defending Reardon and the Elliot Institute it is because their work are credible and peer reviewed, but I have seen editors openly discuss purging every peer reviewed study with which he is associated...even though every study he has done has been in conjunction with other PhDs and MDs. Indeed, one of Reardon's collaborators, Priscilla Coleman is by far the most published researcher in this field.

The difference between our editorial approaches is that while I will note the biases of sources like Grimes or Bazelon, I don't object to including these sources in the article. I trust readers can weigh these assertions and conclusions against other evidence...my frustration is that you and others are constantly blocking the addition of other evidence.

It appears to me that you are trying to determine THE TRUTH (which you call WEIGHT)and having settled on the claim that the denier's view (typified by Grimes, Bazelon, Stotland et al) is TRUE and free of bias, you and other editors are diligently working to protect Misplaced Pages readers from the scores of reliable peer reviewed studies, and the stated opinions of other experts (both pro-choice, like Fogel, Wilmouth, Fergusson, DePuy and pro-life, like Reardon) which contradict the denier's thesis. For you, the matter is settled. But I am much more familiar with the literature and know that the deniers view, especailly as presented by Bazelon and the Misplaced Pages article, is not commonly accepted and is not even as monolithic as the Misplaced Pages article suggests. (See how many times Stotland's qualifying remarks are edited out in favor of making her look as though she denies that ANY women ever have emotional problems after an abortion.)

All I want, and insist upon, is the right to have material from peer reviewed sources retained rather than purged. And I would be happy to extend good faith trust to you if you were to actually start reprimanding other editors who are even more biased in blanking material from peer reviewed sources. --Strider12 (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that there's general agreement in the sources that abortion is a stressful life event, that most women have normal feelings of confusion, sadness, or guilt mixed with positive feelings of relief, and that in a small number of women (most often those with specific risk factors such as pre-existing psychiatric comorbidities) these normal reactions intensify to the point of being pathological. The article could more clearly reflect this consensus - I agree with you that far. --MastCell Talk 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Good, that IS progress, because that is NOT generally reflected in the article, which is a major complaint because it truly makes the article insulting to women who are experiencing grief and other issues. They come looking for information about what they have experienced and to see if others have experienced it too, and instead they see a denial of their experience which tends to reinforce the ideat that "there is something wrong with you" if you don't feel as blessed by abortion as most women do. Check the archives for a couple women who put such complaints into the discussion and were then dismissed with "personal stories have no place here." As someone who works with women struggling with post-abortion issues (whether "distress" or "illness" or somewhere on the line between those two), I find the article very offensive in this regard and this is why I insist on adding reliable information that does reflect what women report in the peer reviewed journals.

At the same time, though, the same risks exist with any stressful life event: leaving home to go to college, getting married or divorced, or - say - carrying an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy to term. The general consensus is that abortion does not pose any unique psychological risks beyond those associated with any major life event, and that the psychological risks of abortion are at least no greater than those of the alternative of carrying a pregnancy to term.Talk 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Your claim that that is the "general consensus" is not supported by any polling data, nor even by the majority of experts. That claim is just asserted by six APA members, STotland, Bazelon, Grimes, and some others who CLAIM that their views are widely accepted. I can produce two to four sources for everyone you have produced, including from pro-choice leaning researchers, physicians, psychologists, that indicate the oppositie.

Divorce is a major stressor which is associated with reduced life span. Comparing abortion to divorce or miscarriage or other stressors does not mean that it should be ignored as "just another life event." Many people can "lose their minds" after losing a job, why not after being pushed into an unwanted abortion? Women will bring their own unique reactions to it, just as to other events. If the comparison to other stressful events is intended to suggest that it should be addressed, investigated, and treated, that's fine. But if, as generally used, the comparision is to suggest that it should be ignored, that is not fine.

The hullabaloo which surrounds the topic, including the creation of "post-abortion syndrome", is pretty obviously a political tack designed to restrict access to abortion. David Reardon's proposed iniative in Missouri is a good example. If you're at all involved in the medical world, you'll recognize the ridiculousness of a law requiring a physician to inform a woman of a risk which all expert bodies recognize as non-existent. Talk 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

All expert bodies do not recognize it as "non-existent." If it is non-existent, what is the harm of screening for risk factors? Even the APA 1989 paper identified factors that put women at higher risk of negative reactions, including feeling pressured into an unwanted abortion. Do you honestly think abortion providers shouldn't be held accountable for asking "Is anyone pushing you to have this abortion?" "Would having this abortion violate your personal moral beliefs?"

By the way, I think you should give Bazelon another chance. You dismiss her as irretrievably biased, but her article is actually remarkably fair. If you read toward the last few pages (admittedly, it's quite long) she takes a number of the pro-choice commentators to task for minimizing the negative feelings that some women have after abortion, or for pretending that abortion makes everyone happier. Talk 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The articles at Symposium: Is There a Post-Abortion Syndrome paint a different story regarding her bias. Sure she, like Stotland and Russo, is stuck with the FACT that some women undeniably really do suffer post-abortion problems. So she tries to half admit that they should be treated sensitively while at the same time dismissing that the grief of these "few" should impact public discussion on abortion. She certainly does not fairly represent the research or Reardon's work. She is a mouthpiece for the Russo / Stotland line of reasoning alone.

Again, I think that there is a middle road that we haven't quite reached with the article; it probably should indicate more clearly that everyone recognizes abortion to be a stressful event associated with a variety of highly mixed feelings, including sadness and guilt, as well as relief, in many cases. But it's hard to make progress toward a middle ground when there's a strident (no pun intended) and unrelenting argumentative push to make edits with which nearly all other editors disagree. MastCell 00:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've proposed, and had cut, that there should material describing the perspectives on the fact that most women feel distress, but distress is not illness. But moreover, a minority of women do experience distress which does reach the level of illness. The Wilmoth quote is truly one of the best in laying out the issues.

I thnk you would find me far easier to work with if you would support inclusion of material. I have no problem with being "restricted" to using peer reviewed sources. But I do have a problem with having my contributions cut, not because they are untrue, but because they don't fit the preconceived WEIGHT. The facts should be allowed to speak for themselves. I have no problem with people editing my contributions to clarify the facts, or to bring in other parts of an article I cite which you or others feel put it into better balance (for example, if you think I cherry-picked only the facts I like.) This is the way the article grows. By adding material.

I agree with the guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption.1 and I believe it is those who continue to delete my well sourced material who are the ones being disruptive.

YOU could help end the disruption by helping to support the inclusion of material I add instead of arguing undue WEIGHT. I am quite open to you policing me for accuracy, but not for weight, because while you believe your sense of WEIGHT is accurate, I KNOW it is not and resent having the all the evidence I have to the contrary constantly cut. It's like having a Bush official cutting all references to studies that support global warming theory because their official position is that the consensus of experts agree it is not a problem. ALL the evidence should be allowed in and readers should be allowed to draw their own conclusions. It's that simple. --Strider12 (talk) 16:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

(Moved MastCell's response to a new section...getting to be a looong scroll.)--Strider12 (talk) 22:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

MastCell and I - continued - Stotland

Actually, I think Stotland's 2003 review article (PMID 15985924) is a better source for some of the issues we're discussing, and more recent than Wilmoth's piece. For example, Stotland writes on the one hand:

Women preparing for abortion need to know that they may experience any or all of a wide variety of feelings—sadness, loss, relief, rage—either in succession or simultaneously. They need to understand that the human mind can compass simultaneous contradictory feelings and thoughts, and that these feelings are normal and self-limited... ensuing life experiences, including psychiatric illnesses, can reawaken feelings about past abortions that may or may not have been worked through at the time. There are no epidemiologic data to indicate the incidence of later reactions, but, given the large numbers of abortions performed, they do come up in therapy from time to time. There is no evidence that these reactions rise to the level of psychiatric disorders.

Stotland tends toward hyperbole. To say "There is no evidence that these reactions rise to the level of psychiatric disorders" is simply false. It contrdicts her complaint in the NOW interview that there are now a "stack of studies" giving evidence. Regarding a single "symptom," there are many women who have left suicide notes, those who have reported they attempted sucide, and record based epidemological studies who a six fold higher rate of suicide in the year following abortion Gissler, and Morgon found that the rate of suicide attempts was no different before pregnancy but much higher after abortion, see here. The Reardon studies looking at MediCal data is also an epidemiologic study, and you'll notice that it controls for prior psych admssions and clearly shows HIGHER rates of psych admissions following abortion compared to childbirth. See here. Most notably, you'll see in table 1 that the Odds Ratio was highest within 90 days and steadily declined over four years. This time factor strongly conflicts with the theory that women who have abortions are just more likely to have psych problems....it shows they are more likely to have psych problems in a time relationship with their abortions. (In this case, they excluded all cases where women had a known history of psychiatric treatment.) Similar results were found for outpatient treatments: Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue VM, Cougle JR. "State-funded abortions vs. deliveries: A comparison of outpatient mental health claims over five years." American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 2002, Vol. 72, No. 1, 141–152.

According to one major study, 60% of women had emotional distress following abortion and for 16% it was severe enough recommend psychiatric treatment. Söderberg, H., Andersson, C., Janzon, L., & Sjöberg, N-O. (1998). Selection bias in a study on how women experienced induced abortion. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and Reproductive Biology, 77:67-70.

See also Berkeley D, Humphrey PL, Davidson C, Demands made on general practice by women before and after an abortion. JR Coll Gen Pract. 34:310-315, 1984. I could give dozens of studies for substance abuse alone...many of which control for prior substance abuse, and dozens for other symptoms. But an actual literature review runs counter to Stotland's style.

The problem with Stotland is that her whole approach is handwaving. She barely discusses the literature. She just asserts that she is the expert and makes bold, unsupported statements. Fortunately, she has moderated some because of her own experience in treating at least one woman who did have very significant latent reaction to an abortion which was triggered by miscarriage. But it is absurd to just continue to pretend that the range of reactions ALWAYS stops short of mental illness.

In the same article, she adds:

It is essential to differentiate feelings or emotions from diseases. This distinction is not widely understood and is frequently overlooked in anti-abortion materials. It is not uncommon for a woman to feel sad or guilty for a time after having an abortion, but it is uncommon for her to have a clinical depression. The underlying incidence of clinical depression among women of childbearing age approaches 10%; the peak incidence of depression in women, in fact, is in the childbearing years.

But Brenda Major, on both APA task forces, found that among women who had abortions, clinical depression was 20% and rising after two years! See Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Cooper M.L., Zubek, J., Richards, C., Wilhite, M., Gramzow, R.H. (2000). Psychological responses of women after first-trimester abortion. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 57(8):777-84.

The incidence of full-blown postpartum depression in the United States is at least 10%. Most women experience relief after abortion, and most women’s mental states are better post-abortion than immediately pre-abortion... Most studies published in English after 1980 conclude that childbearing poses a psychiatric risk that is at least equivalent to, if not greater than, that of abortion, regardless of the patient’s age.

I'd love to see her cites. And would gladly give you twenty cite she ignores....like Fergusson's study.

After abortion, both the incidence of regret and the level of mental health increase. Most psychiatric illness that occurs after abortion was present before the abortion.

Again, more assertions which are not supported by the actual data. Show me three studies that shows the "level of mental health" increases after abortion and I'll show you that all three have at least a 50% drop out rate (refusal to talk about their abortions) and other methodological flaws.

I know your feelings about Stotland, but that is actually a pretty fair summary and hits some of the points you've tried to make above, with regards to the fact that feelings of sadness and other negative emotions do occur after abortion - but that such feelings are normal and not evidence of psychiatric illness. At the same time, we need to be clear about the WP:WEIGHT issue. The position of the American Psychological Association cannot be dismissed or ascribed to just 5 or 6 people whose names appear on it; they speak for the entire association. Consensus in science, as you know, is not determined by poll results, and in any case no such poll ever has been undertaken to my knowledge. When the two relevant major professional bodies take a position, supported by major review articles and echoed in the mainstream media, then that position is the mainstream one. Certainly there is a minority opinion which disagrees with it, but we can't pretend that these views are on equal footing in terms of their representation among experts in the field.

Stotland is president of the APA (psychiatric) and her position is clear, but I know of no offical APA position on the evidence. Unlike the other APA, they have not commissioned an official task force, to my knowledge. They have a pro-choice stance, that is true, but you cannot infer what the groups position on the last ten years of research is from that. The other APA task force report is over 18 years old, so we should not give that undue weight either.

AS noted, I can give you two pro-choice experts who disagree with Stotland, Russo and Major for everyone you can add, much less anti-abortion experts like Coleman, Rue, Burke, Reardon and others. The weight of opinion simply isn't supported as you say it is. And yes, there are polls of experts done. It is simply wrong to keep implying that only Reardon is advancing the idea that abortion often involves mental health problems.

Consensus in science is not determined by a pro-choice organization, which the APA officially declares itself to be, declaring what the consensus is. Consensus is not determined by declarations. At least in regard to the abortion/breast cancer issue, a consensus statement was developed at a special conference called to examine the fact which was attended by a wide number of experts...not just an APA panel.--Strider12 (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, the conclusions that Russo, Stotland, Major, and others have drawn from the data proved more convincing to the APA and the psychiatric community than did Reardon's interpretation. Maybe that will change when the APA's new statement comes out - I don't know. But for now, it's pretty clear from the opinions of those major organizations where the weight of opinion lies. MastCell 19:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Where are you coming from?

Maybe this would be easier if I understood exactly where you're coming from (I mean, I have my thoughts on the matter, but...) Are you suggesting that women should be screened for depression when presenting for abortion and thereafter? Or that they should be told there's a risk of psychiatric damage as a result of the abortion during the informed consent process? Or what? MastCell 00:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Two different issues. First, screening. As studies indicate that a history of prior depression is a risk factor for more severe reactions after an abortion, pre-abortion screening should include the question, "Have you had a history of depression?" I'm not necessarily recommending an actual psych evaluation, just the question. If she say's yes, then she should be told that she may experience more depression following the abortion and encouraged to seek help if this occurs. I don't think the abortion clinic is obligated to provide screening "thereafter" but it should certainly be prepared to make referals if women come back for help.

Second, the informed consent process should include information about those psychological risks which stastically validated studies have found to be significantly associated with abortion. Disclosure should not require proof of a causal connection, as the risk that there MAY BE a causal connection is itself part of the risk. That is the same standard applies to most medical treatments and experimental treatments. Statistically verified assocations provide prima facia that there MIGHT be a risk, therefore patients should be told of the risk until advocates of the treatment have proven that the reported link is in fact incidental. In this case, even Russo, Stotland, Major are explaining that the elevated rates of psych problems are largely (exclusively?) due to prior mental health problems, which isn't even a claim that the effects are completely incidental. In essense they are suggesting that women with mental health issues are more likely to have abortions, from which it follows (but they avoid saying) that abortion for these emotionally troubled women is "merely" aggravating preexising mental health problems. If true, that may mean that abortion doesn't strictly speaking CAUSE mental health problems but it does CONTRIBUTE to mental health problems. That's a fine distinction that I feel is irrelevent to the women suffering from abortion related stresses...indeed it is a bit insulting in that it implies "strong women don't grieve as much as you are doing...you were always flawed and are still just being weak."--Strider12 (talk) 20:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with your first point, regarding screening. The prevalence of depression is high enough in the general population that the US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening all adults for depression provided that the necessary follow-up care is available for people who screen positive (though they are currently "reviewing" this recommendation, so it may change). Since abortion appears to select for women at higher risk of depression, by virtue of pre-existing characteristics, it would make sense to screen women presenting for abortion. Even a two-question screen is reasonably effective and very quick (PMID 9229283, PMID 14615341), so it's hard to argue against screening women when they present for abortion, provided that there are available mental-health services to which they could be referred. This screen could be repeated at the follow-up visit after the abortion, or by a primary care physician or OB/Gyn at a subsequent visit. I think that would be a reasonable process.

I don't agree about informed consent. Informed consent provides patients with information on all risks known to be caused by the procedure being contemplated. It is unreasonable to inform patients of possible associations with the procedure when the relevant expert bodies hold that there is no causative relationship between the choice to have an abortion and subsequent psychiatric disorders. Correlations can infer evidence of causation (e.g. cigarettes -> lung cancer), but such a jump requires far more robust and consistent data than those available here. As an analogy, take a bone marrow biopsy. When I consent someone for a bone marrow biopsy, I discuss risks of bleeding, infection, and rarely nerve damage etc. I don't discuss the possibility that they may become depressed after the biopsy, even though a significant portion of the people I biopsy end up having a malignancy, and of those a significant proportion experience depression. You could say that the bone marrow biopsy was associated with depression - I think you could even prove it statistically. But while it's obviously vital to be attuned to patients' emotional state, I don't think anyone would argue that I should warn a patient during the informed consent process that they may experience depression associated with the biopsy.

Surely you see the ridiculousness of an initiative like David Reardon's, which proposes to essentially mandate that doctors "inform" patients of a risk that many expert bodies find to be non-existent? It's one thing to advocate screening; it's even another to argue that abortion should be illegal. I can respect both of those positions, and agree with one of them. I can't possibly get behind a law that mandates how an informed consent document should appear, particularly when that law pushes a risk that is widely believed to be non-existent. That's an egregious insertion of a political agenda into medical decision-making. If you prove that there's a real causative relationship, then doctors will inform patients of it. They're not evil or out to conceal risks from patients. The problem is that the risk is not proven to exist, in the minds of many experts, and attempting to force the issue by means of a legal initiative is completely the wrong way to go about it if your interest is in doing the right thing medically.

Unarguably, the best way to reduce any risk that may exist is not by laws or informed consent, but by reducing the number of women who have abortions. Outlawing abortion does not accomplish this, really, it just makes abortion more dangerous and, according to unarguable evidence, worsens the psychological risk associated with it by adding stigma and the need for concealment. The answer, if one were serious about reducing the numbers of abortions, would be to improve access to and knowledge of contraception (including emergency contraception), to promote abstinence as a choice but not the only possible means of contraception, and to support women at risk for unwanted pregnancy by identifying risk factors and trying to improve the factors that lead to unwanted pregnancy. You see the primary problem as abortion (I'm assuming), whereas I see the primary problem as the collection of factors that lead to unwanted pregnancy and put women in a situation where abortion may seem to be the best option. MastCell 19:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, proof of causal connections is NOT typically required. This is patently clear in the case of experimental treatments when every theoretical risk is disclosed, much less risks for which there are statistically validated associations. Also, I'm not advocating outlawing of abortion.

If depression is associated with a biopsy, I think patients should be told so they are prepared for it. If this disclosure affects a patient's decision to proceed with the biopsy, that is arguably unwise on the part of the patient but is certainly within her right.--Strider12 (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're confusing two different concepts. A consent form for an experimental research protocol or clinical trial will include language describing theoretical risks, since the treatment is experimental and its risks not fully known or described. On the other hand, consent forms for commonly performed procedures (appendectomy, hip replacement, abortion, etc) describe the known risks that may result from the procedure; these consents include only risks for which a plausible causal relationship is understood to exist.

Of course patients need to be aware of the potential diagnoses that follow from a biopsy, but it would be ridiculous to expect or legally mandate that risks without a causal relationship be spelled out in the informed-consent document.

I'm sorry if I put words in your mouth with regard to outlawing abortion; I had gathered from some of your previous posts that you are pro-life, so I assumed you supported that goal. MastCell 23:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

One can be pro-life without advocating a total ban. When does a medical procedure stop being experimental? All procedures continue to be tested and evaluated, and as new concerns are raised, patients are informed. It is hardly a settled matter that abortion is without risks. Koop rightly noted that the studies available in 1989 lacked sufficient methodological controls to draw any conclusions regarding safety, benefits, or risks. I stand by my statement that when risks are identified as statistically significant, they must be treated as truly a potential risk until there is clear and convincing proof, not just speculation, that the statistical association is spurious. Read up on "evidence based medicine." Ironically, even David Grimes agrees and has argued that doctors should stop presuming benefits follow even the most time honored treatments without evidence from carefully conducted case-control studies. But even he has a blind spot when it comes to abortion. --Strider12 (talk) 02:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Deaths, Relief, and Other Purported Benefits of Abortion

The safety of abortion, in terms of physical risks of morbidity and mortality, is well-established. Anywhere that abortion is legal, it is from 7 to 14 times safer than carrying a pregnancy to term and delivering a baby. The shift in focus of the pro-life movement to psychological risk, which has much more wiggle room in its measurement and interpretation, is fairly obvious. A basic principle of evidence-based medicine, or any scientific endeavor, is that assertions must be proven. You don't start with a nebulous, disputed statistical association and then demand that someone disprove it. I'm also familiar enough with evidence-based medicine to know that statistical significance does not equal Platonic Truth; claiming that any risk shown to be statistically associated with a p<0.05 in a single study is clinically meaningful, or exists at all, is a fallacy. MastCell 04:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The 7 to 14 times figure is based on comparing REPORTED abortion associated deaths with REPORTED deaths associated with childbirth. That Gissler studies have shown that method is unreliable. The CDC admits that comparisons of these numbers is not reliable since they are "conceptually different." For example, a suicide five days after an abortion will not show up in death certificates as abortion related.

More accurate figures by Gissler have shown that the death rate after abortion goes up and is higher than deaths associated with childbirth. Reardon's Medi-Cal studies found the same thing. See:

• Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH, Buekens P. Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. Am J Ob Gyn 2004; 190:422-427.

Abstract: A retrospective cohort study from Finland for a 14-year period, 1987 to 2000. Information on all deaths of women aged 15 to 49 years in Finland (n=15,823) was received from the Cause-of-Death Register and linked to the Medical Birth Register (n=865,988 live births and stillbirths), the Register on Induced Abortions (n=156,789 induced abortions), and the Hospital Discharge Register (n= 118,490 spontaneous abortions) to identify pregnancy-associated deaths (n=419). The age-adjusted mortality rate for women during pregnancy and within 1 year of pregnancy termination was 36.7 deaths per 100,000 pregnancies, which was significantly lower than the mortality rate among nonpregnant women, 57.0 per 100,000 person-years (relative risk 0.64, 95% CI 0.58-0.71). The mortality was lower after a birth (28.2/100,000) than after a spontaneous (51.9/100,000) or induced abortion (83.1/100,000). We observed a significant increase in the risk of death from cerebrovascular diseases after delivery among women aged 15 to 24 years (RR 4.08, 95% CI 1.58-10.55). Our study supports the healthy pregnant woman effect for all pregnancies, including those not ending in births. (author's)

• Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK, Strahan TW. Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. South Med J 2002 Aug;95(8):834-41.

These and similar studies now show indisputable evidence that the death rate after abortion is higher than after childbirth and also higher than for non-pregnant women. But that hasn't deterred PP and Guttmacher from repeating the old propaganda so that people like you will parrot it while in ignorance of the advances made in science.

Evidence based medicine does not mean that "assertions must be proven" it means that proposed TREATMENTS must be proven. Abortion is proposed as a treatement which improves women's lives. So far, while risks have been identified the expected improvements have not been quantified...just asserted. Seriously, if you ignore all the handwaving and look for data regarding purported improvements you will will find a pretty thin list of studies identifying any measurable benefits. The biggest benefit claimed is "relief" -- but that includes relief from having the stress of the abortion behind one, relief that one's boyfriend is no longer nagging for the abortion, relief from morning sickness, etc. I think the failure of pro-abortion researchers to even probe more deeply into the benefits of "relief" is telling. It's thin ice. As Rue frequently says, abortion is both a stress reliever and a stress inducer. Short term benefits, including relief, are expected but do not reliably predict long term benefits.--Strider12 (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is arguing that abortion "improves women's lives" dramatically. It's a difficult choice, but one which may be the best of several bad options. That's why I suggested, above, that the most rational approach would be to focus on preventing unwanted pregnancy, but the same people who are against abortion tend to be against contraception (except for abstinence), against sex education, and against emergency contraception - that is, against the only things that might realistically reduce the number of abortions performed. They also tend to be in favor of reducing or eliminating the social safety net, meaning that women forced to carry unwanted pregnancies to term because of restrictive laws or the fact that local abortion providers have been intimidated away are left unsupported after the child is born.

I'm sorry you see my view as ignorant or an uncritical recitation of Planned Parenthood or Guttmacher's view. I can only reiterate that weak and inconsistent statistical associations are not evidence of casuation. When the researchers who consistently report these associations also happen to be committed pro-life activists sponsoring political initiatives to restrict access to abortion, and whose role as activists predated their role as researchers, then that context is germane. I am strongly in favor of an accurate discussion of the known risks of abortion, informed by the weight of available evidence and expert opinion.

The political context is also relevant - in light of the safety of legal abortion, there has been an explicit shift in the tactics of certain elements of the pro-life movement to an attempt to paint abortion as psychologically damaging, and to leverage this into legal restrictions on abortion.

Having failed, thus far, to convince the medical community that abortion is psychologically damaging, David Reardon and other researchers are turning to the legal system and attempting to pass a law mandating that these non-existent risks be covered in informed consent. It's obvious that these are not medical people, or they would likely realize what a fundamental breach of medical ethics and interference with rational medical decision-making they are attempting to legislate. I certainly wouldn't appreciate a political activist with no medical experience or training and a Ph.D. from an online correspondence course telling me how to counsel patients, or which risks are real and which are not. MastCell 18:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments seem to be referring to Reardon again. He is only one of many researchers and their findings are not "weak and inconsistent statistical associations" as demonstratred by the growing body of literature supporting their findings...see Gissler and Fergusson and many others. If they statistical assocaitions were weak, they wouldn't be getting their studies published.

To me the politics are secondary...even tertiary. The facts discovered by science should be allowed to be presented without checking how they will affect the political landscape. That Reardon sees and believes the facts should effect the political landscape does not prove that the facts he presents are false, or even suspect. Are researchers doing work in global warming, or mercury in vaccines, to be immediately suspect if they also believe their issues merit political attention?

As you know, it is quite possible for people to where "multiple hats." I don't know if that is the case for Reardon, but it is true for many others, including myself. For example, a reporter can be objective when reporting, but subjective when being an activists. Similarly, when you read his academic studies versus his books, it seems evident to me that Reardon is quite capable of accurately articulating a nuanced scientific position in the former while promoting a broader agenda in the latter. He may be helped in the former, in regard to peer reviewed articles, by the fact that peer reviewers like myself, and his co-authors, won't stand for any overreaching of what the actual findings are. Compare the CMAJ article to Major's CMAJ commentary and you will see that she was given far more latitude to discuss and reinterpret the findings than Reardon and his colleagues were. Have you ever read any of Reardon's books? Or are you just going by what NOW, Bazelon and others characterize him to be?

In any event, the issue before us as Misplaced Pages editors is not to judge Reardon's motives, or to dismiss his peer reviewed work as if we know more than his peer reviewers, our job is to accurately record facts....all facts, not just those that support one political agenda or the other. --Strider12 (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree regarding Misplaced Pages; I think our discussion here involves issues that go beyond what would be appropriate for Misplaced Pages article-space. I would amend your statement, though: our job is provide an accurate picture of human knowledge and understanding of a subject. That is not merely a matter of cataloging every study which has been published - as I'm sure you know, quite a bit of crap is, has been, and will continue to be published in the peer-reviewed literature. It is a matter of accurately reflecting how experts in the field have synthesized those studies. That distinction appears to be where you're running into trouble. MastCell 20:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I clearly have more respect for the peer review process than you do. Also, I don't think it is the place of Misplaced Pages editors, whether experts, hobbyists, high school zealots, or PP interns, to put themselves up in the place of using a few preferred sources as an excuse to catalog every bit of information that disagrees with their view as "crap." Similarly, it is not up to Misplaced Pages editors to exclude Reardon, or other multi-published, peer reviewed researchers, from the field of experts who have contributed to the synthesis of material and studies simply because there are other experts who disagree with him. He has over a dozen studies which have been peer reviewed and found to be of a quality that contributes to his field...which is also the standard used for granting PhD's. Moreover, as frequently noted, it is inappropriate to use attacks on Reardon as an excuse for excluding the research of his colleagues, like Coleman and Rue.

Instead of taking on the mantle of advocating that Misplaced Pages editors should police peer reviewed journals to discern and report only the "truth" which editors agree with, I think you should more modestly embrace the idea tha Misplaced Pages editors should simply provide a platform for all facts and analyses presented in well referenced, verifiable, peer reviewed studies. In that regard, it is not our job to police the experts, like Reardon, but to police each other to ensure that we accurately report what the experts are finding and concluding, even if, and especially if, the experts are disagreeing and offering a variety of facts and interpretations. --Strider12 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You've created a strawman argument which you proceed to gleefully bash. I don't in any way advocate that Misplaced Pages editors should mine and parse the peer-reviewed literature to advance their point. Ironically, I think it is your propensity to do exactly this that leads to most of the problems you've encountered here. I feel strongly that when there are conflicting primary sources, we need to lean on reliable secondary sources to parse and weight them. Numerous such sources exist and have been cited. It would be completely inaccurate to simply present Reardon's research without characterizing its place in the documented view of expert bodies in the field. As to peer review, I've been on both sides for a while now, and I feel reasonably familiar with both its strengths and weaknesses. If you view peer review as some sort of automatic guarantee of quality, relevance, or accuracy, then I question how much experience and insight you have into the process. MastCell 23:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

миражinred (speak, my child...) 19:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:UP#NOT, userspace is not to be used to collect "material that can be construed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. An exception is made for evidence compiled within a reasonable time frame to prepare for a dispute resolution process." I'll assume that we're going to see some sort of dispute-resolution process in a "reasonable time frame"... if not, then this is an inappropriate use of your userspace. MastCell 20:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The time frame depends on the time required to collect sufficient evidence of persistent disruption by blanking of reliable material. I believe I read somewhere that wikistalking of an editor's posts is inappropriate. Harrassing an editor for simply keeping a log of disruptive edits is also frowned upon.--Strider12 (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits or edits with which you are simply not happy? User contributions are public for a good reason. миражinred (speak, my child...) 21:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There is guidance from ArbCom that removal of statements that are pertinent, sourced reliably, and written in a neutral style constitutes disruption. The history of 131's self-described "purging" of peer reviewed studies, which you are on record encouraging, was disruption. The process of continued deletion of well referenced materials is also disruption which stunts the organic growth of the article which would occur if people stopped deleting material and instead worked on adding and coordinating material.--Strider12 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are, quite simply, relying on a misinterpretation of an ArbCom finding to overrule WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. In fact, what is clearly disruptive is endlessly perseverating on the same argument, disdaining outside input and consensus and edit-warring in the process, after your argument has been universally rejected. I have been around ArbCom a few times, and I can pretty much guarantee that bringing a case is not going to have the outcome you want. Labeling good-faith editing and content disagreements as "vandalism" or "disruption" is unlikely to go over well anywhere, to say nothing of your behavior in general. But of course, you're free to do whatever you think best. MastCell 23:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Warnings

February 2008

This edit constitutes WP:POINT vandalism. This is your second pointy vandalism warning (first was December 2007 as noted above in "January 2008"). Please refrain from taking disputes out on the article. Thank you --Phyesalis (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Phyesalis, that edit is neither WP:Point nor any form of WP:vandalism. Either you or I misunderstand WP:point, and I'm pretty sure it's you. Strider12's edit was mostly excellent, well-sourced, encyclopedic information. The only thing wrong with it was the "temp" heading (and she used the wrong number of "=" signs to make it a heading), and this introductory sentence:

For discussion and eventual inclusion in the section on abortion and mental health:

That sentence is better placed on the Talk page. If one is going to propose material for addition to an article, one should either be bold and just add it (with appropriate supporting comments on the talk page), or else propose it on the Talk page. She tried to just propose it for discussion in a "temporary" section of the article, which you and I know is not the right way to do it.

But it was an innocent, well-meaning mistake. You should cut her some slack. Strider12 is new here (just started editing in November), and has already contributed a remarkable amount of excellent, well-sourced information. She's still learning the ropes, but we definitely need more editors like her on Misplaced Pages! Please don't start her out by souring her Wiki-experience with bogus accusations of violations of obscure guidelines that she surely has never seen. NCdave (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Notes on Policy

Claims of consensus "Claims of consensus must be sourced. The claim that all or most scientists, scholars, or ministers hold a certain view requires a reliable source. Without it, opinions should be identified as those of particular, named sources."

Revert warning

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been reverting deleting of and "unbalanced" tag. Are tags considered "content." It would seem that editors should not be removing warning tags.--Strider12 (talk) 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You made at least 5 reverts within about 27 hours. Removing tags is a revert. It would seem you shouldn't be doing that. Realistically, you're fortunate to receive a warning and not a block given your lengthy history, so I'd suggest not wikilawyering it too hard. MastCell  04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

She did not remove tags. She inserted an (obviously needed) warning tag.

Misplaced Pages's guidelines are not totally clear about whether that constitutes a WP:revert. Obviously, if inserting a single word in an article that has ever appeared in the article before is a "revert" then there are an awful lot of accidental reverts on Misplaced Pages. Common sense says that is not a true revert. But if that is not a true revert, then how can inserting a single-word warning tag be considered a revert?

I am aware of the fact that it is commonly considered a revert, but my points are that that is not obvious to new users, and that IMO that unwritten(?) rule needs to be changed: reinsertion of warning tags should not be considered reverts, IMO.

Also, she's relatively new here. She just started contributing to Misplaced Pages in November, and she's already made many wonderful contributions. So be a gentleman and cut her some slack! NCdave (talk) 12:10, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Formal notification

This is a formal notification. If you continue collecting diffs of other editors' supposed "disruption" at User:Strider12/Disruption in violation of the userpage policy I will submit the page to be deleted. If you intend to use these diffs for dispute resolution, then you've had plenty of time - at least, enough time to make 5 reverts a day and repeat the same tendentious 8-paragraph arguments on the talk pages. MastCell  22:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have never gone to arbitration before I would assume that one needs a good bit of evidence before filing a complaint. I believe I should have the right to accumulate the evidence until I believe I have sufficient basis to succeed in my complaint. As you have noted, policy does allow one to collect such information for the purpose of dispute resolution. I don't see why you are so anxious to have me file a complaint except that you don't want me to have a sufficient record. Instad of harassing me, why don't you try working in a collaborative fashion to work the reliable sources I bring to the articles in instead of just making up reasons to delete them?

I don't see the inclusion of additional material to be a "revert". As you will notice, I hardly ever delete anyone's elses contritions. I always try to keep it and integerate it into a larger article. The "edit warring" is caused by those who insist on disrutively deleting verifiable material from peer reviewed journals even when it is presented in an NPOV fashion.--Strider12 (talk) 04:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it be more acceptable to you if I kept the log on this pae instead?

No. It would be more acceptable if you either pursued dispute resolution (the first step of which, incidentally, is not Arbitration) or else refrained from violating the userpage policy by cataloging what you perceive as other editors' "disruption". Maybe while you're up on the moral high ground, you can explain how you expect your "disruption log" to facilitate collaborative editing. This is not dispute resolution at all; it's more maneuvering and wikilawyering to get around the fact that there is a consensus opposing your edits and your behavior on abortion and mental health. MastCell  07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And while we're on the subject, you reverted abortion and mental health 4 times in less than one hour on 16 February. Instead of wikilawyering, you should count yourself fortunate you haven't picked up two 3RR blocks in the past few days. Stop. MastCell  07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I made four contributions to the article. I did not delete anyone else's contributions. I don't see how your partnership with IAA and MarginRed to take turns deleting verifiable material does not violate the spirit of 3RR. You misunderstand the idea of consensus. If 400 holocaust deniers have form a "consensus" that inconvenient truths about the Holocaust should be purged because they violate WEIGHT or disagree with the expert opinion of their own experts, that is NOT justification for deleting FACTS. You three are constantly deleitng verifiable facts from peer reviewed sources and even deleting facts from the same sources you cite which put your cherry-picked quotest into context. I find it ironic that you now accuse me of "wikilawyering" when you are the one who has constantly obstructed my sources with your own wikilawyering excuses (such as regarding WEIGHT and secondary sources), and then when I study the policies you cite and demonstrate how you are misapplying them, you accuse ME of wikilawyering!?! I guess that's easier than coming up with any up to date sources which support you 1990, 1992 and Bazelon "gospels."--Strider12 (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that it's actually mirageinred.

You are indeed very passionately wikilawyering to defend your POV-pushing. As I have already said, bloating the article with your tendentious editing to "neutralize" the Planned Parenthood bias is no better than "deleting verifiable information." миражinred سَراب ٭ (speak, my child...) 22:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a "partnership"; it's a consensus (and you forgot to mention the outside opinions which solicited and which also agreed with us). We're hardly in lockstep; I think the only thing that all of these editors agree completely on is that your editing is destructive, uncollaborative, and unproductive. Comparing us to Holocaust deniers is an excellent way to erode any marginal amount of credibility remaining to you. The consensus view is completely and adequately sourced. And yes, you made 4 reverts in less than 1 hour, as part of your ongoing campaign of edit-warring. You're wikilawyering when you deny the fact that you're continuously and egregiously violating both the spirit and, now, the letter of WP:3RR. MastCell  22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not comparing you to Holocaust deniers. I gave an example of how just because there is a "consensus" that consensus may abridge or violate the spirit of recording facts. My complaint is very simple, and is reflected in the ArbCom policy that one of the links YOU sent me pointed to. It is disruptive to delete verifiable facts from peer reviewed sources. You continue to insist that you and your gang of abortion-mental health deniers have a right to continue the process of "purging" -- or in your wikilawyering-speak -- WEIGHTING the article to suit your perspective by deleting literally scores of facts and sources which demonstrate there is not a consenus supporting your view and that there is a great deal of statistically validated research, since 1992, which demonstrates that the conclusions you rely on from 1990 and 1992 are no longer reliable. And you also very conveniently forget all the editors before, and during my time editing this article, who have agreed with me. Just because they don't have the persistence to wrangle with you doesn't mean that your gang represents an objective consensus of what sources should be allowed to be in this article.--Strider12 (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Soderberg

Show me in the Soderberg study where women say "‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'" or at concede that you lied. I advise you against wikilawyering too hard because RfC for user conduct is imminent. You can call my comment a threat, but I consider it as another warning. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear Saranghae Honey / Maragrinered,

Why do you sign with aliases?

The full paragraph from Soderberg is:

"Some (33.3%) did not want to talk about their experiences and were so listed. For many of the women, the reason for non-participation seemed to be a sense of guilt and remorse that they did not wish to discuss. An answer very often given was: ‘I do not want to talk about it. I just want to forget'."

This is found on page 15 of Soderberg's complete collection of studies from this data set entitled Uban women applying for induced abortion: Studies of epidemiology, attitudes and emotional reactions by Hanna Soderberg, M.D., Departments of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Community Medicine, Lund Universtiy, University Hospital, Malmo Sweden 1998. She mailed me a copy many years ago and will probably send you a copy if you contact her.--Strider12 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Who's cherry picking now Strider? It appears that you still have the audacity to use David Reardon as your source. If you do not want your credibility as an editor to plunge any further, I advise you to stop making excuses (i.e. Did you read the full text?) and stop. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 23:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reardon is a very credible source as demonstrated by the fact that he has multiple peer reviewed articles in top journals demonstratring that the top people in his field recognize his work as credible. Just because you don't like his politics gives you no license to continually purge references to his peer reviewed studies. Your constant disruptive deletion of material from reliable sources has destroyed any presumption of neutrality on your part.--Strider12 (talk) 17:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Just quote James Dobson to verify your claim that gays are God's abominations who will burn in hell one day. Before you slander other editors I suggest not making claims that are more reflective of your tendentious editing and would you please have some decency to refrain from disputed sources. If David Reardon's claims are right, try finding other sources that resonates with his findings. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

мirаgeinred سَراب ٭, where did Strider12 say that "gays are God's abominations who will burn in hell one day?" Did you just make that up??

If she said it, it was at the very least uncivil. But if you made it up then it was worse: an uncivil, dishonest, personal attack.

Please also refrain from accusations of criminal activity against your fellow editors, such as your "slander" accusation.

Also, I know for a fact that Dobson has never said that "gays are God's abominations who will burn in hell one day." Please refrain from making false accusations even against public figures. NCdave (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruption Log PAS

Well Documented Contributions

Photouploaded deletes verifiable material with only a claim of POV-pushing.

03:18, 29 January 2008 Saranghae honey disruptively removes a large number of reliable sources and verifiable content with false argument that there is a consensus to remove and replace (someday?) with "prose."

19:36, 4 February 2008 MastCell deleted Stotland quote.

22:27, 5 February 2008 IronAngelAlice Deletes Stotland's material and

23:27, 6 February 2008 MastCell Another deletion of two verifiable quotes from Stotland regarding Stotland's views.

22:38, 7 February 2008 IronAngelAlice Deletion of Stotland's balancing quote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&diff=prev&oldid=191798310

05:18, 16 February 2008 Saranghae honey REmoves Koop's statements

05:26, 16 February 2008 Saranghae honey delete Soderberg material without discussion

05:22, 16 February 2008 Saranghae honey Removed APA balancing statement

23:01, 22 February 2008 IronAngelAlice Deletion of Coleman summary

[http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Abortion_and_mental_health&diff=193219816&oldid=193187476

06:34, 22 February 2008 MastCell] deletes statement made by Stotland in source MastCell himself treats as reliable!! 

23:34, 22 February 2008 IronAngelAlice Deletion of Fergusson's findings

25 February 2008 MastCell Deletion of listing of negative reactions reported by numerous journals in the last 15 years.

Disruption Log Reardon

20:38, 28 January 2008 Added verifiable listing of bibliography

23:23, 28 January 2008 IronAngelAlice disrupts by blanking verifiable information.

22:28, 11 February 2008 MastCell deletes verifiable bibliography, move of unverifiable material to sction attributing opinion to source (Bazelon), and clarification of description of PWU to Mooney.

Notification of RfC on your conduct

RFC/USER discussion concerning you (Strider12)

Hello, Strider12. Please be aware that a request for comments has been filed concerning your conduct on Misplaced Pages. The RFC entry can be found by your name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found at ], where you may want to participate. -- MastCell  01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, Strider12. Thanks for your message at my talk page. I wrote a reply there for you.

I also would like to mention that you can contact me by email if you like. In case you weren't aware, you can go to my talk page, and you'll see a hyperlink over at the left-hand-side that says "Email this user". If you prefer, though, we can communicate via these talk pages. Cheers.Ferrylodge (talk) 07:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Koop and Congress

You are quite simply wrong here: . I know you've signed on to Ferrylodge's argument that his reading of the transcripts is correct, and that of Science, the New York Times, New Scientist, and Washington Monthly are all incorrect. But please see my recent comment on the talk page; Ferrylodge's claims about the transcipt are mistaken. I've found a reliable secondary source which includes the "overwhelming" quote, which is what you all should have been working on as well all of this time instead of trying to carefully parse a primary source to support you and override multiple reliable secondary sources. Let's move on. MastCell  19:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

What source, equal to the transcript, have you found showing that Koop used the "minimal" phrase? I don't doubt that he thought that was probably true, but he did NOT use the phrase, and moreover since he repeatedly emphasized that even the evidence was so bad that nobody could be sure what they were talking about so even that assessment was preliminary or a "probably" view. But instead, it's being portrayed as a definitive view, which again is a distortion of Koop's views.

Secondary sources use secondary sources all the time...which is how misattributions occur all the time. Indeed, many or perhaps most of the sources you cite may not have examined the transcripts. I can easily imagine that Weiss's office put out a news release stating the Koop agreed that it was "miniscule from the public health perspective" (technically true, but misleading and not his words) and that got morphed into Koop saying it. Clearly, when question arise the best evidence is the TRANSCRIPT, which is why they are kept, and it clearly shows the phrase in someone else's mouth. We should stop perpetuating a misattribution.--Strider12 (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been quoted in numerous fact-checked, highly reliable sources. If you consider this a misquote, I strongly suggest you notify these sources. I am simply not going to take yours and Ferrylodge's word about what an inaccessible transcript says over what has been reported in these multiple high-quality secondary sources, and that would likely be the case even if you were editors in whom I had more personal confidence. MastCell  22:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in uninvited, but....

The transcript is not completely inaccessible. Two pertinent excerpts are here and here.

And I have never taken the position that this transcript is in any way inconsistent with the secondary sources, as I recently explained here. Koop did indeed take the position that psychological problems of abortion are minuscule from a "public health" perspective. That's what the secondary sources say, and that's what the transcript shows.

However, public health is a specific field, its mission being to assure conditions in which people can be healthy. If one woman gets an abortion, that really does not have much consequence for the actions or mental health of any other woman living down the street, so Koop was correct that the public health implications are miniscule no matter which side of the abortion debate you're on. Sure would be nice if the article on Abortion and Mental Health would explain this.Ferrylodge (talk) 23:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Public health, in this context, refers to the scale of the problem (which I think you're getting at). About 1.3 million women have abortions in the U.S. every year. If there were a causal connection between abortion and mental health problems, then given the number of exposed women it would be a substantial public health concern. There is no evidence of a proportionate epidemic of psychologically scarred "post-abortive" women, and hence no public-health-level issue. What does exist are individual reports of women who have had severe negative reactions to their abortions. I don't think anyone is denying that such reactions exist (certainly the APA and even Planned Parenthood aren't) - the dispute is over the magnitude of the problem and whether this set of women would have had psychological problems even if they had carried the unwanted pregnancy to term. Koop addressed this with his comment about "anecdotes not making good scientific material." MastCell  23:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Koop said, "From the personal perspective, from the family perspective, it is overwhelming." He didn't say it is "sometimes" overwhelming or it is "rarely" overwhelming. He asked Congress for funds to do a study to investigate thoroughly and scientifically whether or not he was correct, because the anecdotes on which he based his opinion were inadequate to write an unimpeachable report. His preliminary opinion was that the public health impacts on mental health were miniscule, whereas the clinical health impacts on an individual's mental health were overwhelming. I am very disappointed that our Misplaced Pages article cannot at least provide the links to Koop's answer, because the Science article only provides an incomplete quote. (And it's no coincidence that Science attributed the word "overwhelming" to Koop, just like it says at page 241 of the report I linked.)Ferrylodge (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for hanging in there

Your careful, well-sourced contributions to abortion-related articles are a real gift to the Misplaced Pages community. I am sorry that some here have not appreciated your work. But I do.

Here are a couple of pages that might be of interest to you:

Drop me an email sometime. If you don't get a reply, please try again -- I've been having trouble with my email server lately. NCdave (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2008 (UTC)