Reclaiming Our Children

Why can't we talk about abortion?

On September 23rd at Fordham University's Lincoln Center Campus there will be a forum
"Why Can't We Talk About Abortion" from 7-8pm

Hope to see you there!

Fatherhood Conference

coming up Sept 8th and 9th in Chicago, for men suffering from a past abortion
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=90450

here is the brochure:

http://menandabortion.info/downloads/menandabortionv2.pdf

Democratic convention begins with thunderous denunciation of abortion

DENVER--Christian Newswire--In its first "official event" of the 2008 Democratic Convention, Pentecostal preacher and Bishop Charles E. Blake of the Church of God in Christ, took to the pulpit of an Interfaith Gathering and unequivocally denounced abortion, saying God could not be pleased with millions of lives being ended by elective abortion.
read more here:

http://www.thechronicleonline.net/content/view/939/502/

Interesting since Obama is the most pro abortion  person in Senate history
I am sure we will hear the "reduce" speech, although he haspromised Planned Parenthood to enshrine abortion on his first day of office...

Making the Connection

There is no doubt about the fact that this political climate can be a huge abortion connector to many.
It is hard to turn on the TV or listen to the radio without hearing about abortion and the position of the presidential candidates. With the conventions here, it is sure  to continue to be a hot topic

It is bound to get worse as we venture closer to the election. For me, personally, this is the most important issue. If we do not respect life, what is left?

It is at these times that we need to stay focused on Christ and His forgiveness and Mercy. We cannot let the political climate translate where we are or how we can feel.

We may get angry at the actions of some. I know I do when it comes to the Born Alive Act...or we may get sad when we hear of the babies and it recalls our personal loss...but we can always stay grounded in the One who came to set us free and give us eternal life....

Rachel MacNair Reports on APA

Friends --

 

Below is my more full report of the APA Task Force adventures. Feel free to use it in whole, in part, or in quotations, in any publications or newsletters.

Also pass it on to other interested people.

 

-- Rachel MacNair

 

 

===========================================================================================

 

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

 

Rachel M. MacNair, Ph.D.

Director, Institute for Integrated Social Analysis

research arm of Consistent Life: An International Network for Peace and Life

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

            I approached the microphone and started to speak as others had, but the president interrupted and said he didn't recognize me as a member of the Council; was I one? I said no, he said I would need permission to speak, I asked for it, and he gave it so long as I was short. I was told later that it is exceedingly rare that anyone outside of Council is allowed to speak at all.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The Report dismisses many of the studies of post-abortion trauma on the grounds that women were already traumatized by the time they showed up to the abortion clinic. This is surely true, but doesn't it then follow that it's highly irresponsible to simply give them surgery and then send them home? If we have clear and undisputed information that a disproportionate amount of traumatized women (domestic abuse, substance abuse, etc.) are showing up at any medical location, how can it be reasonable medical care to not screen for this and provide opportunity for intervention? I pointed this out in my review, but they didn't see this point as worthy of inclusion.

 

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

 

Questions for me can be sent to: drmacnair@hotmail.com.

"Premature" baby

A premature baby who was pronounced dead "came back to life" Sunday after five hours in Nahariya Hospital.

The baby girl, who was in a cooler at the hospital, suddenly showed signs of life and was being treated in the premature baby unit.

Doctors estimated that the cooler brought the fetus "back to life."

read the rest here 

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1218710394816&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I thought it was interesting that they chose to call the baby "pre mature".
This would be one of the babies that would have no righsome place without the "Born Alive Infants Protection Act" 

http://www.nrlc.org/federal/born_alive_infants/BAIPLaw0405.html

I am so glad they are taking care of her....

Despair vs Hope

Anyone healing from abortion who has not read the articles on "Despair vs Hope" by Dave Reardon are really missing out on something.

There are 3 parts, which you can find here:

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V3/n2/DESPAIR.htm

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V3/n4/DESPAIR.htm

http://www.afterabortion.org/PAR/V5/n3/despair.htm

Take the time..you will be glad you did.

Fr Goeschel

I love this quote by Father Groeschel...I pray that all that are struggling with healing from abortion will heed his words and trust God to bring them hope..HE will!

"You can make up your mind to trust God and to believe that out of suffering, he'll bring hope," Groeschel said. "But you have to struggle to make that decision over and over again. There's no light switch. A lot of books, including perhaps mine, make it sound too easy. You make up your mind, and that's it. But I now better understand that you have to do it, recommit yourself, two or three times a day."

Living a Life of Faith

Just came across this..I wrote it a few years ago..it is over a year that Mike has been out of the Marines. It was a good reminder to me, because I still do the same things...

 

Scripture tells us “You will seek me and you will find me when you seek me with all of your heart” (Jeremiah 29:13). Do you seek God “with all your heart” or do you still withhold parts of your heart from Him?  I know I do. “I’ll give you this Lord, but not that. You are asking too much Lord…you want that too? How can you expect me to give you that? It is too hard.”

 

We are afraid to let go. Afraid of growth and change, and yes, afraid to trust when it seems our security may be threatened. It is so hard to die to our own will; a part of us continues to believe we know better than God.

 

St Faustina knew what it was like to surrender her will completely. She writes in her diary “I accept everything that comes my way as given me by the loving will of God who sincerely desires my happiness”.(Diary 1549)

Not just the good things, but EVERYTHING. The failures, the losses, the sickness, the fears, the sufferings, everything. She knew that no matter how things looked, God loved her and He was leading her along the road to eternal life…her happiness.

 

A few years ago my younger son Michael brought a small statue of the Pieta back for me from a trip to

Rome

. Having consecrated myself to Mary by means of True Devotion by St Louis Marie De Monte forte, the statue quickly became one of my most prized possessions obtaining a place of honor on my desk. In this devotion you become a “slave” of Mary and are called to imitate her virtues. “I am all yours and all that I have belongs to you, Oh, most loving Jesus, through Mary, your Most Holy Mother”. It has been a daily prayer of mine for over 15 years. Mary becomes the possessor, of all of your works, as you strive to live with her, through her, in her and for her, that you may glorify Jesus as she did.

 

Last May, Michael entered the Marine Corp. Suddenly; the statute took on a new meaning.

Suddenly I heard myself saying “I want to be like you in all things Mary but not this, this I cannot do.”

 

“I accept everything”.

What an example we have in Mary. She did not say “everything” but this. She did not scream for the soldiers to take Jesus down from the cross, she did not beg Jesus not to go through with the Fathers plan for Him. She did not run from the cross. She accepted everything as given to her by the loving will of God. She trusted completely, that no matter how things looked or what happened, God loved her and good would come out of it.

 

My humanness rebels at the thought of accepting everything. It just seems too painful to me. I know I cannot do it; I am too filled with fear. Just the thought of Michael being wounded or worse yet, killed, is too much for me, and so I live day-by-day trying to trust. I remind myself that of course I cannot do it, but Mary can do it in me, one day, one minute at a time. She can show me the way on whatever road He chooses. She knows the way; she will be there to hold my hand. When I get fearful, I can hide behind her mantle as she urges me on. I can imitate her in following her son along the road of

Calvary

learning the lessons she teaches me; patience, forgiveness, trust, humility, perseverance, and purity of heart.

 

I do not know how long they will ask me to walk this road or what lies ahead. Michael has 2 1/2 more years in the Marine Corp. All I know is that I am called to pray and trust one day at a time. I am called to consent to the will of God no matter what it is, knowing His love for Michael and His desire for his salvation. I know some days will be harder than others and that I will sometimes fail, but I also know Mary will be with me through it all, teaching and guiding me as I learn to “accept everything that comes my way as given me by the loving will of God who sincerely desires my happiness”.

The Elliot institue responds to the APA report

Thank God for Dave....need I say more?


CHAIR OF APA ABORTION REPORT TASK FORCE VIOLATES APA
ETHICS RULES

Lead Author Refuses to Release Abortion Data Collected
Under Federal Grant

Springfield, IL (August 13, 2008) - The credibility of a
new report on the mental health effects of abortion from
the American Psychological Association is tarnished by
the fact that the lead author, Dr. Brenda Major, has
violated the APA's own data sharing rules by
consistently refusing to allow her own data on abortion
and mental health effects to be reanalyzed by other
researchers. Major, a proponent of abortion rights, has
even evaded a request from the Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS) to deliver copies of data she
collected under a federal grant. Because her study of
emotional reactions two years after an abortion was
federally funded, the data she collected is actually
federal property. But in Major's response to 2004 HHS
request for a copy of the data, Major excused herself
from delivering the data writing, "It would be very
difficult to pull this information together."

However, a researcher familiar with Major's work, David
Reardon of the Elliot Institute, has seen portions of
Major's unpublished findings. Reardon, who has published
over a dozen studies on abortion and mental health,
believes Major is withholding the data to prevent her
findings supporting a link between abortion and
subsequent health problems from coming to light.

"Brenda's last published study using this data set was
released in 2000, after she moved to her present
facility in 1995," said Reardon. "Immediately after that
publication one of my colleagues requested a break down
of details which had only been superficially summarized
in one her tables. One of her grad students replied on
her behalf with the additional summary statistics we had
requested within 48 hours. So it clearly wasn't at all
difficult for her team to access the data. Plus, with
modern electronic data bases and multiple backup
procedures in place at universities like hers, it is
nearly impossible to lose such data."

According to Reardon, Major has not responded to any
further requests regarding the data since early in 2000.
"I know of a number of experts in the field who have
requested the data, even within the last six months. But
she simply doesn't respond to their calls, emails, or
letters," said Reardon.

"This is very troubling on two counts. First, it the
APA's own ethics rule, 8.14, requires research
psychologists to share their data for verification of
findings. Secondly, she is the chair of the APA Abortion
Task Force which is, at least in theory, supposed to
bring full and clear light to this issue. But how can we
trust the objectivity of a report prepared by a task
force composed exclusively of pro-choice psychologists,
especially when the chair and lead author has a history
of withholding data and findings which may undermine her
ideological preferences?"

According to Reardon the additional details from Major's
study released in 2000 actually revealed that a
significant number of women interviewed by Major did
attribute negative reactions to their abortions, but
those findings have never been published.

"There is no doubt that she has selectively reported her
findings," said Reardon. "We have seen in the
unpublished tables details about specific negative
reactions which were obscured in her published report by
combining them with three to eight other reactions to
create watered down, composite scores.

"In my view, it is irresponsible not to report the
significant findings associated with individual
symptoms. For example, she found that a number of women
reported that they tried to cope with negative feelings
about their abortions by drinking more or taking drugs.
But she has never not fully shared the details on these
reactions in any of her published studies, and by
refusing to share her data for reanalysis by others, she
has prevented anyone else from reporting these findings
either."

Reardon believes that the newly released APA Abortion
Task Force report is also flawed by a pattern of wording
and reporting which tends to obscure rather than clarify
what researchers have found about the mental health
effects associated with abortion. The primary conclusion
of the report, as highlighted in the APA news release,
is that "There is no credible evidence that a single
elective abortion of an unwanted pregnancy in and of
itself causes mental health problems for adult women…"

According to Reardon, this nuanced statement is intended
to convey a message that abortion has no mental health
risks but those familiar with the literature will see
that it actually admits that there is compelling
evidence that there are negative effects for:

* women who have multiple abortions, which accounts for
about half of all abortions); * women who abort of a
wanted pregnancy because of coercion or pressure to
abort from third parties and may account for about
20-60% of all abortions; * minors who have abortions;
and * women with preexisting mental health problems in
which case abortion may not "in and of itself" be the
sole cause of mental health problems but may instead
trigger or aggravate preexisting problems.

"Even the modifier that there is 'no credible evidence'
of mental health risks in the ideal case of a low risk
abortion patient is an admission that there is indeed
some evidence that a single abortion can pose a risk to
the mental health of a emotionally stable, adult woman,"
said Reardon. "In fact, the report itself identifies a
whole host of studies providing such evidence, but it
mutes a clear presentation of the findings of these
studies by focusing on the limitations of each study's
methodology, which all studies have, in order to justify
ignoring their clear implications."

While Reardon agrees that the body of the report
includes admissions that abortion does negatively impact
some women, he is deeply concerned that the summary
introduction and conclusion and press releases all fail
to emphasize five key points which are clear in the
literature and even explicitly or implicitly stated
within the 91-page Task Force report.   The five points
he believes should be made, without room for controversy
are:

1. Some women suffer emotional harm from abortion.

2. Some women feel pressured into unwanted abortions.

3. There are well established risk factors identifying
the women most likely to suffer negative psychological
factors to abortion, including being pressured into an
abortion, and that it is incumbent on therapists
treating women considering an abortion, and abortion
clinics, to screen for these risk factors and to give
appropriate counseling in light of any identified risk
factors.

4. A nationally funded longitudinal prospective study
(such as recommended by Koop in 1989) of psychological
factors related to reproductive health (including
abortion) is long overdue and should be undertaken as
soon as possible.

4. Therapists should be alert to unresolved issues
associated with a past abortion and should sensitively
give women the opportunity to discuss such issues and
should provide appropriate care or referrals whenever
such issues are raised.

"By failing to call on therapists to be alert and
sensitive to the negative emotional experiences women
attribute to their abortions, the Task Force has allowed
ideology to trump sensitivity," says Reardon. "Instead,
they are ignoring the reality of how and why abortions
take place and are instead focused on drawing
conclusions regarding the safety of abortion for an
emotionally stable, pro-choice, adult woman who is
freely choosing a wanted abortion without any moral
qualms. But that doesn't reflect the reality of most
abortion situations."

"The fact is that coerced abortions are more common than
wanted abortions. Studies show that over 60% of American
women are having abortions, often against their moral
beliefs, because they feel pressured into it by third
parties. These women need therapist and family members
to be open to and responsive to their pain, not
dismissive of it as an anomaly. Sadly, this is an
ideological report that simply ignores the concerns and
needs of those women for whom abortion has been a
heartache rather than a triumph."

# # #

APA's "Ethical Principles Of Psychologists And Code Of
Conduct" regarding Sharing Research Data for
Verification' (
http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html#8_14)

Copy of HHS letter and Brenda Major's Response:
http://www.afterabortion.org/news/BrendaMajorHHSletters.pdf



Elliot Institute
PO Box 7348
Springfield
IL 62791
United States
www.afterabortion.info