...or women who'd already been diagnosed with a mental disorder and decided that trying to raise a kid while suffering from schizophrenia or clinical depression might not be the most responsible course of action....

They didn't bother to separate the effects of having an unintended pregnancy - or, for that matter, what makes a person prone to unintended pregnancy - from the effects of having an abortion. So they're saying what exactly? That getting pregnant makes you crazy?

Viewed another way, women who feel that they may not be emotionally or psychologically prepared to have children may be more likely to choose abortion _and_ more likely to suffer "mental disorders". In other words, women are making sensible choices.

I hate studies like this where the results are selected to support the researcher's objective.

I find it hard to believe that women who did not get pregnant prior to the age of 21 had more or less the same level of depression as those who got pregnant and had the child. So, were all those who didn't have an abortion lumped together in one class (vs. those who did have an abortion)? Or were they done as three seperate categories?

Of those who did have the baby, there should be a distinction made between those who married or were already married vs. those who were single or dating but living on their own.

And why just between 21 and 25? What is the rate of depression amongst 30-60 year olds who had a baby before the age of 21 vs those who had an abortion? By 25 you're just barely realizing what a mess you've made of your life for not going to college and developing your career.

If they are looking for conclusive results, they're going to have to do more thorough research that allows for a myriad of variables, and makes a better effort to find other potential explanations.

Other commenters have made good observations about variables that could have skewed the results, but were not considered.

However, it is also possible that having an abortion does increase somewhat the possibility of depression or other disorders. Is anyone out there willing to objectively consider that possibility? I know, I know - more studies, better designed studies, this one not conclusive ... All true.

However, if an effect were at some time established, how would you digest that fact? Just asking.

ericvfsu: "However, it is also possible that having an abortion does increase somewhat the possibility of depression or other disorders. Is anyone out there willing to objectively consider that possibility? I know, I know - more studies, better designed studies, this one not conclusive ... All true. However, if an effect were at some time established, how would you digest that fact? Just asking."

That's a good question, and an important one.

I can't speak for anyone else, of course, but my answer is that I'd digest it the same way I'd digest any other fact about medical risks attendant on abortion, or any other medical procedure: it should be honestly and neutrally documented as a side effect, and women allowed to make their own decisions in light of the knoweldge. (The same goes, mutatis mutandis, for how I'd take a genuine demonstration that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, if it ever happened.) I think Lucinda Cisler makes the point excellently in "Abortion law repeal (sort of): a warning to women," in regard to the particular case of restrictions for "safety" in the case of late-term abortions:

3: Abortions may not be performed beyond a certain time in pregnancy, unless the woman’s life is at stake. Significantly enough, the magic time limit varies from bill to bill, from court decision to court decision, but this kind of restriction essentially says two things to women: (a) at a certain stage, your body suddenly belongs to the state and it can force you to have a child, whatever your own reasons for wanting an abortion late in pregnancy; (b) because late abortion entails more risk to you than early abortion, the state must "protect" you even if your considered decision is that you want to run that risk and your doctor is willing to help you. This restriction insults women in the same way the present "preservation-of-life" laws do: it assumes that we must be in a state of tutelage and cannot assume responsibility for our own acts. Even many women’s liberation writers are guilty of repeating the paternalistic explanation given to excuse the original passage of U.S. laws against abortion: in the nineteenth century abortion was more dangerous than childbirth, and women had to be protected against it. Was it somehow less dangerous in the eighteenth century? Were other kinds of surgery safe then? And, most important, weren’t women wanting and getting abortions, even though they knew how much they were risking? "Protection" has often turned out to be but another means of control over the protected; labor law offers many examples. When childbirth becomes as safe as it should be, perhaps it will be safer than abortion: will we put back our abortion laws, to "protect women"?

"Um, have they factored in that when women are demonized for having an abortion and made to feel like shit by their surrounding cultural, social and political climate, they may go crazy? Just a thought."

Of course that hasn't been factored in! Just imagine having people judge you, block you, delay you, protest you every step of the way in all of these areas. Frankly, I find that much more mentally threatening than going through the procedure itself.

The control group is inappropriate. A better control group would have been women who were pregnant with an unwanted fetus who chose to complete the pregnancy. As it is, it doesn't really give any useful information.

Sorry women at this end of the world are not "demonized", it's not really an issue ... except perhaps for one of our particularly religious political Ministers, and even then he wouldn't be seen to "buck the system" for fear of being voted out. This discussion died 35 years ago.

Who on earth is this Dr Russo (American I'll bet), anyway all studies can be skewed depending on how the questions are posed. Of course women are upset and challenge themselves for having an abortion, can bother one for the rest of one's life ... not really one of the great joys in life ... but nor is a lot of stuff that happens. So we have regrets and are sad and why shouldn't we, it's a horrible choice to make, but it is exactly that a CHOICE!!!! Pity the woman who can't express her sorrow and regret and cry on a friend's shoulder, we can here and do and that's OK. Besides adoption would cause more real life damaging psychosis than abortion ever would or will.

Maybe some women were coerced into this choice by parents (as often happens), believing it the most appropriate approach, so these women felt cheated ... afterall our governments here support unmarried women very well & we have free healthcare. In fact my own (government) will be giving $4000 for each child born as at July this year, then factor in free healthcare and sole parent support/housing support/free education and everything else why wouldn't your average pregnant teen feel she can do quite nicely. Her parents may well have other ideas. Even so your teen rate is twice ours ... remember we are not hung-up on sex either.

In fact I venture to say most people wish they would have abortions as it costs the taxpayer billions, so you see our experience is very different and comparisons are odious.

I wouldn't give this study the time of day in respect of the American attitude to abortion, because if it's a genuine study devoid of personal prejudice ....ah just as I suspected:
Nancy Felipe Russo is Regents Professor of Psychology and Women's Studies at Arizona State University. Well that says it all.

Couldn't possible understand our cultural mindset and our ability to admit we are totally messed-up/screwed-up in the head one minute, once vented, move-on. American attitudes scare the life out of me!