New Study Shows Abortion Doesn’t Make Women Depressed—Lack of Access Does

So why do nine states have laws mandating counseling for women seeking the procedure?

<a href="http://www.istockphoto.com/portfolio/martin-dm?mediatype=photography&facets=%7B%22pageNumber%22:1,%22perPage%22:100,%22abstractType%22:%5B%22photos%22,%22illustrations%22,%22video%22,%22audio%22%5D,%22order%22:%22bestMatch%22,%22filterContent%22:%22false%22,%22portfolioID%22:%5B2410969%5D,%22additionalAudio%22:%22true%22,%22f%22:true%7D">Martin Dimitrov</a>/iStock


It turns out that depression as a side effect of abortion is rare—but anxiety and low self-esteem after being denied the procedure is very, very real.

This is the latest data out of a yearslong study tracking abortion access that was published in JAMA Psychiatry by researchers at Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health at the University of California-San Francisco. The 956 participating women—recruited from 30 abortion facilities in 21 states—were divided into two groups: women who sought and received an abortion, and women who sought an abortion but were denied the procedure. Both groups of women were interviewed one week after seeking an abortion and then semiannually for five years.

Researchers found that women who were turned away from abortion clinics reported more anxiety symptoms, lower self-esteem, and lower life satisfaction over a longer period of time than women who had the procedure. They experienced similar levels of depression as the women who had received an abortion just under the facility’s gestational limits—indicating that depression was not triggered by having an abortion—but the women who received an abortion felt less negative emotional effects by six months to a year after the procedure. Nine states have laws that require women who seek an abortion to first receive counseling on its negative emotional and psychological consequences.

“We can say that those current mandated counseling laws are not protecting women, and if anything, the research suggests that it’s restricting their access and harming their mental health in the short term,” said lead study author Antonia Biggs, a social psychologist. “Our goal is to provide the most objective, rigorous data on the effects of abortion on women and provide a better understanding of women’s experiences—as policymakers are interested in learning how abortion affects women, we would hope that they would take this research into account.”

This study is not the first to document that the link between abortion and chronic depression is a fallacy. In 2010, Guttmacher published a study that examined mental health outcomes in adolescent women who had abortions, and another paper in 2013 echoed the “overwhelming consensus in the legitimate scientific community” that no causal link exists. Guttmacher’s 2013 report and the JAMA study both refer to the US surgeon general’s conclusion in 1989 that “the scientific studies [to date] do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women.”

“Our goal is to provide the most objective, rigorous data on the effects of abortion on women and provide a better understanding of women’s experiences,” Biggs said. “As policymakers are interested in learning how abortion affects women, we would hope that they would take this research into account.”

DOES IT FEEL LIKE POLITICS IS AT A BREAKING POINT?

Headshot of Editor in Chief of Mother Jones, Clara Jeffery

It sure feels that way to me, and here at Mother Jones, we’ve been thinking a lot about what journalism needs to do differently, and how we can have the biggest impact.

We kept coming back to one word: corruption. Democracy and the rule of law being undermined by those with wealth and power for their own gain. So we're launching an ambitious Mother Jones Corruption Project to do deep, time-intensive reporting on systemic corruption, and asking the MoJo community to help crowdfund it.

We aim to hire, build a team, and give them the time and space needed to understand how we got here and how we might get out. We want to dig into the forces and decisions that have allowed massive conflicts of interest, influence peddling, and win-at-all-costs politics to flourish.

It's unlike anything we've done, and we have seed funding to get started, but we're looking to raise $500,000 from readers by July when we'll be making key budgeting decisions—and the more resources we have by then, the deeper we can dig. If our plan sounds good to you, please help kickstart it with a tax-deductible donation today.

Thanks for reading—whether or not you can pitch in today, or ever, I'm glad you're with us.

Signed by Clara Jeffery

Clara Jeffery, Editor-in-Chief

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our newsletters

Subscribe and we'll send Mother Jones straight to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate

Share your feedback: We’re planning to launch a new version of the comments section. Help us test it.