The New York Times got some fantastic letters in response to their most recent article on anti-abortion strategies (we wrote about it here). Check ’em out. My favorites:
To the Editor:
Your article about the strategy of anti-abortion activists reveals their new claim that by pushing for mandatory counseling about abortion’s alleged psychological and physical risks, they’re working in the interests of women.
The Supreme Court narrowly endorsed that claim when it upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, substituting political propaganda for medical science.
But meticulous research shows that there is no causal relationship between abortions and mental illnesses. Women’s mental health is jeopardized when laws require doctors to mislead them and is best served when women make their own decisions. That’s why the American Psychiatric Association stands in favor of women’s access to reproductive health care.
Anti-abortion activists have even made up a mental disease: “abortion trauma syndrome.” Recently I told Congress that the association recognizes no such disorder.
Doctors take an oath to work in the best interest of patients. Anti-choice activists merely claim that mantle as their tactic du jour.
Nada L. Stotland, M.D.
Chicago, May 22, 2007
The writer is president-elect of the American Psychiatric Association.
and
To the Editor:
As a bioethicist who supports robust informed consent throughout the health care system, I am outraged by pro-life strategists who have hijacked and misused this important concept.
The point of informed consent is to offer the consumer the best medical facts about her condition, so that she can plug those facts into her value system and her life circumstances and make the best choice for her.
If there is good evidence that a significant number of women suffer emotional distress after abortion, that is important information women should know.
They should also be informed of the physical risks of carrying a pregnancy to term, the proportion of women who suffer postpartum depression and the emotional consequences of giving a baby up for adoption.
Dena S. Davis
Cleveland, May 23, 2007
The writer is a professor at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law.
Read ’em all.