As the U.S. Supreme Court considers a case involving the abortion medication mifepristone and whether it was properly approved by the Food and Drug Administration, justices will see mention of research about abortion from flawed studies, including some that have been retracted.
Other research produced findings that run counter to the consensus among professional mental health organizations, which say there is no evidence that abortion hurts mental health, says Julia H. Littell, PhD, professor emeritus in the Graduate School of Social Work and Social Research at Bryn Mawr College. Littell and colleagues found that research results tying abortion to mental health issues are largely flawed.1
“The meta-analysis [involving the studies tying abortion to mental health problems] is one of the most deeply flawed meta-analyses anywhere,” Littell says. “The other reviews also are flawed. There is no convincing evidence that abortion has adverse effects on mental health.”
Studies Cited in Court Cases
Four flawed studies were cited in multiple court cases as proof that abortion can increase the risk of mental health problems. These citations are repeated in dozens of court cases and hearings in six countries.1
The journal’s editor, editorial board, and an independent panel of the journal all were moving toward retracting the abortion-mental health studies, but the journal’s owner stopped the retraction, Littell says. A possible reason for the journal stopping the retraction was the fear of lawsuits by the studies’ author, she adds.
“Our response is journals need to be ready to defend against [lawsuits] that are baseless,” Littell says. “We believe if they had acted on that retraction, it would have been held up in court. It is defamatory if it’s false, but none of the retractions [would have been] false.”
The point is: How can a journal be independent if its publisher is concerned about legal issues? “My group is open-minded in terms of what we would find,” Littell says.
Littell and colleagues found that the only mental health effect related to abortion is the opposite of what the previous studies reported: The lack of availability of abortion as a healthcare option creates stress in the short term.
“If I’m a service provider in reproductive healthcare, my takeaway right now is it’s probably more harmful to restrict abortion than to provide it,” Littell says.
Recently, other studies that found problems with abortion were retracted. “Three studies were retracted by Sage publications [this year]. All had the same first author and were looking at the effects of abortion on emergency room use — not mental health,” Littell says. These researchers were associated with the anti-abortion group Charlotte Lozier Institute, she adds.
“The reason the journals don’t want to get into court is it takes so long; it could take a decade,” Littell says.
For example, a researcher who was trying to debunk claims by the fossil fuel industry that fossil fuels do not change the environment was sued for defamation. He won the case 12 years later, she explains.
“It cost him well into six, seven figures in legal costs,” Littell adds. “We need laws that prevent frivolous lawsuits because the threat of a lawsuit can do a lot.”
There also is a societal cost to allowing flawed studies to stand unchecked. In the case of flawed studies that promote the idea of abortion causing women harm, these can be cited in court cases involving anti-abortion groups, and justices will make decisions using this evidence.
“There is a concern that judges and justices will make decisions and then pick the evidence that supports their decision — a very human problem,” Littell says. “That’s a concern even when the studies are retracted.”
REFERENCE
- Littell JH, Abel KM, Biggs MA, et al. Correcting the scientific record on abortion and mental health outcomes. BMJ 2024;384:e076518.
