On 2016 Feb 29, David Reardon commented:

This is another unreliable result from the Turn Away Study. It is seriously flawed by the non-representative selection of women used in the study.

Careful reading of the companion studies reveals that of the women approached to participate 62.5% declined. Another 15% dropped out before the baseline interview.

After the baseline interview, women continued to drop out at each six month followup period. While the number of women who dropping out at each stage is has not been revealed, the authors imply a high retention rate by declaring that 93% participated "in at least one" of the six month followups.

What careful reading will reveal is that only 27.0% of the eligible women were interviewed at the three year follow-up.

There are well known risk factors which predict which women are most likely to have negative reactions to abortion, many of which would make women less likely to agree to participate in a follow up interviews . . . even if there was an offer to be paid.

For example, from the APA list of risk factors: perceived need for secrecy; feelings of stigma; use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; low perceived ability to cope with the abortion; perceived pressure from others to terminate a pregnancy. All of these risk factors suggest that such women may be more likely to refuse to participate in a study with follow-up interviews.

Other problems include the fact that the sample is disproportionately filled with women having late abortions. The sample used includes 413 women who had an abortion near the end of the second trimester compared to only 254 women having an abortion in the first trimester.

In addition, women who had abortions due to suspected fetal anomalies were excluded. Probably because research shows high rates of psychological disruption after abortion in these types of cases, therefore excluding this segment of women was a way to reduce the effects associated with abortion. This is extremely misleading, of course, since this is a common reason for abortion . . . especially in the second and third trimester.

Another major confounding problems is that the comparison group, the Turn Away group (n=210), includes 50 women who later terminated at another facility or had a miscarriage. So 24% of the purported "no abortion" group actually includes women who experienced abortion or miscarriage. Yet the researchers barely disclose this fact, giving the false impression that their study is comparing women who had abortions to women who carried to term. In fact, they are comparing a group of women who had abortions to a group of women including those who (a) carried to term, (b) had abortions in a state other than where they first sought one, or (c) miscarried or had a still birth.

In short, the findings of a study including only 27% of eligible patients in it's followup (much less other exclusions imposed on the population by the researchers) simply cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding the general population of women having abortions.

On 2016 Feb 29, David Reardon commented:

This is another unreliable result from the Turn Away Study. It is seriously flawed by the non-representative selection of women used in the study.

Careful reading of the companion studies reveals that of the women approached to participate 62.5% declined. Another 15% dropped out before the baseline interview.

After the baseline interview, women continued to drop out at each six month followup period. While the number of women who dropping out at each stage is has not been revealed, the authors imply a high retention rate by declaring that 93% participated "in at least one" of the six month followups.

What careful reading will reveal is that only 27.0% of the eligible women were interviewed at the three year follow-up.

There are well known risk factors which predict which women are most likely to have negative reactions to abortion, many of which would make women less likely to agree to participate in a follow up interviews . . . even if there was an offer to be paid.

For example, from the APA list of risk factors: perceived need for secrecy; feelings of stigma; use of avoidance and denial coping strategies; low perceived ability to cope with the abortion; perceived pressure from others to terminate a pregnancy. All of these risk factors suggest that such women may be more likely to refuse to participate in a study with follow-up interviews.

Other problems include the fact that the sample is disproportionately filled with women having late abortions. The sample used includes 413 women who had an abortion near the end of the second trimester compared to only 254 women having an abortion in the first trimester.

In addition, women who had abortions due to suspected fetal anomalies were excluded. Probably because research shows high rates of psychological disruption after abortion in these types of cases, therefore excluding this segment of women was a way to reduce the effects associated with abortion. This is extremely misleading, of course, since this is a common reason for abortion . . . especially in the second and third trimester.

Another major confounding problems is that the comparison group, the Turn Away group (n=210), includes 50 women who later terminated at another facility or had a miscarriage. So 24% of the purported "no abortion" group actually includes women who experienced abortion or miscarriage. Yet the researchers barely disclose this fact, giving the false impression that their study is comparing women who had abortions to women who carried to term. In fact, they are comparing a group of women who had abortions to a group of women including those who (a) carried to term, (b) had abortions in a state other than where they first sought one, or (c) miscarried or had a still birth.

In short, the findings of a study including only 27% of eligible patients in it's followup (much less other exclusions imposed on the population by the researchers) simply cannot be used to draw any conclusions regarding the general population of women having abortions.