Subject: Grief is more common than relief after abortion, new study

The Elliot Institute News

Grief is more common than relief after abortion, new study


Pensacola, FL (March 28, 2025) — Following an abortion, grief is much more common, and more intensely felt, than relief, according to a new study of a random sample of American women. 


These new findings starkly contradict the claim of Planned Parenthood that “Over 95% of people who have had abortions say that they mostly felt relief after their abortion."


Compared to women who had miscarriages or other natural pregnancy losses, women who had abortions had similar levels of grief, depression, and anxiety.  But the latter reported much higher levels of guilt, shame, and regret.


On average, relief was prominent only among the 30% of women who described their abortions as "wanted and consistent with my values and preferences."  For all others, relief was rarely reported. 


In sharp contrast to the subgroup whose abortions were freely chosen, 70% reported feeling pressured to abort by other people or circumstances.  These pressures were strongly linked to women reporting that their abortions were inconsistent or contrary to their own values and preferences. 


Nearly 13% of the women described their abortions as “coerced.”  This subgroup consistently rated their negative emotions as more severe than all the other groups, including those who had natural pregnancy losses.  Women in the coerced group were also the most likely to report that they continue to have intense negative feelings, even twenty years after their abortions.


False claims of abortion relief explained

The widely circulated claim that relief is the most common reaction to abortion is actually based on only two prior studies.  Both relied on small samples of women recruited to participate at their abortion clinics.  The vast majority of patients refused or dropped out of the studies, in both cases.


"This is a reflection of self-censure bias," said the new study’s author, David Reardon, director of the Elliot Institute. "At the time they are being recruited at an abortion clinic, the women who anticipate or are experiencing the most negative feelings are the ones most likely to decline or drop out.  They don’t want to think about their abortions, much less discuss them with a stranger.  That’s why these abortion clinic studies have participation rates as low as only 30%. They mainly include only those women who are most confident that they made the right decision and who have the fewest negative feelings."


More representative sample polled in blind, national sample

To avoid the self-selection bias introduced by abortion clinic recruitment, Reardon conducted a random national survey of 1,925 women 41 to 45 years of age.  The topic of the survey was not disclosed in advance and a "stigma reduction" methodology was used before women were asked about their abortion histories.  As a result, 21.2% of those surveyed admitted a history of at least one abortion, which is very close to the 23.7% lifetime abortion rate estimated by the Guttmacher Institute.  It is also twice the rate of most national surveys, which typically face much higher concealment rates.


Survey respondents were invited from a national panel of over 28 million U.S. residents who participate in surveys in exchange for small rewards valued at less than two dollars per survey.  Demographic analysis of the geographic, race and education distributions of the panel are similar to the national population with the exception of an underrepresentation of women who did not complete high school and are in the lowest income range. 


"While there are surely some small demographic differences," Reardon said, "it is unlikely that the poorest and least educated are facing less pressure to abort or experience fewer moral conflicts.  So, the general trend in our findings likely apply to the 10% of abortion patients who are not represented in our survey."


An opportunity to improve reproductive health care

Reardon believes the findings should be reflected in a revision of abortion provider advertising and informed consent procedures.  “Women should be told that if they feel any pressure to abort, or have maternal or moral conflicts with it, negative feelings are more likely than relief.  And in many cases, these negative reactions can last for decades.  Anything less is deceit.”


Reardon’s data is available for reanalysis and the methodology is easily replicable…and therefore disprovable. 


“The fact that researchers who work for abortion advocacy groups have not found any flaws in our prior studies, based on this same data set, underscores the accuracy of these findings,” said Reardon. “Lacking any evidence to dispute our results, their only response has been to pretend that our findings don’t exist, hoping the media will do the same.”


This new study is part of the Unwanted Abortion Studies funded by the Charlotte Lozier Institute.

 

###


The Unwanted Abortion Studies

Elliot Institute, 1333 College Parkway #160, Gulf Breeze, FL 32563, United States

You may unsubscribe or change your contact details at any time.

Powered by:
GetResponse

    This is an online snapshot of a newsletter created by the owner of elliot_institute_news (Elliot Institute, 1333 College Parkway #160, 32563 Gulf Breeze, United States) and sent via GetResponse on 2025-03-28. Report abuse