You're only as good as your information

I have been either a marketing research practitioner, or a teacher and consultant of same, since 1970. As a result of that lifetime of experience, I often say to decision-makers, "You're only as good as your information." Decisions can end up being very wrong not because the decision-making process was flawed, but because not all of the information necessary to making a good decision was available.

Which is why I have developed this new mantra with respect to the pro-choice people: Why, oh why, oh why do you call yourself pro-choice and then suppress information?

I would not be surprised if pro-abortion people were to want to keep certain information from pregnant women. There is very big money to be made in providing abortions. But pro-choice people are supposed to stand for women making up their own minds without any inappropriate pressure or restrictions. Surely they would be the most likely to want to encourage all studies, all data, all experiences, to be assessed and made available. But they aren't!!

Why do I say that? Look at the exchange of letters to the editor below as published in the National Post. A Dr. Paul Ranalli is associated with a research organization called the deVeber Institute and is pro-life. His critic, a Dr. Gail E. Robinson, appears to be pitching for the pro-choice team. I'll give my critique following the letters.

---

A. Re: Depression And Abortion Not Linked, letter to the editor, Sept 25.

The headline given to the letter from Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson overstates the content. Rather than attempt to deny the link between abortion and depression, Dr. Robinson gives a meandering discursive about the whys and wherefores -- in effect, a non-denial denial. She is wise not to attempt to deny the link between abortion and depression because it is an epidemiologic fact, repeatable in large population studies on three continents. A California study of low-income women found they were 160% more likely to commit suicide in the first four years after an abortion, compared to women who delivered their babies. A British study revealed a 225% increased rate and a Scandinavian study showed a catastrophic 518% increased rate of suicide. It is important to note that these were record-linkage studies, which collated recorded, real events (abortion, suicide), and thus were not subject to interviewer bias, faulty memory or editorial influence.

Dr. Robinson gives away her own bias by using the absurdly partisan term "anti-choice" to describe the deVeber Institute; in fact, the only bias of the de-Veber group is toward asking the tough questions avoided by the politically correct mainstream that dominates institutional science funding.

Dr. Paul Ranalli, FRCPC, Toronto.

B. Re: Depression And Abortion Are Linked, letter, Sept. 26; Depression And Abortion Not Linked, letter, Sept 25.

If Dr. Paul Ranalli (a member of the deVerber Institute, which he defends) reviewed the abortion research critically, he would realize that there is a danger in making absolute statements about the link between depression and abortion. For example, women who are depressed, have a history of psychiatric illness or have to have an abortion because they have been sexually assaulted or are in an abusive relationship are more likely to also have emotional problems after an abortion. However, there is no good evidence that all women are depressed and suicidal after an abortion, as Dr. Ranalli would have us believe.

I know the studies he quotes: The California studies are by David Reardon's group. Dr. Reardon, who has been quoted as saying, "if abortion is evil, then nothing good can come of it," is hardly an unbiased researcher. His California studies look at large numbers, but he does not know whether the women who have abortions are married, in stable, non-abusive relationships, are depressed, have a psychiatric history, etc.

It is impossible to make statements about the consequences of abortion without looking at the reasons that women have to make this choice. The conclusions of this study are, therefore, akin to saying that people who have operations for cancer are more likely to die and blaming the operations for the deaths rather than the cancer.

Dr. Gail Erlick Robinson, Toronto.

---

Now, what is my problem here? First of all, Dr. Robinson attempts to discredit the data by questioning the values of the researchers. While care must be taken to look at any interviewer or other biases in research, the best indication of whether the research is valid is the methodology, not the proclivities of the researchers. Her comments about what Dr. Reardon in California believes are largely a smoke screen.

Secondly, where she does question methodology she limits herself to just one of the studies cited by Dr. Ranalli, making no reference to either the British or Scandinavian ones.

Thirdly, she does not actually deny the findings, but rather cautions as to how data should be interpreted.

I gather that Dr. Robinson is trying her best to discredit the notion that there is a link between abortion or depression. But with several studies arriving at similar conclusions, I would expect an honest researcher to say that she would like to see further clarification given her methodological concerns. Why does she prefer instead to sweep the issue under the rug through largely spurious argumentation?

Look, I have said before that I could call myself pro-choice if it meant giving pregnant women all of the information they require to make a good decision. Full information, coupled with public policy that would provide the support that women in difficult pregnancies need, would drop the abortion rate drastically without any necessity for changes in legislation.

Do the pro-choice people want the abortion rate to stay the same? Or increase? Then they are not pro-choice--they are pro-abortion pure and simple. Either change your approach or change your name.