The Word “Mental” in Project 2025. (iv)
(I am skipping over the third instance of the word “mental” in Project 2025 for now. There are two reasons for this: First, the quote is “mental or psychological issues”, which is part of a long list of categories of information. Second, the relevant paragraph describes the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA). I am not familiar enough with either regulation. To understand what the author is trying to say, I will need to read more. If you know more about this and are willing to explain it to me, feel free to let me know.)
The fourth instance of the word “mental” is on page 461 under the section of National Institutes of Health:
Finally, HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] should create and promote a research agenda that supports prolife [sic] policies and explores the harms, both mental and physical, that abortion has wrought on women and girls.
The construction of this sentence is curious. A generous interpretation is that the author has limited experience with research and is unfamiliar with the order of operations. Another possibility is that the author is intentionally dressing up an opinion in the lab coat and safety goggles of unbiased science.
Scientific research begins with questions. Studies seek to answer these questions. Once there are good enough answers, officials can then craft policies that are informed by these answers. We all understand that more questions will come up, which leads to more studies, which leads to more answers, some of which will challenge what we once knew. We learn and adapt accordingly.
The more logical framing of this short paragraph would be:
Does abortion cause mental and physical harms for women and girls? (That question can be answered through research.)
If the answer is yes, then develop pro-life, anti-abortion policies.
The thing is, research already exists that answers the question, “Does abortion cause mental and physical harms for women and girls?”
Please meet the Turnaway Study:
The Turnaway Study is [Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health]’s prospective longitudinal study examining the effects of unwanted pregnancy on women’s lives. The major aim of the study is to describe the mental health, physical health, and socioeconomic consequences of receiving an abortion compared to carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term.
Note that the Turnaway Study actually asks two questions:
Does abortion for an unwanted pregnancy cause mental and physical harms for women and girls?
Does carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term cause mental and physical harms for women and girls?
(Another note: The Turnaway Study included females ages 15 and older, so does not include all girls who could get pregnant.)
The authors of Project 2025 do not include the second question in their call for research. Is it that they do not care? Or that the answers would not change their minds?
The Turnaway Study is clear in its results:
The main finding of The Turnaway Study is that receiving an abortion does not harm the health and wellbeing of women, but in fact, being denied an abortion results in worse financial, health and family outcomes.
When specifically examining mental harms, the Turnaway Study found “women who have an abortion are not more likely than those denied the procedure to have depression, anxiety, or suicidal ideation.” There was also no evidence that women were more likely to use more tobacco, alcohol, or drugs after an abortion.
Now, let’s be clear: The results of the Turnaway Study do NOT show that women who have an abortion never experience symptoms of anxiety, depression, PTSD, or suicidal ideation. (I assume this is what the Project 2025 authors mean when they write “mental harms”.) The study shows that the rates of these conditions are about the same whether women with an unwanted pregnancies receive abortions or not.
That’s the thing with research. Scientific studies examine groups of people, not individuals. While most women who have an abortion (or not) won’t experience anxiety or depression, a small percentage will. If you’re one of the women who does, that sucks. But just because one woman has an unwanted psychological outcome doesn’t mean that all women will. Multiple factors, including chance, contribute to the risk.
The Royal We make choices all the time that involve significant risk, though we assume that we will be fine because the odds are in our favor. Let’s use the following question to test our assumptions of safety: Are you more likely to die while being in a moving car, or from accidentally falling down?
The numbers are close, but you’re more likely to die from unintentionally falling (14/100K) than from being in a moving car (13.4/100K)! You’re also far more likely to die while in a car or from falling down than from a homicide (7.5/100K).
However, despite this data, no one has suggested a policy platform on the federal level to prevent falls. (Similarly, no one is advocating the outlawing of cars.)
If the authors of Project 2025 were open to editorial feedback, I would suggest that they omit words to punctuate their point:
Finally, HHS [Department of Health and Human Services] should create and promote an agenda that supports prolife policies.
There’s no point in doing research if the results won’t change what you do. Just say what you mean.