APA's Abortion Agenda

In the ongoing comments to my first post about Priscilla Coleman's latest salvo in the abortion= insanity scam, Anonymous outed it/him/herself as a concern troll with:

You ought to use your knack for skepticism on some of these mainstream organizations..rather than passively trusting...they have agendas that often depart significantly from science and are doing society a grave disservice when it comes to the topic of abortion. I did look at your other post and I really believe all the angst here is misplaced.

Angst? How sympathetic of it/him/her. But then, both skeptic and 'passively trusting'? Twisty brains, these fetus fetishists have, don't they?

Anyway, I bit and asked what bias the American Psychological Association might have.

It/he/she answered.

Well the problem is that the organization declared abortion a civil right decades ago and they have an open pro-choice agenda..this precludes the objectivity necessary to conduct credible science...very simple. If they had a pro-life agenda it would be just as bad obviously. We need good science to inform women..you aren't going to get it from the APA..but there is hope from people like Coleman, Broen, Pedersen, and Fergusson who do not have agendas and know how to conduct the studies. I really encourage you to get the paper from Coleman. You will be impressed and you'll feel foolish for having trashed her...even her face*..come on.

After I cleaned the coffee off the keyboard from the 'do not have agendas' bit, I googled.

First, basic info about the American Psychological Association or, as social science students and researchers might be more familiar with, APA, as in the ubiquitous APA style.

The American Psychological Association (abbreviated APA) is the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States. It is the world's largest association of psychologists with around 154,000 members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants and students.
. . .
Full membership with the APA in United States and Canada requires doctoral training whereas associate membership requires at least two years of postgraduate studies in psychology or approved related discipline. The minimal requirement of a doctoral dissertation related to psychology for full membership can be waived in certain circumstances where there is evidence that significant contribution or performance in the field of psychology has been made.

Anon is quite right about APA's abortion position adopted in way back in 1969.

WHEREAS, in many state legislature, bills have recently been introduced for the purpose of repealing or drastically modifying the existing criminal codes with respect to the termination of unwanted pregnancies; and WHEREAS, termination of unwanted pregnancies is clearly a mental health and child welfare issue, and a legitimate concern of APA; be it resolved, that termination of pregnancy be considered a civil right of the pregnant woman, to be handled as other medical and surgical procedures in consultation with her physician, and to be considered legal if performed by a licensed physician in a licensed medical facility.

I know. Shocking, isn't it? Just about every human rights organization, including the UN, recognizes abortion -- as it translates into bodily autonomy -- as a human/civil right. Cool that APA was in on board pretty early on for a mainstream organization.

We sane people don't consider the recognition of women's human and civil rights to be a matter of pro- or anti-choice, merely a small matter of equality and justice. (Of course this is disputed by fetus fetishists.)

Here are APA's mission and vision statements.

'The mission of the APA is to advance the creation, communication and application of psychological knowledge to benefit society and improve people’s lives.'

Last of the seven goals in the vision statement is to serve as 'an effective champion of the application of psychology to promote human rights, health, well being and dignity'.

Not among those goals is anything like 'maximize the earnings of our members by scaring the shit out of prospective clients with fatuous claims of abortion's mental-health risks, thus MASSIVELY increasing our members' client base, and making them a pisspot of money'.

An article at the Guttmacher Institute (an organization sometimes quoted as 'prestigious' by ff's when it agrees with them), cites Nancy Adler, professor of psychology at the University of California, pointing out the obvious idiocy of the claim of widespread psychological fallout from abortions.

Adler said that given the millions of women who had had abortions, "if severe reaction were common, there would be an epidemic of women seeking treatment. There is no evidence of such an epidemic."

There are about 1.3 million abortions in the US and 100,000 in Canada every year. That's a fuck of a lot of insane women. Added up over the decades, the funny farms should be bursting with deranged women needing intense (and expensive) psychological treatment.

Using the Underpants Gnomes' business plan, the APA's agenda should be: 1) Lie about abortion/mental-health connection. 2). . . . 3) PROFIT!

Ain't happening, because the APA is a mainstream organization with principled, educated people running it.

Sorry, Anon, asserting an agenda for APA is illogical. The only people set to profit with the Underpants Scheme are anti-choice orgs, researchers, counsellors, and churches. NOT the APA and other responsible professionals.

One last thing (for now; we're NOT done with this by a long shot), look who wrote the 'Abortion and the APA' entry for Conservapedia. Yup. Dear Priscilla. Nope. No agenda there, atall atall.



*This what I said about Coleman's photo. You decide whether it's trashing.