ArticleThe Linacre quarterly2025
A Forensic Investigation and Critique of Suicidal Ideation Reported in a Turnaway Study.
Article in The Linacre quarterly, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In a published report of suicidal ideation rates drawn from the Turnaway Study, the abortion advocacy group Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH) asserted that their findings proved that abortion has no effect on suicidal ideation. Therefore, laws requiring notification of abortion's link to higher suicide rates were not based on good science. But how good is the science ANSIRH offers to displace the evidence of an abortion-suicide connection? The Turnaway Study upon which they rely is drawn from a non-random, non-representative convenience sample that suffered from a 68% refusal rate and a 50% attrition rate. No conclusions applicable to the general population of aborting women can be drawn from such a sample. Moreover, on closer examination, ANSIRH's suicidal ideation trajectory analysis is severely flawed and violates Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Basic and critical information is withheld, specifically the mean scores and number of women identified as having suicidal thoughts. Instead, readers are provided with only highly massaged results from a mixed-effects logistic regression employing thirteen covariates that appear to have been chosen precisely to water down the confidence intervals to such a high degree that virtually nothing was statistically significant. In addition, ANSIRH suggested that an attrition analysis of three of the covariates used strengthened the reliability of their finding. However, the fact that they chose not to report on attrition rates associated with the other ten covariates, much less the two outcome variables related to suicidal ideation, actually exposes the falsity of this reliability claim. Rather than proving that abortion has no effect on suicidal behaviors, ANSRIH's published analysis provides evidence of deliberate obfuscation and disinformation by a group funded and dedicated to the expansion of abortion rates around the world.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.