Talk:Abortion and mental health

message: I suggest changing the first sentences to the following:
"Scientific and medical expert bodies have repeatedly concluded that induced abortion poses no greater mental-health risks than carrying unwanted pregnancies to term.[3][4][5] Nevertheless, the relationship between induced abortion and mental health is an area of political controversy."
Also the following should be changed:
"The U.K. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists likewise summarized the evidence by finding that abortion did not increase the risk of mental-health problems relative to women carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term."
"The correlations observed in some studies may be explained by pre-existing social circumstances and emotional or mental health.[3][16] Various factors, such as emotional attachment to the pregnancy, lack of support, and conservative views on abortion may increase the likelihood of experiencing negative emotions." 
Get rid of sentence that reads: However, negative mental health impacts can result from any pregnancy outcome.
Reason: It is out of place here and not true. Mental health problems may occur after any pregnancy outcome but that doesn't mean they are the result of (i.e., caused by) the pregnancy outcome. Also, the topic here is abortion and mental health not any pregnancy outcome. So, I am not sure why the article is shifting to negative mental health impacts that result from any pregnancy outcome. Negative mental health is also a poor use of worlds. There is a term for depression after pregnancy -- postpartum depression -- or more serious mental health problems such as postpartum psychosis according the DSMs. The event occurs after birth but we cannot be certain it is caused by birth (though it likely is).
Among those women who do experience mental health issues following an abortion... - add 'an abortion' after following.
"Anti-abortion crisis pregnancy centers and religious groups offer counseling[1]" should be deleted. They do not offer counseling. See this article (there are more pieces too).
A.G. Bryant, S. Narasimhan, K. Bryant-Comstock, E.E. Levi
Crisis pregnancy center websites: information, misinformation and disinformation
Contraception, 90 (2014), pp. 601-605, 10.1016/j.contraception.2014.07.003
Noit821 (talk) 02:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  changes to article 

message: The article, specifically the lead, lacks organization. There is much improvement to be done in terms of expanding on the already noted research, and in terms of generating a more understandable format. Starting with the lead, this paragraph should flow more like a simple introduction, rather than an entire paragraph of facts. Asbozue (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: What changes would you propose? Incidentally, your added sentence is so vague and bare as to be meaningless and I don't see the point of keeping it. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:05, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms September 2021 

message: This is an exceptional article; kudos to all involved! I’m wondering whether the first 2 sentences of the Lead might be improved with a slight rearrangement. We currently have: 
 (cites removed, bolding in original)
I suggest something like this:
 (with the cites we’ve already got appended to the info we’ve already got them on)
I understand the reason why the first 2 sentences are as we’ve got them currently: This is a medical and scientific issue, there is overwhelming MEDRS-backed consensus on the issue, and that consensus should be front-and-center. However: Someone (blissfully) ignorant of the merely political controversy, or someone only aware of the political controversy who incorrectly assumes the political controversy reflects a medical and scientific controversy, may get a bit turned around by the way we’ve got things now. If I understand things right, much of the reason scientists and doctors cared about investigating this issue to begin with is because of the unsupported assertions in the political sphere that abortion is causally responsible for mental health problems, and the suggested rearrangement implicitly addresses that issue (as the Body of the article details). Added bonus, even though this is not strictly required: The rearrangement gets the bolded topic of the article into the first sentence. 
This is such an excellent article that I wouldn’t want to mess with the Lead unilaterally, and this isn’t a huge issue (and it’s only stylistic, not content-based). What are others’ thoughts on this rearrangement/proposed wording? ThanksForHelping (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement of the reason why the first 2 sentences are in their current form summarizes the issue well: the medical/scientific . The problem with reversing the sentences is that it would suggest that the question is primarily a political one, meaning that people on both sides are politically motivated (see WP:FALSEBALANCE). Although it's not your intention, that would feed into the anti-abortion claims that the consensus view of MEDRS can't be trusted. NightHeron (talk) 10:15, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for that response and explanation; that’s entirely acceptable to me. ThanksForHelping (talk) 00:43, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead: First 2 sentences slight rearrangement? 

message: @NightHeron: I believe that “Menstruation and mental health” can be seen as tangentially related to the topic of “Abortion and mental health” in the context of women’s reproductive health and mental health. In your edit summary, you mentioned that these two topics were "unrelated," so I would like to propose an alternative approach. Instead of directly linking “Menstruation and mental health” in the “See also" section of the article, we could create a new category titled “Women’s mental health” or something similar. Please let me know if you find this solution acceptable, or if you have any further suggestions. – Mariâ Magdalina (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with your proposal to put the article in a new category of women and mental health. Note that all of the current "see also" articles concern mental health and childbirth, whereas menstruation does not. NightHeron (talk) 09:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  See also