Caplan’s “Tragic Hysteria of Abortion” discusses the flaws with mainstream Turnaway Study interpretations

Image credit: Andre Furtado via Pexels

An interesting essay published this week by professor of economics, Bryan Caplan, titled “The Tragic Hysteria of Abortion” provides a form of analysis of the Turnaway Study on abortion. 

In his essay he discusses the findings of the study, but also the flaws in how the researchers and mainstream media interpreted the findings, leading them to tout the claim that the study “proves” women do not regret abortion and that denying a woman a wanted abortion is harmful. 

Caplan describes himself as “an atheist of the highest order” and has expressed his belief that both the “radical” pro-life views and the “radical” pro-choice views are wrong. However, he also states his belief that the unborn child has “intermediate moral worth”, which he uses to justify his view that abortion is “morally justified in extreme scenarios”, such as when a woman’s life is in danger, but believes that abortion is “not morally justified in merely unpleasant circumstance”

“Aborting to avoid years of moderate inconvenience is not justified. Neither is aborting to avoid brief misery,” he said. 

What is most intriguing is how Caplan, who expresses a pro-choice view, delves into the results and report of the known Turnaway Study from 2020, by Diana Foster, a self-proclaimed pro-abortionist, which many on the pro-abortion side of the argument, the media and pro-abortion organisations such as Planned Parenthood, have used to claim that women do not regret their abortions.

The Turnaway study compared the difference in the effects and emotional responses and well-being of women who obtained a wanted abortion and women who were denied a wanted abortion due to being over the limit. The study found that 95% of women reported that they did not regret their abortion after five years. Additionally, the study also claims that being denied an abortion is harmful to women after the women who took part and were denied an abortion initially reported more negative emotional outcomes, such as higher levels of anxiety and stress, than those who obtained an abortion, of which there was no relationship found between this group of women and any negative emotional effects. 

Back in 2021, I wrote an article highlighting the flaws of this study, with reference to an analysis by researcher and advocate for post-abortion healing programs, David C. Reardon, as well as bringing to light one result of the study that people will not often come across when reading about this study in the media or on websites such as Planned Parenthood. The Turnaway Study had in fact found that similarly to the 95% statistic, 96% of women who were denied an abortion were glad they did not have one after five years. Caplan particularly draws upon this statistic as well as delving into the emotions responses of women from this group in the study, questioning how this has been interpreted and how it should instead be interpreted.

Whilst, women who were denied an abortion did initially report higher levels of anxiety and stress, as well as lower levels of self-esteem and life satisfaction, Caplan brings to light that the study actually found that “women who managed to get abortions had almost exactly the same self-reported well-being as the turnaways,” specifically quoting the author:

“Over time, women’s mental health and well-being generally improved, so that by six months to one year, there were no differences between groups across outcomes.”

Another claim the authors of the study made was that women who were denied an abortion experienced more financial hardship than those who obtained an abortion. However, Caplan also drew upon this finding highlighting that of the women denied an abortion, 61% were living in poverty six months after seeking one, as opposed to 45% who obtained an abortion, but this percentage point difference of 16 reduced to 5 after five years. 

In light of these findings, Caplan rightly questions: “How can subjective well-being barely change despite moderately negative economic effects? The obvious answer is that the direct emotional benefits of the baby balance out the indirect emotional costs of the baby’s economic burden. Which could mean that both gains and losses feel similarly small, similarly medium, or similarly large.”

Foster believes, as well as those who favour abortion, that the study refutes the claim that abortion harms women, however, Caplan argues in his essay that “she also refutes the claim that being denied an abortion is really bad for women,” saying that the study “undermines the pro-choice view more” for without the argument that not getting an abortion is harmful to women, “pro-choice thinkers have to fall back on the deontological “My body, my choice.” Which is a shaky foundation at best, because (a) few pro-choice thinkers embrace the principle of bodily integrity for prostitution, narcotics, or pharmaceutical regulation, and (b) the unborn’s bodily integrity is also on the line.”

Which brings him to his point, as highlighted in the title of his essay: Where does the idea that an unwanted pregnancy will ruin one's life come from? In his answer, he offers an explanation to the obvious question of why were the results of the study similar for both groups of women: abortion vs abortion denial. 

“The answer, to use a good but reviled word, is: hysteria,” says Caplan. “Almost all human beings occasionally give in to extreme anger and sorrow, which predictably leads to foolish decisions. Personality psychology shows that women are more prone to hysteria than men. And common sense tells us that pregnant women are much more prone to hysteria than other women. So we should hardly be surprised if women catastrophize their unwanted pregnancies. (The same holds, to a lesser degree, for men facing unwanted pregnancies).”

“Despite her conventional pro-choice views, Foster’s work shows that such catastrophizing is common. Yes, the vast majority of women who get abortions are glad they got them. But once they meet their babies, the vast majority of women denied abortions discover that they totally want their babies,” he continues.

“This massive status quo bias makes it hard to simply “trust women.” Which women should we trust — the ones who aborted, or the ones who couldn’t? But in the end, it is the women who were denied abortion who are more reliable. If shy people who don’t go to a party are glad they stayed home, and equally shy people who were pressured to go to a party are equally glad they went, the most natural interpretation is that the party-goers learned a valuable life lesson — and the home-stayers should have gone to the party.”

In concluding his essay, Caplan says: “Hysterically aborting your baby because you falsely believe the baby will ruin your life isn’t merely morally wrong; it is tragic. Why? Because before long, you almost surely would have loved that baby.”

He does, however, at one stage go on to make the claim that “many pro-life thinkers falsely claim that abortion is really bad for women”, yet this claim is not supported by further analysis of the study which discovered that of the 3,045 women originally recruited to take part in the study, only 37% agree to take part, whereas only 17% of women completed it, with the remainder dropping out. Foster had admitted that those who completed the study reported higher levels of relief and happiness, which can only mean that those who dropped out reported higher levels of negative emotional responses. 

Furthermore, Reardon recently published a study which sought to identify the emotional responses of women following an abortion, in order to address the flaws with the Turnaway study. In contrast, Reardon found that grief was more commonly reported than relief following an abortion, particularly amongst those who described their abortion as “inconsistent” with their beliefs, “unwanted” or “coerced”, which represented 35.5%, 22% and 12.7% of their sample respectively. However, it was the women who described their abortion as “wanted” 29,9% who reported relief as the most common feeling. 

Speaking of the Turnaway study when publishing his new study Reardon had said “the women who anticipate or are experiencing the most negative feelings are the ones most likely to decline or drop out. They don’t want to think about their abortions, much less discuss them with a stranger.  That’s why these abortion clinic studies have participation rates as low as only 30%. They mainly include only those women who are most confident that they made the right decision and who have the fewest negative feelings.”

How can we argue that abortion does not harm women when the women who seem most affected by abortion refuse to participate in studies about this topic?

Caplan’s arguments are interesting, more so that it should always speak volumes when someone who is not opposed to abortion can see and is prepared to express the flaws within the pro-abortion argument. Whilst I myself do not agree with all of his arguments, points and conclusions, he does offer another perspective on the matter, especially when it comes to interpreting the results of the Turnaway Study that is worth careful consideration and further discussion.