JUNEAU — A developmental psychologist testifying before a state Senate panel Wednesday said she doesn’t believe abortion is ever justified on mental health grounds.
Priscilla Coleman, a professor of human development and family studies, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that abortion in fact is a “substantial contributing factor” in women’s mental health problems.
Coleman was one of three experts called to testify Wednesday on SB49, which pertains to which abortions Alaska must pay for under the state Medicaid program. The bill states that the Department of Health and Social Services may not pay for abortion services under the program unless those abortions are medically necessary or the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
The bill would define “medically necessary” abortions as those needed to avoid serious risk to a woman’s life or physical health. That could mean a serious risk of death or “impairment of a major bodily function” due to such things as renal disease that requires dialysis; congestive heart failure; coma; or “another physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy” that places the woman’s health at risk.
Payment would not be made for “elective” abortions.
The Alaska Supreme Court has held that the state must fund medically necessary abortions if it pays for other procedures deemed medically necessary for people in need. The bill’s sponsor, Sen. John Coghill, said with the list of testifiers Wednesday, he was trying to establish that the discretion that would be given the doctors is credible and to make his best case possible.
The issue is emotionally charged, with critics calling the bill dangerous for women and an example of government overreach.
Coghill, R-North Pole, said Tuesday that he’s not surprised by the reaction to his witness list, noting that each side could view the other’s arguments or positions as extreme. In doing his research, Coleman, John Thorp Jr. and Susan Rutherford struck him as “very credible.”
The chairman of Alaska’s Democratic party, Mike Wenstrup, on Tuesday labeled the witnesses as “extremists” who have made “outlandish, demonstrably false claims” about abortion. Wenstrup said Coleman, Thorp and Rutherford “have an agenda that is utterly inconsistent with the respect for personal freedom and privacy that Alaska’s founders wrote into our Constitution.”
Thorp was an author of a 2003 report that argued doctors, before an abortion is performed, should offer women information about preterm delivery, depression and breast cancer, according to a news release from that time. A 2011 legal filing described him “as one of the leading experts in evidence based women’s reproductive health” who encourages providing ultrasound images and information on fetal development to pregnant women.
Thorp, a professor of maternal and child health in the public health school at The University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, said he didn’t remember that filing. Asked by the committee’s lone minority member, Sen. Bill Wielechowski, if he felt providing counseling before an abortion was medically necessary, he said he considered it both medically necessary and ethically obligated. Thorp said he worked with bill drafters on a list of conditions that “unequivocally” and greatly threaten the life of the woman.
Coleman said she has authored over 50 peer-reviewed scientific articles, of which 37 dealt with the psychology of abortion. Coleman authored a study linking abortion to an increased risk of mental health problems that researchers, in a report published in the Journal of Psychiatric Research last year, said reached wrong conclusions. Coleman said she disagreed with that finding under questioning by Wielechowski, D-Anchorage.
Rutherford is a maternal and fetal medical specialist in Washington state. She said it’s rare for an abortion to be required out of medical necessity and said she does not perform abortions. She recommended that kidney infection be taken off the list in SB49 of conditions that pose a serious risk to the woman, saying she’s never seen one that would necessitate an abortion.
A Coghill aide, Chad Hutchison, said 623 abortions in Alaska were paid by Medicaid in 2011. He could not say whether any of those were not deemed medically necessary but pointed to a study that indicated a small percentage of abortions nationally were due to a physical problem.
Wielechowski asked who was in a better position to decide the issue of medical necessity: “a woman’s physician or a bunch of politicians?” He said this is an issue dealing with constitutional rights. Coghill said the bill revolves around who pays for an abortion and is not a restriction on whether a woman can obtain an abortion.
Coghill, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Planned Parenthood would have a chance to present its case next week, and the public will also have a chance to comment. Two of the committee’s five members have signed on to the bill as co-sponsors.
Jennifer Allen, director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Votes Northwest, said much of the testimony given has been “discredited by major health care associations.” The group pointed to Coleman’s assertion that there is a preponderance of evidence suggesting abortion will exacerbate pre-existing mental health illness and a potential link to breast cancer.
“The bottom-line is Alaskans know that a woman should have accurate information about and equal access to all of her legal options,” Allen said in a statement. Wednesday’s “hand-picked testimony on Alaska women’s health is simply intended to coerce, judge and shame a woman who seeks safe and legal abortion,” she said.
___
Follow Becky Bohrer on Twitter at http://twitter.com/beckybohrerap .
Comments (44)
Add commentWhy are we wasting our time
Why are we wasting our time on this? Any decision made will be raised to the Supreme Court... Let the Feds do all the wrangling. We will get input in that anyway. We have bigger issues to deal with that are our decision...
Interesting
The same crowd who has been all apoplectic about politicians getting between patients and their doctors (a la "death panels") all of a sudden is all enthusiastic about politicians making medical decisions when it comes to abortions.
Apparently there's not room for both principles and ideology at the same time.
Who pays for...
Ok, a mentally ill, heavy drug user is pregnant and wants an abortion. Wouldn't it be wise to allow, and pay for, the abortion? These women bear crack and FAS babies that never have a chance in life. They are institutionalized for life, many living in prisons never to get out. This is costing taxpayers billions. Will Coleman and her cronies help foot the bill, or better yet, bring these crack/FAS babies into their homes when the mothers abandon them? I bet they won't.
Remarkably dismissive for a researcher
I find Coleman to be remarkably dismissive for a researcher. If the peers don't agree with her then they are wrong and political?
From the Mayo Clinic Website:
Postpartum depression can develop after the birth of any child, not just the first. The risk increases if:
You have a history of depression, either during pregnancy or at other times
You had postpartum depression after a previous pregnancy
You've experienced stressful events during the past year, such as pregnancy complications, illness or job loss
You're having problems in your relationship with your spouse or significant other
You have a weak support system
You have financial problems
The pregnancy was unplanned or unwanted
The risk of postpartum psychosis is higher for women who have bipolar disorder.
************************
I am not a researcher, or doctor, but I heard Coleman on the radio say this morning that abortions should never be granted for mental health reasons because they make depression worse for people who already have mental health issues.
It seems to me that it is a risk either way and that in the end, it should be left up to the woman to decide which course of action to take, and her doctor to make sure she gets set up will all of the support resources necessary to make sure that she is healthy, regardless of whether she terminates or has the child.
murder
a baby if you must, just dont make me pay for it.
Banditrider
You need to go back and do some more reading. Those crack babies and FAS babies that you so quickly dismiss can have lives and become great people. Contributing member of society. You sound like the people back in the era that thought Autism, Down Syndrome, and other issues were reasons to lock up and murder those people.
Those babies are innocent and shouldn't suffer death because of close minded people like you. Maybe we need to start actually punishing the moms that do that to them. If you get high in a room with your baby after it's born it's a criminal offense. But because the baby is still in the womb it's ok?
People like you make me sicker than the people think all abortion should be legal. You make my level of disgust and hate look mild. Maybe you need to go spend some time in the schools and meet some of these kids you are so willing to write off.
Politics vs Science
This is wholly a political agenda. Little if any science supports this bill.
@lat - your analogy is wrong
@lat - your analogy is wrong - conservatives are indeed "apoplectic" about politicians and death panels for the same reason that we cheer the politicians who are attempting to put some constraints on publically funded abortions.
In the end, social conservatives choose life.
From Barack Obama - “Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old,” he said. “I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby."
There is evidence showing that the number of abortions declines when the number of abortion providers declines.
So, let's put some parameters on abortion, when public funds are used, and maybe, just maybe potential "mothers" will take some personal responsibility and consider the outcomes of their behavior.
Is that too much to ask when an innocent human life is involved?
Latitude, as always
an excellent point.
I don't mind experts weighing in on this
But priscilla coleman is no expert when it comes to mental illness and abortion. When the overwhelming majority of psychologists in her field dismiss her research as inconsistent and misleading it's clear she has a motive. She is not an expert if she lets her opinion get in the way of her work. She is, in other words, a quack.
Coghill knows his witness is a quack. That's why he called her... coghill is a scumbag, as we all know. It's not how each side views the other. It's about calling industry-known hack professionals to the stand as supposed experts. That's misleading to those expecting an expert opinion. Coghill, you fail.
calypso, are you suggesting the government limit access to abortion for low-income women in order to please pro-life advocates? Why? The government should never position itself in a way that caters to particular interest groups in order to specifically neglect a particular demographic. It's funny that you can rationalize this in your head... but that's all you're doing... rationalizing what isn't acceptable. It's a symptom of pure selfishness. All you care about is how to get what you want, without acknowledging what other people want. It's fine if your selfishness doesn't affect others, but it does. Your selfishness most certainly affects others and your attempts to limit government services for others because you simply don't approve is unacceptable. Do you understand this? What you and others like you do is unacceptable. Clean your own house and stay out of others' unless invited.
Shiny Objects
Not that this isn’t an important issue, but…
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that this Legislature is basically saying, “Here, plebes, go bicker about guns, gays, and abortion. In the meantime, we’ll be working behind the scenes in a locked Capitol Building to make a mockery of the public process, undo citizens’ initiatives and pollute your fishing grounds, use state money to pay for religious education, hand over the state’s resources to the oil and mining companies, destroy wetlands, and abandon water rights protections. ALEC and the Koch Brothers tell us that if you keep at it, maybe at the last minute we can sneak in some right to work legislation and go after the public employees’ unions too.”
Don’t let your guard down against these jerks. The 28th Legislature combined with Governor Parnell is probably the most destructive force to hit Alaska since March 27, 1964.
@HanSolo
Well said. The moderates in Alaska, if there are any, better get off their rears and fight back. As it is they would have to spend their first 2 sessions un-doing all the damage Parnell and his Tea Party have done to Alaska.
Wow, the liberals are
Wow, the liberals are bringing out the kitchen sink to try and justify abortion. We've got discussions going on about class warfare, dead beat dads, the war on drugs, name calling, like "quack", when someone doesn't agree with your opinion and religion, to name a few.
And all we're talking about here is protecting an innocent, unborn baby.
@kiki - I didn't take anything out of context. I was simply showing that Obama thinks of a human baby as "punishment". That's very sad...
Love the "experts" who would never adopt or foster a child
telling people how women don't need access to abortions. Do you have the slightest idea what it is to grow up unloved? What knowing you have been a burden does to a child?
And who pays for the lifetime care of these troubled kids? Taxpayers. Can any "expert" ever make these kids feel good and happy about growing up in a lousy home? NO but they love to bill medicaid endlessly for services that do little to nothing.
Far from an ideal situation but this is reality.
Calypso
Calypso, Just curious, would you support mandatory sterilization?
Ummmmm, no...
Ummmmm, no...
OK
Why not? Don't want any abortions taking place, why not nip it in the bud before it becomes a "baby-to-be"? Heck, many convservatives have no problem butting their heads into our private business why not just go for it and steralize the offenders?
You know what would be better? If only there were couples who could not have children of their own, who were loving (often financially ready to have kids) and would be willing to adopt. Hmmm who would that be... hmmm...
@Calypso
In your kitchen sink rant, I dont see mention of birth control pills that we brought up. For me, your argument goes right out the window when you are against birth control pills for women. I bet its OK with you that men take those Viagra pills though.
I noticed in a different post that you now call Christy a RINO since he asked for funding for Hurricane Sandy. Im wondering with such stellar convictions, do you also go after those in your own Party who have fathered children out of wedlock?
The joy of children
60% of women who have abortions already have at least one child. They know what lies ahead of them. They know how much joy a child can bring. They know that flutter of excitement when they feel the baby move inside them, or how great it feels to make their baby laugh, and how awesome a hug from a toddler can be. They also know the financial burdens. Moms with kids knows how much they cost, and if their means are limited, how badly it hurts them personally, and their children, to not be able to provide for their child to local standards.
Moms know the risks and rewards to adding another child to their lives. And you know what? None of that matters. Poor women have already lost the right to make decisions for themselves in this area because they cannot afford to terminate and the State does not pay for elective abortions. For a woman in poverty, an unintended pregnancy equals a child, period.
All this bill does, is make it even harder to get an abortion for medical necessity because people who aren't medical professionals are trying to put restrictions as to what qualifies as medical necessity WITHOUT ANY PROOF that ANYONE is abusing the current system.
This bill does nothing but punish poor women for being poor, and it is disgusting.
AMENDED - to include this quote from Jamelle Bouile, who wrote about the issue of abortion for "The American Prospect" and who in one short paragraph nicely sums up my feelings on the topic...
"With that said, it’s clear that a genuine pro-family agenda—one that seeks stable and prosperous households—must include full support for reproductive rights. Otherwise, you’re making unwanted children more likely, limiting the economic options of women, and making it more difficult for lower-income families to climb the income ladder."
Calypso
Once again, you don't tell the whole story - you said "There is evidence showing that the number of abortions declines when the number of abortion providers declines." You forgot to qualify that - the number of "safe and legal" abortions declines - not abortions themselves. Women will still get abortions, they will go back to the days of unsafe, unsanitary, back-alley abortions. How about you just stay out of business that is not yours?
@JNUKAra
That throws out all considerations for the "life & health" of the mother. Any woman willing to roll the dice under unsafe, unsanitary conditions is either doing it for convenience or hasn't thought through other options -- like becoming the mother to her unborn kid.
@JnuKara
Yeah leave it to Grendel to be the all-knowing expert on womens issues. According to him its convenience to get an abortion in a back-alley with a coat hangar or the little woman just isnt smart enough to think things through. Unbelievable.
qualifications
Priscilla Coleman, is a professor of human development and family studies; she is not qualified to render a medical opinion on abortion.
It is a bit of a tangent, but
It is a bit of a tangent, but from a strictly financial standpoint funding abortions, all abortions, makes a great deal of sense. The cost to government entities for a single year of public school is far greater.
The numbers become even more one-sided when you factor in other potential costs of unwanted children, such as fosterage, higher rates of criminal activity resulting in prison time and higher use of public assistance programs.
Of course, when fiscal conservatism is in conflict with religious beliefs, the former is often ignored.
Abortion bill
Men and politicians need to stay out of a woman's female organs. It doesn't matter if abortion is right or wrong. It is up to the woman, and or her husband to make that decision.
cynical indeed
is it me, or does that "unwanted children" argument make no sense at all coming from the pro-abortionist crowd. Better to get rid of unwanted unborn child because if you try this stunt AFTER he is born -- that's murder, right?
that is scary reasoning.
Grendel
I wouldn't really call myself pro-abortionist: more pro-consistency. If someone is going to mandate that another person come into being in spite of the wishes of those most directly affected, the person restricting the behavior of others should have a moral or ethical responsibility to see to it the future child is well cared for. Sadly, this often is not the case.
It seems rather odd that the party which continually tries to claim moral or ethical high ground shows such callous disregard for their fellow humans in almost all of their other actions.
Cause
In my mind the number one cause for abortions is the conservatives (often religious right). Think about it. Who has pushed to stigmatize and ban the use of birth control (proven to reduce pregnancies)? Who has pushed to keep women in a subjugated role therefore working to negate their say in the pregnancy process (a women better put out and tend to her man or she will be kicked to the curb). Who has willing endeavored to further add stigma and hate to single mothers or any children born out of wedlock? Who has continually pushed to reduce federal funding of medical and social support of mothers who may not be able to afford to care for the children themselves?
Calypso, Grendal or other conservatives please tell me the statements above are not accurate. Maybe not for you but the conservative movement for sure.
@Raininak
that sounds like The Devil made me do it argument. How about personal responsibility?
Grendel
OK. We'll take personal responsibility when you get out of our personal business.
You conservatives have long demeaned and inflicted your brand of rightousness on women for years. Calling single mothers [filtered word] and whores while denouncing abortions and birth control. Conservatives are the problem.