David Reardon - Peer-reviewed Studies

Peer-reviewed Studies

Reardon's peer reviewed studies are a source of scientific controversy. His research and methodology have been criticized by, among others, Brenda Major of the Department of Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Nancy Russo, a psychology professor at Arizona State University.

The following is a partial list of some of Reardon's articles, as well as academic responses to his articles:

• "Abortion and Subsequent Substance Abuse"

• "Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth" - a cohort study Reardon coauthored a brief report published in 2002 in the British Medical Journal. (BMJ)
  Schmiege and Russo reported in the BMJ in 2005 that when the same NLSY dataset was analyzed using methodology which they described as more accurate, the association reported by Reardon disappeared. The concluded that "...there is no credible evidence that choosing to terminate an unwanted first pregnancy puts women at higher risk of subsequent depression than does choosing to deliver an unwanted first pregnancy." Among the many "Rapid Responses" were two lengthy letters by Reardon. The BMJ published seven "Rapid Responses" to his report, and six replies thereto by Reardon.

• "Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome - a record linkage study of low income women" - In a 2002 report published in the Southern Medical Journal

• "Psychiatric Admissions of Low-income Women Following Abortion and Childbirth" - In 2003, Reardon published a study of California Medicaid records for 56,741 low income women. After controlling for one year prior psychiatric history, Reardon and his colleagues found that women who had an abortion were 2.6 times more likely than women who carried to term to be hospitalized for psychiatric care in the first 90 days following their pregnancy outcome. depression,
  Along with Reardon's paper, the Canadian Medical Association Journal published an article by Brenda Major, who argued that Reardon's methodology failed to control for more than a single year of prior mental illness, marital status, and other factors. She concluded that given these unaddressed issues and the political controversy over abortion, "Statistics such as those reported by Reardon and colleagues thus run a high risk of being used in ways that misinform and mislead the public." The two articles "elicited a barrage of letters", including short responses by Reardon and Major.