Unwanted pregnancy, mental health and abortion: untangling the evidence

Abortion policy is still contentious in many parts of the world, and periodically it emerges to dominate health policy debates. This paper examines one such debate in Australia centering on research findings by a New Zealand research group, Fergusson, Horwood & Ridder, published in early 2006. The debate highlighted the difficulty for researchers when their work is released in a heightened political context. We argue that the authors made a logical error in constructing their analysis and interpreting their data, and are therefore not justified in making policy claims for their work. The paper received significant public attention, and may have influenced the public policy position of a major professional body. Deeply held views on all sides of the abortion debate are unlikely to be reconciled, but if policy is to be informed by research, findings must be based on sound science

Reading: Judith McCombs, Margaret Kingery and Robert Bly

In this audiovisual recording from March 20, 1979 as part of the 10th annual UND Writing Conference: “Epitomes, Bombast & Climaxes,” Judith McCombs and Margaret Kingery read a selection of their work, some of which had been recently published in Bloodroot. McCombs reads the poems “The Fear Couplets,” “This is a Color Photo,” “American Gothic: The Landscape Reversed,” “Against Nature,” “The Artifact,” “Loving a Mountain,” “The Observers,” “In the Cape,” “In Praise of the Natural Flowing,” “The Friend,” “The Man,” “Untitled Stone Poem,” and “The Habit of Fire.” Kingery reads the story “Wanting.