Abortion is often defended as psychologically safe – and the Turnaway Study is the banner under which that claim marches. Published in 2015, it followed nearly 1,000 women and concluded that being denied an abortion causes short-term distress, but no lasting mental health harm. Some women, it claimed, even felt relief. But the problem? This study is deeply flawed – and its influence far exceeds its credibility.
This tidy conclusion has been repeated in courtrooms and parliaments as though it settles the matter. But does it?
Not quite.
Scratch beneath the surface and serious flaws emerge – flaws with real implications for how we view women’s health, rights, and wellbeing.
First, the Turnaway Study has a sample problem. Of all the women eligible to participate, fewer than 38 per cent agreed. That’s a textbook case of self-selection bias. It’s highly likely the women most affected by abortion – those grappling with shame, trauma, or regret – were also the ones least likely to participate or continue with a five-year follow-up.
Even the authors admit the sample is not representative of all women who seek abortions. Instead, it skews toward those more stable and open to sharing their stories. These are important voices – but they are not the only ones.
Second, the study lumps together a wide range of abortion experiences. It makes no serious distinctions between early and late abortions, between surgical and chemical methods, or between women who felt empowered in their choice versus those who were pressured. Yet we know the differences matter. Later-term abortions and chemical methods, for example, carry a higher risk of physical complications and psychological fallout.
And the study doesn’t meaningfully address coercion. How many women aborted because they felt they had no other option – because of a partner, family pressure, or financial fear? These are the women most likely to suffer afterward, yet they are rarely included in the narrative.
What we get instead is a general average – one that smooths over trauma, regret, coercion, and even relief into a single ‘safe’ conclusion. But that’s not how real life works. That’s not how women’s stories unfold.
Even more concerning is the way the Turnaway Study is used to shut down conversation. It’s treated as gospel truth, even though it contradicts a large body of research. A comprehensive review of 75 studies conducted between 1993 and 2018 found that two-thirds showed an increased risk of mental health problems following abortion. These include depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicide.
In Australia, this is more than theoretical. A 2021 study of maternal suicide in Queensland revealed that out of 65 deaths over a 13-year period, 22 occurred following a termination of pregnancy. These were not isolated tragedies – they were part of a pattern, one that deserves deeper scrutiny, not silence.
Meanwhile, a 2023 insurance data study in the United States looked at over 865,000 mifepristone abortions and found that more than 10 per cent of women experienced serious adverse events – sepsis, infection, or haemorrhaging – within just 45 days. That’s more than 20 times the rate reported in clinical trials. These figures are not mere statistics. They are the lived reality for many women.
Yet here in Australia, chemical abortions continue to rise, and legal safeguards continue to fall. The argument often made is that early abortion – especially via pill – is simpler, more private, even safer. But how many Australian women are fully informed of the risks? How many receive follow-up care? And how many are left to manage pain, bleeding, or emotional shock alone in their bathroom?
This is not healthcare at its best. This is a system that too often fails to ask the deeper questions or offer the broader support women need.
What’s perhaps most troubling is how selectively the Turnaway Study’s findings are used in public discourse. It’s become a political talisman – cited as conclusive ‘proof’ that abortion is harmless, that restrictions are cruel, and that those raising concerns are out of touch.
But good science doesn’t ignore inconvenient data. It doesn’t silence dissent. And it certainly doesn’t claim neutrality while being openly conducted by an organisation with a clear advocacy mission.
None of this is to say that women who choose abortion are bad, misguided, or beyond compassion. Far from it. Many are doing the best they can in desperate circumstances. But that’s exactly why the full story needs to be told. When we silence regret, minimise risk, and elevate one study above all others, we deny women the informed choice we claim to value.
We can and must do better. That means funding balanced research. It means listening to women on both sides of the experience. And it means admitting that the Turnaway Study, while influential, is neither definitive nor free from criticism.
Because when it comes to abortion and women’s mental health, the story is far from over.
Naomi Bunker is a Registered Nurse based in Melbourne, Victoria and an executive member of Pro-Life Health Professionals Australia.
