Truthout84%

New Study: Abortion Bans May Be Increasing Suicidal Thoughts Among Teen Girls 40%

By Shefali Luthra0%

8/1/2026, 9:31:39 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 26.8% saturation with 194 hits. Analysis detected 969 faulty-reasoning hits from 725 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.6% and a BS Rank of 40% (16,731 of 27,674 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.50% of the article peer group.

New Study: Abortion Bans May Be Increasing Suicidal Thoughts Among Teen Girls 
A previous study also linked abortion bans to higher rates of suicide for women between the ages of 20 and 34. 
Abortion bans may be driving more teenage girls to seriously contemplate suicide  regardless of whether they are pregnant, a new study finds. 
Already, teenage girls are at greater risk of serious depression and suicidal ideation, which means considering or planning suicide. 
Some public health officials suggest the rates of depression may be at crisis levels: Federal data published in 2024 found that the year prior, 52.6 percent of high school girls said they felt persistently sad or hopeless  close to double the share of high school boys who said they felt similarly. 
About 27.1 percent of girls said they had seriously considered suicide, compared to 14.1 percent of boys. 
The federal data doesn’t account for nonbinary students. 
Now, a new study published last week in JAMA Psychiatry, suggests that abortion bans  which have already been linked to higher rates of infant mortality and pregnancy complications, including pregnancy-related death  could be making things worse, with teen girls in states with bans experiencing higher rates of suicidal ideation than those in states without. 
“There is this very concerning increase that is unique and specific among adolescent females in ban states. 
We need to pay more attention to what’s going on with them,” said Wendy Sheldon, the paper’s lead author and a scholar at the New York-based Verge Research, which focuses on reproductive health. 
Sheldon and her team analyzed federal data tracking suicidal ideation among high school students in 15 different states. 
The data identified sex but not gender and did not account for whether students were LGBTQ+; about half the students analyzed were identified as female and half as male. 
Researchers looked at data from 2017 to 2023. 
During that period, five of the states implemented near-total abortions bans; the remaining 10 did not. 
The researchers found that in states with strict abortion bans, the share of girls who reported suicidal ideation increased, and in states without bans it declined  resulting in a total difference of 4.3 percentage points between states with and without abortion bans. 
The researchers did not find any relationship between abortion bans and suicidal ideation among boys. 
Though the study also found a possible relationship between abortion bans and suicide attempts among teen girls, the results were not statistically significant. 
An increase of this size is substantial, Sheldon said. 
“I think it’s really unprecedented here in the U.S. and probably elsewhere, too, that we lost a right  our rights have been rolled back.” 
The findings suggest that bans’ health consequences radiate well beyond immediate abortion access. 
“These policies clearly impact a broader population,” said Dr. 
Vanessa Dalton, an OBGYN and professor who has studied the mental health consequences of abortion law, and who was not involved in this study. 
“It’s not just an unrealized wanted abortion. 
It’s living in the context of this, amongst many other policies, in particular for women or the LGBTQ+ community  that those policies say things about you as a human being and what your value is.” 
Researchers have for years found links between abortion restrictions and mental illness  especially for women and girls. 
A 2024 paper looking at anxiety and depression found that women living in states with “trigger bans,” which took effect when Roe v. 
Wade was overturned, reported spikes in anxiety and depression after the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling; men did, too, but at a lower level than women. 
In 2022, another team of researchers looked at the consequences of abortion restrictions even before states had the power to ban the procedure entirely. 
In that study, scientists found that targeted laws limiting abortion were linked to higher rates of suicide for women between the ages of 20 and 34. 
“There’s a potential of loss of autonomy and personal freedom and there’s concerns over the future,” said Benjamin Thornburg, an economist and postdoctoral fellow at Oregon Health and Science University, who led the 2024 paper. 
“If I had to think about what group might be most affected by, forward looking, ‘what does this mean for my future,’ adolescent girls seem like an acute target.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Shefali Luthra: 3.2%Truthout: 5.4%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Shefali Luthra: 8.3%Truthout: 3.2%Availability Heuristic13.0%This article: 7.2%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Shefali Luthra: 0.6%Truthout: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias1.2%This article: 3.4%Shefali Luthra: 19.7%Truthout: 9.8%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 8.4%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion8.4%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 2.1%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 20.4%Shefali Luthra: 6.4%Truthout: 11.1%Negativity Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.1%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 3.3%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 1.8%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.4%Slippery Slope1.8%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.5%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 6.9%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.1%Shefali Luthra: 4.2%Truthout: 8.1%Appeal to Emotion12.1%This article: 3.2%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.5%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 26.8%Shefali Luthra: 11.8%Truthout: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.8%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.2%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.2%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.2%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.4%Unattributed Quote1.2%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 8.4%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 2.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 6.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Shefali Luthra: 0.0%Truthout: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

725 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers26%attributed speech534writer words
Selected voice

Benjamin Thornburg

100%flagged-word coverage
64 attributed words34% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Unattributed Quote-1.7 ptsWriter: 1.7%Benjamin Thornburg: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.