[6] In a 2002 article in Ethics & Medicine, Reardon argued that in order to be effective, anti-abortion efforts had to present "a moral vision that consistently demonstrates just as much concern for women as for their unborn children.
"[7] Reardon appealed to the anti-abortion movement to support his "pro-woman/pro-life" strategy, writing: For the purpose of passing restrictive laws to protect women from unwanted and/or dangerous abortions, it does not matter if people have a pro-life view.
[7]In a Washington Monthly article titled "Research and Destroy", author Chris Mooney profiled Reardon as an example of what he describes as "Christian conservatives [who] have gone a long way towards creating their own scientific counter-establishment.
"[4] He also notes that Reardon's findings conflict with those of the American Psychological Association, which in 1990 had rejected "the notion that abortion regularly causes severe or clinical mental problems", and with the conclusions of former United States Surgeon General C. Everett Koop.
[4][8] In a front-page story for the New York Times Magazine, Slate editor Emily Bazelon describes Reardon as arguing that the anti-abortion movement will "never win over a majority... by asserting the sanctity of fetal life", and therefore should focus on disseminating information that abortion is psychologically harmful to women as a more effective strategy.
The Boston Globe also wrote: This dual role of advocate/researcher is becoming more common, especially as advocacy groups realize they can sway more opinions by asserting that their research is based on science, rather than simply on personal belief.