There is far less here than meets the eye. First, there are a number of methodological problems with the study. It obtains emotional-health data from a national survey that had only a 6 percent response rate. That is problematic. It is certainly possible that individuals more upset about the Dobbs decision were more likely to respond, which would skew the results. …

Taking the results at face value, the study found that the Dobbs leak and the Dobbs decision resulted in only marginal changes in the mental health of women of childbearing age. The study relies on a twelve-point scale to measure anxiety and depression. According to that scale, both the Dobbs leak and the Dobbs decision worsened the mental health of women of childbearing age (18–45) by less than a sixth of one percentage point in trigger states — hardly a dramatic change. Interestingly, the results indicate that men aged 18–45 in trigger states experienced a larger decrease in mental health than did women of the same age cohort residing there.

[There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. This claim from the AMA seems to qualify for at least two of those categories. A 6% response rate is atrocious in any regard, and JAMA should rethink its decision to publish this ‘study.’ — Ed]