Don’t Be Tricked by the Lowest Teen Birthrate Ever – UPDATED
You won’t find a word about it in the main stream media. You won’t find a word about it from the Alan Guttmacher Institute or Planned Parenthood, but the concept is so simple I could explain it to a five year old in about ten seconds.
“I have a whole bunch of jelly beans! I have some hidden in the pantry and I have some here in this jar. Now I want you to play a game: Look at this jar – just this jar – and tell me how many jelly beans I have in all.”
Even a small child would know that the jar does not reveal enough information to know an unknown total. Yet it seems some public policy-makers and journalists are hoping people do not know the difference.
It is being claimed that the “birthrate for U.S. teens is the lowest in history“ because a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Protection (CDC) says that ”the U.S. teen birth rate declined 9 percent from 2009 to 2010, reaching a historic low at 34.3 births per 1,000 women aged 15–19; the rate dropped 44 percent from 1991 through 2010.” (Report is here.) Okay, maybe it is, but is this cause for claiming success? This low record being attributed, in part, to the increased use of contraception and tied to the HHS contraception mandate.
“The report by the National Center for Health Statistics says the actual number of teen births in 2010 was the lowest since 1946. It credits “strong pregnancy prevention messages” and says contraceptive use “may have contributed.” [Source CDC]
“The analysis comes at a time when contraception is a hot political debate, from a congressional investigation of whether federal money pays for abortions to concern among some church leaders over an Obama administration mandate that all health insurance cover birth control.” [Source USA Today]
If contraception is the object of hot political debate and concern for religious freedom not to be forced to provide birth control or abortion against Church teaching and moral standards, then those affected ought to question unfounded statements. Here’s why knowing the birth rate alone is not enough.
Back to the jellybeans. The total number of jellybeans are like the number of pregnancies among teens (or any group of women) in the U.S., and that is the only number that really matters as it relates to teen behavior. The goal is not to reduce teen births, but teen pregnancies too since those also affect the lives and health of teens. We do not know whether teen pregnancy has declined or not because we do not know the number of pregnancies aborted during that same time. There is an amount that is not known.
But the CDC reports abortion statistics, won’t those work? The CDC does not require abortions to be reported and unless we know how many teen pregnancies were aborted, we don’t know the total number of teen pregnancies that were discovered. The CDC has never required abortion reporting, and they still do not. From the CDC website:
“Are states required to report their abortion statistics to CDC? No…”
Sure some people say, “Oh, the estimates are pretty close so we can extrapolate.” I don’t think so. While those estimates give us a number, it is not a meaningful number unless it is a reliable number. Even in states that choose to require abortion reporting, there is absolutely no regulation of the reporting. Abortion clinics literally make the choice to put information on a form, or not, and submit it to the state, or not. No regulation. They could toss the paperwork out, never fill the paperwork out at all, or fill the forms out incorrectly. It’s a black hole. Likewise, once the state agencies have the clinic information submitted, there’s no accountability to the public for accuracy in methodology used or reporting conclusions. The states can report whatever number they want to report, period. As far as I am concerned, it is a fabricated number.
Abortions + Births = Pregnancies. If we don’t know the first number, we can’t know the last. If the people crediting contraception realize that both numbers matter, and credit contraception anyway, then they are intentionally misleading people. If they don’t understand why abortion numbers also matter and why those numbers need to be reliable, then they have no business analyzing any set of data under the title of statistician. This new CDC report of the ”lowest teen births in all of U.S. history” doesn’t represent the full picture that we need to comment on improvements in teen behavior that leads to pregnancy.
UPDATE:
See what I mean?
Teen Birth Rate Down; Thanks, Contraception!
Category: Abortion, Social Issues
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Comments (86)
Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed
Sites That Link to this Post
- (Prolifer)ations 4-17-12 | FavStocks | April 18, 2012
I’m so glad you posted about this. I heard this blurb on NPR yesterday and thought to myself, “OK, that could be great news or horrible news, what about the the teen pregnancy rate?”. Perhaps it would be laudable to institute forced teen abortion and get that number down to 0?
Thank you! I’ve always been bothered when abortion advocates talk about the teen birth rate, and never mention the teen pregnancy rate! Disingenuous.
Nice posting.
The data presented shows, perhaps, a weakness in our approach to this issue. Just as there are two aspects to the presented data there are also two aspects to the birth control healthcare issue as presented in the press. The first involves abortion and abortifacient drugs. The second involves contraceptive approaches that prevent conception. I believe the press, the Obama administration, stakeholders on both sides of the issue, and the Bishops have allowed this division to become blurred. Even if abortion data was available, we would also need to distinguish between drugs that just prevent conception and abortifacient drugs that kill individuals. Without getting in to the relative merits of a particular method or why this may have happened I present the following observation from a strong prolife position.
The Catholic Church teaches that abortion and of course abortifacient drugs are an intrinsic evil. What this means is that the horrible wrongness of abortion is not open to debate. It is murder and wrong. I will not get into a moral discussion concerning intention and means as it is not central to the point I want to make. By the way, this position is also supported by natural law apart from religious teaching and you may check the website Libertarians For Life, http://www.l4l.org for more information. I need only make my argument that abortion, which includes abortifacient drugs, is wrong from a secular or natural law position. To anticipate one other argument concerning human life beginning at conception, this position is also supported from both scientific and religions positions. The Church clearly teaches that human life begins at conception. However, as above I need only argue from a scientific or secular position that a separate and new human life begins at conception. From a secular position the absence or endowment of a soul is not key as human sacrifice is against natural law and most other codes or reasonable human intercourse. This position is supported within the scientific community and one may check the Libertarians For Life website listed above or the book, Embryo, A Defense of Human Life, by Robert George and Christopher Tollefsen for more information.
From the above we see that abortion is murder and creates an extreme harm in the killing of a human life. Once killed, that life is sacrificed to the whims and desires of the mother for whatever reason and that life cannot be brought back. It is an intrinsic evil and an injustice. In good conscience I cannot support this, actively, pay for such things, or aid others either paying or supporting such evil. The above is a simple concept that unfortunately many just don’t seem to understand.
On the other hand, contraceptive devices or methods that prevent conception and do not risk killing a fertilized human egg cell are in a different category. One may argue the relative moral merits of many techniques or devices but the basic condition surrounding nonlethal contraception is that no murder occurs. Hence, although I may be against specific types of birth control, as long as it is nonlethal, it does not kill a fertilized human egg, then the act may be categorized as one involving the individual and perhaps, not open to my interference or to government regulation. Although, the Church will still have a moral responsibility to announce what she sees as true and false, wright and wrong and call individuals and society away from sin and disordered practices.
I believe if we make the above distinction between lethal and nonlethal contraceptive methods and have the data to support informed discussions concerning both that there may be a better and more informed discourse on these issues. Of course, we will also need full disclosure of the abortion data. Although as you correctly state, such data may not exist. However, if we work at it we may be able to separate individual state and religious obligations and reach a health care approach that protects critical conscience and religious concerns while meeting basic concerns of care. As a Catholic I believe in miracles. So with faith all things are possible.
Stacy said, “To toss out the number of births as if it were meaningful…”
But the number of births is meaningful, and useful for many purposes, even if you don’t know the number of abortions or pregnancies. And in terms of the “Abortions + Births = Pregnancies” formula and any notion that governments could/would have the ability to accurately count abortions, we should remember that “abortions” is not properly limited to deliberately induced abortions but must necessarily also include spontaneous abortions. In that regard, it is estimated that 15-20% of KNOWN pregnancies end in miscarriage, and some estimate that an additional 50% end before/without the woman even knowing she’s pregnant.
Thanks LJP and Leila!
Nick, I will respond tomorrow. You made some good points, and I want to think about it.
Peggy Sue,
I think about these things a lot, just like you seem to do.
“But the number of births is meaningful, and useful for many purposes, even if you don’t know the number of abortions or pregnancies.”
In what ways as it relates to the teen pregnancy issue? In other ways, like government assistance, I’m not so sure. Maybe, but the focus of this post is the teen pregnancy rates.
“And in terms of the “Abortions + Births = Pregnancies” formula and any notion that governments could/would have the ability to accurately count abortions, we should remember that “abortions” is not properly limited to deliberately induced abortions but must necessarily also include spontaneous abortions.”
Yes, but the number of abortions done on purpose because a teen is pregnant can be known. I’m not so sure it needs to be known, but it definitely can be.
As it relates to the social issue of teen pregnancy and how to address it, miscarriage is irrelevant.
One thing is for sure — as it is now, lower teen birth rates mean nothing to a pro-lifer.
Stacy, you asked, “in what ways [do births to teenage mothers] relate to the teen pregnancy issue”, but your question is already answered by your formula “Abortions + Births = Pregnancies”.
You alleged that “the number of abortions done on purpose because a teen is pregnant can be known”, but while it may be known by God, it cannot be accurately known by government, especially since a teen can legally or illegally take a pill in the privacy of her home or use a clinic outside the view and reach of government.
You said, “As it relates to the social issue of teen pregnancy and how to address it, miscarriage is irrelevant”, but it is not irrelevant to teen pregnancy, your posted formula, and the fact that teens can induce miscarriage as a form of abortion.
You wrote, “lower teen birth rates mean nothing to a pro-lifer”. But lower teen birth rates have meaning regardless of whether one is a “pro-lifer”. Perhaps you mean to say that “a pro-lifer” does not appreciate the meaning.
Stacy,
“In what ways as it relates to the teen pregnancy issue? In other ways, like government assistance, I’m not so sure. Maybe, but the focus of this post is the teen pregnancy rates.”
It doesn’t, nor is it meant to be related to teen pregnancy. YOUR focus is teen pregnancy but that is not the reason why the CDC publishes these numbers.
These numbers are required by several organisations, among them the World Health Organisation and the United Nations. The number of teen births determines the status of developement of a country (by the UN) and the status of teen health care (by the WHO) in a country. I think you can appreciate the correlation between teen moms and developement status (the more teen moms the lower the developement of a country is) and the number of teen births and teen health care (access to birth control and abortion clinics for teens). Teen pregnancies do not show the same correlation.
Nick,
“I believe if we make the above distinction between lethal and nonlethal contraceptive methods and have the data to support informed discussions concerning both that there may be a better and more informed discourse on these issues.”
Yes, I think you have a very good point here. The abortifacient contraception is wrong for a different reason than barrier methods. The problem with calling it abortifacient is that the pro-choice terminology just got changed with the invent of birth control. They started saying that pregnancy begins with implantation rather than conception.
The way around that subterfuge is to speak in terms of whatever intentionally kills human life, which hormonal birth control does by making the womb inhospitable to an embryo trying to implant.
You are right, there is a need for better education here. Hopefully, a miracle as you say, this controversy will give us a chance to explain this to more people. A teachable moment…
Peggy Sue,
What I mean is that we do not know how many teens get pregnant (you are right, maybe it’s absolutely unknowable), nor do we have any idea how many teens try to induce abortion. The latter could be known, but isn’t.
Stacy,
“nor do we have any idea how many teens try to induce abortion. The latter could be known, but isn’t.”
And how do you suggest such a thing can be known without violating doctor-patient confidentiality?
Stacy, rather than “nor do we have any idea how many teens try to induce abortion”, it seems to me that there are perhaps more than a few “ideas” on the subject, perhaps even some studies.
As to “with the invent of birth control. They started saying that pregnancy begins with implantation rather than conception,” birth control has been around a long, long time.
As to “speak in terms of whatever intentionally kills human life, which hormonal birth control does by making the womb inhospitable to an embryo trying to implant,” hormonal birth control does not “intentionally kill human life” unless (1) it happens to kill human life (and that doesn’t always happen), and (2) the person actually has that intention.
Edward,
In the US none of the forms submitted for abortion data require disclosure of a patient’s name. You don’t need names to collect data.
.
Peggy Sue,
“…it seems to me that there are perhaps more than a few “ideas” on the subject, perhaps even some studies”
How can there be anything of substance if no reporting is required or regulated?
“They started saying that pregnancy begins with implantation rather than conception,” birth control has been around a long, long time.”
The definition changed back in the 60′s with the rising production of the pill. The point stands – hormonal BC causes the death of an embryo by making the womb inhospitable.
To you last para: that is a stated function of hormonal birth control.
There’s a useful video on this post: http://www.acceptingabundance.com/how-the-pill-kills/
Hi, Stacy. Why are conservatives so averse to good news? A few points for clarity’s sake:
1) For your readers’ benefit, here’s the Guttmacher Institute’s most recent report on teen pregnancy (not teen births). Nothing’s hidden—they make their methodology and its limitations clear.
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/USTPtrends08.pdf
It reports a two-decade decline in teen pregnancies, putting the current rate at a 30-year low. It also reports a continuing decrease in the abortion rate and the number of abortions—which mirrors the trend reported by the CDC:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss6015a1.htm?s_cid=ss6015a1_w
2) So, to be absolutely clear, the recent CDC report aside, there’s data on teen pregnancy and abortion, and it shows a long-term decline in both. You just refuse to believe it, because it’s imperfectly collected and reported by sources you distrust. Is that a fair assessment of your argument?
3) You worry that abortion clinics’ stats are self-reported, and that can lead to misrepresentation. Fine, but we could say the same thing about any piece of self-reported data. The Census Bureau, for example, depends on us accurately recording the number of people in our households. The IRS depends on us (and our bosses) accurately reporting our earnings. That doesn’t mean that stats from those agencies are worthless or a sham. Or does it, in your opinion?
4) 46 states have laws requiring abortion providers to report procedures to a state health agency.
http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/spibs/spib_ARR.pdf
A legal requirement IS a regulation, so what do you mean when you say the reporting isn’t regulated? Do you mean federally? Or are you saying that the regulations are not enforced? If so, do you have a link?
5) Even if abortions are underreported, can you think of any reason this would be MORE true today than it was 25 years ago? In other words, how do you explain the downward trend?
6) To put this all together, are you suggesting that, for the past 25 or 30 years, abortion providers, state health agencies, or the CDC (or maybe all three), in cahoots with the Guttmacher Institute, have conspired to progressively underreport abortions? And that this conspiracy has persisted under both Republican and Democrat administrations, and in both the nation’s most liberal states and its most conservative ones?
7) If so, what is the aim of this conspiracy? Is it simply to make contraception look more effective?
Pedro, your references are very good and show the amount of data available. In the real world there is no perfect data set and I am sure a reasonable estimate of pregnancies, births and abortions may be presented that could complete Stacy’s equation. Although, after reading some of the data disclaimers in your referenced reports I think the error bars concerning some analyses may be significant in relation to the data presented. There is also a basic disconnect in terminology used within the reports that I will outline below. Such is the case of real world data. However, you make a great point and people on all sides of this debate need to look at the data.
To you question as to why “conservatives {are] so averse to good news?” First, this topic as it relates to Catholic social teaching, this not a “conservative” or “liberal” issue. I accept your question in its broad political context but must say that in the more narrow context of this blog, a Catholic religious perspective, the issue of birth control and abortion goes directly to basic church teaching that abortion is murder and hence, an intrinsic evil and that life, hence pregnancy, begins at conception. This is a key distinction. See my previous post concerning more thoughts on this issue.
Within the above narrow context I can now answer your question and shed some light on what is at least my concern and perhaps the concern of others, both politically liberal and conservative, who believe and support the Catholic Church’s teaching on life. It is difficult to find what the CDC means by pregnant in any of your referenced reports, or on the CDC website. Briefly the Federal Government uses a definition put forward by the American College of Obstetricans and Gynecologists that states, “A pregnancy is considered to be established only after implantation [of a fertilized egg into the uterus] is complete.” See Guttmacher Institute, http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/2/gr080207.htm. There are other accepted legal and scientific definitions. Although the above is widely accepted. See my post above.
Based on the above there is a disconnect between much, if not all, of the published data and a critical aspect of Catholic teaching on abortion. We believe that killing a fertilized egg before implantation is murder and aught to be considered an abortion. Hence, the Catholic church’s stand against the HHS mandate and its required funding for abortifacient techniques. So the question from a Catholic perspective is how much of the decrease in teen pregnancy is due to abortifacient techniques that result in killing? So, Killing the unborn child is an intrinsic evil and the good resulting from a decrease in teen pregnancies cannot be applauded if the means to the good is by way of an evil act.
I have left much unsaid but I hope the above frames this issue as concisely as possible and explains why many who support the Catholic approach to life are worried when such data is published as a support for what we believe is, in some cases, murder of an innocent life.
Pedro,
Your comment went to spam jail because it had too many links. I released it. There’s a filter that holds any comments with more than 3 links. Just wanted you to know.
I think you missed the point. I have read these reports for years, I am not a newcomer to this issue.
How can there statistically be anything of substance if no reporting is required or regulated? Abortion clinics dispose of any evidence.
With births, there’s something of substance. It’s called a baby and a birth certificate.
With households, there’s something of substance. They are called living people.
With taxes, there’s something of substance. It’s called income and it’s disclosed by the employer.
You can be caught lying on all of those things, and records can be evaluated for accuracy, can be audited — regulated.
Abortion clinics can lie without being caught. It’s impossible to regulate the disclosure of data on any level.
And no – I’m not inclined to put blind faith in the same people who kill unborn children for profit.
If I should believe what abortion clinics disclose, please explain why. Remember we are dealing with subjective moralists.
No conspiracy — just common sense. You can draw numbers out of a bag, work up the data, and present conclusions too. Doesn’t make it meaningful.
Stacy, you asked, “How can there be anything of substance if no reporting is required or regulated?” That question can also be asked of your posts and of most any study. Participation in a study does not have to be mandated or regulated by law, nor does congress have to pass a law for a study to be useful or “of substance”.
You say “The point stands”, and the point stands that while hormonal birth control may happen to create circumstances predicating the death of an embryo, hormonal birth can be used by women who have no such intention and for whom no such death occurs.
As to “To you last para: that is a stated function of hormonal birth control”, (1) it is a stated opinion as to whether it’s a function or side effect, and (2) the paragraph covered multiple issues, to include a woman’s intention, which is not a “function of hormonal birth control”.
Peggy Sue,
I’d like an answer to this question:
“How can there be anything of substance if no reporting is required or regulated?”
That question can be asked and answered of other statistics. It’s routine, and necessary, in statistical analysis to determine whether the population is actually representative or not.
Clinic does abortion.
Staff fills out form – age of fetus, method of abortion, etc.
Clinic turns it into the state.
State reports statistics.
At every single step there is no accountability at all. The worker could not fill out the form — no one would know. The worker could fill it out wrong — no one would know. The clinic could throw the forms away — they’ve been caught doing that. The clinic could only turn in some of the forms — no one would know. The state could discard this or that data — no one would know.
Please prove me wrong.
“Participation in a study does not have to be mandated or regulated by law, nor does congress have to pass a law for a study to be useful or “of substance”.”
Irrelevant.
Hormonal BC – it works, in part, by rendering the womb inhospitable. That is its stated function. If a woman uses it, it is possible that it causes the death of an embryo. Period. Doesn’t matter if it’s not her intent. It still can happen.
Stacy, you wrote, “I’d like an answer to this question: ‘How can there be anything of substance if no reporting is required or regulated?’” Your question is broadly worded to encompass not just abortion statistics but most anything in the universe. We’re told that by God there are things of substance even though federal and state legislatures had not passed any reporting requirements or regulations. But many people continue to ask “how”.
As to abortion, you list various things that can all happen whether “reporting is required or regulated” or not. Even with laws, there are people who don’t follow them, whether by choice or ignorance. Laws can actually contribute to problems of reporting. And as I’ve pointed out, abortions are not done simply at clinics. They are also done where government has no reach or vision.
And as to “irrelevant”, not even stupidity is irrelevant.
And again, as to a “stated function” of hormonal birth control, you are speaking of someone’s stated opinion as to function vs side effect.
You say “it is possible that it causes the death of an embryo. Period. Doesn’t matter if it’s not her intent.” But it does matter, as for example in regard to your claim that it “intentionally kills human life”.
Stacy,
“Hormonal BC – it works, in part, by rendering the womb inhospitable.”
That depends on the kind of hormonal BC you use. Some preparations are meant to prevent ovulation completely. If there’s no ovulation there’s also no killing. However, since abortion legally isn’t considered killing the foetus hormonal BC most definately is not.
““Participation in a study does not have to be mandated or regulated by law, nor does congress have to pass a law for a study to be useful or “of substance”.”
Irrelevant.”
No, far from irrelevant.
For one: any medical ethics board can agree on a study using this type of data. There’s no reason for a government mandate.
Second: participation in any type of study using your medical data can only happen with the consent of the patient. Making a law which forces abortion clinics to surrender this type of data is a violation of medical ethics and, as such, will have a very poor compliance among medical professionals.
Third: as said before, this data is of very little relevance for most people, especially those who are responsible for making policy. To be honest I don’t think I ever even heard someone ask about it before you did.
Oh yeah – those abortiononists are so reliable, Gosnell, Brigham who owned 15 clinics and performed “abortions” on born children (as did Gosnell) and these aren’t isolated….
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/pennsylvania-closes-notorious-abortionists-unsanitary-clinic
Also Lila Rose has shown how PP has been lying about mammograms… mammograms let alone abortions. Lila has also shown how PP lies about reporting underage abortions, sexual abuse and child prostitution….
Good to know that you have at least put your faith in something….
It’s funny how a gov’t worker can step in and take away someones lunch because it isn’t healthy enough – and then proceed to feed them chicken nuggets…. but it takes them over 15 years to step in and close down clinics like Gosnell or Brigham….. but that makes sense… pick on the children is so much easier… and turn a blind eye to those that murder them…..
Peggy Sue,
It is common knowledge how the pill works, disclosed by anyone who manufacturer or dispenses it.
http://womenshealth.about.com/od/thepill/f/howpillworks.htm
It intentionally makes the womb inhospitable. If you take a drug, you intentionally take it to do its job.
As for regulation, please let the IRS know that their services are no longer needed since there’s nothing to audit. I know you see the difference, you just won’t admit it.
Bottom line: There’s nothing to audit at abortion clinics. They can lie with impunity, and as AMC said, they are known to lie.
Thanks for getting me out of jail!
“How can there be statistically anything of substance if no reporting is required or regulated?”
Again, what do you mean when you say nothing is required or regulated? 46 states require abortion clinics to report their procedures.
“You can be caught lying on all of these things”
I don’t mean this as a gotcha, just an honest question: in your 5:42 comment yesterday you said that abortion clinics have been caught lying. How did that happen?
Let’s look again at the IRS parallel:
“With taxes, there’s something of substance. It’s called income and it’s disclosed by the employer.”
Most Americans get income for performing services that aren’t tangible or verifiable. And it’s very easy to make that income unverifiable, too. What’s more, employers often have a personal stake in not reporting or in misrepresenting their employees’ income.
For example: your kid is struggling in Spanish, so you hire a local grad student to tutor him for $25/hour. You pay her in cash, and neither of you reports the transaction to the IRS. Nobody knows. The chance of you two getting caught is near zero. It’s illegal, but so is misreporting abortion statistics (in 46 states).
I’d guess that the above situation is much more common than your hypothetical lying abortionist. But I’m also guessing you trust data from the IRS, even though you know it’s flawed.
“As for regulation, please let the IRS know that their services are no longer needed since there’s nothing to audit.”
I think anyone who works for the IRS would tell you how imperfect their system is.
Finally, I asked this yesterday, and I’d like to see your response:
5) Even if abortions are underreported, can you think of any reason this would be MORE true today than it was 25 years ago? In other words, how do you explain the downward trend?
Edward,
I don’t know what they give women in the Netherlands, but in the US in the 1960′s the FDA approved the pill containing only synthetic estrogen. It takes high levels of estrogen to trick the woman’s body into thinking she is pregnant so her ovaries do not release an egg each month.
However, by the 1970′s so many women suffered blood clots, heart attacks, and strokes, that they had to cut back the estrogen by 80% to decrease the side effects, which in turn reduced the effectiveness of preventing ovulation.
Synthetic progesterone was added to thicken cervical fluid and dry up uterine wall blood vessels. That means that if the egg is released, sperm are hindered from swimming through the fallopian tubes and reaching it.
If the sperm does reach the egg and fertilizes it, the embryo will live and grow for a week until it arrives in the uterus to implant. With dried up blood vessels the womb is rendered inhospitable to the week old developing child, he or she cannot implant, and thus will die.
“For one: any medical ethics board can agree on a study using this type of data.”
It’s irrelevant because whether the study is statistically reliable or not is independent of who is doing it. Numbers are numbers. If the data pool is unreliable, the conclusions are meaningless.
“Second: participation in any type of study using your medical data can only happen with the consent of the patient. Making a law which forces abortion clinics to surrender this type of data is a violation of medical ethics and, as such, will have a very poor compliance among medical professionals.”
Well in the US there is no consent as far as I know, the patient’s name is just not released.
“Third: as said before, this data is of very little relevance for most people, especially those who are responsible for making policy. To be honest I don’t think I ever even heard someone ask about it before you did.”
Even so, the government has reported to collect it for decades.
Pedro,
“46 states require abortion clinics to report their procedures.”
OK, how do you know if a clinic doesn’t report accurately?
“I don’t mean this as a gotcha, just an honest question: in your 5:42 comment yesterday you said that abortion clinics have been caught lying. How did that happen?”
The patient records were found in the garbage, or fetal remains were found stored in the clinic. Neither of these is supposed to be “standard practice” though according to the clinics.
“Most Americans get income for performing services that aren’t tangible or verifiable. And it’s very easy to make that income unverifiable, too.”
People are prosecuted for tax fraud because there is evidence to convict them. People are audited because they are required to maintain the documents that prove their claim.
“For example: your kid is struggling in Spanish, so you hire a local grad student to tutor him for $25/hour. You pay her in cash, and neither of you reports the transaction to the IRS. Nobody knows. The chance of you two getting caught is near zero. It’s illegal, but so is misreporting abortion statistics (in 46 states).”
How do they catch tax cheats then? Oh — they spend money they have no record of earning! That’s how. How do they catch an abortionists lying about the number of abortions done in a clinic for a given year? There’s no way. It all comes down to what a person writes in the records.
“5) Even if abortions are underreported, can you think of any reason this would be MORE true today than it was 25 years ago? In other words, how do you explain the downward trend?”
I didn’t say it was more true today than 25 years ago. I said all of the data is meaningless since there’s no way to verify it. The downward trend is what is reported. Who knows whether it represents reality?
It’s funny, I’ve told pro-choice people many times that if they really wanted to reduce abortion rates, why don’t they support it being illegal? We can look at the statistics to see that the number of abortions spiked after 1973. Their unanimous response? “Oh, we can’t trust those numbers because we don’t know if they were reported accurately. They didn’t really spike, they were just reported more.” LOL.
Oh lookie!!!
Can I say, “I told ya so?”
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/12/increased_contraception_use_leads_to_an_all_time_low_teen_birth_rate_.html
“Don’t Be Tricked by the Lowest Teen Birthrate Ever” I like the title. Before I decided to comment I wanted to look at a few of the links provided, with the one from Stacy last. In this discussion of lower birth rates among teens there is one word I have not seen, or may just of over looked it, that being ‘abstinence’. I read an article a few days ago on the decline of teen birth, wish I still had it, and along with various forms of sex education, abstinence was listed as one of the reasons for lower teen birth and pregancies.
Richard,
Was this it? http://www.lifenews.com/2012/04/11/credit-abstinence-with-helping-reduce-teen-birth-rates/
Or maybe some of her links.
Stacy, the link you posted I think is the one I remember reading.
Stacy, you wrote, “It is common knowledge how the pill works, disclosed by anyone who manufacturer or dispenses it.” It is common knowledge that many women take the Pill without such knowledge.
You wrote, “It intentionally makes the womb inhospitable. If you take a drug, you intentionally take it to do its job.” One, a drug does not have an intellectual resolve, i.e. intention. Two, women can take a drug, including the Pill, without knowledge or intention that it kill anything.
Even your writeup about the Pill can be read as not describing an intention to kill, for it says “Synthetic progesterone was added to thicken cervical fluid and dry up uterine wall blood vessels. That means that if the egg is released, sperm are hindered from swimming through the fallopian tubes and reaching it.” And if fertilization were to happen despite the intent that it not happen, the death of the embryo is described in the passive tense, without expressed intent, as a circumstantial effect: “With dried up blood vessels the womb is rendered inhospitable to the week old developing child, he or she cannot implant, and thus will die.”
You wrote, “Bottom line: There’s nothing to audit at abortion clinics. They can lie with impunity” Actually, there is much to audit at abortion clinics, and as far as I can tell, there are lies for which abortion clinics can be legally held to account / punished. For example, I read a report just the other day about a lawsuit against a clinic for fraud and filing false claims. And really, does the Church teach that people can lie with impunity?
You wrote, “as AMC said, they are known to lie”. Let’s pause for a moment and recognize that the word “lie” gets tossed about much in everyday language. In the sense of telling false statements, intentionally or otherwise, “known to lie” applies to practically everyone. We can even turn to the Bible and read, “every human being is a liar”.
You wrote, “How do they catch tax cheats then? Oh — they spend money they have no record of earning! That’s how. How do they catch an abortionists lying about the number of abortions done in a clinic for a given year? There’s no way.”
The IRS does not have a record of everyone’s earnings and expenditures. They have what people report, and people can lie. There is “no way” that the IRS can catch every lie. But there are ways to catch some lies, and that’s true whether we’re talking about taxpayers or abortion clinics. Otherwise, how would they be “known to lie”?
The “research published in March” for “abstinence based sex education programs” cited in Stacy’s link is interesting because the study itself reported that “only the hypothesis regarding abstinence BELIEFS was supported, but not those related to other predictors, to intentions, or to sexual BEHAVIOR.” For example, in terms of percentage of students who self-reported to be “virgins” (defined by the study as never having had full-blown heterosexual intercourse), the study reported that “None of the differences between groups at baseline, posttest, or follow-up were significant.”
And as much as the study talks about “abstinence”, the only sexual behavior that the study purported to examine was the students’ self-reports of full-blown heterosexual intercourse. No other sexual activity, whether reported or actual, chaste or unchaste, was measured by the study.
In addition, the study participants were not shown to be representative of the student population at large, as for example, religious views, family income, academic achievement, IQ, etc. Instead, the study participants were a self-selected volunteer minority at a few Georgia schools, perhaps motivated by “a lottery for an Ipod player” among other reasons, and more female and African-American than the general school population. (An additional 15-30% of the participants also dropped out after the study began.) Furthermore, the study reported that “there was a significant between-group difference on race/ethnicity, with the [so-called] control group more likely to be White and less likely to be African American than the [abstinence-education] group.” This is notable because the study reported that “White students held lower ‘pro-abstinence’ beliefs, commitment to abstinence, and intention to delay sex than all other groups”. And yet, the study found that the group that had the highest percentage of “White students”, i.e. those with the alleged lowest “pro-abstinence” beliefs, and the group NOT subjected to the abstinence education, had the highest percentage of “virgins” both before and after the study.
Peggy Sue,
Simple question.
If I wanted to audit an abortion clinic to know whether they were complying with the law, how would I do that?
I’m not sure what your point is in the last comment about abstinence. I’ve never really been one to argue for AOSE. I’ve been more “parents raise your children – biology teachers teach biology” minded.
To build on what Peggy Sue said: if you pay a tutor $25 in cash, and she takes that $25 and buys dinner with it, how on earth can the IRS prove that a transaction occurred between the two of you?
That line of arguing is not going to help you make the point that we should trust what abortion clinics report – careful. Taxes are not collected for statistical purposes. They are collected because that’s how government gets money from citizenry. Statistical conclusions are based on tax receipts.
Now, answer the question. If I wanted to audit an abortion clinic to know whether they were complying with the law to report the number and type of abortions, how would I do that?
Stacy, would you trust what an abortion clinic reported? And are you asking if you as a private citizen or a group of private citizens could audit an abortion clinic, or are you asking if the government could have a group that could oversee the auditing of abortion clinics?
Stacy, you asked, “If I wanted to audit an abortion clinic to know whether they were complying with the law, how would I do that?” The billion dollar PP files tax returns and their finances are already audited, whether by the IRS, state governments or independent CPAs. Likewise, if they’re required to submit other reports to the government, there is a record of that as well. And according to the reports I’ve read, PP is also being sued for false filings, and the lawyers have their ways of discovery as well. Otherwise, if I wanted to audit my neighbor’s babysitter, how would I do that? Because there is no record of her income or expenditures other than what she herself chooses to report. And if someone accuses her of lying, the burden of proof falls upon the accuser. The same goes for anyone who accuses PP of lying. Where is their proof if there is no way to audit?
As to “parents raise your children”, some parents raise their children to use condoms and pills, and others preach abstinence. Can’t tell from that which kids become prostitutes and drug addicts, however. And sure can’t tell from that who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Even “prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God”.
No, Peggy Sue, I mean how would someone audit to know whether the abortion clinics were truthful about the number and kinds of abortions they do in a year?
Re-read the post. I already addressed all the tangents. That’s the last time I’ll ask. The point has been made.
Stacy, your question has been answered and continues to be answered every day. For example, as fees are collected for abortions, the number of such abortions can be financially audited. Also, various judges, district attorneys and lawyers involved in cases against clinics have access to information and methods of discovery. They can and have compared various files in their search for discrepancies, misreports and misdeeds. Some people also listen to that Rose woman. And if you’re really curious, you might get yourself hired at the clinics and see for yourself, maybe even work undercover, not to mention the people who already work there or have worked there in the past who are also sources of information. There are few businesses in the world that are not more scrutinized than abortion clinics.
Peggy Sue,
“For example, as fees are collected for abortions, the number of such abortions can be financially audited.”
That contradicts your point about babysitters. See what I said to Pedro. Further, fees don’t prove actions.
“Also, various judges, district attorneys and lawyers involved in cases against clinics have access to information and methods of discovery.”
Like what? Name it then. Have you read the forms abortion clinics fill out? It’s not the tax code. It’s a few simple questions.
Stacy, it does not contradict what I said about babysitters. PP is required by law to undergo independent audits. Babysitters are not. So too, clinics are required by law to maintain a variety of records, whether on patients or business, that babysitters are not.
As to “fees don’t prove actions”, unless someone is paying money for nothing, there are actions and records associated with fees paid to clinics. Even when people lie and falsify or destroy records or create phony accounting systems, it remains that since the beginning of time, many such schemes are discovered. That doesn’t mean every lie is discovered, but every lie doesn’t need to be discovered for wrongdoing to be found. Sometimes it’s even the prosecutors’ offices rather than clinics that reportedly destroy or lose important evidence.
As to “name it”, I just finished saying that “various judges, district attorneys and lawyers involved in cases against clinics have access to information and methods of discovery”. Note that I did not include bumpkin bloggers in the list of privileged parties. And further note that the information available to privileged parties is not limited to summaries seen by bumpkin bloggers.
If you want specifics, you can do your own research on that. It should be easy enough, even for you.
Whoa. I want to make clear that I respect your intelligence, even though I disagree with you. And even though debates like this can get frustrating, we can avoid the tone that slipped into Peggy Sue’s last post.
However, I agree with the content of Peggy Sue’s argument. It needs to be repeated that you’re trying to have this argument both ways: on the one hand, claiming that we KNOW abortion clinics lie because they’ve been caught and, on the other, claiming that it’s impossible to catch an abortion clinic in a lie.
“See what I said to Pedro.”
You said that IRS data isn’t used for statistical purposes. That has no bearing on Peggy Sue’s response to your question about how states can investigate misreporting of abortion records (a crime, but hard to prove) in the same sense that the IRS can investigate misreporting of income (also a crime, also hard to prove).
Peggy Sue said earlier “There is ‘no way’ that the IRS can catch every lie. But there are ways to catch some lies, and that’s true whether we’re talking about taxpayers or abortion clinics.” She’s trying to point out that you’re drawing an unwarranted distinction.
Of course there is no way of ensuring that no one ever lies on an official record. But that’s true for ANY piece of paperwork. Census records, income reports, graduation rates, death certificates, even presidential elections—if the right people agree to fudge the data, and make no mistakes, it’s possible to get away with it. So your argument (How do we know the abortion data is real?) holds water, but it’s a cop-out. And one you selectively employ because you don’t like the implications of this data.
So, should we trust abortion stats? Well, you’re clearly not going to, but it seems to me we handle it in the same ways we handle other important information. We do the best we can to ensure honesty by 1) enacting penalties for lying, 2) checking reported data regularly and at random, 3) empowering a publically-accountable body to investigate irregularities.
That’s what happens, at the state level, for abortion records.
“Like what? Name it then.”
Name what? The access? In Texas it’s Chapter 245.011.d.3 of the Health and Safety Code. I don’t know what it is in your state. Name the methods of discovery? Well, they would vary, but I imagine they would include interviews with patients, employees, and other witnesses, tax records and receipts, information obtained at random inspections and investigations by state agencies.
As a bumpkin blogger whose native language is not English and who uses dictionaries even for everyday words, there is no slipping “tone” into or out of a post by me. Please do not give credit for such a feat to me.
Pedro,
I didn’t read any tone in Peggy Sue’s comments. Knowing her native language is not English is impressive – I don’t know any second languages and definitely couldn’t write in any language but English.
Now…
“Of course there is no way of ensuring that no one ever lies on an official record. But that’s true for ANY piece of paperwork. Census records, income reports, graduation rates, death certificates, even presidential elections—if the right people agree to fudge the data, and make no mistakes, it’s possible to get away with it.”
This is not the point. A statistician must look at sets of data for what they are. If the data lacks integrity, it is intellectually dishonest to try to work it into a conclusion. You can pull numbers out of a bag and work up the data. It doesn’t mean anything.
There are ways to ascertain the integrity of data. With the things you list, there physical ways to verify the data.
With taxes, employers send reports to the government. Citizens file their reports. The two have to match up. If you are caught cheating on taxes, there are penalties because it can be proven. The tax code itself is also incredibly complicated and almost no one files taxes exactly right, which is another reason I said taxes aren’t considered statistical tools beyond what can be based on tax receipts.
With abortion reporting…no penalties, no regulation, no way to determine the integrity of the data. It is whatever a staff worker puts on a form and submits. And once the state has it, there is no public disclosure of the data and the methods used to work it up.
I repeat – clinics are immune from subpoena or penalty.
Oh look!
http://www.salon.com/2012/04/15/abstinence_isnt_working/singleton/
Stacy,
“With abortion reporting…no penalties, no regulation, no way to determine the integrity of the data.”
How about professonal ethics?
“clinics are immune from subpoena or penalty.”
Subpoena, yes. Absolutely correct. No one can force a medical professional to surrender his or her files, based on doctor-patient confidentiality. This also extents to entire clinics or hospitals.
Penalties, incorrect. When the office of the US Surgeon-General suspects a clinic or hospital to commit illegal actions it can order an investigation. However, without ordering the transfer of the medical files so the investigators have to identify the victims (in case of medical wrongdoing) or the wronged (in case of financial fraud). In case of medical wrongdoing the (former) patient or it’s surviving family members can order a copy of the medical file and hand it over to the Surgeon-General’s office or the investigators.
Now, one of the reasons abortion clinics are hardly ever investigated is because it’s former patients refuse to cooperate. The main reason I can think of why that is is because they have no interest in cooperating since they have no interest in getting the only place where they can get to for help in trouble. And since most investigations of abortion clinics are done to please either the Republican, the conservative or the religious factions (although most people outside the US consider those factions to be one and the same) and to discredit the abortion clinics and the organisations behind them …..
Stacy, you wrote “With abortion reporting… no penalties, no regulation, no way to determine the integrity of the data.” But there are penalties for false reporting and/or failure to report, whether it be in a court of law or court of public opinion (even when not proven), and there is regulation regarding reporting as has already been spoken of by Pedro and his posted links, and there are ways to determine (to a degree) the integrity (of some aspects) of the data.
You wrote, “If the data lacks integrity, it is intellectually dishonest to try to work it into a conclusion.” A finding that the data lacks integrity can be the basis for a criminal charge, and can be used by the judge and jury to reach conclusions in that regard. And most every data set lacks integrity in some way or degree, and still it can provide meaningful information, within limits, and be used to draw useful conclusions. You do it every day. Everyone does.
You also wrote, “I repeat – clinics are immune from subpoena or penalty.” Perhaps you meant to qualify your statement in some way, but as broadly worded, clinics are not immune from either. Clinic employees and clinic records can be subpoenaed, and clinics/employees can be charged, and reportedly have been. Clinic records come in different varieties with different levels of protection under the law. Even patient records can be successfully subpoenaed, as for example, as I recall, at a New York hospital and at a University of Michigan Hospital who had challenged subpoenas but lost and were ordered to deliver the records, and similarly, for example, according to the 7th Circuit opinion that if it can be shown that the government’s interest in the records would yield highly probative evidence, their interest would override the patients’ privacy rights. Also, there is a story told here about the ongoing difficult legal/political saga in Kansas where records were reportedly successfully subpoenaed and charges filed: http://www.lldf.org/resources/ask-the-attorney/phill-kline/
As to Pedro’s statement that “No one can force a medical professional to surrender his or her files, based on doctor-patient confidentiality. This also extents to entire clinics or hospitals,” he may refer to what I have just written, and I’ll also add that almost anyone can be “forced”, legally or illegally, to surrender files. The use of force is almost always successful. Files might also appear on Wikileaks, for example, without “force” per se, even if illegally, if someone who had access to them were to so submit them.
And sorry, that was actually Edward’s statement that “No one can force…”, not Pedro’s.
“Pedro, I didn’t read any tone in Peggy Sue’s comments.”
Okay–I withdraw my objection.
And I have definitely appreciated Peggy Sue’s posts. In fact, she basically wrote everything I was going to write (and much more) in her last response, so I don’t feel the need to say much here.
I do want to follow up on this comment: ““With the things you list, there are physical ways to verify the data.”
How, physically, can census data be verified?
That’s all for me. I will leave you the link to my state’s statute governing abortion clinics. If you read it, you can’t honestly maintain that abortion clinics in Texas are unregulated and face no penalties or subpoenas for their recordkeeping.
(http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/HS/pdf/HS.245.pdf)
Edward,
“How about professonal ethics?”
Abortion is not ethical, why would anyone who profits by killing children be trusted to tell the truth about how many they killed? They are already professionally unethical. And two words: Kermit Gosnell.
“Subpoena, yes. Absolutely correct.”
The data is “required” to be submitted to the government but the forms say that whatever is submitted is only for scientific purposes and not open to inspection. I.e. they can submit whatever they want to submit and lie with impunity. This fact renders the data of questionable integrity to any statistician worth his name.
“Penalties, incorrect.”
You cannot penalize something you cannot investigate.
Peggy Sue,
“But there are penalties for false reporting and/or failure to report…”
No, there are not. Not for the reporting of induced abortion.
“…there are ways to determine (to a degree) the integrity (of some aspects) of the data.”
I hate to go here, but my husband and I talk. I get frustrated trying to explain things to people and at some point want to just take the lazy way out and appeal to our authority. My husband is a professional applied mathematician, and executive. He’d thunk me on the head (well, not really) before he’d let me write something that is wrong when it comes to simple statistics. If the integrity of the data set cannot be verified, you may as well pull numbers out of a bag – you got nothing.
“And most every data set lacks integrity in some way or degree…”
Statisticians are trained to know the difference.
“…clinics are not immune from either.”
For reporting abortion stats, yes, they are.
“Clinic employees and clinic records can be subpoenaed…”
Not for statistical reporting. That’s all we are talking about.
“http://www.lldf.org/resources/ask-the-attorney/phill-kline/”
Phill Kline subpoenaed patient records, not statistical reports.
See pg. 112: http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2009sum.pdf
Pedro,
“Okay–I withdraw my objection.”
I like you both. Like the discussion, can handle a little ruffling. Maybe I shouldn’t say this, but the truth is, when you push me, you help me think through the objections and be better prepared to write the next piece.
“How, physically, can census data be verified?”
Social security numbers. It is also law that citizens answer a census correctly and there are investigators who come to your house if you refuse to participate. Is everything 100% accurate? No, but these are reasonable measures. Most people have no reason to lie about the people living in their household and have nothing to gain by lying. Search: 13 U.S.C. § 221 : US Code – Section 221: Refusal or neglect to answer questions; false answers
“If you read it, you can’t honestly maintain that abortion clinics in Texas are unregulated and face no penalties or subpoenas for their recordkeeping.”
It says that abortion clinics have to submit ONE report a year for statistical purposes.
Stacy,
“Abortion is not ethical, why would anyone who profits by killing children be trusted to tell the truth about how many they killed?”
Once again, abortion is not killing children. A foetus is not a child. It’s a biologically parasitic lifeform with the potential to become a biological and legal individual after birth. Since a foetus is not an individual or a person it cannot be killed.
Fighting for a foetus’ right to live is just as ludicrous as fighting for a bacteria’s right to live. I take it you have no problem doctors treating pneumonia, do you?
From Edward: “Once again, abortion is not killing children” Than what is it?
“A foetus is not a child.” But it is a human being in process, that is a biological fact with the full potential if not lost through miscarriage or aborted through chemicals or surgically, of becoming a person with all the potential promises that you have.
How unscientific.
Sigh – here we go again.
From the OED: child – The unborn or newly born human being; fœtus, infant.
That is the authoritative source of the English language, past and present. Current or most accepted definitions are listed first, that is the first entry.
And an organism can be killed if it’s not already dead.
Next.
Edward, since that’s all you had to say, I guess we are done with that conversation. I have a question for you.
Are you against infanticide?
Stacy,
“That is the authoritative source of the English language, past and present. Current or most accepted definitions are listed first, that is the first entry.”
Truthfully, I don’t care about the language definition. I care more about both the medical and legal definition and both state a foetus is not a child since it’s not an individual (legal) or a seperate organism / entity (medical).
At best, it’s part of the female’s body and therefor for her to do with as she pleases. I have no opinion about her having a boob job anymore than I have about her getting an abortion.
“Are you against infanticide?”
Yes, I am. Which doesn’t conflict with me being pro-choice since I don’t consider a foetus an infant. Since neither the medical community nor the law considers a foetus a child abortion is nowhere near infanticide, anymore than abortion is killing anything.
And before you start throwing alternative definitions and who knows what at me, let me save you the trouble. Not only is there nothing you can say or show me that will make me change my mind (anymore than I can change yours, apparently), I don’t really care. It doesn’t matter what you think about it, or your group of friends or the entire Catholic church as a whole. Abortion is legal in all 50 states of the US, which was confirmed by the US Supreme Court several times over. You are fighting a fight you were already losing in the 1960′s and lost entirely in 1973. You are fighting a fight that was lost by your side almost 40 years ago. Abortion is no longer an issue in local, state or federal politics, especially since it has become clear the US Supreme Court will never accept a hearing that might threaten their ruling on Roe vs. Wade in 1973.
Face it, it’s time to move on. The rest of the world already did.
Richard,
““Once again, abortion is not killing children” Than what is it?”
It’s terminating an unwanted pregnancy. Or, if you prefer, terminating an unwanted biological process in the female body.
“But it is a human being in process.”
No, it’s a foetus. Nothing more, nothing less. Anatomically you can’t even distinguish it from a turtle foetus, a dog foetus or a chicken foetus.
“… if not lost through miscarriage …”
Which excludes about 40% of all pregnancies.
“… of becoming a person with all the potential promises that you have.”
Also not true. A lot of unwanted children are giving up for abortion and those were the lucky ones. They actually have a chance. Not a great one, though. Or do you think a woman who carries an unwanted pregnancy to term is just as careful with her body as a woman who carries a wanted pregnancy?
The unwanted children who are not put up for adoption have about the same chance of a successful life as a snowman in hell. Almost all of them end up in the foster care system and have criminal records before they are old enough to vote. By the time they are considered adults their lives are pretty much over. Take a good look in the American prison system and see how many of the inmates would have been aborted if their mother’s had had the chance? I think those outcomes would frighten even the biggest pro-lifer in existence.
Edward,
First, your opinion is not fact. The fact is, yes, the word “child” applies to the human in the womb, and always has. Agree with fact or not, it is still fact.
Second, in the US the medical community recognizes the human in the womb as a child. From the National Institute of Health: Childbirth – and lots of talk of babies! http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/childbirth.html
Third, the law in the US also defines the human in the womb as a child. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00063
Fourth – the Netherlands is not the whole world. It’s not even as populous as Florida.
Face it!
“yes, the word “child” applies to the human in the womb,” Thank you Stacy, biology and zoology were not my strongest subjects but fell in love with envirmental science, and did not think I had forgotten what I had learned from biology and zoology, as reproduction was studied in both.
Edward, how can you be against infanticide but not against abortion? And you wrote: “A foetus (fetus) is not a child. It’s a biologically parasitic lifeform” that is like saying it is like a ‘blob or a growing cancer’ which is the way abortionist like to discribe it.
A foetus is not a child. It’s a biologically parasitic lifeform . . .
Unfortunately, the quoted text ignores the fact that human females are born with discrete biological structures and processes to facilitate internal gestation. I’d suggest medical knowledge in the Netherlands is not very modern.
Steve,
“I’d suggest medical knowledge in the Netherlands is not very modern.”
Seriously? A bunch of religious and social conservatives are calling my country “not so modern”? Do you know that saying about black pots and kettles?
Richard,
“how can you be against infanticide but not against abortion?”
I think I already explained that and I hate repeating myself.
“that is like saying it is like a ‘blob or a growing cancer’ which is the way abortionist like to discribe it.”
You said it, not me.
Stacy,
“your opinion is not fact.”
Never said it was. It just happen to be this fact is also my opinion, as is it the opinion by a small organisation called the American Medical Association. The AMA tells American MD’s what to think in certain areas, like abortion. MD’s who do not comply lose their license to practice medicine.
“the law in the US also defines the human in the womb as a child.”
I’d suggest you read the ruling on Roe vs. Wade. In the entire ruling the US Supreme Court keeps refering to the entity in the womb as “foetus”. Not once in the entire ruling you will find the words “child” or “infant”.
“the Netherlands is not the whole world. It’s not even as populous as Florida.”
Oh, I know. It is richer than Florida, though. In fact, according to several economics professors the Netherlands is richer than most US states.
And all your four points still don’t invalidate you’re fighting a lost fight and it’s time to move on. Unless you want to change into a relic, longing for times past, that is.
Edward, it was me who wrote “I’d suggest medical knowledge in the Netherlands is not very modern.” To my knowledge, after searching the comments, no one has agreed or even echoed agreement.
You have presented yourself as a medical professional and, in the past as well, I have questioned your medical knowledge, specifically your knowledge of biology. Indeed you presume that the meeting of sperm and ovum is a parasitic infection yet consider a man who uses another man’s mouth or rectum as a vagina to be a biological compulsion.
If you are representative of the professional class in the Netherlands, then I must infer it is a barbaric place, a plain of death stalked by unassuaged appetite where the weakest fall to unabashed predation.
I have found myself wondering if the medical profession in the Netherlands was more about managing death than healing people.
“I’d suggest medical knowledge in the Netherlands is not very modern.”
I think we’ve been saying that all along.
You know in the Netherlands they “believe” that depression is not treatable except by death. They believe that abortion is the cure to spina bifida, down syndrome, etc… They “used” to believe that infanticide was acceptable – until other countries told them it wasn’t… and just like that – they changed their minds…. suspicious if you asked me…… or are they changing theor minds again…
http://articles.businessinsider.com/2012-02-29/home/31109792_1_unwanted-infants-disabled-babies-abortion
excerpt //
according to two articles published in The Lancet, about 8% of all babies who die each year in the Netherlands (80-90) are killed by their own doctors.//
Just type in euthanasia/infanticide/suicide…. and the Netherlands.
see what your results are.
AMC,
“according to two articles published in The Lancet, about 8% of all babies who die each year in the Netherlands (80-90) are killed by their own doctors.”
I always thought The Lancet was a credible source but it seems we can now file it in the same folder as Santorum’s “Elderly wear “Don’t euthanize me” bracelets”.
Sad to see a medical journal fall that deep.
“Just type in euthanasia/infanticide/suicide…. and the Netherlands.
see what your results are.”
Yes, with statements like Santorum’s it’s quite understandable the Netherlands will get a lot of hits.
Self fulfilling prophecies….
“I’d suggest medical knowledge in the Netherlands is not very modern” So I should be worried that “Doctors” from the Netherlands find the Lancet to be rubbish…… since they would know what a medical journal should be.
And I havbe been reading and studying articles about the Netherlands for the past 4 years – way before Santorum’s comments and the hits haven’t changed one bit….
Typical responses – when the truth hurts – call them lies…..
Edward, that Lancet article was published in 1997.
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673697023155/abstract
The number was taken from the death certificates of infants who died in the first year of life from August to November of 1995.
Stacy,
Ah, now I know the study you’re talking about. Dr. Kollee was one of my professors while in medical school.
There is one thing you need to know to be able to really interpret this study: in the Netherlands it’s punishable by law to perform meaningless medical treatments (one of the reasons why there is so little cosmetic surgery performed in the Netherlands). To treat an infant (or adult) in your care you know suffers uncontrolably with a treatment that will not either decrease the suffering or increase quality of life will cost you your medical license in the Netherlands. This is the same in the US, by the way.
So in case of these infants in this survey treatment would be stopped no maater what. Parents have no say in this; judges have no say in this. It’s a purely medical decicion, made by the treating physicians or the team of treating physicians (the latter being more likely in a severely ill patient).
Now we have the situation of an infant whose treatment has been cancelled and who will die shortly after. As a parent you now have the choice to either let nature take it’s course, letting your child die a slow and painful death, in agony and fear, or to allow the medical team to help ease the passing, speeding up the time table.
If the parents don’t want euthanasia for their child, I can accept that. I’d make it my effort to keep the child as comfortable as possible but, at the same time, I’d have to show restraint as well, knowing the ammount of pain killers the child would actually need would be a lethal dose so I would have to withhold that, knowing that would cause the child to suffer.
We established before the Netherlands is not a religious country. Less than 15% of our inhabitants consider themselves religious, one type or another. So religion plays a very small role in these kinds of decisions in our country. And with religion eliminated from this equation, guess what path most parents chose, knowing their child is going to die anyway?
“To treat an infant (or adult) in your care you know suffers uncontrolably with a treatment that will not either decrease the suffering or increase quality of life will cost you your medical license in the Netherlands.”
So the Netherlands has ruled out all potential new treatments for life saving treatments….. Medicine has truly not progressed in the Netherlands has it? There are drugs to treat depression…..
and who determines what quality of life is?
“This is the same in the US, by the way.”
You mean like the snake oil salesmen – yes I agree – but if you mean clinical trials etc.. experimental drugs etc… – then you are misinformed…..
“Social security numbers.”
Social security numbers tell you nothing about where (in which households) people live. Which is one of THE most important uses of the census—its stats are used to determine political representation.
Also, SSNs tell you nothing about ethnicity. From the Pew Hispanic Center: “[In the Census,] people will be counted as Spanish/Hispanic/Latino if—and only if—that’s what they say they are. These self-reports are not subject to any independent checks, corroborations, or corrections.”
(http://www.pewhispanic.org/2009/05/28/whos-hispanic/)
When you see news articles based on the Census that say that Hispanics will make up X% of the US population by 2020, do you blog, “WAIT A MINUTE! How do we KNOW those numbers are real?” I doubt it.
“It is also law that citizens answer a census correctly and there are investigators who come to your house if you refuse to participate.”
Yeah, and in most states it’s law that abortion providers report their abortions and they face fines, criminal penalties, and loss of license if they refuse to participate.
“Most people have no reason to lie about the people living in their household and have nothing to gain by lying.”
What motive do abortion providers have to lie? Remember, they face fines, criminal charges, and loss of license for lying—and they’re asked to report something that’s totally legal. I asked that in my first post, but you haven’t answered yet.
“It says that abortion clinics have to submit ONE report a year for statistical purposes.”
Right. And it has to include every single abortion procedure performed. And not submitting the report is a crime, and can lead to steep fines and loss of license. And the State Department of Health is required to inspect the clinic (at “random, unannounced, and regular times”) and investigate to ensure compliance. And the clinics’ reports are NOT immune to subpoena, and the inspections, along with any penalties assessed, are public knowledge and can be discovered by bumpkin bloggers by calling a toll-free number.
“Is everything 100% accurate? No, but…”
No, but you have different standards for trusting data that challenges your worldview.
Hi Pedro,
~~~Social security numbers tell you nothing about where (in which households) people live. Which is one of THE most important uses of the census—its stats are used to determine political representation.~~~
If you are trying to make an argument that political districting is dishonest in some places, you will get no objections from me. Ever seen Barney Frank’s district?
If you want to push me to admit that I don’t blindly trust most statistics, I’ll admit it. I maintain a healthy skepticism, because I know the power an analyst has if he holds the magic crayon. I prefer statistics that are used on systems that can be controlled. Human statistics, I honestly don’t place much weight in any of them. Humans are, by nature, unpredictable.
~~~Also, SSNs tell you nothing about ethnicity.~~~
That’s right. Don’t care. It isn’t even a legal requirement that you answer those questions. My husband is what some people call “hispanic” and so are our children. We don’t answer questions about race. If asked we say we are of the human race.
~~~When you see news articles based on the Census that say that Hispanics will make up X% of the US population by 2020, do you blog, “WAIT A MINUTE! How do we KNOW those numbers are real?” I doubt it.~~~
You’ve never met Mr. T!
Oh, you’d get an ear full. I don’t blog about a lot of things.
~~~they face fines, criminal penalties, and loss of license if they refuse to participate.~~~
They can’t if they can’t be investigated.
~~~What motive do abortion providers have to lie?~~~
Seriously? Do you remember Dr. Nathanson confessing that the abortion statistics were fabricated to push the public to accept legalization of abortion?
~~~Remember, they face fines, criminal charges, and loss of license for lying—and they’re asked to report something that’s totally legal. I asked that in my first post, but you haven’t answered yet.~~~
I’ve answered several times. They can’t be investigated. You can’t prosecute if you can’t investigate. We are only talking about reporting the # and kind of abortions.
~~~And it has to include every single abortion procedure performed.~~~
Aaaaannnd. It can’t be investigated or proven.
~~~And the clinics’ reports are NOT immune to subpoena,~~~
Wrong. It says so on the form.
Stacy,
If you honestly discount every article and study that uses Census data as its source, if you fume and stew that our entire electoral system is built on a “sham,” if you and your husband sit around the breakfast table saying, “How do we KNOW the Hispanic population is growing? The stats are untrustworthy… it could be SHRINKING!”, then I give you full credit for consistency. I’m not sure I’d call that skepticism healthy, though.
“They can’t be investigated. You can’t prosecute if you can’t investigate.”
Are you finally going to address the contradiction in your original post? One more time: You’re maintaining on the one hand that we know abortionists lie because they’ve been caught and, on the other hand, that it’s impossible to catch an abortionist lying.
“Wrong. It says so on the form.”
From what I’ve read, the forms vary from state to state. But I’ve cited and linked the statute, chapter, and line of the Texas code that says, very clearly, that each clinic’s statistical report is NOT immune to subpoena by “appropriate state agencies, or county or district courts to enforce this chapter, or appropriate state licensing boards to enforce state licensing laws.” Do you need the link again?
“Seriously? Do you remember Dr. Nathanson confessing that the abortion statistics were fabricated to push the public to accept legalization of abortion?”
I’m not familiar with Dr. Nathanson. But that doesn’t answer the question. You haven’t given a REASON why abortion clinics would lie, in defiance of the law, about a perfectly legal activity.
What’s their incentive? To frustrate you?
Pedro,
Don’t worry about our dinner time. We’re good. My husband has made a successful career out of being good at math.
~~~You’re maintaining on the one hand that we know abortionists lie because they’ve been caught and, on the other hand, that it’s impossible to catch an abortionist lying.~~~
Already did. What they were caught for was not lying about stats. They were caught lying about other things. When you’ve got a dead baby with scissor cuts in the neck stored in your freezer, that’s pretty hard evidence that you lied.
But when standard procedure is to burn their bodies or toss them in bags to be steam cleaned and then thrown out with the garbage, it’s pretty hard to count the bodies.
(Requiescat in pace little children. You deserved better.)
~~~clinic’s statistical report is NOT immune to subpoena~~~
And what will you tell from looking at the clinic’s annual stat report? “I have the report, therefore, it must be correct!” No, Pedro.
~~~I’m not familiar with Dr. Nathanson. But that doesn’t answer the question. You haven’t given a REASON why abortion clinics would lie, in defiance of the law, about a perfectly legal activity.~~~
He gave the reason. He wrote a book about it. He was a founding member of what became NARAL and his organization was the most influential organization in the public acceptance of legal abortion. He changed his views on abortion after he saw an ultrasound of a child being killed. He wrote a book, several actually, and he confessed publicly that the abortion stats were fabricated to make the public believe they were more common than they were so that they could affect public opinion. He also converted to Catholicism.
Stacy, you wrote, “It says so on the form”. It does NOT say on the form that the clinics cannot be investigated, nor does it say on the form that the “clinics’ reports” cannot be subpoenaed. What it says on the form (a form specific to the City of New York only) is that the City of New York’s copy of that lone specific form, i.e. the copy that sits in the City of New York’s Office of Vital Records, is not open to (public) inspection or subject to subpoena. And what it also says on that form is that the information may be used (by whoever) “for scientific purposes approved by the Commissioner of Health and Mental Hygiene”, which can mean a lot things, much like census data is used for scientific/research purposes too. Nowhere does it say on that form the the form data cannot be used by whoever to tabulate “the # and kind of abortions” performed in New York.
As to “And what will you tell from looking at the clinic’s annual stat report?”, the Texas report is provided annually but the reported data is specific to each abortion. It may be compared piecemeal with any other information obtained by any other means under the sun, legal or illegal, such as comparing it with information about specific abortions known by other means to have been performed at the clinic on particular days.
You claimed “What they were caught for was not lying about stats”, but then you brought up some doctor who you claim “confessed publicly that the abortion stats were fabricated”.
And if I may, Pedro had written, “You haven’t given a REASON why abortion clinics would lie, in defiance of the law, about a perfectly legal activity,” but your response about the doctor is a non sequitur, because the so-called “confession” was about ILLEGAL abortions before Roe v. Wade. Here’s an example of such a “confession”: “We aroused enough sympathy to sell our program of permissive abortion by fabricating the number of ILLEGAL abortions done annually in the U.S. The actual figure was approaching 100,000 but the figure we gave to the media repeatedly was 1,000,000.” Moreover, if we’re to believe past behavior from 40 years ago is an indicator of later behavior, why should we believe clinics continued to lie but not the doctor, “pro-life” groups and whoever else?
What it all comes down to is that I don’t trust the individual or the corporation who profits by killing children in the womb. It all comes down to the integrity of the people transferring reality to paper.
I think I’ve been abundantly clear on this point.
“But it’s illegal!” Sorry.
“But they might not lie!” Sorry.
“But then eeevveryone could be lying!” Um, no.
“But why would they lie???” See above.
There are profiteers and liars on all sides of the issue. They all help keep one another in check.
Hi again, Stacy!
“What they were caught for was not lying about stats.”
I guess a different Stacy said this on April 12: “The clinic could throw the forms away — they’ve been caught doing that.”
Pedro: The clinic’s statistical report is NOT immune to subpoena…
Stacy: Wrong. It says so on the form.
Pedro: Do you need the link again?
Stacy: And what will you tell from looking at the clinic’s annual stat report? “I have the report, therefore, it must be correct!” No, Pedro.
You know, a simple “I was wrong” would be nice here. You can keep making your argument, but still admit when you make a factual mistake.
“I think I’ve been abundantly clear on this point.”
Yes, you have.
Anyways, have a great night! I didn’t mean anything personal about you and your husband doubting the Hispanic population at the breakfast table. I was just making a point.
AMC,
“There are drugs to treat depression…..”
And despite that there are still people who are depressed and consider their suffering unbearable and everlasting. According to Dutch law all they need is a specialist to back up that claim to have a legitimate claim to end their lives.
But I think I already explained that a couple of times to you already.
“if you mean clinical trials etc.. experimental drugs etc… – then you are misinformed…..”
Performing clinical trials with minors or experimental treatments on minors is outlawed in the entire European Union. Even suggesting enrolling a minor into a clinical trial will get you into trouble, if not with your collaegues than with the law. Anyway, your good name will be smeared for a long time after that.
Stacy,
“He gave the reason. He wrote a book about it. He was a founding member of what became NARAL and his organization was the most influential organization in the public acceptance of legal abortion.”
So back then he had a reason: to get abortion legalized. That also means abortion clinics have no longer a reason to lie now since abortion is legal.
However, I very much doubt dr. Nathanson’s motives right now, after he converted to Catholicism. After all, now he is opposed to abortion so claiming lies about abortion statistics would serve his new cause, wouldn’t it? And please, don’t say Catholics are above that because we both know better, even without me refering to a certain scandal.
Since I mentioned the Bishop felt I should share part of his sermon.
Blessed Clemens August, Count von Galen: excerpt from one of his sermons:
“On 3rd August 1941 in St. Lambert’s church Bishop Clemens August accused the Nazi regime of murdering mentally handicapped persons. He points out that his written protests and appeals had been of no avail. “We must expect, therefore, that the poor defenceless patients are, sooner or later, going to be killed. Why? . . . because in the judgement of some official body, on the decision of some committee, they have become “unworthy to live”, because they are classed as “unproductive members of the national community”. The judgment is that they can no longer produce any goods: they are like an old piece of machinery which no longer works, like an old horse which has become incurably lame, like a cow which no longer gives any milk. What happens to an old piece of machinery? It is thrown on the scrap heap. What happens to a lame horse, an unproductive cow? I will not pursue the comparison to the end — so fearful is its appropriateness and its illuminating power . . . If it is once admitted that men have the right to kill “unproductive” fellowmen — even though it is at present applied only to poor and defenceless mentally ill patients — then the way is open for the murder of all unproductive men and women: the incurably ill, those disabled in industry or war. The way is open, indeed, for the murder of all of us, when we become old and infirm and therefore unproductive”. The Netherlands are there, the US is heading in the same direction. I think of the old saying ‘what goes around, comes around’ again if it was successful the first time.
Pedro? Haha, “Name” automatically shows up if you don’t enter one.
I know you keep repeating this, but it’s not a gotcha. I explained.
Let me try it another way. When a woman goes into the abortion mill, they keep a patient record. That is confidential, has personal information. That is NOT the form that is used for statistical reporting, for scientific purposes. That OTHER form has no personal information, only the data.
The personal records have been found in the trash can, tossed out for unknown reasons, sometimes along with the dead bodies of the babies.
Do you understand? Two different forms. The stats don’t come from the personal records.
You could say, “Well they can verify the stats by checking the personal records.” But — finding them in the trash can only proves they are even willing to lie about those records too.
Remember, you are trying to convince me that I should trust people who profit from killing children in the womb, and who are also known to be dishonest. (You won’t though, been thinking about it for a long time.)
P.S. And I was making a tangential point. There is no “hispanic” population. Another time, maybe I’ll let Mr. T explain.
Stacy wrote: “That is confidential, has personal information. That is NOT the form that is used for statistical reporting, for scientific purposes. That OTHER form has no personal information, only the data. The personal records have been found in the trash can, tossed out for unknown reasons, sometimes along with the dead bodies of the babies.” This has been well documented, especially in the case of Kansas where the governor now head of Health/Human services had records shreaded when they were facin lawsuits and trial – now without the records – no trial. If that is not a ‘cover up’ nothing is.
Edward,
~~~So back then he had a reason: to get abortion legalized.~~~
There’s pressure to regulate it and fund very much still in political play. Your jump doesn’t follow.
Edward wrote: “in the Netherlands it’s punishable by law to perform meaningless medical treatments (one of the reasons why there is so little cosmetic surgery performed in the Netherlands). To treat an infant (or adult) in your care you know suffers uncontrolably with a treatment that will not either decrease the suffering or increase quality of life will cost you your medical license in the Netherlands.”
Your right, in the Netherlands, if a child born is considered a ‘special needs child’ the doctors have the obligation to euthansise the child. If an adult due to illness becomes classified as ‘special needs’ or ‘non-productive member of society’ the doctors can euthanise that person. Instead of the Netherlands moving forward they have retreated back in time and implementing some of the practices of WWII Germany. This is not the same as when they would take children in concentration camps and perform experments on them, but when they would go into a hospital or home and take a ‘special needs child or adult’ and place them in special hospitals so they could be better looked after – most times within a few days that person was dead and cause would be listed as ‘unknown’, phenominia, or heart attack. I got interested in this after reading some sermons of a Bishop who survived and preached about what was happening, and I just followed up with my own search.
“This is the same in the US, by the way.” Not yet but could very soon be with the ‘oversight panel’ that was set up under Obamacare. A team of non-medical personnal will review cases to decide if further care or treatment will prolong a quality of life or not.
Everything in the article is true, but there’s one more thing to mention–namely, that teen pregnancy isn’t inherently bad. My mother was married and pregnant with her second child at 19. How about we ignore meaningless metrics like the teen birthrate. After all, what’s the point?
What are they really concerned about? Is it an attempt to measure “unprotected sex”? Well, that would be stupid for one obvious reason–that’s how you do it when you want a baby. It can’t be to gauge sexual activity, because, as the article notes, it doesn’t factor in aborted pregnancies, and it doesn’t factor in contraception either. It can’t have anything to do with STDs because that is actually directly tracked. It’s not about high school pregnancies; we all know that virtually everyone who graduates high school does so as a teenager.
So, what is it? What is the point of the teen birthrate metric? I don’t know. My suspicion is that it is nothing more than a make-believe boogeyman that we’re told to fear in order to more easily convince us to accept certain “lesser evils.” Again, it is a meaningless metric that fails to provide any insight, and, precisely because it isn’t tied to any meaningful facts, it acts as a blank canvas on which to draw a conclusion–a totally misguided, meaningless, baseless conclusion.
David,
“What is the point of the teen birthrate metric?”
Like I explained before, it’s part of the social demographics with which organisations like the UN and Unicef determine the developement status of a country. Others are post-natal deaths, access to health care, people with a high school diploma, etc.
The US could very well be the richest country in the world with the most technological innovation in the world; if those social demographics are not beneficial enough the US would still be considered a Third World country, with all consequences associated.
Also, like I explained before, if a social demographic like teen births is too high the US (or better, health care institutions in the US) would not qualify for certain funds by the UN, the WHO, Unicef or other institutions. Also. local governments would be very strongly stimulated to improve such demographics. For example, South-Africa was not eligable to host the 2010 World Championships Soccer untill their number of teen births and post-natal deaths were decreased by at least 10%. So it’s in every countries best interest to comply to the UN’s standards.