Last updated on 2011.12.05
The Eighth Circuit Court dealt a blow to women's rights last week in upholding South Dakota's 2005 misinformed consent law on abortion. Sarah Stoesz of our regional Planned Parenthood finds some cause for relief in the court's rejection of at least one of the lies our legislators tried to force down women's throats:
As the major medical organizations have found, and as the court agreed today, the scientific and medical evidence shows that women who choose abortion are not at increased risk for mental health problems [Sarah Stoesz, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, press release, 2011.09.06].
Steve Sibson blasts Stoesz and the courts as destroyers of at least Two Commandments and enthusiastically cites the latest lies from the Priscilla Coleman&ndashDavid Reardon bogus science factory:
A new study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry by leading American researcher Dr. Priscilla Coleman of Bowling Green State University finds women who have an abortion face almost double the risk of mental health problems as women who have their baby.
Coleman's study is based on an analysis of 22 separate studies which, in total, examine the pregnancy experiences of 877,000 women, with 163,831 women having an abortion. The study also indicated abortion accounts for one in ten of every adverse mental health issue women face as a whole [Steven Ertelt, "Abortion Increases Risk of Women's Mental Health Problems 81%," LifeNews.com, 2011.09.01].
I've documented previously that Coleman is notorious for sloppy methodology. Along with collaborator David Reardon, Coleman cranks out fraudulent analysis intended solely to give the American Taliban rhetorical ammunition. More than half of the articles in Coleman's meta-study have either her or Reardon as an author.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists agrees that Coleman's latest article isn't the grand triumph of science Sibby wants us to believe it is:
Three previously published systematic reviews and the RCOG guideline development group (who reviewed all available literature up to February 2011) have concluded that women who have an abortion are not at increased risk of mental health problems when compared with women who continue an unintended pregnancy and have a baby.
One of this paper's findings points to increased substance misuse and suicidal behaviours among the groups of women. What this research does not fullyexamine is if these women had pre-existing mental health complications such as dependency issues and mood disorders before the abortion [Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, "RCOG statement on BJPsych paper on mental health risks and abortion," 2011.09.01].
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, which publishes the journal carrying Coleman's latest trickery, provides plenty of evidence that her meta-analysis includes lots of shaky data:
As luck would have it, 21 of the 22 studies included in Coleman's paper were assessed and graded by RCPsych in its review &ndash one study, a 2009 paper by Priscilla Coleman, does not appear anywhere in the RCPsych review, not even in the list of excluded studies, which suggests that it failed to meet any of RCPsych's inclusion criteria.
Of the 21 studies that were graded, only 1 study was graded as "˜Very Good' and this contributed only 1 of the 36 results included in Coleman's paper. Nine studies were graded as being of "˜Fair' quality, five were graded as being "˜Poor', one was graded "˜Very Poor' and five were ungraded and excluded from all three analyses because their either failed to provide any usable data or because they used an inappropriate method of assessing/measuring mental health throughout ["Garbage In,
Bulls*** Out," Ministry of Truth, 2011.09.07].
Just the fact that we have to take time to shout back at such fraudulent science is a small victory for the Colemans, Reardons, Sibsons, and Unruhs. But we can't stop shouting. We must continue to fight this regime of fraud and and moral oppression that will use any means necessary to pervert the Constitution into their puritanial world order.
Update 21:47 MDT: Sibby responds that I'm the one perpetuating injustice on women. I raise an eyebrow and invite further comment.
Words to describe people who oppose abortion and believe it the killing of a defenseless human being:
"American Taliban": Considering we are a nation at war with the Taliban, isn't it a bit over-the-top to compare people with whom you disagree with our enemies in war?
"moral oppression": Is desiring your government protect the defenseless moral oppression?
"pervert the Constitution": If you believe all persons deserve protection, is advocating for protection for the defenseless a perversion? Argue this baby is not a person if you want but to compare Pro-Life advocates to sex offenders. . . .
"their puritanial world order.": If you knew personally very many Pro-Life advocates, to dismiss the entire group as puritanical is not fair.
Cory, Why didn't you also use the label, "Tea Party Zombies"?
Cory,
And I don't have to rely solely on science on this issue. Instead I listen to those who have had abortions.
For those who want to hear from Priscilla Coleman on this issue, here is a link and her concluding paragraph:
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/253296/misinformation-and-naivety-abortion-and-mental-health-priscilla-k-coleman
Any interpretation of the available research that does not acknowledge the strong evidence now available in the professional literature represents a conscious choice to ignore basic principles of scientific integrity. The human fallout from such a choice: misinformed professionals, millions of women struggling in isolation to make sense of a past abortion, thousands who will seek an abortion today without the benefit of known risks, and millions who will make this often life-altering decision tomorrow without the basic right of informed consent. In publishing Major’s opinion without soliciting other voices on the topic, the Washington Post has perpetuated a serious injustice.
Troy I am disappointed in you. All you did was return the insult volley. Is the Coleman info valid or not?
Troy, I stand by every word I said. Coleman and Reardon are committed to biased, misleading research that drives an agenda that leads to something that is accurately described as an American Taliban regime, where the Constitution is twisted to grant "citizenship" or "personhood" to a totally dependent entity to which women are rendered subservient as puritanical punishment for unapproved sex. Those aren't just labels; those are the words that most accurately describe what Coleman, Reardon, the Unruhs, and, alas, Sibby are trying to perpetrate.
And the Coleman info remains invalid. She's a liar, as is Reardon.
I really don't see that there is much to argue about here. To the degree that there are health risks in any medical course of action, doctors should appraise their patients of them. But at the same time, doctors should not be compelled to say things to their patients that they don't believe to be true. In either case, I wouldn't leave it up to Sibby or Troy or Cory or myself to make that determination. We're not doctors.
Neither is Priscilla Coleman. Neither is David Reardon.
Exactly, Cory. Exactly. It is the doctor's job to advise the patient. And that relationship is as confidential as that of the priest and the penitent, or the lawyer and his client.
The sign of intelligence is an overt capacity to entertain new thoughts or at least give them respect. Cory, next time you get called 'commie' or Socialist, remember you had a chance to backtrack. If you can call me part of the American Taliban, do not think I owe you the slightest decorum and respect.
You would not get near my kids or grandkids much less teach them.
No, Troy, this is not some debate about being open to new ideas or name-calling. You don't get to shield Coleman's deceptions by distracting folks with questions about my character. Coleman and Reardon produce sham science with the intent of supporting a political agenda that I can justifiably liken to the oppression on women wrought by the Taliban. Such sham science deserves no respect; it deserves to be held to the light, debunked and excoriated.
My response to such sham science poses no threat to your kids or grandkids. I would suggest it makes me a better teacher, as I won't fall for the namby-pamby value-free tolerance of everything that made me uneasy with the multicultural agenda of my education classes in the early 1990s.
Besides, we don't talk much about abortion in French class.
Ah yes the gods of the left...doctors and scientists. You elitists need to stop and listen to the "people". Being ruled by experts is a form of tyranny.
Cory, you have not responded to Coleman's defense that I linked to. Sad that APA has to be the god we have to worship in order instead of having a discussion on the harmful impact abortion has had on those who have suffered through them. And it is even more sad that those experiences are ignored by those who profit from this misguided practice. It is even more sad that they attack those who strive to warn future victims.
But this is what we get when we allow the British New Age theocracy to be established here in America. In case you don't know what I am talking about here, google "Theosophy". If you want to take your research deeper then link Blavatsky to Hitler. I even saw the tie in on the History channel yesterday.
Sibby, the rebuttal of Coleman's hypothesis is quite clear in the very link she provides at the beginning of her article. She offers nothing new to reinforce her claim that there is a cause and effect relationship between abortion and a woman's subsequent mental health.
She might as well say that abortion causes diabetes or obesity since a significant segment of any population (including women who had abortions) suffer from those afflictions as well.
In addition, there is the distinct possibility that some women have mental problems after an abortion, not so much because of the procedure, but rather because people who think like you do drive them nuts.
Bill,
You and Cory can continue to argue that those who seek abortion have a higher level of mental illness than those who don't. It is an interesting point.
Not sure if that's what the data says, Steve, but if it does, yes, it would be an interesting point. And a valid reason to seek an abortion. (The health of the mother.)
"And a valid reason to seek an abortion."
If the data says that, then no the abortion does not cure the mental illness. It does not validate killing children for the immoral decisions of their parents.
Never said it did, Sibby. Ethically speaking, do you believe that becoming pregnant should be a conscious decision? Do you believe that people with mental health problems are immoral?
Bill, you are twisting things like normal.
You and Cory argue that the higher level of mental illness in post-abortive women was a pre-existing condition, so that explains Coleman's research does not show abortion caused the higher level of mental illness. Are now backing off on that? How about you Cory?
I'm questioning the cause and effect relationship, Sibby, that's not twisting it's pretty straightforward. A person who doesn't feel mentally competent to become a parent could, in good conscience, choose not to have children. A person who was really out of it could perhaps not even know she was with child for several months. Perhaps not even remember having sex. It happens. So, what's your point?
Cory,
If you feel justified in calling people names in the abortion debate because you disagree with this research and dismiss the merits of the abortion debate wholesale, I guess you won't blame me if I consider the entire climate change debate bull dung because it is documented much of the research was fraudulent.
Whether this study is accurate or not (I don't have time to analyze it) or if it didn't exist, it wouldn't affect my views on this issue as to me it is a simple civil rights issue: whether our government is going to allow the killing of defenseless human life. But, the climate debate is based on information we have documentation the numbers were fudged to justify a certain assessment about global warming.
And, just as Fleming is quick to point out, the first person who calls another person a Nazi loses, so it is with the Taliban. Both are groups Americans on all sides of virtually every issue knows Nazi's and Taliban are reprehensible. And, to resort to this caricature, you lose.
I'm with Troy on the name calling. It's counterproductive.
That said, we all know that there are those who approach this issue rationally, and those who are more extreme in both their ideation and their behavior.
There have even been instances of terrorism around it.
I think it's better that we all agree to renounce such behavior than it is to wrongly accuse one another of it.
I don't get that Troy is either as misogynist nor as militant as either the Taliban or some of his fellow anti-abortionists are. So it would be reasonable of you to take offense if you felt you had been so maligned by virtue of a sweeping generalization. Or you could just ignore it because you know that Cory wan't talking about you. That way you don't put yourself in the awkward position (as I so often do) of having to defend he indefensible out of principle.
"It happens."
Bill, to what frequency relative to the population in question?
And Bill, does your point then move the government to force abort children of women who are deemed "mentally ill"...for the common good?
Thanks Bill, I think. Your comment could be interpreted that you think (while not as bad as the Taliban), I am somewhat mysognist, somewhat militant. :)
But here is how "unproductive" it is.
1) If I would have been inclined to read/analyze his point about the study, do you think I am after being compared to the Taliban, being for perverting the Constitution, and being puritanical (which to call me that is a joke).
2) Cory more than anyone on the blogosphere with righteous indignation whenever he is called out and called names. Even more than those he loves to blast (Ellis/Sibby).
Steve:
1. I don't know.
2.No.
Troy,
Sorry if I didn't put that sentence together very well, Troy. From my conversations with you, I don't think you are either misogynist or militant.
As to your points:
1) So apparently, you have decided to take Cory's point personally. Do you think he was referring specifically to you? In the old days, Sibby used to call me (specifically) a "baby-killer" sometimes when we would discuss this issue. He also said I was anti-life, and pro-abortion. I would counter that I was none of those things. Was Sibby right?
2) Are you missing a verb here?
Peace brothers.
1) Actually, I am more alarmed that anyone really would have the temerity accuse anyone of being "Taliban" considering the reprehensiveness of the Taliban, especially if they want/expect respect.
2) yes. reacts, whines, goes ballistic all work
There are worse things one could be called, Troy. The Taliban think theirs is a Holy cause. I don't agree with them, of course, but their faith is practically unassailable. They believe they are bound by scripture to behave the way they do. They don't think of themselves as being evil. They think we are.
"2.No."
Bill,
Then be careful on what you support.
And to clarify my past discourse, it may be off base to call one a baby-killer, but an abortion kills a baby.
Okay, Sibby, I will (be careful).
And yes, abortion kills a baby, to the degree you accept the definition of the word "baby" to include zygotes, blastocysts, embryos and fetuses (which many people do).
But I personally have ever killed any of those things (at least not in human form... I took our cat in to get "fixed" and it turned out that she was full of little embryonic kittens when they did it. It was kind of sad).
One curious part of this debate to me has been the fact that anti-abortion folks will call people who advocate for women's rights baby-killers, and they will call doctors who perform abortions baby killers and even murders, but most of them will refuse to call women who have the abortions murderers and/or baby killers.
So far, I've not seen one piece of legislation willing to do that.
Why do you suppose that is, Sibby?
"but most of them will refuse to call women who have the abortions murderers and/or baby killers.
So far, I’ve not seen one piece of legislation willing to do that.
Why do you suppose that is, Sibby?"
Because as the research we are debating shows, the women are also victims.
Victims of what, Sibby? It would seem to me that if they are compelled by law to do something with their reproductive system and as a consequence, run the risk of pregnancy complications and death against their will, THEN they would be victims.
Isn't that what you are ultimately proposing, Steve? ...to victimize women by ordering them to comply with your religious beliefs as they regard pregnancy and childbirth?
"death against their will"
Yes Bill, too many women wake you to the fact that they killed their child and against the child's will. And why? Because it was legal and they were coerced by those who made money on it.
There's that paranoia and know-it-all attitude again Steve. We've already established that you have little (if any) direct experience in this area. What makes you think you know how women's decisions in these matters are made?
"What makes you think you know how women’s decisions in these matters are made?"
I listen to them instead of the ideological baised so-called experts.
Bill, what is your direct experience?
Theology is unbounded by the facts. Article on neurotheology: http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/12/24/the-future-of-neurotheology/
Like you, I have no direct experience of being a woman, Sibby. I do however, have a wife, three daughters, three grand daughters, a niece, and a mother-in-law. And there is consensus among us that their health and reproductive choices are none of your business or mine. If they need our help, they will ask for it.
"Like you, I have no direct experience of being a woman, Sibby."
On this thread I am agreeing with a women and you are disagreeing. So your argument actually supports my position, and discredits yours, Cory's and any other pro-abortion male.
I'm astonished that only men (I am one) seem to be commenting here. Women don't need men to preside over their sexuality or health care choices.
That said, I'm grateful for anyone who calls out Coleman's bogus "science".