I'm amazed that this old canard still has legs, but once again our reliable JAPS is cited--twice
The JAPS (or JPANDS) abortion/cancer study was ably fisked by a couple of folks at ScienceBlogs:
http://scienceblogs.com/
insolenc...e_chicago_t.php
(Be sure to follow the links in the Addenda so as not to miss any of the fun).
Eamon: Many thanks! I've corrected the acronym, but I have no idea how they came up with "JPANDS."
This has got to be the ultimate abortion myths & canard-debunking blog post.
Bookmark-worthy and more - hell! - this post could be held up as the standard to which Wikipedia entries should aspire
Thanks, dBO; I'll assume you meant that last as a compliment. : )
I hesitated, because most Wikipedia fall several kliks below any standards, but imagine if they were as thoroughly researched as your blog post?
Ah, that's better. : )
I read Martinuk's column (published as an editorial!) in the Calgary Herald yesterday. I was suspicious of her claims on general principles but decided I should look up the studies myself before dismissing what she said.
I've spent today doing that and eventually one of my searches led me to your post, which would have saved me a lot of time if I'd found it first.
It's certainly hard to believe that she is innocently misrepresenting the facts. Especially given her background in medical research.
The only thing that makes me think she might not be deliberately deceiving her readers is her claims about Morgentaler. It seems odd to me that anyone would lie about those because they're easy for anyone to check (a good number of people probably remember the events they're based on).
I wonder if Martinuk copied her "evidence" against abortion and Morgentaler from an anti-abortion source. Of course that only shifts the question of whether dishonesty or stupidity is at work to another party.
Btw, Dr. Dawg, do you have a copy of the College of Ontario Physicians and Surgeons study? I couldn't access it, but I did find out that it included a control group in addition to the clinic and hospital groups of abortion recipients. Unfortunately, I didn't learn who the controls were - women who gave birth, women in general, ?? If the controls were women who gave birth, then the figures Martinuk gives might be valid. Even the first time I read the piece, I noticed and was annoyed that she didn't specify, higher than what, when she claims that abortion recipients' have higher rates of hospitalization.
Hello, plum:
I am blessed with a university account that let me access most of the papers quoted. The Ontario College study, as noted, is here: "Health Services Utilization After Induced Abortions in Ontario: A Comparison Between Community Clinics and Hospitals," Ostbye, T., et al., American Journal of Medical Quality, Vol. 16, No. 3, 99-106 (2001)
The control group, and I quote, was "[a]n age-matched cohort of 39,220 women who did not undergo induced abortion...selected from the same data source to serve as controls." The reason for this was to provide a general comparison of post-treatment utilization of health services in clinics and hospitals by abortion and non-abortion patients, the latter serving as a benchmark. A comparison of a comparison, if you like.
I'll just bet she is friends with "Dr. (and he's using that term illegally) Charles McVety."
plum:
I find on closer inspection that the control group was (of course) not merely for an internal clinic/hospital comparison, but (obviously) as a control against abortion patients in both venues.
Indeed, the rates of postabortion health services utilization were higher than in the control group regradless of site of service. I'll be posting a clarification shortly.
Just a couple of random thoughts:
1. I'm grateful that you acknowledged Quackwatch as an authoritative "Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions". I've been a fan of Dr. Barrett for years -- ever since I read his book, "Multiple Chemical Sensitivities", which exposed this "disorder" as almost always due to psychological problems.
Dan Gardner is doing a great job in his recent Ottawa Citizen columns to expose similar irrational fears of pesticides.
2. I also appreciated your highlighting and linking to the 1988 Supreme Court Morgentaler abortion decision. If only more Canadians -- especially our politicians -- would read and understand that decision. It struck down Kim Campbell's abortion laws because of limitations on equal access by all women to abortions. But, in one of the majority decisions, Madame Justice Bertha Wilson made it clear (see p. 3
that women did not have an unfettered right to abortion; that the rights of the foetus superseded the mother's at the point in time; and that it was up to federal legislators to consult with relevant specialists to determine what that point in time was. "This view of the foetus supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages where the woman's autonomy would be absolute and a restrictive approach in the later stages where the states's interest in protecting the foetus would justify its prescribing conditions."
Our politicians -- presumably fearing the electoral consequences -- have never had the courage or decency to protect the foetal rights so clearly illuminated in this landmark decision. And we Canadians have not demanded the enforcement of those rights. A national disgrace, no?
3. More generally, I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful blog. When you write, you clearly have the last word on most topics: over 1/3rd of your June postings generated no comments and the other 30 or so generated fewer comments than a single posting by that ranter Levant.
I don't quite understand your last point. I published nearly sixty posts in June, and only 4 or so of those didn't attract comments. Maybe some remedial math? : )
On my computer, the first 12 of your 58 June postings show zero comments. 6 others sprinkled throughout the month also have no comments.
I noticed recently at Levant's site that there are often zero comments showing against a posting that is several hours old. But, then a short time later, there are scores of comments. I figured maybe he was moderating and approving them in bunches. Now, I'm wondering if it's my computer, my ISP, HaloScan or ...
Well, it appears to be Haloscan. It's been acting up terribly over the last three days or so. Currently the "edit" function doesn't even work.
If you check some of those "0 comments," you'll find quite a few. It's different with Ezra--he moderates, so quite a few accumulate. He clears them in bunches.
Incidentally, if traffic is the arbiter of quality, as you seemed to be suggesting, I'd be re-reading Mao's Red Book instead of Shakespeare. Just sayin'.
Indeed, traffic not a metric of quality. Sort of like NDP policies: inarguably sound but nevertheless unpopular. Life just isn't fair.
Dr Philip Ney is running for Parliament in my riding. I'm hoping he's at my polling station tonight as I think a knee in his balls would aptly express my summation of his policies.
Figuratively, I trust.
2 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
