Thursday, 15 November 2012

This is *really* all they got

NOTE: See clarification below.

Totally predictably, the fetus fetishists are responding to the deliberate torture and inevitable death of Savita Halappanavar, with bleats of 'Butbutbut, women die of abortions too and the media ignores it!!!!'

Viz, Mrozek and on Twitter, Bertha Wilson Motion, who tweeted today:

Hilariously, the link leads to this (screen-capped for the click-resistant).

Two things.

1) Abortion in Canada is very safe, with a mortality rate of 1 per cent, oddly enough, the same as for appendectomies.

Funny, one doesn't see SHRIEEEEKING headlines about patients being butchered in BOTCHED (it is always 'botched') appendectomies, does one?

2) Scholarly papers are really rarely retracted.

Remember our pal, Perfesser of Home Economics and BAD Scientist for Hire, Priscilla Coleman?

She gets spanked for her fetus fetishizing BS so regularly that credible journals should run screaming from her submissions.

In July this year, RH Reality Check reported:
Earlier this year, an analysis by leading researchers completely discredited a key article used as "evidence" by the state of South Dakota and anti-choice supporters in their arguments to the 8th Circuit Federal Appeals Court supporting a law forcing doctors to tell women seeking to terminate a pregnancy that abortion is linked with higher risks of suicide and depression.

The researchers also called on the editors of the Journal of Psychiatric Research (JPR) in which the article was originally published in 2009 to retract the article, a step now under consideration by the editors, one of which cited the article's "serious deficiencies."
. . .
Sources indicate that the journal's editors, including Alan Schatzberg, editor-in-chief of JPR, are discussing a retraction of the Coleman paper, and RH Reality Check is awaiting a reply to an email to Dr. Schatzberg asking for clarity on the status of the retraction.
RH Reality Check promised to keep on it and I could find no further mention of it.

The point remains -- publications are really, really reluctant to say 'oopsie' and pull something they've supposedly vetted and had peer-reviewed.

It takes a colossal fuck-up or outright fraud on the level of Andrew Wakefield to get publishers to act.

One wonders what level of BS the retracted paper achieved. (ADDED LATER: See clarification below.)

Here's the conclusion of an abstract BWM also linked to on a study of one death from medical abortion.
The frequency of infection following medical abortion is low. The rapid and fatal course of this infection is similar to other obstetric and gynecologic cases reported in the literature. Although providers should remain vigilant to the possibility of infection following medical abortion, the overall proven safety of medical abortion remains the same.
Safe. Unlike taking oneself to an Irish hospital with a possible miscarriage.

Rash prediction: This tragic event, the recent signs of progress in Northern Ireland, plus the growing sulphurous stench around the Catlick Church in general will finally blast Ireland into the twentieth century. Won't be quick but it will happen.

I played a little fast and loose in the above post and got caught.

@BerthaWilsonMotion did post two links to what he clearly thought were two separate studies proving that women died from abortion too and that's totally equivalent to Sativa's egregious death-by-religion.

One study was retracted, so what?
Thing is, both links went to the same study, the abstract of which is available, NOT retracted.

It is in fact where I got the 'conclusion' I quoted above. Its main author is an abortion provider named Ellen Wiebe.

In my snarking at the fetus fetishist, whose approach to science is totally typical of the species, I implied that there was something fishy about Dr Wiebe's work.

There is not. I don't know why the one site categorizes it as retracted as it is still available at the original journal.

I apologize for my mischaracterization.

I did feel a bit squeamish about it though, which is why I quoted from it.

Now to the getting caught part.

Was I caught by some diligent fetish fetishist, who in a grand departure from her or his fellows checked my links?

Nope. I was caught by a better, more responsible blogger than I. The indefatigable Sixth Estate kindly contacted me in private so as not to embarrass me. Nonetheless, I got a well-deserved spanking.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is how blogging should be conducted.

Now I'm outing my bad behaviour and resulting spanking and publicly thanking Sixth Estate for his efforts to set me and the record straight.

And again, I apologize to Dr Wiebe and her team.


Anonymous said...

"Totally predictably, the fetus fetishists are responding to the deliberate torture and inevitable death of Savita Halappanavar, with bleats of 'Butbutbut, women die of abortions too and the media ignores it!!!!'"

The anti-choicers are also taking the 'moral high ground' by proclaiming that its a beautiful thing for a woman to die for her baby. They conveniently ignore the fact that woman dies, baby dies too! Which just goes to show they really aren't pro-life, just woman-hating misogynists who believe its a womans job to suffer and die in childbirth because of something Eve did with a fruit!

Sixth Estate said...

Given that the lead author on that article appears to be an abortion doctor, I'm prepared to bet a substantial sum of money that the article is not going to say everything the fetishists want it to say.

Godel Noodle said...

With respect to the safety of abortions, I ran across this, just yesterday.

If that intersects with any of your links, sorry about that. I checked for redundancy, but not thoroughly.

I hope your "rash prediction" is accurate! It sounds possible, but the current popularity of religion still blows me away. When I was younger, I thought it would vanish completely (outside the history books, of course) around this point in time. So clearly I'm no good at such predictions.

Beijing York said...

The more I think of Savita, the angrier I get. How dare that hospital impose their religious beliefs on that poor woman. I'm surprised they didn't call in a priest to perform extreme unction on the dying fetus.

I am thoroughly appalled that anyone who dealt with her is considered a licensed professional. Savita would have gotten better treatment going to a firehall and dealing with EMTs.

fern hill said...

That study was next on my list before this horrible story from Ireland blew up.

I was following a woman on twitter who was tweeting from a conference where it was being presented last week.

Sounds really interesting and I'm on it.

Thanks, GN.

fern hill said...

Funny, everyone assumed that the hospital is a Catholic hospital. It isn't. It is a university hospital.

Which just goes to show how pervasive the rot is in Ireland. Even doctors at non-Catholic hospitals are scared shitless.

Anonymous said...

If you check Libby Anne's blog, she has more information on the hospital where Savita died. It turns out that one of the professors at the hospital was involved and/or organised a medical meeting in Dublin, where they came to the conclusion that it was NEVER medically necessary to perform an abortion in order to save a woman's life.

Anonymous said...

Re: Point 1
I went to the linked report and the Canadian mortality rate from abortion is not 1 percent. The report states, "Canada also boasts what I believe is the lowest maternal mortality rate for early abortion in the entire world, 0.1 per 1000 abortions" or 1 one hundredth of a percent.

Keep up the good work.

choice joyce said...

I don't know why Ellen Wiebe's paper says retracted, but she is a well-respected abortion provider and researcher in Vancouver, so it would not be an example of bad science, there must be some other explanation.

The death happened in her trials of mifepristone back in 2001. Pregnant women are at risk of Clostridium sordellii infection because of the bacteria invading the vaginal tract after gynecological interventions. It occurs most commonly after childbirth, but also after miscarriages or abortions.

fern hill said...

Thanks for the correction. Decimal points are not my strong suit.

choice joyce said...

Btw, there's a huge difference between the rare ACCIDENTAL death after abortion (or any other medical procedure), and the DELIBERATE endangerment of women's lives due to religious pro-death ideology.

I've decided to stop using the term "anti-choice" because it's simply not strong enough to express what they really stand for.

fern hill said...

Here is a link to the relevant post. Eamon O'Dwyer is the guy. Will google further.

fern hill said...

Joyce's link. It's very common but rarely very serious. It is NOT what infected Savita.

Anonymous said...

Accessible, affordable abortions lower the risk of maternal death. Add education and the availability of contraception and the incidence of abortion decreases. Numbers don't lie. Savita was tortured to death by a backward, patriarchal culture. Shame on Ireland.


Anonymous said...

Yep, thats the guy Fern. From what I understand, he was also one of the nasty fellas who was using non-consensual symphysiotomy on women!

Námo Mandos said...

I won't quote what he said about one of the women who complained. (re the symphyisiotomies)

deBeauxOs said...

You could provide a link, so that we may confirm that our opinion of him as an odious gynophobe is correct.

Námo Mandos said...

Well, this was from the Daily Mail. The Men Who Butchered Us. Dude is quoted towards the end.

As I now understand it, the logic behind the symphysiotomy business was that C-sections can only be done four times, and it was held then that women who had a C-section would probably need one the next time. So a woman who has had her fourth child would have either to be celibate thereafter or use birth control. Since the latter is forbidden by the church, they were looking for an alternate procedure for the C-section that would remove a health-of-the-mother argument for birth control, because the symphysiotomy would in theory permit them to have more children...

deBeauxOs said...

Urgh. Sadly, not atypical of male obstetricians of that vintage.

Post a Comment