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:

There was silence when this abortion-related death was reported bit.ly/SY3IVB #WarOnWomen #prolife #ReproRights #Right2Life #M312

— BerthaWilsonMotion (@BerthaWilsonMtn) November 15, 2012

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.

CLARIFICATION:
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?

@jjhippie @anj_90 one article retracted but woman is still dead #M312 @fernhilldammit

— BerthaWilsonMotion (@BerthaWilsonMtn) November 15, 2012

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.