Roe v Wade is on deck

[thebeave]

This "research" reminds me of study done back in the '90s. A radio show host, of a seriously feminist program, asked her audience to send her a card or letter saying whether they were happy in their marriage or not.
According to her research, 78% of American women were unhappy in their marriage. Which she proceeded to talk about extensively on her program.
Tom

I think you're confusing two different things. What you described just above is what I've always known as an "unscientific survery". It boasts of a numerical answer (78%) that is obtained through inappropriate, self selecting methods, and as such, is not a reliable result. You are correct in being skeptical of the numerical results obtained in this case. The survey (of the 28 women) in question was not attempting to reach any sort of quantitative conclusion, AFAIK. Its merely a collection of anecdotal experiences of multiple women who have had third trimester abortions. Its been a while since I read it all the way through (in fact, I think I was the one who originally discovered this survery about two years earlier in this thread), but I don't recall any statistical conclusions about it regarding the ubiquitesness of 3rd trimester abortions or other quantitative conclusions. Whether some/all of the 28 women are lying is another issue. Perhaps a small percentage are, but I would suspect most are relaying an accurate account.

 

[laughing dog]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

My guess is you haven’t ready the paper because if you had, you wouldn’t make such an error.

You are correct, I have completely ignored such a poorly done bit of "research".
Tom

Props for the pride in the willful ignorance . All that is missing is “Fuckin’ ay”.

 

[Emily Lake]

Edit: it's also very interesting with respect to Hypocrisy and the CAS review that a very large number of much more vetted, statistically valid studies were run and rejected under much thinner rationale (a lack of double blinding) including a large variety of case study in *exactly in difficult collection environments*, and yet somehow, those rejections are valid and yet mine isn't

1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.

Lying for Jesus is quite common. I posted one example here.

What the hell does that have to do with the Cass report?

It has to do with the quality of the people being interviewed.

Also

As researchers and pediatric clinicians with experience in the field of transgender healthcare, we read the Review with great interest. The degree of financial investment and time spent is impressive. Its ability to publish seven systematic reviews, conduct years’ worth of focus groups and deeply investigate care practices in the UK is admirable. We hoped it would improve the public’s awareness of the health needs of transgender youth and galvanize improvements in delivery of this care. Indeed, statements of the Review favorably describe the individualized, age-appropriate, and careful approach recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society.3 Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious, debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process and recommendations.

(Emphasis in source)

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

Well that’s an interesting bit of bullshit. Cass didn’t do any reviews or focus groups. She and her team reviewed studies that had already been published, most by pro-trans groups.

I find it intriguing how so many people have such strong opinions about the Cass review… when it’s glaringly obvious that they didn’t read the report.

For example… in a previous discussion, Jarhyn clearly hadn’t read the report, or any of the research that Cass reviewed. Rather, he’s getting all of his opinions from a blogger with no clinical knowledge or under, but who clearly has a strong bias.

 

[Emily Lake]

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

So much this.
I personally think that lots of ugly behavior gets covered up by aborting the evidence. Nevertheless, the worst problem with RvW is that it's not law. I really wish it had been made federal law 20 years ago.
Tom

I want to be grateful that the Respect for Marriage Act passed when it did, but the fact that they didn't use that legislative window to protect the rights of American women as well makes me feel a little gross. Like when a bad parent rewards the good kids to punish the naughty one. Apparently we were the more palatable minority that month? Maybe the powers that be were already planning ahead to jettison trans folks from LGB protections, and that was the opening bribe...

I know you didn’t mean it that way but in your analogy, women are the naughty children. You’re the good kid.

It’s just that pervasive.

At this point I’m no longer surprised. Actual real women are pretty much at the bottom of the priority list. Any other possible group of people is always more important.

 

[Emily Lake]

RvW but… as an actual federal law.

Yep, totally a problem with my view.

So much this.
I personally think that lots of ugly behavior gets covered up by aborting the evidence. Nevertheless, the worst problem with RvW is that it's not law. I really wish it had been made federal law 20 years ago.
Tom

I want to be grateful that the Respect for Marriage Act passed when it did, but the fact that they didn't use that legislative window to protect the rights of American women as well makes me feel a little gross. Like when a bad parent rewards the good kids to punish the naughty one. Apparently we were the more palatable minority that month? Maybe the powers that be were already planning ahead to jettison trans folks from LGB protections, and that was the opening bribe...

I think it was less about who, but what. Dems pass the ACA and get crucified in the mid-terms. Imagine what would have happened with protecting abortion rights... when it wasn't even necessary to do because it was the law of the land because SCOTUS said so. Passing the act wouldn't have changed anything. Just added what SCOTUS would have needed to shred later.

Sure, sure, passing ERA at any point in the last 60 years would totally have been bad for Deems.

Or, you know, men I guess.

 

[Emily Lake]

You ASSUMING that survey respondents are lying

No, I'm assuming that we cannot guarantee they are telling the truth. A lack of trust is different from a trust of lack.

Did you even bother...

I can infer from the structure of the study, the known issues with that format, and the well-understood consequences of how certain conclusions cannot be reached or supported from such positions.

From there, I reject specifically any such conclusions.

Then you’re swamped by your own bias. You’ve assumed an objective that isn’t present, and a motivation in opposition to the stated interests of the author.

Rejecting data because you IMAGINE it’s bad is the worst sort of echo chamber behavior.

Because these include most conclusions, and because these are the conclusions you are attempting to reach, the study in this context is "unscientific trash".

And what conclusions do you IMAGINE the authors reached? What in their methodology makes it “trash”? So far as I can tell, your idea of “unscientific trash” is anything you disagree with, and “solid scientific results” is whatever agrees with your pre-existing beliefs.

You, sir, are an ideological zealot.

Spoiler: Off-topic and why is it being brought back in when it was already split to its own thread just a day or two ago?

And as has been discussed, sex in mammals is a bunch of different traits, some of which are nonbinary, and which seem to like to hide together in trenchcoats.

In data science terms, that's more like a data structure composed of enumerations, integers, and floating point values. It's about as far from binary as can be

You’re so far beyond wrong I don’t know where to start.

It’s amazing how this cluster of totally non-binary traits loosely clustered together has resulted in every single mammal and bird on the plan having been born as the result of a sexual encounter between a female and a male, and absolutely no other sex ever in millions of years.

Once again, your borderline religious belief in things that you desperately want to be true doesn’t actually alter reality.

 

[Toni]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

Well the study asked for respondents who had a particular experience.

What did you expect? Cold calling women to ask if they’d had a third trimester abortion? THAT woukd get you a lot of ideologically driven falsehoods for sure. Likely from men.

 

[Toni]

Anyone can have their doubts about veracity.

Especially when it's based on 28 self selected respondents concerning a hot political topic.
I certainly do.
Tom

My guess is you haven’t ready the paper because if you had, you wouldn’t make such an error.

I would not put money on that.

 

[ZiprHead]

Edit: it's also very interesting with respect to Hypocrisy and the CAS review that a very large number of much more vetted, statistically valid studies were run and rejected under much thinner rationale (a lack of double blinding) including a large variety of case study in *exactly in difficult collection environments*, and yet somehow, those rejections are valid and yet mine isn't

1) Cass not CAS. The name of the doctor overseeing the investigation is Dr. Hillary Cass

2) They used well-established methods of evaluating the quality of research, standards that existed well before this undertaking. Dr. Cass lowered the bar to include medium and medium-low quality research so that more were included than would normally have been accepted. Only low-quality research was rejected. Which you would know if you bothered to read it yourself instead of getting all your information from highly biased activists who conform to your pre-existing beliefs. Dr. Cass accepted research of a quality that you yourself in this thread have rejected as not acceptable.

You, sir, are a raging hypocrite.

Lying for Jesus is quite common. I posted one example here.

What the hell does that have to do with the Cass report?

It has to do with the quality of the people being interviewed.

Also

As researchers and pediatric clinicians with experience in the field of transgender healthcare, we read the Review with great interest. The degree of financial investment and time spent is impressive. Its ability to publish seven systematic reviews, conduct years’ worth of focus groups and deeply investigate care practices in the UK is admirable. We hoped it would improve the public’s awareness of the health needs of transgender youth and galvanize improvements in delivery of this care. Indeed, statements of the Review favorably describe the individualized, age-appropriate, and careful approach recommended by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and the Endocrine Society.3 Unfortunately, the Review repeatedly misuses data and violates its own evidentiary standards by resting many conclusions on speculation. Many of its statements and the conduct of the York SRs reveal profound misunderstandings of the evidence base and the clinical issues at hand. The Review also subverts widely accepted processes for development of clinical recommendations and repeats spurious, debunked claims about transgender identity and gender dysphoria. These errors conflict with well-established norms of clinical research and evidence-based healthcare. Further, these errors raise serious concern about the scientific integrity of critical elements of the report’s process and recommendations.

(Emphasis in source)

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

Well that’s an interesting bit of bullshit. Cass didn’t do any reviews or focus groups. She and her team reviewed studies that had already been published, most by pro-trans groups.

Apparently you didn't look at how the study was conducted. The Yale University team did.

The Review heard from the diverse range of voices that were relevant to its work and conducted a wide-ranging stakeholder engagement programme, alongside its research programme, to ensure that the full spectrum of relevant evidence, research and opinion was taken into account.

The engagement programme included weekly listening sessions, a series of focus groups, roundtable meetings and thematic workshops.

The Review considered all questions, submissions and comments sent to the Review inbox, however, it should be recognised that the Review was not a formal consultation and did not commit to respond to each individual comment submitted.

UK Government Web Archive

This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page https://cass.independent-review.uk/about-the-review/frequently-asked-questions/ looked like on 10 Mar 2025 at 14:39:54

webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk

I find it intriguing how so many people have such strong opinions about the Cass review… when it’s glaringly obvious that they didn’t read the report.

You just proved that you didn't read the report too.

 

[Emily Lake]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

In the event that a healthy woman 30 weeks pregnant decides to terminate her heathy fetus, I absolutely consider her a baby killer.

On the other hand, if there’s a medical risk to her, or if the developing baby is materially unhealthy, I consider that a tragedy.

Terminate her healthy fetus, or terminate her pregnancy?

Those are two very different things.

Terminating a fetus means the fetus dies. Terminating a pregnancy means the fetus is delivered at whatever stage of development it's at, pre-term or full term.

Suppose a 30 weeks pregnant woman is showing signs of sleep deprivation caused by pregnancy related insomnia and she wants a doctor to induce labor. Suppose initial treatment doesn't help and the insomnia persists. If a doctor agrees that premature delivery is safer for her and her fetus than waiting around a few more weeks and seeing what happens, are you going to call it an attempted murder if they go with the early delivery plan?

I wrote terminate her fetus, and that’s exactly what I meant. Your leap to an early delivery is an intentional red herring.

 

[Emily Lake]

Look at those two(???) "studies" (I find them about as fishy as a tuna boat) Emily posted. Both attempting to show some third trimester abortions are merely a choice.

Yeah, again you didn’t really read it, did you?

Some people here insisted that late abortions never ever happen unless it’s a life-threatening situation. I provided evidence that there do exist situations in which a healthy mother does abort a healthy fetus in the third trimester.

But not a single one was casual or light-hearted about it, nor have I claimed they were.

 

[Emily Lake]

t purports to be about why women had third trimester abortions.

You answer that with numbers, not with personal

The purpose was to understand the reasons for late abortions. Numbers don’t provide reasons.

But don’t let that slow you down. You don’t like what it says, therefore it must be bad.

 

[Emily Lake]

d you not notice that nothing in the study design ensured that they were actually talking to someone who had a third trimester abortion, let alone whether what she said matches up with reality.

It would have been trivial for outside actors to contaminate the data.

It would be trivial for you to read the purpose and the interview responses and the conclusion before deciding someone must be lying because you don’t like it.

 

[Emily Lake]

But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.

No, they were presented as evidence that late abortions without a medical necessity do, in actual fact, occur. In contradiction to those who continue to insist they never happen.

 

[Jarhyn]

But that's not what these purport to be. They are being presented as "proof" of on-demand third-trimester abortion.

No, they were presented as evidence that late abortions without a medical necessity do, in actual fact, occur. In contradiction to those who continue to insist they never happen.

Except that it doesn't, because liars for Jesus exist so as to claim such abortions.

Further, the claim is not that they never happen, but they happen exceedingly so exceedingly rarely that any burden to detect and prevent them and cast judgement and motherhood on those pesky slatterns is going to get a lot of women (and some men) killed.

But then, you are the veritable queen of "cures" worse than the "disease".

It's curious how that always seems to be an issue with you.

 

[Arctish]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

In the event that a healthy woman 30 weeks pregnant decides to terminate her heathy fetus, I absolutely consider her a baby killer.

On the other hand, if there’s a medical risk to her, or if the developing baby is materially unhealthy, I consider that a tragedy.

Terminate her healthy fetus, or terminate her pregnancy?

Those are two very different things.

Terminating a fetus means the fetus dies. Terminating a pregnancy means the fetus is delivered at whatever stage of development it's at, pre-term or full term.

Suppose a 30 weeks pregnant woman is showing signs of sleep deprivation caused by pregnancy related insomnia and she wants a doctor to induce labor. Suppose initial treatment doesn't help and the insomnia persists. If a doctor agrees that premature delivery is safer for her and her fetus than waiting around a few more weeks and seeing what happens, are you going to call it an attempted murder if they go with the early delivery plan?

I wrote terminate her fetus, and that’s exactly what I meant. Your leap to an early delivery is an intentional red herring.

No, it's not a red herring.

It's an intentional clarification so those two things don't get conflated.

There are those who hear "abortion" and think "kill a baby". It's mindless emotional knee-jerk assuming the worst about women who aren't virgins and for some reason don't carry a fetus to term. A lot of folks indulge in it regularly, especially conservatives.

If you mean terminate a fetus, then please provide examples where a fetus was terminated for what you think are good reasons and an example where one was terminated for what you think are bad reasons. And be specific, especially about the ones for bad reasons. Where and when did it happen, were there any alternative treatments considered or available, etc.

 

[Jarhyn]

let's give the competitive "elective" definition a rest, hmm?

I’d favor abolishing it altogether. Its only common use outside of its legitimate medical meaning, is to portray women who have abortions as baby killers.

In the event that a healthy woman 30 weeks pregnant decides to terminate her heathy fetus, I absolutely consider her a baby killer.

On the other hand, if there’s a medical risk to her, or if the developing baby is materially unhealthy, I consider that a tragedy.

Terminate her healthy fetus, or terminate her pregnancy?

Those are two very different things.

Terminating a fetus means the fetus dies. Terminating a pregnancy means the fetus is delivered at whatever stage of development it's at, pre-term or full term.

Suppose a 30 weeks pregnant woman is showing signs of sleep deprivation caused by pregnancy related insomnia and she wants a doctor to induce labor. Suppose initial treatment doesn't help and the insomnia persists. If a doctor agrees that premature delivery is safer for her and her fetus than waiting around a few more weeks and seeing what happens, are you going to call it an attempted murder if they go with the early delivery plan?

I wrote terminate her fetus, and that’s exactly what I meant. Your leap to an early delivery is an intentional red herring.

No, it's not.

It's an intentional clarification so those two things don't get conflated.

There are those who hear "abortion" and think "kill a baby". It's mindless emotional knee-jerk assuming the worst about women who aren't virgins and for some reason don't carry a fetus to term. A lot of folks indulge in it regularly, especially conservatives.

If you mean terminate a fetus, then please provide examples where a fetus was terminated for what you think are good reasons and an example where one was terminated for what you think are bad reasons. Then we can talk about the various reasons for terminating a fetus.

And this is what I just don't get... There have been plenty of opportunities for days and days and days for her to point out the "slatterns" of the bunch and judge them if she really thinks these studies contain any sort of evidence, well-poisoners or not, for abortions that need to be policed as her proposed policies of prying politicians would see happen.

I have yet to see any actual evidence presented that supports the claim that there's something going on possibly needing policing, and I'm not sure even being a psychopathic slattern is justification for policing. In fact I'm pretty sure it's not, though as Toni keeps pointing out, doctors generally won't perform those procedures.

*If it isn't apparent, I don't think that anyone should be called or considered a slattern or "slut". I just get the feeling that anyone trying to enforce consequences in the form of forcing them to gestate a human child is making those consequences just as bad for the human child and anyone doing so is devoid of empathy.

Seriously, what do you care even IF there were a store called Abortions-R-Us with a Super-Scooper plan where the tenth abortion is on the house, other than it seems a lot of trouble to go through when condoms and IUDs and tubal ligations are a thing, except where doctors gatekeep such procedures, and condoms aren't thought to be as fun

 

[Emily Lake]

The problem is that you are assuming a perfect system, we recognize it is an inherently flawed system.

I’m not assuming perfect, I’m seeking a reasonable and appropriate balance. Which seems like a better approach than your “we can’t make it perfect so we should have no rules at all” take on it.

 

[Emily Lake]

LD has stated that he supports a women deciding to abort three days prior to delivery for any reason. I respect that he has that opinion, but I very strongly disagree with it. At that point, I can't see an rational way in which it's not murder. There's a very broad range of gestation where it's gray, and I'm very happy to discuss where the optimal place to draw that line might be. I can be somewhat flexible on what specific stage of gestation should be chosen as the limit, and I'd prefer to err on the somewhat later end. But I'm not willing to pretend it's okay to kill a baby two weeks before delivery without a very solid medical reason to do so.

"Don't kill babies" seems like something that shouldn't have to be said.

What you don't understand is that this isn't actually the issue. I would be very surprised if he actually thought an abortion three days before birth was acceptable. Rather, we are looking at the failure modes. Leaving it up to the doctors--we have that "research" you cited, but it doesn't feel like proper scientific research. We have no credible reports of third trimester abortions other than due to defects. On the flip side we have already seen multiple women die because they could read between the lines and understood that was the intended outcome--they would be punished for doing the medically correct thing.

As evidenced by the hordes of women afraid to get needed medical care in the third trimester when RvW was in place? I’m sure you can show credible evidence that lots of women could read between the lines of RvW, right?

RvW didn't come with the gotcha that's taking over in the red states.

That has fuck all to do with my views, stop being disingenuous.

Last I knew Texas still refused to provide any medical guidelines, thus leaving the doctors in the position of shooing the women out to die.

So go fucking argue with Texas instead of trying to denigrate me for a view I don’t fucking hold.

 

[Emily Lake]

The decision should be left to the medical professional and the mother.

It seems blatantly obvious to me that the whole “question” goes away when we recognize that as the primary rule. It’s NOBODY ELSE’S BUSINESS.
Yes, I am saying fetuses have no say, and don’t need or deserve to be spoken for by parties other than parents and their chosen medical professionals.

And I will once again point out that the ramifications of of your stated position is that a woman can literally kill her perfectly healthy baby that poses no identifiable risk to her the day before it is due to be delivered.

I maintain that at that point, it is absolutely murder that you condone.