Flaws found in liberal Catholic abortion study
UPDATE, 10/31, 8:20a:Dr. New’s longer analysis of the CACG study is available here.
_______________
During this election cycle a study on abortion released by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good has received plenty of attention from Democrats and Barack Obama supporters.
The spin is that state pro-life laws only have a small impact on abortion rates, and increasing welfare expenditures is the superior way to reduce abortion.
But in today’s National Review Online, Professor Michael New of the University of AL and the Witherspoon Institute identified – surprise – errors in the study’s methodology.
New conducted a proper analysis of the exact same data used by CACG and found pro-life laws – specifically public funding restrictions and informed consent laws – are effective at lowering abortion rates.
New also found the amount of money spent on welfare appears to have only a marginal impact on the incidence of abortion.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
So this is supposed to be a justification for what? Outlawing abortion and giving no support to women you are forcing to become mothers? That seems really Catholic.
Tooo funny, a fellow of the Witherspoon Institute with its ties to Opus Dei and the Family Research Council “used proper” methodology – by admittedly cherry picking which states should be excluded – but only after he’d seen the results of what including them did to the numbers. (so your underscored “using exactly the same data” is contradicted by the article itself). Looks like Jillann Jillanadana needs to issue a “Nevermind.”
And when Jill writes/copies that New used “proper” methods the question must be raised – has Jill suddenly had time to become a statistician that she would be able to judge proper from improper methodology?
“Jillan Jillanadana”… gotta laugh
Phylosopher, you ought to read my longer analysis of the Catholic Alliance for the Common Good study. It is available on the Witherspoon Institute website. It probably will not persuade you, but it goes into more detail than my NRO article.
http://www.winst.org
There is nothing wrong with excluding potentially biased data from an analysis like this. Furthermore, the data was not “cherry picked” All states that only reported those abortions performed in hospitals were excluded from the dataset.
Michael New
Assistant Professor
University of Alabama
P.S. I am also not a member of Opus Dei. I am not sure where you got that idea
Thanks for stopping by the blog, Prof. New.
If you are Michael New, then here are a few concerns about the article.
1) Due to the Hyde amendment – this entire analysis seems a bit skewed – or just plain pointless.
2) I’m not claiming to be a statistician, but the point that you excluded certain data after looking at the results run with that data is suspect. Jill Stanek’s inexpert claim that it was “proper” or your self analysis that your methodology is “proper” – Jill’s journalism skills are sadly lacking, so it’s hard to tell which was meant in the article – is meaningless. Especially given that it was done under the auspices of the Witherspoon Institute with it’s own set of suspect connections.
3) And as previously pointed out, (hmmm that post didn’t get through?) if you reread, then you will see that there was no allegation of you being a member of OD, rather that the WI has connections. And that came from Princeton’s Alumni Weekly.
I’ve read several studies that suggest that single mothers choose to give their children life when they have the option of things like welfare and assistance. Not giving women these things will not magically make them stay chaste.
Also seen at http://www.lifenews.com/nat4516.html
I love how Michael New claims that his method is right simply just because and that we should implicitly trust him because he is an “assistant professor”, as if that makes someone unbiased and the definition of truthiness.
Would those who argue pro-life laws only have a small impact on abortions also agree that gun laws only have a small impact on illegal guns?
Somehow I doubt it.
Phylosopher. I am indeed Michael New.
1) The Hyde Amendment is irrelevant to this analysis. The Hyde Amendment prevents *federal* funding of abortion through Medicaid. However, individual states can still choose to fund abortion through their Medicaid policies. Some states do, some states don’t.
2) The data I exclude falls into three categories, each of which is perfectly defensible.
A) States that do not report their data to the CDC (Not much of a choice here)
B) Data from states that only report abortions performed in hospitals (and exclude the majority of abortions which are performed in clinics).
C) Data from Kansas where 40 percent of abortions are performed on out of state residents. (The national average is around 8 percent)
Furthermore, the authors of the Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good chose to exclude certain datapoints from Florida, Louisiana, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. I am not going to accuse them of cherry picking, but their rationale for excluding data from these states was not clear.
3) I should have read your post a bit more carefully. However, when I do research, I never have any interest in misleading other pro-lifers. I am well aware of the financial limitations of the pro-life movement and I would not want to see valuable resources wasted on legislative strategies that do not work. Furthermore, I do not argue that all types of incremental pro-life legislation are effective. State level partial birth abortion bans do not seem to reduce abortion much and there is not much evidence to suggest that waiting periods reduce abortions either. I am clear about this in my research and my presentations.
Thank you Michael New.
Motherhood is a choice not something you enforce.
If a person does not to be a mother she simply 1. does not have sex or 2. Protects herself.
In now way is ABORTION supposed to be a substitute for the 2 adults responsibility to protect themselves.
Being Pro life in now way forces any woman to be a mother. It is the mother and father’s poor judgement and responsibility that makes them parents.
Unless you can include those Kansas figures elsehwere, or prove where those women came from and add it to their state totals, your response is still flawed.
Frankly, I will wait to read other comments on the studies and on your commnetary- which peer-reviewed journal will it appear in?
“State level partial birth abortion bans do not seem to reduce abortion much and there is not much evidence to suggest that waiting periods reduce abortions either. I am clear about this in my research and my presentations.”MJN
Which didn’t need much research to predict, since PBA’s were a tiny number of abortions to begin with.
But Mr. New, there is something that Jill’s readers (and Jill) would find much more interesting, I’m sure. Since they are so very interested in guilt by association. Please tell us your experience co-authoring a paper with Michele “McCarthy” Bachmann? Did you have to learn the secret I’m a “real” American handshake before she took your emails?
Do you think bringing back HUAC will stop abortions?
“State level partial birth abortion bans do not seem to reduce abortion much and there is not much evidence to suggest that waiting periods reduce abortions either. I am clear about this in my research and my presentations.”MJN
Phylosopher: Which didn’t need much research to predict, since PBA’s were a tiny number of abortions to begin with.
Right, and besides – now the fetus is cut up inside the womb, rather than having any body parts be brought out beyond the cervix. That’s what the law requires, but it wouldn’t necessarily affect the number of abortions.