I know many conservatives here feel that the liberals (like myself) are too forgiving of liberal bias in the media . So I thought I'd share an article that was in today's Chronicle. Out of curiosity, I went to the actual website (in addition, there are websites for each local clinic). This is what I found: Regarding STDs : Regarding abortion : Regarding neuropeptide deficiency - no mention on this website and a google didn't yield anything useful (all I got was this). Given this administration's track record of political appointments, I was all too ready to believe the worst about Dr. Keroack. However, curiosity got the better of me and I went ahead and investigated the Chronicle's accusations. Although a quick glance reveals that A Woman's Concern is a blatantly faith-oriented clinic, they do not make the claims that the Chronicle attributes to them. I would prefer anyone in the Department of Health and Human Services to have a more secular approach to science and health, but I find it petty and counter-productive to fraudulently demonize someone with an opposite viewpoint. This kind of sloppy reporting only increases the already dangerous animosity that conservatives have toward the press and makes a real dialogue about issues more difficult. A major newspaper should know better, and I'll be sending them an email. Thoughts? [EDIT] I probably should add that as a liberal, this article gives me nothing useful to protest the appointment of Dr. Keroack, whose faith-based approach to health concerns me somewhat. Not being an expert of abortion or STD, I have no idea if the actual claims made on the website are correct. Nor does the article indicate how Dr. Keroack has distanced himself from the website's claims. All I have are a couple of bunk accusations - this is crap reporting.
Be careful here. I did a search for "may face an eight times greater risk of contracting breast cancer by age 45" on Google, and the first thing that comes up is a brochure from that organization. So while the website may something different, this page says exactly what was reported: http://www.awomansconcern.org/images/health_and_safety_2006.pdf It may be a bit misleading, but there are multiple sources here. There may very well be places other than the website where they make the claims the article cites.
Keroack is a nutbag, I've seen that reported in a lot of places, and the fact that a guy who thinks contraceptives are evil and immoral is Bush's nominee for family planning is like making Rick James (RIP) head of the DEA...(or John Bolton as UN ambassador): It just doesn't work. In reality it will have little practical effect - save as a giant "f you" by the administration to piss people off by appointing more hard right wingers despite the message the voters delivered a few weeks ago. Edit: It appears that most of the research from the chron article comes from the Slate article it attributed as a source, btw: http://www.slate.com/id/2154249/?nav=ais I don't see how you get "fraudulently demonize"; the Slate article contains hyperlinks to all of its sources. For example, Keroack's bizarre theories on the neuropeptide deficiency are pretty well documented, and a little googling reveals that it comes from an article he wrote called "bonding imperative" that is cited by both right wing and left wing websites.
I did a little searching and found a page that lists many studies that go both ways on abortion increasing the risk of breast cancer. LINK Now, since looking at the link Major provided revealed that the brochure stated, "One study found that teenagers under the age of 18 who abort at eight weeks of pregnancy or later may face an eight times greater risk of contracting breast cancer by age 45." (emphasis in original) I would not have too much of a problem with it, and would further agree with the original poster that the original article has a noticable slant.
As one who believes there is a liberal bias in the media, I feel it necessary to point out that this is an editorial. It's supposed to be biased. The facts in any editorial should be taken with a grain of salt and researched if you want to determine their accuracy. Bias as opinion is one thing. It's more dangerous when it's disguised as fact.
It's slant was to borrow from the slate article, which fully sources (and hyperlinks) all of the claims, including the discredited link between breast cancer and abortion: You can find "studies that go both ways" that say the Moon landing was faked. Ignoring one doesn't make one "slanted", unless being "slanted in favor of truth and accuracy" is a crime (which is actually what the Bush administration frequently argues with regard to the media...)
SM - that is a heavily biased site you linked to. There is no doubt some veracity to the claim (thus the term may) But it's rather dubious to rely on claims from an organization that utilizes claims from the following "medical groups" as justification: National Physicians Center for Family Resources Catholic Medical Association American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists EDIT: Here is the link Anyone see a conflict of interest here?
I stand corrected, though I would have expected some weight be given to studies published in the American Journal of Pulic Health, American Journal of Epidemiology, British Journal of Epidemiology, etc. The three I listed are all peer reviewed journals, which I know means something in engineering, but i guess may not be as weighty in medicine.
It's worth a lot in medicine to be peer-reviewed, and that's why I said there is quite possible some veracity to the claim, albeit with very strong contention.
Not to mention that the Chronicle tends to lean right. I remember an article just before the mid-term's with the headline of something like, "Voting for Democrats is bad for Texas." The article...not editorial...was on the front page. Basically it spoke of if the Dems were to win power of Congress, all of the Texans with leadership roles would have those roles severly diminished. While the statement is true, it was a huge above-the-fold headline that wreaked of propaganda.
Those are as rock solid as Epi journals get. That said the peer reviewer's job is to evaluate the scientific quality of the study in isolation, not whether the outcome is political favorable or favorable to a particular interest (a drug company hoping their drug looks better than others for instance). Those webcites clearly are cherry picking the results that reinforce their point of view (scaring others) without disgussing the risks of alternatives (e.g., the much greater risks of carrying a baby to term, the much greater risks of acquiring STDs, particularly more fatal ones, without condoms). On chance alone if there are thousands of studies on such questions, which there likely are, it isn't hard to find some fluke findings that support their point of view and highlight them. So to cherry pick the few studies, even if done by reputable peer reviewed journals that aim to evaluate the science of a particular study, dataset and analysis, not whether the study result reinforces a point of view or interest, is very misleading. Such cherry picking is exactly where phrases like Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics, come from.
