Fun With Statistics

Jessica Valenti's upset about an HHS website that's been altered to inform readers that "Abortions can have complications. There may be emotional consequences, as well: some women say that they feel sad and some use more alcohol or drugs than before."

The real genius of this bit of trickery is that it is, of course, true. Given that a reasonable large number of abortions are performed each year, it would be astounding if "some" women didn't "use more alcohol or drugs" after their abortion than before it. Conversely, I'm willing to venture that "some" women use less. You could probably make this claim to come out however you want to. "Some" women who've had abortions become thieves, "some" get run over by buses, etc.

Photo by Flickr user Alcest99 used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

And some women who've had abortions feel compelled to misdirect their guilt onto others who might have the same experience, and dress it up as 'compassion.' Just sayin.'

Posted by EpicureanQuaker | July 12, 2007 1:01 PM

This is, of course, the same rhetorical move used by Justice Kennedy in Carhart II.

Posted by Glenn | July 12, 2007 1:02 PM

Given the gauntlet of hellfire-and-brimstone yelling some women need to cross to get to a clinic, I would doubt if rates of substance abuse post-operation would decrease.

Posted by bartkid | July 12, 2007 1:07 PM

Let's not lose sight of the most important statistic: "How many times did this HHS web page print George Bush's name?"

Posted by DanF | July 12, 2007 1:12 PM

Some women go on to productive, and sometimes heroic, careers in medicine or public safety, thereby eventually saving tens of thousands of lives. Think of all those who would die unnecessarily if lack of abortion availabilty resulted in a stunted or derailed education for these women?

Posted by steve duncan | July 12, 2007 1:13 PM

I don't think it's that controversial that abortions can cause women depression. I think challenging that statement is a bit silly.

I think a more valid point is that miscalculations about the emotional impact of abortion are minor compared to misinformation about the physiological consequences (some of it spread by abortion opponents - like abortion causes cancer). Thus, since the HHS website chose to summarize abortion in only a few lines, focusing on the emotional impact instead of giving a reasonable overview of abortion is absurd.

Posted by Jonathan | July 12, 2007 1:28 PM

Also, since pregnant women aren't supposed to consume alcohol or use drugs, it'd be totally unremarkable if women were, on average, more likely to use alcohol or drugs after an abortion.

Posted by Ed | July 12, 2007 1:37 PM

I don't think it's that controversial that abortions can cause women depression.

I'll concede that, if you will concede that its not controversial that not having an abortion can cause women depression. The real question, if you insist on talking about abortion and depression, is whether, on balance, banning abortions leads to less depression than allowing abortions. There is no evidence that is the case, as for example, Reagan's Surgeon General Everett Koop concluded.

Posted by rea | July 12, 2007 1:45 PM

blushing with embarrasment, and closing boldface

Posted by rea | July 12, 2007 1:46 PM

It is not a silly objection, because there is no study showing the "depression claim". One has to also consider post-partum depression after carrying pregnancy to term, and the psychological consequences of having an unwanted child (not least, to the child itself). Avoiding unplanned pregnancies is definitely a plus, avoiding abortion -- not so much.

HHS should not be in the bussiness of posting "health information" that is not supported by peer-reviewed studies.

Posted by piotr | July 12, 2007 1:49 PM

"Given the gauntlet of hellfire-and-brimstone yelling some women need to cross to get to a clinic..."

Where's this happening, Epicurean? After the feds hit abortion protesters with RICO charges, does this still happen anywhere? Or is this one of those ancestral memories lefties cling to?

My old hometown hosts one of the busiest abortion clinics in the NY Metro area -- happens to be right next door to a high-end steakhouse. On a Saturday (apparently the busy day there for abortions), you'll see a half-dozen or so forlorn-looking folks lingering outside the clinic, wearing sweats, smoking cigarettes, waiting for their loved ones (or liked ones) to finish the unpleasant business upstairs. But I've never seen anyone one yelling or protesting nearby.

Have you seen any 'gauntlet' at your local abortion clinic (if you've never noticed your local abortion clinic, the answer is probably "no")?

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 1:52 PM

Have you seen any 'gauntlet' at your local abortion clinic (if you've never noticed your local abortion clinic, the answer is probably "no")?

Yes, usually the same ten people. One of them was a Catholic priest who went on a rampage and rammed his car into the building and pulled out an axe and went after the guy who owned the building. The guy had a shotgun (for understandable reasons) and shooed him off. Priest got probation and the church promoted him out to Elgin.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 12, 2007 1:58 PM

It is not a silly objection, because there is no study showing the "depression claim".

If you go to HHS site the claim is actually cited to two studies, one by Medical Science Monitor, the other by the American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse.

I have no doubt an in-depth analysis of those studies may find problems with their methodology, but I haven't read them so I wouldn't know.

Posted by Dave White | July 12, 2007 2:02 PM

It's not even 'fun with statistics'; more like 'fun with existential quantifiers'.

Posted by jonathan weinberg | July 12, 2007 2:06 PM

I hardly think that I would choose an abortion clinic in New York City as representative of what women face at clinics around the country. We tend to be populated with plenty of lunatics here, but not so much of the evangelical rightwing abortionists-are-going-to-hell variety.

But, of course, your comment wasn't actually made in the spirit of honest debate, was it, Fred?

Posted by Glenn | July 12, 2007 2:07 PM

P.S.

I always thought at least the nutty Priest was morally consistent. If abortion is murder, his actions are unassailable. If you are going to condemn him you either really *don't* believe abortion is murder or you are a coward.

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 12, 2007 2:27 PM

It's not even 'fun with statistics'; more like 'fun with existential quantifiers'.

I wonder if I can persuade the U.S. Department of Transportation to include on their Web site the observation, "Driving an automobile can cause the death of a small child"?

Posted by RSA | July 12, 2007 2:29 PM

I live in liberal Massachusetts, and know a woman who had an abortion a few months ago at a suburban clinic on a Friday afternoon. There were about a dozen protesters within about 20 feet yelling at her and her boyfriend.

They didn't yell she was going to hell, but they were quite forceful in telling her it was wrong and not to go through with it.

Posted by Andruw | July 12, 2007 2:31 PM

I really have to applaud HHS's restraint. They would have been justified in stating that "All women who have abortions, die after the procedure is completed"

Posted by rk | July 12, 2007 2:35 PM

I had to visit a local abortion clinic with my wife after we had a miscarriage since, thanks to reasonable and humane federal funding restrictions, you can't simply get the procedure done at the hospital. If there had been protesters screaming at my wife after the loss we had just suffered, something ugly would have most likely ensued.

But of course, just like Fred, above, it never occurs to the crazies that people might go to the women's health clinic for something other than an abortion.

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 2:40 PM

Some people might have their request for an experimental treatment with little chance of it actually saving their lives be turned down by their health care provider. But they will only be in a movie by Michael Moore if they are in the US, if they are in Sweden that is just 'appropriate rationing' right?

It is amazing how you can wake up to misdirection with qualifiers when your ox is getting gored.

Posted by Sebastian Holsclaw | July 12, 2007 2:47 PM

Glenn:

First, I wrote "NY Metro area", not NYC. My hometown is in NJ.

Second, in the spirit of honest debate, allow me to apologize for growing up in a town with a major abortion clinic but not enough abortion protesters for your taste. For what it's worth, I happen to know we do have evangelicals nearby -- I've spent time with plenty of them at the county GOP headquarters during GOTV campaigns -- so a lack of local evangelicals doesn't seem to explain why there is no 'gauntlet' in front of my old hometown's abortion clinic.

Ed Marshall:

Where and when did this incident with the axe-wielding priest occur?

Steve:

I'm glad to hear you and your wife were able to get into the clinic unmolested by any protesters. Sorry for your loss. Your comment about the suffering you felt after your loss though would seem to lend some weight to the "emotional consequences" the HHS site speaks of.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 3:05 PM

Er, IMHO, there's kind of a big difference in misdirection with qualifiers seen in a Moore documentary and read at an HHS website.

Posted by mk | July 12, 2007 3:07 PM

Fred,

I usually just ignore your obnoxious trolling but this is obscene even by your standards.

You seriously don't see the difference between an unintended miscarriage and a planned abortion?

Moe and more I come to the conclusion that right wingers ultimately boil down to 3 categories:

Selfish assholes who really don't care about anything but getting their taxes as low as possible.

True believer social conservatives.

and Blithering idiots.

Of course these aren't mutually exclusive:-)

Trolls like you do a service by repeatedly coming back to re-inforce this conclusion.

Posted by Eric | July 12, 2007 3:16 PM

I'm sure you could find that in some cases, voting for Republicans causes depression. I do hope the FEC puts that warning up on their website.

Posted by Royko | July 12, 2007 3:16 PM

It is amazing how you can wake up to misdirection with qualifiers when your ox is getting gored.

Is this just preening, or did you have some point related to the topic at hand other than a general "all's fair in love and propaganda"?

Posted by Rambuncle | July 12, 2007 3:16 PM

Sebastian

Does any health insurance anywhere, public or private, cover treatments that are not proven to work?

Posted by Joey JoJo Junior Shabadoo | July 12, 2007 3:24 PM

Rockford, IL about three blocks from my old apartment

Posted by Ed Marshall | July 12, 2007 3:29 PM

Eric:

"You seriously don't see the difference between an unintended miscarriage and a planned abortion?"

Of course I see the obvious difference in intent, but I also see the similarities in that both are sad events that can have emotional consequences. You can still be pro-choice and acknowledge this.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 3:30 PM

Besides "some," the other most abused word in the English language is "many."

I had a friend who used to volunteer at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Massachusetts. Every time she would go to work, protesters would scream at her that she was a babykiller and a slut. I guess they didn't seem to notice it was always the same attractive blond who would go once or twice a week. How many abortions can one get a week? Twelve? They're not exactly jell-o shots.

"My old hometown hosts one of the busiest abortion clinics in the NY Metro area -- happens to be right next door to a high-end steakhouse."

Are the steaks rather bony?

Posted by Reality Man | July 12, 2007 3:30 PM

Sebastian Holsclaw:

But they will only be in a movie by Michael Moore if they are in the US, if they are in Sweden that is just 'appropriate rationing' right?

It is amazing how you can wake up to misdirection with qualifiers when your ox is getting gored.

Wow, that's an incredibly stupid thing to say. And impressively, it's incredibly stupid for numerous reasons. Here's one: MICHAEL MOORE ISN'T CREATING OFFICIAL WEBSITES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

I realize there's no actual law saying that conservatives must be amazing morons, but sometimes it certainly seems like it.

Posted by grh | July 12, 2007 3:35 PM

Your comment about the suffering you felt after your loss though would seem to lend some weight to the "emotional consequences" the HHS site speaks of.

Of course we went through a lot of emotional suffering. I suppose there are miscarriages that happen so early in the cycle that you never even know about them, but this was well into the second trimester. I don't see what any of this has to do with abortion, though. It's not an HHS site about miscarriages.

Let me spell out some of the ways this was different from, say, a first-trimester abortion obtained by a woman who never wanted to be pregnant in the first place. This was a baby we most certainly wanted to have. We were newly married, it would have been our first child. We used to talk to her in the womb, we had cute little names for her. When my wife would feel a little queasy, I'd give her "lectures" to stop being so hard on her mom. And then one day we went in for the 20-week ultrasound, and the technician switched off the screen after about 2 seconds and went scurrying out of the room to find the doctor. The baby's not alive, they told us. Very sorry for your loss.

So yeah, I don't think it's particularly shocking to anyone that we were very upset about this. Doesn't tell me anything about how people feel after an abortion, though. We were sad because we wanted to have this baby, in fact in our minds we already had her. I don't have a clue how people feel about aborting an unwanted pregnancy, although I'm not disturbed at all to hear that some people feel relieved. It's a completely different situation.

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 3:59 PM

Fred,

Since Steve is infintely more qualified to explain this I'll refer you to his elequont reply.

Your deliberate obtuseness never ceases.

Posted by Eric | July 12, 2007 4:07 PM

OT, but very sorry for your loss Steve.

I hope that you find solace in another child, though understanding that nothing fills the hole that such a loss leaves.

Posted by Sock Puppet of the Great Satan | July 12, 2007 4:11 PM

Post-natal depression affects between 10 and 15 per cent of women. Post-natal psychosis affects 1 in 500.

That's to say, I've yet to see the US government website that states: "having a baby makes some women crazy and suicidal."

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | July 12, 2007 4:12 PM

Eric,

"Since Steve is infintely more qualified to explain this I'll refer you to his elequont reply."

Steve's post was indeed eloquent and sad, but you seem to have missed the part where Steve noted that he didn't "...have a clue how people feel about aborting an unwanted pregnancy".

I don't know why this makes you think that there are no emotional consequences for any women who have abortions.

It's worth noting, as well, that there are women who end up having abortions, miscarriages, and live births -- or some combination of the three events -- during their reproductive years. It would be instructive to learn how experiencing one of these outcomes affects the emotional impact of the others. For example, I have heard of some women who got pregnant with a baby they wanted to keep, years after having an abortion. At that point they look at their previous abortion in a different light and have had additional emotional consequences from the decision.

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 5:02 PM

A couple of earlier comments were held up in a queue or something. Let's try again:

This topic always seems to bring know-nothings out of the woodwork who, without citing anything, insist that there is no evidence of a link between abortion and mental troubles.

Au contraire. The most recent and best-done study to date is this: "Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health."

The finding: "Results: Forty-one percent of women had become pregnant on at least one occasion prior to age 25, with 14.6% having an abortion. Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors."

As the author said in to a New Zealand newspaper:

In his letter to the committee, Professor Fergusson goes even further, saying his reading of the literature on abortion suggested it was "one of the most methodologically flawed and illiterate" research areas he had ever encountered. The scientists working in the area mainly came from a "pro-life" perspective, and they were often accused of making conclusions based on "weak evidence and strong faith".
But "no one can accuse me of that", he said this week with a laugh. "I'm pro-choice but I've produced results which, if anything, favour a pro-life viewpoint.
"It's obvious I'm not acting out of any agenda except to do reasonable science about a difficult problem."
The study has already been criticised for "not being completely conclusive", which he finds irritating.
"Because it's not 'completely conclusive', then they say we know nothing.
"But no science is completely conclusive - it's cumulative.
"Our study is strongly suggestive of a link between abortion and developing mental illness.
"What people should be saying is, 'This is interesting ... we need to invest more to answer this important question'."
The researchers expected to find no evidence of harmful effects of abortion. But they found the opposite.
Professor Fergusson said the results could not be argued away by assuming the women involved already had mental health problems or "a pre-disposition".
"We know what people were like before they became pregnant. We take into account their social background, education, ethnicity, previous mental health, exposure to sexual abuse, and a whole mass of factors."

Fergusson then had an interview with a radio host:

DAVID FERGUSSON: The whole topic has been remarkably under-researched, in terms of whether… there's been a lot of debate about whether abortion does or does not have harmful effects, but the amount of research into the harms of abortion, or its benefits for that matter, has been very limited.
TOM IGGULDEN: Why do you think it is that a debate as hot as the abortion debate hasn't featured research along these lines to date?
DAVID FERGUSSON: I… my view is very clear that it has actually frightened resear… well I know that I've heard researchers say that we were foolhardy doing research in this area, because everybody knows that if you do research in this area, one side or the other is going to turn upon you, because your results don't support them.
TOM IGGULDEN: Have you encountered that very phenomenon?
DAVID FERGUSSON: No, well we had a certain amount of difficulty getting these results published, but…
TOM IGGULDEN: How so? In what way?
DAVID FERGUSSON: Well we… journals we would normally have expected to publish them just declined the papers, and I think it's… because the debate is so very hot, and I think this is particularly so in the US of A (United States of America), and it's notable that our paper was published in a British journal.
TOM IGGULDEN: Professor Fergusson expects both praise and criticism for his research from both sides of the abortion debate.
DAVID FERGUSSON: And the truth of the matter, will, I believe, lies between the two extremes. This is probably about the best study that's been done on this topic, but it is not without limitations.

Posted by John Doe | July 12, 2007 5:07 PM

Yeah, Fred may have "heard of some women...."

Well, I've heard of "some women" who have abortions, go on with their lives, and don't have different feelings about it later. What are you trying to prove?

And Fred? Considering that you are NOT a woman, will NEVER have a pregnancy scare, and will NEVER have an abortion, can you possibly believe that those of us of the female persuasion can't really care? You'll never have to put your money where your mouth is, and if you had any integrity at all, you'd approach the entire issue with a bit more humility as to "what women think." You don't know and you'll never know what it's like.

Posted by grumpy realist | July 12, 2007 5:13 PM

The comment went through only after I took out the links (damn spammers). So you'll have to use Google to find the source of my quotes. Shouldn't be too hard.

Posted by John Doe | July 12, 2007 5:18 PM

I hope that you find solace in another child, though understanding that nothing fills the hole that such a loss leaves.

I appreciate the kind thoughts. People used to say, "You don't want to hear this right now, but you'll be pregnant again soon." As it turns out, it was my wife who got pregnant and not me, but we now have a perfect 11-month old baby girl.

You know what else people say a lot when they find out you had a miscarriage? "Oh, it happened to me too!" It's stunning, actually, how many people have been through the exact same thing; it's just that no one goes around talking about it, obviously, until they find out you have that in common.

Having another baby has helped me move on, although my wife, naturally, still remembers the date she lost the baby, and thinks about it from time to time. In my mind, though, it's not two babies, one that lived and one that didn't; it's the same precious little girl, whose body just wasn't strong enough to make it the first time around, but she came back for more. Babies are tough customers, you know. Certainly, if the first pregnancy had worked out fine, the second one wouldn't have happened (at least not for some time).

I'll say this, though, as tough as it was at the time, it still pales in comparison (at least to us) to what the actual death of a baby would be like. I mean, if something happened to my little girl right now, God forbid, I feel like my life would pretty much be over. I can't imagine ever getting over something like that, or having a day pass without thinking about it. The miscarriage, as bad as it was, it's not in the same ballpark, and pretty much everyone who's been through it (although there are exceptions) seems to feel the same way. I think that's probative of something, actually.

Posted by Steve | July 12, 2007 5:24 PM

Fred are you seriously as stupid as you come accross or do you just play dumb on web sites?

You said that Steve and his wife's feelings about their miscarriage supported the point about how women feel about an abortion.

Now your saying that Steve's feelings prove nothing about how women who get abortions feel.

Well Duh, no shit sherlock, that is the point we made in the first place. They are entirely different situations and have no relationship to each other whatsoever.

Your orginal point would be as meaningfull as me saying "I broke my leg in a car wreck and it really hurt, therefore people who lose their credit cards on the subway are really upset"

Posted by Eric | July 12, 2007 5:25 PM

I would hope that serious studies of possible connections between abortion and depression would attempt to control for differences in social attitudes about abortion, and how those attitudes can affect an individual's emotional well-being.

I imagine that if you live in an area where large numbers of people feel and express the view that women who have abortions are selfish, murdering sluts, then you are likely to feel much worse about having an abortion than do women who live in areas in which there are much more tolerant and supportive social attitudes about abortion.

As far as the drinking issue goes, I think it is only to be expected that alcohol use goes up on average following an abortion, for this reason: many women who are moderate consumers of alcohol refrain from alcohol use entirely during pregnancy. This includes many women who ultimately opt for an abortion. When their pregancies ends, one would expect their alcohol consumption to return to its earlier moderate levels.

Posted by Dan Kervick | July 12, 2007 5:29 PM

John Doe your stats are meaningless with no context.

Getting pregnant when you dont want to in and of itself is a traumatic thing.

What you need to measure is how do women who had an abortion compare to women who put the baby up for adoption and so on.

Posted by Eric | July 12, 2007 5:30 PM

grumpy realist,

Do you honestly believe men aren't affected by the pregnancies of the women in their lives, and the results of those pregnancies? Or are you too young to understand this?

Posted by Fred | July 12, 2007 5:33 PM

What you need to measure is how do women who had an abortion compare to women who put the baby up for adoption and so on.

Yep.

The study is only meaningful when compared to the depression rates for 1) adoption 2) pregnancy (unwanted and/or unplanned).

Posted by geoduck | July 12, 2007 7:21 PM

Do you honestly believe men aren't affected by the pregnancies of the women in their lives, and the results of those pregnancies?

Ah, now the veil is cast aside, and we see the real source of Fred's opposition to abortion: his abiding belief that his women's children are his, and that he rather than the worman ought to be making the decisions . . .

Posted by rea | July 12, 2007 9:31 PM

"grumpy realist,

Do you honestly believe men aren't affected by the pregnancies of the women in their lives, and the results of those pregnancies? Or are you too young to understand this? "

Who the hell are you, Kid Rock? You really are more naive than you'll ever realize. Of course most people, including *shock* most women, understand there is some affect. There is a hierarchy of those who are affected with 1) the women who is having a fetus grow inside her uterus being much, much, MUCH more affected than 2) the guy who put some sperm in her. You really sound like a little whiner playing at being a tough guy if this is how you think of abortion-related issues.

Posted by Reality Man | July 13, 2007 1:25 AM

Don't feed the trolls, people. Would you try to argue with Fred Phelps? This Fred has demonstrated about the same sophistication. He's got enough free time that he amuses himself trying to waste other people's time. If you respond, he'll just keep slinging nonsensical bait out there. Just say no!

Posted by Ngah! | July 14, 2007 12:40 AM