Posted on 01/27/2024 1:11:30 AM PST by Morgana
CV NEWS FEED // Catholic pro-life analyst Michael New slammed a study recently cited by pro-abotion activists and the mainstream media as “one of the worst and most misleading pieces of advocacy research” he has “ever encountered.”
New refuted the research in a Thursday National Review piece titled “No, 64,000 Children Have Not Been Conceived in Rape in States with Pro-Life Laws.”
“This week, the academic journal JAMA Internal Medicine published a study claiming that … tens of thousands of pregnancies resulted from rape in states that enacted strong post-Dobbs pro-life laws,” he wrote.
The JAMA study suggested that pro-life laws “resulted in 64,565 children conceived in rape,” New explained, and that statistic was “quickly and uncritically covered by a number of mainstream media outlets including CNN, NBC News, the Houston Chronicle, Axios, Time, and the Huffington Post.”
“To call those figures an exaggeration would be an understatement,” New stressed.
He called the study “frankly one of the worst and most misleading pieces of advocacy research that I have ever encountered in my years as a social scientist.”
“Furthermore, the fact that this article appeared in a prestigious peer-reviewed journal grants it legitimacy and credibility that it absolutely does not deserve,” he went on.
New pointed to “significant problems with the methodology” used by the study’s authors. He gave several examples – including the study’s use of an “exceptionally high figure” for the percentage of rapes that result in a pregnancy and the fact that there are “extremely wide disparities in reported rape statistics.”
“It should come as no surprise that some of the authors of this article are employed by organizations that support legal abortion,” New noted.
The study’s lead author is the medical director of Planned Parenthood’s Montana state affiliate, New pointed out. “The mainstream media outlets that ran stories about this study unsurprisingly failed to cover this blatant conflict of interest.”
He also criticized JAMA for publishing such a flawed study compiled by biased researchers.
“In recent years many academic journals, particularly in the field of public health, have published opinion pieces or thinly researched articles by supporters of legal abortion,” New wrote, citing another recent example. “Overall, academic journals should stick to publishing rigorous peer-reviewed research instead of serving mouthpieces for supporters of legal abortion.”
According to the Harvard Library, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) “features original research, reviews, and editorials covering all aspects of the biomedical sciences.”
“It’s published by the American Medical Association [(AMA)],” Harvard Library noted. Read New’s full piece here.
Then someone should be able to provide at least a dozen names of these pregnant rape victims in states where they would be prohibited from killing the baby.
I doubt anyone can. That’s why I hate advocacy studies. They are never asked the right questions.
EC
Nearly 65,000 rapes and no charges against the rapists? If that number is true, the abortionists are covering the tracks of the rapists. Some authority ought to look into that and make a huge deal out of it. Likely, if that were to happen, the 65,000 would drop to about 100.
I remember when Clinton was taking heat over the Lewinsky affair, they wrote an article saying that BJs were not really sex after all.
Shameless Chicago sleaze bags.
Sluts are NOT raped! ....imho
Ive seen data that says only 6 percent of all abortion are for health related complications or rape. The other 94% are birth control. Furthermore…. Of the 96% , 50% plus have had multiple abortions.
All depends on your definition of rape.
So wakos say any sex between a man and a women is rape.
You are correct. I have hear feminists say that. The abortionists need to define it and explain why they are covering it up.
Say? They just got a judgement against Trump for an encounter that never happened 30 years after the fact, changing the statute of limitations for a day so they could do it.
Leftist definition of rape is any contact, real or imagined, now or in the past or in fantasy, or initiated by the faux-victim and rejected, in which the supposed rapist is either a political undesirable* or at any later date ever, regretted.
*”political undesirable” has a default meaning of “cis,” white, male, Christian or any combination of those, but can mean anyone lower on the intersectionality pyramid of implicit victimhood, or anyone else the left wishes to dispose of.
tl;dr: “rape” when used by the left is just a word used to achieve a political goal.
Who would have it? Baby killers would lie.
Provided by the same (type of) folks who readily lie about gun deaths.
Even without pregnancy being involved, women often lie about rape. Further skewing ‘statistics’.
Besides, the whole premise is a red herring. Even if ONE baby were conceived by rape, it does not deserve the death penalty due to the circumstances of his or her conception. And a gruesome and savage death at that.
If it's rape, it should be the rapist that's punished, not the innocent baby.
I recall the man running for Senate making a comment about ‘rape’ rape and how a woman’s body does attempt to prevent pregnancies in this physical attack. That guy got roasted by the media and that witch McCaskill won again!
Fast forward to 2024 and the Gaza ‘project Mr Clean’. Israeli spokesman said something very interesting related to sexual abuse of hostages and their bodies shutting down reproductive system due for the multiple rapes.
https://youtu.be/TGNNxf56bmM
Starts at 6:00. But if you haven’t heard it all it is revealing on the evil that exists against the People of Israel.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.