08-16-2016, 03:00 PM
Quote:So how could one attribute the 34 percent decline in abortion rates to the CFPI? Almost the same reduction — about 85 percent of the reduction we saw in CFPI counties — still happened in places where the program wasn’t available. This makes sense because abortion rates have been dropping steadily for years (including among younger women):
Quote:It’s more curious that the abortion rate for women 20–24 rose slightly in the non-CFPI counties while that statistic dropped noticeably where the program was available. But with the very limited evidence the study presents, we have no idea if this is just due to random variation.
Here she is analyzing data from a single chart. The data from the first qoute "makes sense" because it confirms her bias. The data from the second quote is dismissed because it doesn't confirm her bias citing "very limited data" and we have no idea if this is just "random variation."
If she is going to reject the data because it is limited and random variation, she has to reject all the data for the same reason. You can't accept the data you like and reject the data you don't like. If she is going to ignore the limitations she cited when analyzing the data she liked she has to do the same with the data she didn't like. She isn't objective at all. It's blatant conformational bias and while she has some valid criticism on the limitations of the study, ultimately she undermines her credibility so severely her overall critique can't be taken seriously. If you have doubts about the study, you should have bigger doubts about her critique.
