20 Comments

• 1. Keith  |  November 13th, 2007 at 5:46 am

  No matter what happens, any GOPer will be better than any Democrat on life issues…

  How true, Mark–that’s why the left has to rename abortion. Choice, women’s health, reproductive rights–never “abortion!”

  Hey Mark, are you going to do a “What Media Bias, Part XXX,” on the agenda-driven coverage the drive-by media is giving to the success of the surge? Whenever they report on the dramatic reduction of Baghdad violence, they always manage to throw in the disclaimer that this has been the deadliest year. The best one I’ve heard to date was Sherri Preston, on ABC Radio News yesterday. She said, “2007 has been the deadliest year so far in Iraq, although some forms of violence are down.” What she leaves out is that 87% of Baghdad has been cleared of AQ, while only Sadr City remains volatile. And General Petraeus is working on “Mookie” as we speak.

  The NY Slimes recently covered the success of the surge–on page A-19!!! And there was no mention of AQ being routed out of Baghdad, just some blurb about “insurgent elements” being routed out. The WaPo, aka Pravda on the Potomac, covered it on page A-11. And the rest of the radio news anchors I’ve heard always mention 2007 being the deadliest year, while never giving credence to the surge.

  Mark, I cringe whenever I hear of a car bombing, mortar attack, or IED detonation in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, for that matter. However, as you know, I’m a realist, and the reality is that this conflict has been amazing in respect to the number of casualties, compared to any previous major war we’ve fought in, with the exception of Desert Storm. War is hell, and it is unpredictable. Sure, Bush/Rummy made major blunders at the outset, but have since righted the ship.

  We’re winning this war, and the left can’t stand that fact. That’s what you get, when you deal with hatriots…

• 2. AgentFear  |  November 13th, 2007 at 6:00 am

  I think Thompson ain’t got a chance in hades.

• 3. french student  |  November 13th, 2007 at 6:06 am

  here is an article from the NYT I saved on my computer for such an occasion.

  Basically, it says that anti-abortion legislation does nothing to reduce the number of abortions, it only decreases the safety of abortions.

  On the other hand, a good way to reduce the number of abortions is to make contraception as available a possible.

  any emphasis in the article is mine

  Legal or Not, Abortion Rates Compare

  Article Tools Sponsored By
  By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
  Published: October 12, 2007

  ROME, Oct. 11 — A comprehensive global study of abortion has concluded that abortion rates are similar in countries where it is legal and those where it is not, suggesting that outlawing the procedure does little to deter women seeking it.

  Moreover, the researchers found that abortion was safe in countries where it was legal, but dangerous in countries where it was outlawed and performed clandestinely. Globally, abortion accounts for 13 percent of women’s deaths during pregnancy and childbirth, and there are 31 abortions for every 100 live births, the study said.

  The results of the study, a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group, are being published Friday in the journal Lancet.

  “We now have a global picture of induced abortion in the world, covering both countries where it is legal and countries where laws are very restrictive,” Dr. Paul Van Look, director of the W.H.O. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, said in a telephone interview. “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”
  
  But the legal status of abortion did greatly affect the dangers involved, the researchers said. “Generally, where abortion is legal it will be provided in a safe manner,” Dr. Van Look said. “And the opposite is also true: where it is illegal, it is likely to be unsafe, performed under unsafe conditions by poorly trained providers.”

  The data also suggested that the best way to reduce abortion rates was not to make abortion illegal but to make contraception more widely available, said Sharon Camp, chief executive of the Guttmacher Institute.

  In Eastern Europe, where contraceptive choices have broadened since the fall of Communism, the study found that abortion rates have decreased by 50 percent, although they are still relatively high compared with those in Western Europe. “In the past we didn’t have this kind of data to draw on,” Ms. Camp said. “Contraception is often the missing element” where abortion rates are high, she said.

  Anti-abortion groups criticized the research, saying that the scientists had jumped to conclusions from imperfect tallies, often estimates of abortion rates in countries where the procedure was illegal. “These numbers are not definitive and very susceptible to interpretation according to the agenda of the people who are organizing the data,” said Randall K. O’Bannon, director of education and research at the National Right to Life Educational Trust Fund in Washington.

  He said that the major reason women die in the developing world is that hospitals and health systems lack good doctors and medicines. “They have equated the word ‘safe’ with ‘legal’ and ‘unsafe’ with ‘illegal,’ which gives you the illusion that to deal with serious medical system problems you just make abortion legal,” he said.

  The study indicated that about 20 million abortions that would be considered unsafe are performed each year and that 67,000 women die as a result of complications from those abortions, most in countries where abortion is illegal.

  The researchers used national data for 2003 from countries where abortion was legal and therefore tallied. W.H.O. scientists estimated abortion rates from countries where it was outlawed, using data on hospital admissions for abortion complications, interviews with local family planning experts and surveys of women in those countries.

  The wealth of information that comes out of the study provides some striking lessons, the researchers said. In Uganda, where abortion is illegal and sex education programs focus only on abstinence, the estimated abortion rate was 54 per 1,000 women in 2003, more than twice the rate in the United States, 21 per 1,000 in that year. The lowest rate, 12 per 1,000, was in Western Europe, with legal abortion and widely available contraception.

  The Bush administration’s multibillion-dollar campaign against H.I.V./AIDS in Africa has directed money to programs that promote abstinence before marriage, and to condoms only as a last resort. It has prohibited the use of American money to support overseas family planning groups that provide abortions or promote abortion as a method of family planning.

  Worldwide, the annual number of abortions appeared to have declined between 1995, the last year such a broad study was conducted, and 2003, from an estimated 46 million to 42 million, the study concluded. The 1995 study, by the Guttmacher Institute, had far less data on countries where abortion was illegal.

  Some countries, like South Africa, have undergone substantial transitions in abortion laws in that time. The procedure was made legal in South Africa in 1996, leading to a 90 percent decrease in mortality among women who had abortions, some studies have found.

  Abortion is illegal in most of Africa, though. It is the second-leading cause of death among women admitted to hospitals in Ethiopia, its Health Ministry has said. It is the cause of 13 percent of maternal deaths at hospitals in Nigeria, recent studies have found.

• 4. Tim O  |  November 13th, 2007 at 8:04 am

  Um, French Student? Facts have no place here. Tell someone who gives a hoot!

  We should jail all the young sluts who get pregnant out of wedlock.

  I’m sure Fred would agree.

• 5. french student  |  November 13th, 2007 at 8:22 am

  Well, tim O, assuming you were sarcastic, I just want to make a little injection of facts in this place.

  After all, I have to believe that people are straight about their goals, right?
  So if they are being counterproductive, and it is showed to them, then they will change their course of action.

  Or so I hope.

• 6. Tim O  |  November 13th, 2007 at 10:14 am

  Oui, Francoise, I was being sarcastic.

• 7. french student  |  November 13th, 2007 at 10:31 am

  uh, actually I’m male, thanks.

  Françoise is a girl’s name. François would be the male equivalent, although it is not my name either.

  francais (francaise for a girl ) would be the translation of “french” if that is what you were looking for.

  Student would be “étudiant” (male) or “étudiante” (female).

  I’m no student any more, have not been or more than a year now, but I started commenting with this pseudo and I like to keep it.

  Oh and we tend to put our adjectives after the name instead of before so I would be “étudiant français” if you wanted to translate the whole pseudo.

  But don’t worry, I come to an american blog, I do not expect all of you to know a lot about France. I’m the foreigner here.

  Although it is always pleasant to be adressed by gender-appropriate forms.

• 8. sleepygene  |  November 13th, 2007 at 11:06 am

  Fred is lucky this endorsement fell into his lazy lap. I am surprised he got this after his federalist argument to remand to the states abortion rights on MTP a couple of weeks ago. I am with Agent Fear, Lazy Fred, has no chance. It is either plastic Mitt or crazy Rudy for the GOP.

• 9. Jeremiah  |  November 13th, 2007 at 11:42 am

  Huckabee/Thompson–Huckabee/Romney–Huckabee/Giuliani ticket is the way to go, and would be a Major Victory for America on all fronts!!

  Jeremiah

• 10. Mark Noonan  |  November 13th, 2007 at 2:53 pm

  french student,

  That report is bogus - just made up stats designes to make abortion look good. You should know by now that the NY Times is unreliable - its a bunch of unsourced alleged studies and with Guttmacher involved it is like having the oil industry do a study on the safety of oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico…

• 11. french student  |  November 13th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

  Please prove that, and give a link to your source.

  Otherwise I would have to assume you are just dismissing the report because it does not suit your own worldview.

  This report is the best there is. If you have more data, please produce it

• 12. french student  |  November 13th, 2007 at 3:30 pm

  plus the data does not come from the NYT, it is reported by it. The actual research project is

  a collaboration between scientists from the World Health Organization in Geneva and the Guttmacher Institute in New York, a reproductive rights group

• 13. Ricorun  |  November 13th, 2007 at 4:28 pm

  Mark: That report is bogus - just made up stats designes to make abortion look good.

  frenchstudent asked you to provide a source to back up your skepticism. I’m anxious to see it, but I’m not holding my breath. It would also be nice if you would address the really important, most fundamental bottom line issue, which is this: “What we see is that the law does not influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. If there’s an unplanned pregnancy, it does not matter if the law is restrictive or liberal.”

  That to me is very troublesome. What good is formulating a law if it doesn’t impact behavior, just serves to criminalize it? Interestingly, just last weekend Fred Thompson himself weighed in on the subject on Meet the Press. He said, “Somebody comes up with a bill, and they say we’re going to outlaw this, that or the other. And my response was I do not think it is a wise thing to criminalize young girls and perhaps their parents as aiders and abettors or perhaps their family physician.” Correct me if I’m wrong, but that sentiment sounds very consistent with this “bogus” study.

• 14. james allegro  |  November 13th, 2007 at 5:59 pm

  Mark, I was never more proud of President George W. Bush than when he signed the federal law banning partial birth abortion, which was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. President Bush has done more for the pro life movement than any other president in our history. God bless you President Bush, the greatest president in american history.

• 15. AgentFear  |  November 13th, 2007 at 8:50 pm

  This about sums it up.

  The most cynical endorsement of a cynical campaign.

  http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20071113/cm_thenation/1251510

• 16. Mark Noonan  |  November 14th, 2007 at 3:24 am

  French,

  The Guttmacher institute is committed to so-called abortion rights…that is what “reproductive rights” stands for, ya know? Or, perhaps you didn’t know that? If you didn’t, then I suggest you read “1984″ and start to understand just how people can twist words.

  The study is bogus because it relies upon alleged health and mortality stats from a large number of nations which don’t keep such stats…in other words, they’re just making it up as they go along. I feel a bit sorry for you - that you would actually think that people who advocate for abortion are other than wicked, and thus more than willing to lie through their teeth to get their views accepted.

  Killing people for no reason is not a good thing - grasp that concept, french, and you’ll be on the road to fully understanding the worldview of “reproductive rights” groups.

• 17. french student  |  November 14th, 2007 at 8:08 am

  Mark

  Once more, please cite your sources. You are accusing either a large number of countries or the Guttmacher institute of lying, the onus is on you to prove your claims.

  Otherwise I will continue to assume you are making these things up.

  As for 1984, I read it, thanks. I have to say, the TVs that looked at people reminded me a lot of warrantless wiretaps. Big Brother and all that.

  I’ll even go as far as to draw parralels between the elections systems.
  In 1984, there are two candidates, one of which is articulate and called “Noble”, the other called “Hoag” and described as ugly, stupid and having ridiculous ideas.
  In 2000, there were two candidates, one of which went on to gain a Nobel price, and the other who campaigned on being “a guy everybody wants to have a beer with”.

  Oh wait in 1984 the smart guy actually won.

  OK that was a little snarky, so chalk it up to bad humor if you want. The fact remains that whn the general election comes, the american people are presented with only two choices, one head by party. And, I am sorry to say, they usually run on platforms that look remarkably similar from where I am standing.

  In the last elections in France, we had three candidates who had a real shot at the presidency.
  All three of them had a distinct agenda and platform.

  Well enough with that. I repeat the main point of this post : you accuse people of lying, prove it.

• 18. Tractatus  |  November 14th, 2007 at 6:30 pm

  more than willing to lie through their teeth to get their views accepted.

  Oh you mean like conservatives and their *ahem* factually challenged Pregnancy Resource Centers? You mean like conservatives and their repeatedly debunked–yet still spewed–lies about links between abortion and breast cancer and lies about how abortion makes a woman sterile, among other lies? Hell, they even have to set up their “Resource Centers” as lies, intentionally positioning them to make women think they’re going to an actual health clinic and even trying to trick the women into thinking they are seeing a doctor when they aren’t.

  No, of course you don’t mean that. These people are on your side, so its OK for them to lie through their teeth to get their views accepted. In fact, it’s more than OK–it’s demanded (after all, it’s part of the pattern wherein pesky things like scientific fact disprove conservative theories, so conservatives’ only recourse is to invent new “facts” that are more to their liking) and will quickly be defended by the likes of you.

• 19. french student  |  November 15th, 2007 at 6:46 am

  Still waiting, Mark….

  (Ed. Note: For what? Proof that pro-abortion groups put out pro-abortion propaganda?)

• 20. french student  |  November 16th, 2007 at 5:36 am

  No Mark, proof the facts they provide are false. Come on, you accused them of lying, surely you have proof?