“These statistics are bogus”

That’s the conclusion of Lydia McGrew at What’s Wrong with the World as she looks at the Guttmacher study claiming that 98% of Catholic women use contraception:

Byz_eagle_250Recently I received a phone call from my non-Christian (as far as I know) philosopher friend Neil Manson who, because he has an active and fair mind, had been exercised over what seemed to him the high FQ (Fishiness Quotient) of the statistical meme presently going around to the effect that “98% of Catholic women use birth control.” Or something. Maybe “98% of Catholic women have used birth control.” The former is obviously ludicrous, as it would seem to include elderly Catholic women, of whom it seems plausible that there are more than 2% among Catholics. Anyway, Neil wanted to know if I had read anything debunking the statistic.

Well, I had to admit that I hadn’t. This is mostly because the relevance of the claim to the HHS’s mandate is, to put it mildly, obscure. If a large percentage of Jainists are chowing down on hamburgers on the side, it hardly follows that an expressly Jainist charitable organization should be forced by the federal government to fund a plan that buys free hamburgers for its employees. If a bunch of Quakers turn out to have gun licenses, employees of an expressly Quaker organization are not therefore entitled to have their fees paid to a shooting range or their ammo. provided at no cost through an employer plan. There is this commonsense notion that organizations that are explicitly identified as religious are allowed to uphold the actual doctrinal and behavioral standards of their respective religious bodies. Whether the rank and file membership of that religious body follow those standards in daily life should be irrelevant.

Still, it has proven rather interesting to look into the statistical claim.

And look she does, with a fine tooth comb.  Read the entire piece and then really tick off your Catholic bashing friends by passing it on.

Watch ’em froth at the mouth.

Damned liars.

Media Matters Rebuttal
David Brock, like Obama, has a little list
  • Pingback: Brutally Honest()

  • ackwired

    I have no idea what percentage of Catholic women use birth control.  But I know lthat before contraception was available, the typical married woman became pregnant every year or two and died an early death with her body worn out before the age of 50.

    • mppmpr

      My mother was one of those women who didn’t use birth control because of her conscience, belief system, and faith.  She had five children and is 87.  There are a lot of women like her.  Your use of the word “typical” is unwarranted.

      • ackwired

        Would you please ask her how many women she knew that died young after multiple pregnancies and how many women she knew that died in pregnancy or childbirth after having trouble with a previous pregnancy or childbirth.

        • DocEpador

          While pregnancy is more dangerous than using birth control, the difference is hardly in the epidemic proportions you suggest.  Hygiene, nutrition and proper midwifery does a lot to reduce maternal mortality.  

          I believe contraception should be available to all who desire it, but not for free.

          Clean water should be available to all, but not for free.

          Safe housing should be available for all, but not for free.

          Safe food should be available for all, but not for free.

          Etc.

          • ackwired

            I have no problem with it not being free, or with the government not providing it.  I’m just saying that it has been a big change in women’s health.  How many women today are told by their doctors not to have another baby?  Would they have been told before the 20’s?  If so what options were there for them and how would it have effected their marraige?

        • DocEpador

          My cousin, a Christian non-smoker, had a serious stroke from OCP.
          I see people gain huge amounts of weight and become diabetic and hypertensive due to injectable progestin contraceptives.  People who smoke and use hormone contraceptives are at great risk for heart attack, stroke, pulmonary embolus and sudden death, just as pregnant people are.  People who use contraceptives sometimes feel free to have promiscuous lifestyles, spreading many common STD’s.  DId you know one common one, HPV, is being linked to many forms of cancer (head and neck, lung)?

          Geez, all these example mean nothing to statistical analysis, but they do broaden the picture if you are going to debate the use of oral, transdermal and mucosal, and injectable hormone contraception.

          • ackwired

            Yeah…there are no easy answers, are there?

          • Yeah…there are no easy answers, are there?

            ackwired on 14 Feb 2012

             

            Says the leftard who is still defending a “one size fits all solution” in contravention of the First Amendment.

    • GarandFan

       Grandma had 8 children.  She died at 82.  Mom had 6.  She died at last year at  83.

      Did you get your “typical” stats from the same place that Her Highness of Health Care did?

      • Walter_Cronanty

         Come on guys, this IS a post about bogus statistics.  ackwired just joined in the left-wing fun. 

    • Gee men’s life expectancy has pretty much increased at the same rate as women’s over the past century.  Are you saying that their life expectancy increased because they were not giving birth as well?

      BTW did you know that Condoms were invented in 1920. Your argument has been moot for almost a century.

      You are using a strawman trying to connect 2 issues which have very little in common.  It is like the coathanger mime.  When it has been proven (numerous times) that most of the women pre Roe V Wade died from infection from unsanitary conditions rather than bleeding to death via coat hangers.  in fact you cant find the name of one woman who died via coathangers.  With the advent of penicillian the number of deaths dropped dramatically year after year. 

      But keep up the mimes.

      • donwalk

        Yet innocent babies continued to be murdered, even with penicillin available!
        That should make you stand tall and feel proud.

      • ackwired

        Women struggled to get the right to contraception.  The fact that you do not see large families today with mothers whose bodies are failing by the time they are middle aged is an indication of the role of contraception in our society.  The struggle of Margaret Sanger and her associates was a struggle by women for the right to save their own bodies.

        • Actually Sanger struggled to eliminate undesireables (aka African Americans in those days).  She stated so in her own words.  It had nothing to do with womens bodies.

          I disproved your “failing bodies” mime already.

          • ackwired

             It is our experience, as it was our aim, that as a result of child-spacing, and adequate care of mothers, death rates would be reduced. It is now a fact that as a result of birth control, the survival rate among mothers and children is higher. There is less suffering for all groups.

            Margaret Sanger

          • PBunyan

            Margaret Sanger: “[my objective is] nothing more or less than the facilitation of the process of weeding out the unfit, of preventing the birth of defectives or those who will become defectives.”

            Margaret Sanger: “We don’t want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

            Margaret Sanger: “the most urgent problem today is how to limit and discourage the overfertility of the mentally and physically defective.”

            Margaret Sanger: “”Possibly drastic and Spartan methods may be forced upon society if it continues complacently to encourage the chance and chaotic breeding that has resulted from our stupidly cruel sentimentalism.”

            Yup, you’re right Ack– it’s all about health.  At least if you’re Obamatalking that is…

          • SCSIwuzzy

            “no woman shall have a legal right to bear a child without a permit…no permit shall be valid for more than one child.”

            “More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief issue of birth control,”

            “We do not want word to go out, that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister [Reverend Adam Clayton Powell Sr] is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

            ~Margaret Sanger

          • ackwired

            LOL…She did say some crazy s__t, didn’t she?

          •  And the progessives have been following her in lockstep nonetheless.

          • jim_m

            Progressives have always loved eugenics and social darwinism, regardless of how fallen into disrepute they are.

          •  Oh, agreed.  Just sickening to see it play out yet again.

          • SCSIwuzzy

            Don’t sell her short.  She also disliked Catholics, Jews, Asians and others in addition to blacks.

    • herddog505

      ackwired[B]efore contraception was available, the typical married woman became pregnant every year or two and died an early death with her body worn out before the age of 50.

      Well, that would certainly bend the health care “cost curve” down, wouldn’t it?

      Do wonders for the Social Security Trust Fund, too.

      /sarc

      “Before contraception was available” also includes quite a long period before antibiotics were available, too.  Before anti-cancer drugs.  Statins.  Many vaccines.

      “Before contraception was available” also includes quite a long period when women worked long hours on farms.

      What was the average male lifespan during that period, by the way?

      Could it be that disease, poor nutrition, and a lifetime of very hard work had AT LEAST as much if not rather more impact on lifespan than child-bearing?

      • DocEpador

        Actually, public sanitation which includes mosquito and rat control, clean water and pasteurization, followed by vaccination, have had the greatest impact on population longevity.

    •  Of course you are completely full of crap, but why should today be different than every other day?

    • Oysteria

      So you found a correlation and confused it for causation.  That’s a common mistake.  Now find some sound statistics that prove what you’re suggesting.

    • LiberalNightmare

      When faced with evidence that one statistic is bullshit, should you really make up another bullshit statistic?

      • ackwired

        Sorry if it looked that way.  I meant to offer no statistic, just an observation that modern Catholic women have a much different lifestyle than Catholic women did before contraception was available.  Of course, I am now convinced that frequent pregnancies and childbirths have no adverse effect on women’s health.

        • LiberalNightmare

           Well, I guess I’ll have to get all “global warming” on you and point out that unless you possess an advanced degree in catholic women studies, your opinions just aren’t qualified .

          • ackwired

            LOL…true enough.  But my opinions are not the only non-qualified opinions that you will see on this board.

  • http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

    Statistics for longevity ackwired.  Maybe you ought to actually research something before you lie about it.

    Some numbers

    ….Men….    women
    1890…42….44
    1900   48….51
    1920   56     58

    And so and so on.

    Nice way to make shit up ackwired.

    Maybe the guys had lower life expectancy than women  from having to deal with the pregnant wife so much.

    • Meiji Man

      Maybe they cut themselves on a rusty coat hangar. 

    • ackwired

      You have demonstrated that there was no change before contraception.  Contraception began gain some acceptance during the roaring 20’s.  Using your source, I notice that by 1939 women were living 5 years longer than me instead of 2 years longer.

      •  Keep digging.

      • Again. The men must have been dying off younger than women because according to your theory they had to have dealth with women who were pregnant more. You only attribute the longer lifes to just contraception. Better drugs and medicine had nothign to do with it? What a maroon. Did you know that IUDs were invented in the 20s as well? Yet again it took a whole generation to have an effect. Here you go IDIOT. http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=52188 Contraceptives have actually been around since about 3000 BC. 3000 B.C.
        The condom is invented in Egypt. Ancient drawings clearly depict men wearing condoms – sometimes made of material that may have been animal hide. It’s not clear what they were made of — or whether they were used for sex or ceremonial dress. 1850 B.C.
        Meet the pessary. It’s the earliest contraceptive device for women. Pessaries are objects or concoctions inserted into the vagina to block or kill sperm. By 1850 B.C., Egyptians used pessaries made of crocodile dung, honey, and sodium carbonate. Crocodile dung is alkaline. But its use, note contraceptive historians Malcolm Potts and Martha Campbell, “perhaps reflects Freudian more than pharmacologic concerns.” 600 B.C.
        Greek colonists found Celene in North Africa. Soon after, they discover a great treasure: Silphion, reputedly the first oral contraceptive. Silphion was an herb — thought to be a kind of giant fennel — that grew only in the area now known as Libya. Despite heroic efforts, it could not be cultivated. Worth its weight in silver, silphion was harvested to extinction by 100 A.D. 1640 A.D.
        The oldest known condoms — dated to about 1640 — are found in Dudley Castle near Birmingham, England. They were made of fish and animal intestines. Condoms in those days were used to prevent sexually transmitted diseases rather than for contraception. 1734
        Young Giacomo Girolamo Casanova begins his amorous career. He is among the first to use condoms to prevent pregnancy. Said to prefer condoms made from lamb intestine — still the preferred material for natural gut condoms — he also used linen condoms tied off with a ribbon. 1844
        Charles Goodyear patents vulcanization of rubber. Soon, rubber condoms are mass produced. Unlike modern condoms — made to be used once and thrown away — early condoms were washed, anointed with petroleum jelly, and put away in special wooden boxes for later reuse. British playwright and essayist George Bernard Shaw called the rubber condom the “greatest invention of the nineteenth century.” 1844-1873
        The U.S. contraceptive industry flourishes. In addition to condoms (immediately known as “rubbers”), there’s widespread sale and use of intrauterine devices or IUDs, douching syringes, vaginal sponges, diaphragms and cervical caps (then called “womb veils”), and “male caps” that covered only the tip of the penis. 1873
        The U.S. Congress passes the Comstock laws. Written by dry goods merchant and anti-obscenity crusader Anthony Comstock, the law makes all forms of contraception illegal. The contraceptive industry continues to flourish — but the devices are now sold to promote “feminine hygiene.” 1880s
        Penniless New York City immigrant Julius Schmid gets extra sausage casings from butcher shops and makes them into skin condoms. It becomes a big business by 1890. By the 1930s, his condom empire is making millions. His Ramses and Sheik brands are still popular. suppress their periods and provide birth control, was approved in September. Seasonale schedules four menstrual periods a year. Researchers are working on other pills that would schedule one menstrual period a yea

        r. Originally published July 17, 2003. You REALLY need to some more research before you shoot off your mouth.

      • Ackwired 

        Here is Sanger’s own words.  Your hero.

        http://books.google.com/books?id=UBJWsbEHmT4C&pg=PA47&dq=%22to+stop+the+multiplication+of+the+unfit.%22+sanger&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0CQ1T5abDIrWtgfhuu21Ag&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22to%20stop%20the%20multiplication%20of%20the%20unfit.%22%20sanger&f=false

        Page 47

        As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment

        • ackwired

          LOL…She did say some crazy s__t, didn’t she?

          •  ackwired discovers he’s been promoting a racist and eugenicist and can respond only with:

            LOL…She did say some crazy s__t, didn’t she?

            ackwired and his progressive palls are still effectively supporting Sanger’s progrom.

          • jim_m

            Interesting how the left laughs when others have concerns about rights and racism etc., but when they have the same concerns the sky is falling.  Stephen did the same thing.  Someone posts something about human suffering and the only response he can muster is “LOL”.

            There is something deeply disturbing in a character that finds pleasure in seeing others suffer the kinds of things that they would be outraged to see visited upon their friends and family.

          • I find it more disgusting than interesting.

          • Sangar is a racist but since she prayed at the abortion altar than it was okay.

      • Also Ackwired Where as Abortoin was illegal in the early 1900s people werent being prosecuted for it so abortion was available for those women who were so tired and worn out and didnt want another baby.

         
        http://www.abort73.com/abortion_facts/us_abortion_history/
         
        While newspaper editorials pulled no punches in their condemnation of abortion, the ad departments often undermined their efforts by selling increasing numbers of ads to abortion providers. In 1904, Dr. Rudolph Holmes set out to address this grievance by convincing the Chicago Medical Society to form a Committee on Criminal Abortion. The committee then went after all the papers in Chicago who sold “veiled” ads to abortion providers. Despite, significant loss in ad revenue, most papers succumbed to Dr. Holmes’ request for fear of the exposure he would have brought were they to continue such practice. The result was, that while “a typical issue of the Chicago Tribune in March 1905 contained seventeen abortion ads,” by the end of the year, “there were no noticeable ads for abortionists [left]” (195).
         
         
        In 1895, Chicago, itself was known to have dozens of shelters for just such women. Eventually, though, the victories gained by the pro-life movement began to be undermined and reversed. Abortionists, instead of advertising in the newspaper, printed up thousands of business cards to be directly distributed in brothels and boarding-houses. “Chicago abortionists had their own legal department, with witnesses on tap and ready to swear that ‘the young woman had an operation elsewhere and the doctor was merely performing a life-saving operation’.” (227) Many of those who had worked so tirelessly in opposing abortion fell into public despair as their efforts began to fade. Dr. Holmes lamented in 1908:
        I have come to the conclusion that the public does not want, the profession does not want, the women in particular do not want, any aggressive campaign against the crime of abortion. I have secured evidence. I have asked different physicians, who either had direct knowledge of crime against the prisoner before the bar or who could testify as to general reputation, to come and testify. They promised to come, but when the time for trial is at hand no one appears.20
        Holmes concluded that while Illinois abortion law could not be improved on paper, a total lack of enforcement made such laws almost useless. He also noted the growing problem of national complicity. “It is not possible to get twelve men together without at least one of them being personally responsible for the downfall of a girl, or at least interested in getting her out of her difficulty.” Clergy were condemning abortion less and less, medical students were not being adequately informed of the enormity of the crime, laws continued to go unenforced and a general public apathy all combined to have a tragic snow-ball effect. Dr. M.S. Iseman concluded in 1912, that “except in the formal letter of the statute books, the sanctity which nearly twenty centuries of Christianity has conferred upon the unborn human being is repudiated.”21 Dr. Matthew Liotta writes in 1931, “Never before in all past ages has there been such merciless killing of innocent, helpless and unborn human beings as is going on at the present time.”22
         
         
         
         
         

        • ackwired

          Your volume is impressive.  Clearly pregnancy and frequent childbirth have no negative effect on the female body.

          • MunDane68

             Which isn’t what anyone has said either…

          • ackwired

            Oh, take a look at all of this evidence that frequent pregnancy and childbirth should be not problem at all.

          • MunDane68

             Which isn’t what anyone said either…

            Pregnancy, even in a modern country (USA) is a chance of death about 1 in 10,000 (11 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2005) times if I remember my statistics correctly.  Now that is small, but it still happens.

            Statistically, abortion is slightly less dangerous, but it depends greatly on the timing of the abortion.  Before 8 weeks, it happens once in million procedures.  After that it skyrockets 8-20 weeks one in 20,000 to roughly equal to pregnancy after 21 weeks (one death per 12,000).

            On average, in the US, abortions happen around week 22.

          • ackwired

            So…are you saying that frequent pregnancy and childbirth has VIRTUALLY no effect on women’s health?

          •  Various folks here have been stating, and demonstrating, that you ackwired have been pulling your data out of your ass.

          •  And yet you will continue to support Sanger’s progrom of racism and racist eugenics.

          • You also conveniently forget that from the 1920s on the US was becoming a much more Urban than rural country.

            http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urpop0090.txt

            Also the advent and widespread use of transportation in the 1920s which means that people had a much broader access to better quality healthcare and hospitals vs having to ride 20 miles in a horse and buggy to get to it.

            In addition, in the 1940s women gained more than men because we had that little thing called WW2 which caused a lot of men to have a shorter life span than they normally would have.  In the 1950s it was the Korean conflict and 60s/70s it was Vietnam.

            But those things dont mean anything.  Obviously it was the evil babies that were keeping women down.

          • ackwired

            Even more!  Now I am totally convinced that frequent pregnancy and childbirth have no negative effect on women’s health.

          • Someday you’ll learn to admit errors and dumbfound everyone who knows you.

          • ackwired

            Take a look.  I have admitted multiple times on this thread that you genious conservatives have convinced me that frequent pregnancies and chilbirths have no negative effect on women’s health.  Since you always have the last word, Rodney, you may have it now.

          •  Someday you’ll learn to admit errors and dumbfound everyone who knows you.