Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Willfully Horn said:

The notion that children of progressives are more likely to have mental health issues.

I am not the one that introduced mental health into this discussion. Go back and read the exchange. 

Posted (edited)

I find it interesting how Annie spent years trying to project as some sort of hyper-logical libertarian, when all it took was a handle of bourbon, a day off when he desperately wanted to avoid his family, and the re-election of Donald Trump to reveal his true colors as an absolutely despicable yet typical MAGA dude.

Well done, jackass.

Edited by jimmyjazz
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
46 minutes ago, Anastasis said:
 

The results tables tell the tale. 

Character count in the discussion section:hypothesis testing ratio trending to infinity.  

What’s the level of evidence?

Posted
37 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I am not the one that introduced mental health into this discussion. Go back and read the exchange. 

You did introduce some mental illness though 

Just now, Anastasis said:

III or IV, the discussion section reads like V. 

So trash per your takes in the LGBTQ thread

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Posted
13 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

I find it interesting how Annie spent years trying to project as some sort of hyper-logical libertarian, when all it took was a handle of bourbon, a day off when he desperately wanted to avoid his family, and the re-election of Donald Trump to reveal his true colors as an absolutely despicable yet typical MAGA dude.

Well done, jackass.

Y’all haven’t realized it was a bit til now? He gets off on finding someone he can call a 4th grader. You can practically hear him splash off the glass Roman Roy style.

I figured a couple of y’all enjoyed being his Gerry Kellman, talking him through his release.

His turn to mental health disorders is just plain old projection. He’s embarrassed, but can’t stop.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Goofyboy said:

...they aren’t worth engaging anymore.

Pretty much how I feel when I read "fetus isn't a person than". We've had that discussion like 10 times on this thread already.   

Posted
22 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The ones on the southern border.

This guy believes people shouldn't be killed for where they are.

28 minutes ago, Goofyboy said:


I’m sorry - what children are dying?

You do.

  • Fuck You 1
Posted
1 hour ago, workswithseed said:

People shouldn't be killed no matter where their at. At the border, or in the womb. Very hard to understand for some people. 

A fetus is not "people".

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, workswithseed said:

They're human, until the law says they aren't.  I got it. I can think a few people who said this, but this time they're the good guys.

Almost had it, I said. What you continue to leave out of your reasoning is the woman who is carrying the fetus. You’re not alone, of course. You are with the group that includes folks who carry signs, like the one seen at Texas State earlier this month, that read: “Women are Property.”

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Posted
Almost had it, I said. What you continue to leave out of your reasoning is the woman who is carrying the fetus. You’re not alone, of course. You are with the group that includes folks who carry signs, like the one seen at Texas State, earlier this month, that read: “Women are Property.”

Yep. The woman is irrelevant. She is a vessel, not a human being with any agency or rights.
  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 1
Posted
Just now, Brisketexan said:


Yep. The woman is irrelevant. She is a vessel, not a human being with any agency or rights.

 

47 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Almost had it, I said. What you continue to leave out of your reasoning is the woman who is carrying the fetus. You’re not alone, of course. You are with the group that includes folks who carry signs, like the one seen at Texas State, earlier this month, that read: “Women are Property.”

California has a great distinction on this, they say if the child is mutilated by a doctor, it's okay, but if the child is killed with the mother who was just on her way to abort it is still double homicide.  It doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter how the mother truly feels, it's how the state sees it.

 

Posted
19 minutes ago, workswithseed said:

 

California has a great distinction on this, they say if the child is mutilated by a doctor, it's okay, but if the child is killed with the mother who was just on her way to abort it is still double homicide.  It doesn't make sense. It doesn't matter how the mother truly feels, it's how the state sees it.

 

I get your confusion. Nuance is hard. FYI, I imagine the law is the same in Kansas, where the citizens voted in favor of legal abortion, which is legal until the fetus is viable. Same for California.

Further, About six-in-ten US citizens (63%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. 
 

But, the individual ought make a decision for herself. A state with the power to ban abortion is a state with the power to force abortion. 

  • Hook 'Em 4
Posted
5 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

I get your confusion. Nuance is hard. FYI, I imagine the law is the same in Kansas, where the citizens voted in favor of legal abortion, which is legal until the fetus is viable. Same for California.

Further, About six-in-ten US citizens (63%) say abortion should be legal in all or most cases. 
 

But, the individual ought make a decision for herself. A state with the power to ban abortion is a state with the power to force abortion. 

I get this, I would rather hope that women in their hearts to choose life. 

Posted
Well, if this country supported pregnancy, mothers, and raising children, with a fervor, and generous funding, I suspect significantly more women would choose to bring a baby into the world. But, we don’t. Healthcare. Child care. Lower wages. The cost of raising a kid is mountainous, and we don’t want to be burdened by increased taxation to create a more hospitable world.

Bingo. The GQP and crew is strongly pro-forced birth. They are not in any way pro-life.
  • Hook 'Em 5
  • Like 2
Posted
Well, if this country supported pregnancy, mothers, and raising children, with a fervor, and generous funding, I suspect significantly more women would choose to bring a baby into the world. But, we don’t. Healthcare. Child care. Lower wages. The cost of raising a kid is mountainous, and we don’t want to be burdened by increased taxation to create a more hospitable world.

We can’t even slightly improve the general citizenry’s health outcomes! That’s socialism! And against gods will!

The last few pages here are a perfect example of how the right dangles a shiny emotional object in front of people so they can rob them and give their money to their 1%er buddies.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted
On 11/30/2024 at 5:07 PM, workswithseed said:

I get this, I would rather hope that women in their hearts to choose life. 

https://www.texastribune.org/2024/11/27/texas-abortion-death-porsha-ngumezi/#:~:text=Porsha's is the fifth case,those deaths were in Texas.

Plenty of Texas women "choose life" and want to have babies.  The problem is you religious fanatics trying to use your imaginary friend to legislate women's choices on what they can and cannot do w/ their bodies.

Go fuck yourself with your disingenuous bullshit. 

  • Hook 'Em 3
  • Like 1
  • Rage+1 2
  • 1 month later...
Posted
On 1/3/2025 at 3:40 PM, Willfully Horn said:

Maternal deaths rose 56%, in Texas, from 2019 to 2022; nationally, maternal deaths rose 11%. Covid played a part, but these researchers said Texas’ abortion ban is the main reason behind Texas’ quintupling the national increase.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna171631

Where is this research published? I'm sincerely interested in the method used to assess confounding related to COVID and it's well established relationship with maternal mortality. The descriptive data are not particularly compelling. 

image.thumb.png.cc309984a4fe1501f434f2846b77ddc2.png

Posted

The data is from the last link I posted. Your question is the reason for propublica’s release cited in my post #6237. Texas law forbids review of data from maternal death that is considered abortion related.

Another example of Rs fucking up government, in order to “prove” government doesn’t work.

But, maternal death, in raw numbers, doesn’t require statistical analysis to fact check. Algebra works just fine.

Posted (edited)
54 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

The data is from the last link I posted.

The data in the NBC article you posted is Texas specific and runs through 2022. The MMWR report you cite is aggregate data that runs through 2021. It isn't a gotcha. It's a pretty simple question. Where is the detailed description of the methods and results of the research you cited? 

54 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

But, maternal death, in raw numbers, doesn’t require statistical analysis to fact check. Algebra works just fine.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

What I see in the crude rate charts is an increase from 2019 to 2020, and from 2020 to 2021, followed by a decrease from 2021 to 2022. The Texas abortion ban went into effect Sept 1, 2021. So 2022 is the only full year data under that policy. Overall 2022 rates are lower than both the 2021 and 2020 rates. The race/ethnicity segments are interesting, but the demographic segment with the lowest pre-2021 abortion rate has the greatest increase in maternal mortality. The race/ethnicity segments with the greatest abortion rates pre-2021 have much lower increase in maternal mortality rates. Pretty obvious this doesn't hang together, which is why I was sincerely interested in the analytical methods that led the "researchers" involved to their conclusion as you framed it: "Covid played a part, but these researchers said Texas’ abortion ban is the main reason behind Texas’ quintupling the national increase." COVID is probably driving the raw numbers. You suggested this was teased out in the analysis, but I don't see that. Probably a straightforward difference in differences analysis with some reasonable covariates would suffice. Doesn't have to be overly complex, "Algebra works fine" isn't really how this actually works unless you are in 7th grade math class. 

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
7 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

The data in the NBC article you posted is Texas specific and runs through 2022. The MMWR report you cite is aggregate data that runs through 2021. It isn't a gotcha. It's a pretty simple question. Where is the detailed description of the methods and results of the research you cited? 

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

What I see in the crude rate charts is an increase from 2019 to 2020, and from 2020 to 2021, followed by a decrease from 2021 to 2022. The Texas abortion ban went into effect Sept 1, 2021. So 2022 is the only full year data under that policy. Overall 2022 rates are lower than both the 2021 and 2020 rates. The race/ethnicity segments are interesting, but the demographic segment with the lowest pre-2021 abortion rate has the greatest increase in maternal mortality. The race/ethnicity segment with the greatest abortion rates pre-2021 have much lower increase in maternal mortality rates. Pretty obvious this doesn't hang together, which is why I was sincerely interested in the analytical methods that led the "researchers" involved to their conclusion as you framed it: "Covid played a part, but these researchers said Texas’ abortion ban is the main reason behind Texas’ quintupling the national increase." COVID is probably driving the raw numbers. You suggested this was teased out in the analysis, but I don't see that. Probably a straightforward difference in differences analysis with some reasonable covariates would suffice. Doesn't have to be overly complex, "Algebra works fine" isn't really how this actually works unless you are in 7th grade math class. 

No. Increase in maternal deaths year to year is pretty simple. Your beef is with the conclusions, reported by NBC, and claimed by the Gender Equality Research Institute, which attribute Texas’ quintupling the national average of maternal mortality to anti choice laws. Claims which I think I described accurately. The data GERI used to make their claim was from the CDC.

But, go ahead, and make your own claim, based on data which is designed by law to be opaque.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted (edited)

  

4 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

Increase in maternal deaths year to year is pretty simple.

From 2021 to 2022 there was actually a decrease. Which is kind of relevant, no?

 

5 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

claimed by the Gender Equality Research Institute, which attribute Texas’ quintupling the national average of maternal mortality to anti choice laws. Claims which I think I described accurately.

The NBC article didn't say anything about COVID at all. It is pretty clear that this wasn't really rigorous epidemiological research. It's a press release by a special interest group pushing half ass epi to NBC as an exclusive. Again, it would not be particularly hard to do a good analysis of this, controlling for confounding factors such as the substantial impact on maternal mortality related to COVID. But this is not that. 

Edited by Anastasis
Posted
14 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

  

The NBC article didn't say anything about COVID at all. 

From the link in the NBC article:

”While maternal mortality spiked overall during the pandemic, women dying while pregnant or during childbirth rose consistently in Texas following the state’s ban on abortion, according to the Gender Equity Policy Institute.”

Posted
3 minutes ago, Willfully Horn said:

From the link in the NBC article:

”While maternal mortality spiked overall during the pandemic, women dying while pregnant or during childbirth rose consistently in Texas following the state’s ban on abortion, according to the Gender Equity Policy Institute.”

My bad. That seems like a really rigorous analysis. 

Just read that statement and tell me exactly what data points directly support it. The crude maternal mortality rate actually went down after the state's abortion ban. I feel like I am in bizarro world. 

Posted (edited)
52 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Just read that statement and tell me exactly what data points directly support it. The crude maternal mortality rate actually went down after the state's abortion ban. I feel like I am in bizarro world. 

Nah. I’ll watch a movie with my wife, and then go to bed. You have the genuine curiosity. I’m pissed maternal mortality has spiked.

Edit: However, the ban on abortion: “Went into effect on August 25, 2022, 30 days after the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned Roe v. Wade. This law makes no exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.”

Edited by Willfully Horn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Posted

Heartbeat bill, subject of that article, went into effect in 2021. The trigger law 30d after Dobbs in 2022. None of that helps support the interpretations of the data presented in the article you posted. If you move the landmark to 2022 it only further undermines their interpretation of the data. There is actually relevant epidemiology to consider. And then there is disinformation. The article you posted falls into the latter bucket.   



×
×
  • Create New...