Saturday, January 10, 2009

A lesson in basic statistical analysis

Nothing sophisticated here. Just some simple logic applied to some statistics.

Sometimes people die when they engage in Activity X. Below is a chart showing deaths from Activity X over a multi-decade span.

During this time, there were three public policy changes, with the stated goal of reducing deaths from Activity X. We'll call it Operation Safe X. At one of the points below, there was limited implementation of Operation Safe X. At a subsequent point, there was a significant increase in implementation of Operation Safe X. And at a third point below, there was widespread nationwide implementation of Operation Safe X. Operation Safe X was declared to be a public health triumph.

There was another public policy change made during the time period below. Call it Operation Nasty. Proponents of Operation Safe X told us that if Operation Nasty was put into effect, it would cause a significant increase in deaths from Activity X.

Can you spot the three points in which Operation Safe X was put into limited, widespread, and total implementation?

Can you spot the point in which Operation Nasty was put into effect?

Now I'll be a bit more specific. Operation Safe X was legalization of abortion. At one point, states started loosening abortion laws, allowing legal abortions for social reasons and not just for medical reasons. At the next point, based on the purported success of this change in laws, New York and California legalized abortion on demand. And at the third point, Roe vs. Wade established legal abortion nationwide.

And Operation Nasty? That was the Hyde Amendment, restricting federal funds for elective abortions.

Limited legalization took place in 1968 -- Point G. New York and California's sweeping abortion law changes were in 1970 -- Point H. And Roe, supposedly ushering in the Golden Age and constituting the most significant public health victory in addressing abortion mortality, was at Point I.

The Hyde Amendment, which we were told would flood the morgues of America with coathanger-impaled women, went into effect in 1977 - Point J.

Does it really look to you as if Point I is the point at which the greatest public health improvement in abortion deaths was made? Point H? Point G?

Or was something else happening that was more significant?

And does it look like Point J marked some turning point, reversing the supposedly spectacular results of Roe?

Abortion advocates love to do data massage. They will point out -- quite truthfully -- that abortion deaths fell after legalization. What they omit is that abortion deaths had been falling, and at a much more impressive rate, long before the first states started to decriminalize abortion, long before New York and California made their sweeping changes, long before Roe vs Wade.

Are they claiming credit for somebody else's success?

It sure looks that way to me.

Why would they do such a thing?


Joe said...

Honesty and logic shatter all the fallacies of the abortionists.

This is why you never have and never will get honesty and logic from the abortionists.

Rachael C. said...

Yes, they tend to ignore scientific evidence and logic which are counter to their ideations or manipulate and exagerate science in their favor (i.e the abortion is 10 time more dangerous than childbirth argument or science shows post-abortion depression is rare and the women who have it were crazy in the first place crap)