Comments on: Misusing Science Risks Women’s Health

By: Tracy Weitz

Tracy Weitz — Tue, 04 May 2010 01:57:34 +0000

In response to Julie Schmit-Albin
Personal attacks on two of the authors of the JAMA article is a successful advocacy strategy but it is disingenuous. There are 5 authors on the article: a neuro-anatomist who specializes in pain structures, an anesthesiologist with expertize in fetal surgery, and a neonatologist whose research focuses on extremely prematurity (none of whom are engaged in abortion care). The addition of the physician with an expertize in abortion care rounds out the authors since one of the questions addressed in the article is how anesthesia is provided in the abortion context. It would seem ridiculous to have an article about heart surgery and not include an author with an understanding of how heart surgery is performed. The “NARAL member” was a medical student who had done an internship for the organization as a lawyer. She was not involved with NARAL at the time the article was written. That medical student is now a resident in surgery. These types of attacks on scholars willing to address an abortion-relevant question are a way to deflect away from a discussion of the science.
The JAMA article summarizes the findings of over 2000 studies. We don’t weigh science with claims like I have 9 articles and you have 1. We look at quality, strength of the content, and the reputation of the publication. I encourage interested individuals to read the testimony of those who testified to the Nebraska legislature as well as the JAMA article. The highly politicized nature of the topic of potential fetal pain is evident in the fact that the legislature did not ask for opposing testimony.
Individuals can differ on their feelings about the moral status of abortion and/or the value of legality, but we shouldn’t politicize scientific inquiry in the process.

By: Julie Schmit-Albin

Julie Schmit-Albin — Fri, 30 Apr 2010 01:02:24 +0000

Re: LB 1103, you’re trotting out the 2005 study published in JAMA which has already been outed for its bias: an abortion clinic proprietor and a NARAL member were among the authors. And you want to talk about objectivity? We had nine peer-reviewed studies published in current journals introduced into the legislative record at the hearing on LB 1103. Four physicians, two anesthesialogists, an OB/GYN and a maternal-fetal specialist all testified; as did a constitutional law professor. I know you’re in a world of hurt on this one but seriously, you folks are going to have to dredge up more than one, count em’, one, 2005 article in JAMA.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 29 Apr 2010 01:48:36 +0000

Thank you, Dr. Weitz, for clearly delineating the ways in which Nebraska lawmakers have jeopardized women’s health in the name of so-called “science.”