,
12 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD: So Mangy Jay did a nice threat walking through some details and corrects some mistakes, makes others, and fails to recognize a likelihood. First, she is correct that @DouthatNYT incorrectly relied on the study to support reasons for 3d trimester abortions. And she is 1/
2/ absolutely correct that footnote 5 of the study doesn't support the proposition the authors claim it does-at least the published study. The author may have gotten data from the other authors. But @xan_desanctis was 100% accurate in what she wrote for the Atlantic, as was I
3/ in my piece for @FDRLST. thefederalist.com/2019/02/04/don… We stated what the Guttmacher article said data suggested. Now does data suggest that? Footnote 5 doesn't, but what about footnote 21? Mangy Jay says no, but she ignores one significant fact: The author of the Guttmacher
4/ "literature review" is THE author of article cited in footnote 21. Yes, that article was researching different question & yes that article did NOT state gestational age for abortions w/ fetal anomalies, but it is entirely reasonable to believe that Diana Greene Foster would
5/ review her own data (which DID include the gestational age and fetal anomalies) and find that her data supported her proposition that MOST later "terminations" were for other reasons. If Diana Greene Foster misrepresented her data, SHE should be the one correcting the record. 
6/And contrary to Mangy Jay's claim that "There is 'no' possible way to examine whether fetal anomaly or maternal health was a reason for seeking a second or third trimester abortion from the data in this study," there was: Foster could look at data she had previously collected!
7/ Mangy Jay then says: "Second, neither of the studies cited in the 2013 paper found what the authors claimed they had found. I don’t want to excuse this error, but I will say this is VERY COMMON in academic research." Yet she then says that two journalists who relied on the
8/ research and the publishers need to correct the record! IF Foster misrepresented her own research, SHE needs to correct her academic writings! But let's stop here a minute to think about why this is even being debated? Because the abortion left has pushed the lie for so
9/ long that late-term abortions are ONLY in tragic circumstances of a dying mom or a fetus suffering from a condition incompatible with life and then Northam and Tran gave the came away. And Guttmacher backed up the claim.. But let's say for a moment that Foster misrepresented
10/ her data and that it isn't "most" later abortions (20 weeks or later), but only some...her sampling of only 16 clinics for who knows how long had 272 women having abortions for reasons other than fetal anomaly at 20 weeks or later w/ AVERAGE at 22 weeks which is viability!
11/ So in short, abortion apologists are lying when they say "only" in cases of "severe deformity" as Northam framed it, do you have late-term abortions. And the LAW allows abortions for healthy, viable fetuses, which is why were are even discussing this in the first place. So
12/12 whether it's "most," as Guttmacher author Diana Greene Foster said her data suggested (and there is no reason to believe she misrepresented her data), or it's a couple hundred....that's a couple hundred healthy, viable human beings who are no more. END
