,
13 tweets,
4 min read
Read on Twitter
THREAD-UPDATE: Passage of NY's barbaric abortion law, VA debate over Tran's bill & Governor Northam's comments on that law, which would allow abortion until birth of healthy fetus even as mom was in labor, outraged Americans. Abortion apologist responded by claim such 1/
2/ abortions only happen in rare case of fetal anomaly or maternal health at risk. Opponents of abortion quickly pointed out that was false & quoted pro-abortion research from Guttmacher. Here's the link: guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/…
3/ And here is the pertinent language, quoted verbatim from article: "data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment." But then push back started w/ abortion apologists on twitter claiming pro-lifers
4/ were lying, i.e., "false claims made about the number of women who seek 'late-term' abortions due to maternal health and/or fetal anomaly." Why? Because the cited references didn't support the articles claim. I dug into it more to see if that was the case. This thread
5/began by with my thread laying out the analysis. Since then I contacted author of the article who stated: "data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment" and asked whether that statement was accurate.
6/ I intended to write an article summarizing all these details but as drafting discovered Washington Post already had. washingtonpost.com/us-policy/2019… And you know what the key take-away is?
7/ While we don't have good data, later abortions for fetal anomalies make up a small minority of later abortions. And the author's testimony to the Congressional Committee is consistent with her earlier statement that fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R… 
8/ "data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment." But I stilled wanted to confirm with author whether her statement was accurate. So I asked her point blank:
9/ Is this statement accurate & did you earlier research provide that data? (Recall, she cited for that proposition her earlier more extensive research.). She responded: "The upshot is that nobody knows what fraction of later abortions are for fetal anomaly or maternal health."
10/ But that was not the question. The question is was that statement accurate because pro-lifers relying on it are being accused of presenting false information. Because at the time I intended to publish an article on this, I asked for clarification. Here's what I wrote:
11/ The author responded. A simple "yes, it is accurate and my data I cited supported it." Or "no, I made a mistake" would clarify. But instead the author decided she didn't want to be involved. That's her prerogative, but if you put out research & others rely a proposition
12/ you include and include a citation to your own research and data, others may rely on the assumed veracity of that statement. So the upshot: "data suggest that most women seeking later terminations are not doing so for reasons of fetal anomaly or life endangerment."
13/13 And abortion apologists don't like it when you use their own research to point out the reality of abortion. END
