View Single Post
Old 11-15-2012, 07:35 PM   #121
Mrs. Loopner Mrs. Loopner is offline
Starter
 
Mrs. Loopner's Avatar
 

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: NotAllowed2TellStrangers
Casino cash: $5157
I see more than a couple of problems with this study.

- You can’t get more liberal than San Francisco. They’ll sue the pants off a wino because he didn’t share with his re-hab wino mama AND then they’ll take it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court if they don’t win.

-There isn’t a BBQ joint in San Francisco, (I’m pretty sure – I never saw one anyway) How can anyone conduct a study who doesn’t welcome an exhilarating regular experience of BBQ? No wonder their thinking is messed up!

Currently in the U.S. there are 650 abortion clinics operating – this study referenced 30 clinics as to where they gathered their information and 1000 women? They should have been able to get 20% of the clinics and 100,000’s of women who were turned down to interview especially if they gave them $50 gift cards for interviewing. A very poor sampling, in my opinion.

And, 2800 interviews which is 2.8 interviews per person?
If they are contacting the women every 6 months and the study was from 2008 to 2010 then that changes the 2.8 per person to: the 2008 (let’s say January) to at minimum to 2 in year one, 2 in year two and 2 in year three so that should be 6 interviews with one person in just three years and it states they will contact them for a period of 5 years. So, they haven’t even finished gathering data from the 2008 group. Yet, they are coming out with results? Trends maybe but not results.

-It doesn’t state who is funding the study. Yes, UCFS is completing the study but who gave them the funds? They’re not doing it out of the goodness of their hearts. That has definite bearing upon results. .

-It doesn’t reference why they were “turned away”. Was it because the clinic was about to close; they had too many waiting already; they hadn’t done proper preparation (it is a surgical procedure I would think they would have to abstain from food, water, etc before the procedure) they didn’t have someone to take them home afterwards and to infinity and beyond with reasons but specifics are not mentioned. Did they not get their husbands/partners permission? Does that even come into play here.

And not once does it mention prevention/birth control on either the man or women's part.

The "study" is bogus.
__________________
"24 hours in a day, 24 beers in a case. Coincidence? ~Stephen Wright
Posts: 390
Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.Mrs. Loopner has just been standing around suckin' on a big ol' chili dog.
  Reply With Quote