Popping across my Google Desktop alerts this afternoon was an alert from USA Today:
Two more women die after using the RU-486. The article there was frightening, but not for the reasons you might think.
Below the fold: the NYT link, and (perhaps) a lesson in critical thinking.
The USA Today article, with a Washington byline, was apparently cribbed from a
NYT article that we'll get into later. The USA Today's "Reader's Digest" version was absolutely ridiculous:
Two more women have died after using the abortion pill RU-486, federal health regulators said Friday, in warning doctors to watch for a rare but deadly infection implicated in earlier deaths.
At least seven U.S. women have died after taking the pill, sold since 2000.
You have to love the compound sentence telling the reader that
seven women have died after taking the pill, and (separately) that the pill has been on sale since 2000. Jam those facts together, so that we think they are related. Brilliant.
If we aren't careful, we'll just zip past the rest of the article:
The Food and Drug Administration cannot prove the drug was to blame in any of the cases.
The FDA has not confirmed the cause of the latest two deaths.
Really? The FDA can't attribute the deaths to the "morning after pill" but someone is pretty darn excited to
pop a headline out and let everyone know that they took it.
WHAT'S THE POINT OF THIS ARTICLE?
- - - -
So I surf on over to the Rag of Repugnancy. Lo and behold, a much longer article. First, I notice that the math doesn't add up: USAT says "at least seven". NYT mentions "The four previous deaths" plus the two new ones. That makes six, I think, but let me check my fingers. USAT says abortion clinics recommend an "off-label" use of the drugs, but the NYT says most physicians. Gosh, who am I supposed to believe?
My problem with the NYT article lies here:
Studies indicate that this regimen is effective, requires a lower dose of misoprostol, and allows women to undergo the most emotional and painful part of the procedure at home.
I am not a female, and I am (thankfully) not blessed with the cyclical physiology that many women have to go through. I do know that it is different for each person, and I believe I've heard it said that
miscarriages happen all the time - more than we might otherwise be aware. So I'm wondering at the accuracy of describing this process as "emotional" and "painful". Is this hyperbole also?
And, of course, we are treated to a similarly biased view to end the article, so these words can be ringing in our head when we finish reading:
Monty Patterson, whose 18-year-old daughter, Holly, died on Sept. 17, 2003, from a C. sordellii infection after getting a medical abortion, has long argued that Mifeprex predisposes women to such infections by suppressing their immune systems. He wants the drug withdrawn.
"How many women have to die needlessly before this drug is removed from the market?" Mr. Patterson said.
Now I'll turn the rant off, because, in fairness, the rest of the USAT and NYT articles are somewhat educational and informative - I did not know that the pill is not a single dose, but a series of medicines, for example. I did not know that abortion clinics are instructing users differently than the FDA-recommended method.
I do know, however, that these articles were written (or edited, most likely) with a certain viewpoint in mind, and I don't like getting pitched. I also don't like that the horribly slanted headline is what brought me to these articles in the first place.