Is Sue Gardner an Idiot? Options

[Ottava]

Sue Gardner opens her mouth but doesn't know what she is talking about.

Todd Akin went off a doctor's claim that less than .1% of rape victims get pregnant and declared pregnancy after rape to be "rare." I've showed that the only study contradicting that to be bunk because they did not apply a proper control group nor try to see if their results were logical.


But there is something even more basic.

The study saying 5% of rape victims become pregnant only has rape victims that had semen left inside of them (not that common, actually, as many rapes are not finished, or have full ejaculation) and there was no birth control used before, during, or after. Furthermore, they only accounted for "fertile" women, and there are rapes of post-menopausal and those too young to get pregnant.

Thus, the "5% claim" doesn't actually contradict the less than .1% of all rapes. She is wading into a major topic whose title suggests Todd Akin raped someone and is spouting off stuff she really doesn't know. She should have known better.



Bonus: The Executive of the WMF doesn't know that "I disagree with him politically" is not a legitimate keep rationale.

This post has been edited by Ottava:

[Ottava]

There is an interesting statement in an article Ms. Gardner is pushing (but didn't read): "In A Natural History of Rape, Randy Thornhill disputed Holmes' statistics based on DNA findings by Holly A. Hammond,[16] which found that 60% of women who became pregnant after rape were impregnated by a consensual mate.[8]"

As I showed before, the numbers were way off. If the above is true, the 60% of the 5% lowers it down to a mere 2%.


Why does this matter? Because there is no real answer and that page has majorly contradicting information. Ms. Gardner is making really strong statements while the actual numbers don't back that up.


The page has other problems that those like Ms. Gardner introduced. There are many lines like this: "Journalist Blythe Bernhard stated, "That article has influenced two generations of anti-abortion activists with the hope to build a medical case to ban all abortions without any exception."[45]" There is a clear mixture based on whoever gets to control the page. Then there are doozies like this: "Several U.S. Republicans have advanced claims about the rarity of pregnancy from rape." It ignores that a third of Democrats are pro-life, and that there are a substantial number of pro-life Democrats who have said similar things.

Why make such edits unless you are pushing a POV? There is a huge difference between merely "not allowed an exception" and having a major moral problem with any exceptions. This is also not a minor edit.

This post has been edited by Ottava: