| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Osprey" |
| Date: |
21 Oct 2007 09:45:23 PM |
| Object: |
The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't telling the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
This is simply not true, and there is no evidence to support it.
This was found at factcheck.org
A number of politicians and organizations have been circulating an
interesting and surprising idea: that abortions have gone up under George W.
Bush's watch. The claim is repeated by supporters of abortion rights as
evidence that Bush's anti-abortion policies have backfired, or at least been
ineffective.
But the claim is untrue. In fact, according to the respected Alan Guttmacher
Institute, a 20-year decline in abortion rates continued after Bush took
office...
So where is Barnes trying to get this information from?
The claim that abortions are rising again can be traced back to an opinion
piece by Glen Harold Stassen, an ethics professor at Fuller Theological
Seminary. His article originally appeared in a web and e-mail publication of
Sojourners, a Christian magazine, in October 2004. Several other outlets,
including the Houston Chronicle, also ran a similar piece co-authored by
Stassen and journalist Gary Krane. The articles generated a good deal of
discussion on a number of both liberal and conservative blogs.
Describing himself as "consistently pro-life," Stassen reported that he
"analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency" and reached some
"disturbing" conclusions. "Under President Bush, the decade-long trend of
declining abortion rates appears to have reversed," he said. "Given the
trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in
2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction."
Stassen's broad conclusion wasn't justified by the sketchy information he
cited, however. Furthermore, a primary organization he cited specifically as
a source for historical data now contradicts him, saying abortions have
continued to decline since Bush took office. More about that later.
And where is that 14.6% number from?
According to Stassen, "Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6
percent average increase), and five saw a decrease (4.3 percent average)." A
version of the piece in the Houston Chronicle reported instead that four saw
a decrease with a 4.3 percent average.
Source:
http://jewishatheist.blogspot.com/2006/03/correction-abortions-did-not-increase.html
and
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
In other words, Barnes is trying to skew the numbers and lie. No News at
10.
Sorry to burst your bubble Barnes
naa..actually I'm happy to burst it.
Which red herring are you going to toss now Barnes?
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
21 Oct 2007 09:52:55 PM |
|
|
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't telling the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
The national abortion rate decreased by 13 percent during President
Clinton¹s first term and decreased an additional 5 percent during his
second, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research
organization focused on sexual and reproductive health. The Guttmacher
Institute estimates that increased access to emergency contraception
accounted for up to 43 percent of the decline in abortions from 1994 to
2000. During Clinton¹s tenure, the FDA approved two emergency
contraception medications -- Preven, a combination of estrogen and
progestin, in 1998 and Plan B, a steroid called levonorgestrel, in
1999. In addition, in 1997, the FDA approved a regimen of common birth
control pills for use as emergency contraceptives.
That support of the FDA has been curtailed under the Bush
Administration and, consequently, abortions have increased again.
Save some face - be man enough to admit you are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
21 Oct 2007 09:54:55 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
I repeat..since you have NOT done your research. THEY HAVEN'T SUPPORTED
THEIR CLAIM.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Your response?
Debunked your lie.
The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
I have given THREE sources
The national abortion rate decreased by 13 percent during President
Clinton¹s first term and decreased an additional 5 percent during his
second, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research
organization focused on sexual and reproductive health. The Guttmacher
Institute estimates that increased access to emergency contraception
accounted for up to 43 percent of the decline in abortions from 1994 to
2000. During Clinton¹s tenure, the FDA approved two emergency
contraception medications -- Preven, a combination of estrogen and
progestin, in 1998 and Plan B, a steroid called levonorgestrel, in
1999. In addition, in 1997, the FDA approved a regimen of common birth
control pills for use as emergency contraceptives.
I shall repeat again, for the ignorant (that's you Barnes)
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
That support of the FDA has been curtailed under the Bush
Administration and, consequently, abortions have increased again.
Save some face - be man enough to admit you are wrong.
You have been made to be the fool..again..:o)
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
21 Oct 2007 09:59:18 PM |
|
|
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
The national abortion rate decreased by 13 percent during President
Clinton¹s first term and decreased an additional 5 percent during his
second, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research
organization focused on sexual and reproductive health. The Guttmacher
Institute estimates that increased access to emergency contraception
accounted for up to 43 percent of the decline in abortions from 1994 to
2000. During Clinton¹s tenure, the FDA approved two emergency
contraception medications -- Preven, a combination of estrogen and
progestin, in 1998 and Plan B, a steroid called levonorgestrel, in
1999. In addition, in 1997, the FDA approved a regimen of common birth
control pills for use as emergency contraceptives.
That support of the FDA has been curtailed under the Bush
Administration and, consequently, abortions have increased again.
Save some face - be man enough to admit you are wrong.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
21 Oct 2007 10:03:04 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
Note: That's not the director of the National Right to Life.
I shall repeat, since I have already buried your ***** three times now in this
debate.
From: http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
De-bunking the Statistic
Stassen's numbers, and the widespread acceptance they seemed to be getting,
prompted the Guttmacher Institute to conduct a special analysis to update
its comprehensive census of abortion providers for the year 2000. The
increases that Stassen reported "would be a significant change in a
long-standing trend in the US," Leila Darabi of the institute explained to
Factcheck.
Besides the fact that Stassen claimed to have data only from 16 states, the
Guttmacher Institute said it is likely that many of the states Stassen
picked have higher abortion rates historically, have a higher concentration
of population subgroups that tend to have more abortions, and see abortion
rates rise more quickly when they do go up. Stassen himself named only
Kentucky, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Colorado among the 16 states he says he
studied, but his co-author on the Houston Chronicle article listed each
state in a separate article posted on the Internet.
The Guttmacher Institute found that two of the states Stassen used had
unreliable reporting systems. In Colorado , for instance, where Stassen
claimed that rates "skyrocketed 111 percent," the reporting procedure had
been recently changed in order to compensate for historic underreporting.
Guttmacher also found Arizona had an inconsistent reporting system.
The Facts
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher analyzed
available government data "as an interim measure until another provider
census can be conducted" according to a news release. The interim study
analyzed data from 43 states determined to have reliable state reporting
systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide - by
0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which is the
number of women having abortions relative to the total population, also
decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as rapid a decrease as had
been seen in earlier years, but it is a decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely used
and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights advocates.
Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and Stassen cites them
himself as the source for the number of abortions in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion policies
look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a former president
of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and describes its mission
as being" to protect the reproductive choice of all women and men in the
United States and throughout the world." Had Stassen's numbers proven
accurate, the Institute "would have reported and widely publicized a rise in
abortion rates," said Darabi. But facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate his
original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to FactCheck.org just
as we were posting our article, he praises the Guttmacher study and says it
is "significantly better" than his own earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states whose
data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their extensive
data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute) bases their results
on 44 states. They say their results are only estimates, projections, but I
believe their results are significantly better than what I could have
obtained seven months ago. I affirm their methods and their study, and am
grateful for their effort.
Nevertheless, Stassen still argues that the small rate of decline that
Guttmacher reports still constitutes a "stall" in what had earlier been a
more rapid decline. He also continues to criticize the Bush administration
for economic policies that he says bring hardship on low-income women. "It
is clear to me that undermining the financial support for mothers,
undermining the availability of medical insurance, and increasing the
jobless rate for prospective mates so that they are less likely to marry,
has a bad influence on abortion rates and infant mortality rates."
For the full text of Stassen's response see "supporting documents" at right.
Correction: Our original article stated that Sen. Clinton had omitted to
mention states in which abortions had decreased. In fact, as was obvious
from the full quote we gave, she did state that abortions had decreased in
four states. This updated article corrects our error.
And to finish you off, I'll add more sources.
Sources
Glen Harold Stassen, "Pro-Life? Look at the fruits," Sojomail, 13 October
2004.
Glen Harold Stassen and Gary Krane, "Why Abortion Rate Is Up In Bush Years,"
Houston Chronicle, 17 October 2004
Sen. Hillary Clinton, "Remarks by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to the NYS
Family Planning Providers," 24 January 2005, Web site.
"Meet the Press," Transcript, National Broadcasting Company, 30 January
2005.
"Meet the Press," Transcript, National Broadcasting Company, 22 May 2005.
"Decades-Long Decline in Number and Rate of U.S. Abortions Continues, New
Analysis Shows," Press Release, The Alan Guttmacher Institute, 19 May 2005.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
21 Oct 2007 10:09:52 PM |
|
|
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
21 Oct 2007 10:14:27 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on abortion.
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not doing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in this
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Overall, abortion ratios and abortion rates have declined over time (Figure
1). The abortion ratio for 2000 (246 per 1,000 live births for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was a 3.8% decline from the previous year. The
abortion rate (16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was also a decline of 3.8% from the rate reported
in 1999 (Table 2). The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate over
time may reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number of
unintended pregnancies (9); a shift in the age distribution of women toward
the older and less fertile ages (7); reduced or limited access to abortion
services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescents
(e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting periods)
(10--14); and changes in contraceptive practices, including an increased use
of contraception, such as condoms, and, among young women, of long-acting
hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s
(15--18).
Run and hide now Barnes, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
21 Oct 2007 10:39:50 PM |
|
|
In article <xvGdnW68tuIOiIHanZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on abortion.
You claimed ³a person has to be an IDIOT to believe a president has
anything to do with the rate of abortions.³ Now you seem to want to
move the goal posts. I wonder why?
It sounds as though you are admitting I was correct - a president can
have something to do with the rate of abortions. Instead you now hope
to claim Bush influences them too!
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not doing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in this
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
That¹s right - try to move the goal posts now that you are embarrassed!
The issue was you claiming ³a person has to be an IDIOT to believe a
president has anything to do with the rate of abortions.³ Now you admit
I was right - a president can have something to do with the rate of
abortions. Instead you now hope to claim Bush influenced them
positively, too!
He has actually had a negative influence on them, but that is not the
issue. Your idiotic, knee jerk claim that ³a person has to be an IDIOT
to believe a president has anything to do with the rate of abortions³
is wrong - even by your sources!
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
23 Oct 2007 09:41:44 AM |
|
|
On Oct 21, 10:39 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <xvGdnW68tuIOiIHanZ2dnUVZ_j2dn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@comcast.com>, Ospr=
ey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decrease=
s and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks l=
ike a
fool by resorting to the =B3National Right to Life.=B2
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpro=
fit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right=
to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on abortio=
n=2E
You claimed =B3a person has to be an IDIOT to believe a president has
anything to do with the rate of abortions.=B3 Now you seem to want to
move the goal posts. I wonder why?
It sounds as though you are admitting I was correct - a president can
have something to do with the rate of abortions. Instead you now hope
to claim Bush influences them too!
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not d=
oing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in t=
his
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
That=B9s right - try to move the goal posts now that you are embarrassed!
The issue was you claiming =B3a person has to be an IDIOT to believe a
president has anything to do with the rate of abortions.=B3 Now you admit
I was right - a president can have something to do with the rate of
abortions. Instead you now hope to claim Bush influenced them
positively, too!
He has actually had a negative influence on them, but that is not the
issue. Your idiotic, knee jerk claim that =B3a person has to be an IDIOT
to believe a president has anything to do with the rate of abortions=B3
is wrong - even by your sources!- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
;-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom S." |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
22 Oct 2007 07:43:48 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:14:27 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on abortion.
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not doing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in this
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Overall, abortion ratios and abortion rates have declined over time (Figure
1). The abortion ratio for 2000 (246 per 1,000 live births for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was a 3.8% decline from the previous year. The
abortion rate (16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was also a decline of 3.8% from the rate reported
in 1999 (Table 2). The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate over
time may reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number of
unintended pregnancies (9); a shift in the age distribution of women toward
the older and less fertile ages (7); reduced or limited access to abortion
services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescents
(e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting periods)
(10--14); and changes in contraceptive practices, including an increased use
of contraception, such as condoms, and, among young women, of long-acting
hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s
(15--18).
Run and hide now Barnes, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Clinton was still President in 2000!! Bush stole his first
presidential election in November of 2000 and wasn't sworn in as
President until Jan 2001. There is no way he could have had any
presidential influence on the abortion rate.
Do you have any data from when Bush was actually president??? Like
maybe from 2003 or 2006??
Run and hide now Bobby, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Tom S.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
22 Oct 2007 08:10:19 PM |
|
|
In article <3ogqh3d03k8i9crsnguu7vgg91bl666e8d@4ax.com>, Tom S.
<tscalfjr@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:14:27 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on abortion.
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not doing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in this
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Overall, abortion ratios and abortion rates have declined over time (Figure
1). The abortion ratio for 2000 (246 per 1,000 live births for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was a 3.8% decline from the previous year. The
abortion rate (16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was also a decline of 3.8% from the rate reported
in 1999 (Table 2). The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate over
time may reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number of
unintended pregnancies (9); a shift in the age distribution of women toward
the older and less fertile ages (7); reduced or limited access to abortion
services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescents
(e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting periods)
(10--14); and changes in contraceptive practices, including an increased use
of contraception, such as condoms, and, among young women, of long-acting
hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s
(15--18).
Run and hide now Barnes, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Clinton was still President in 2000!! Bush stole his first
presidential election in November of 2000 and wasn't sworn in as
President until Jan 2001. There is no way he could have had any
presidential influence on the abortion rate.
Do you have any data from when Bush was actually president??? Like
maybe from 2003 or 2006??
Run and hide now Bobby, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Indeed you have. Osprey is frustrated. When he gets that way he just
repeats himself over and over again.
He bends over backwards trying to find some justification for George W.
BushŒs un-American activities, but claims to be an ³independent.² His
life, like his statements out here, is a lie.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?iso-8859-1?q?Gwyne=F0_Bennetdottir?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
23 Oct 2007 09:38:06 AM |
|
|
On Oct 22, 8:10 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ogqh3d03k8i9crsnguu7vgg91bl666...@4ax.com>, Tom S.
<tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:14:27 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@comcast.com>, Osp=
rey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates decreas=
es and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks =
like a
fool by resorting to the =B3National Right to Life.=B2
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonpr=
ofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Righ=
t to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on aborti=
on.
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not =
doing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in =
this
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Overall, abortion ratios and abortion rates have declined over time (F=
igure
1). The abortion ratio for 2000 (246 per 1,000 live births for the sam=
e 48
reporting areas as 1999) was a 3.8% decline from the previous year. The
abortion rate (16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was also a decline of 3.8% from the rate repo=
rted
in 1999 (Table 2). The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate=
over
time may reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number =
of
unintended pregnancies (9); a shift in the age distribution of women t=
oward
the older and less fertile ages (7); reduced or limited access to abor=
tion
services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect adolescen=
ts
(e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting per=
iods)
(10--14); and changes in contraceptive practices, including an increas=
ed use
of contraception, such as condoms, and, among young women, of long-act=
ing
hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s
(15--18).
Run and hide now Barnes, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Clinton was still President in 2000!! Bush stole his first
presidential election in November of 2000 and wasn't sworn in as
President until Jan 2001. There is no way he could have had any
presidential influence on the abortion rate.
Do you have any data from when Bush was actually president??? Like
maybe from 2003 or 2006??
Run and hide now Bobby, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Indeed you have. Osprey is frustrated. When he gets that way he just
repeats himself over and over again.
He bends over backwards trying to find some justification for George W.
Bush=8Cs un-American activities, but claims to be an =B3independent.=B2 =
His
life, like his statements out here, is a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
well, yes. He supports Bush and supports the illegality of the Iraq
War. He doesn't realize that by being in support of these, he's
underminding his follow service men, not to mention biting off the
very hand that feeds him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
23 Oct 2007 09:42:06 AM |
|
|
"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193150286.162084.231440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 8:10 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ogqh3d03k8i9crsnguu7vgg91bl666...@4ax.com>, Tom S.
<tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:14:27 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@comcast.com>,
Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates
decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks
like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a
nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right
to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on
abortion.
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not
doing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in
this
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Overall, abortion ratios and abortion rates have declined over time
(Figure
1). The abortion ratio for 2000 (246 per 1,000 live births for the same
48
reporting areas as 1999) was a 3.8% decline from the previous year. The
abortion rate (16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was also a decline of 3.8% from the rate
reported
in 1999 (Table 2). The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate
over
time may reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number
of
unintended pregnancies (9); a shift in the age distribution of women
toward
the older and less fertile ages (7); reduced or limited access to
abortion
services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect
adolescents
(e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting
periods)
(10--14); and changes in contraceptive practices, including an
increased use
of contraception, such as condoms, and, among young women, of
long-acting
hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s
(15--18).
Run and hide now Barnes, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Clinton was still President in 2000!! Bush stole his first
presidential election in November of 2000 and wasn't sworn in as
President until Jan 2001. There is no way he could have had any
presidential influence on the abortion rate.
Do you have any data from when Bush was actually president??? Like
maybe from 2003 or 2006??
Run and hide now Bobby, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Indeed you have. Osprey is frustrated. When he gets that way he just
repeats himself over and over again.
He bends over backwards trying to find some justification for George W.
BushOs un-American activities, but claims to be an ³independent.² His
life, like his statements out here, is a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
*well, yes. He supports Bush and supports the illegality of the Iraq
*War. He doesn't realize that by being in support of these, he's
*underminding his follow service men, not to mention biting off the
*very hand that feeds him.
All your red herrings and lies show one thing, you know that in this debate
your buddy Barnes lost.
I will steer this train BACK on the track, since out of embarrassment you
guys need to try to pull it off and divert the direction.
Barnes claimed that under Clinton abortions declined and under Bush they
increased.
That is a lie.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
1990 - 1429688
1991 - 1389083 (decrease from 90)
1992 - 1359437 (decrease from 91)
1993 - 1330614 (decrease from 92)
1994 - 1268166 (decrease from 93)
1995 - 1211119 (decrease from 94)
1996 - 1365700 (increase from 95)
1997 - 1186229 (decrease from 96)
1998 - 885207 (decrease from 97)
1999 - 864078 (decrease from 98)
2000 - 861343 (decrease from 99)
2001 - 853911 (decrease from 00)
2002 - 854382 (slight increase from 01)
2003 - 850230 (decrease from 02)
2004 - 542286 (decrease from 03)
2005 - 346213 (decrease from 04)
2006 - 9151 (decrease from 05)
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred, down from 1.36 million
abortions in 1996.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
You can throw out all the lies and red herrings you want, it's all you can
do. I have provided the sources and the data that shows, Barnes is dead
WRONG. Like you, he doesn't do his research. You see, I don't have to
support Bush or Clinton to show how wrong you guys are.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
23 Oct 2007 10:39:41 AM |
|
|
In article <-ZadnQcXiYTdlYPanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193150286.162084.231440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 8:10 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ogqh3d03k8i9crsnguu7vgg91bl666...@4ax.com>, Tom S.
<tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:14:27 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@comcast.com>,
Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this is nothing new.
He is claiming that under Bill Clinton abortion rates
decreases and
increased sharply when Bush took office.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You look like a fool.
Your myth has been debunked.
Give it a rest, Osprey. You are an admitted pedophile who looks
like a
fool by resorting to the ³National Right to Life.²
As proof, I supplied a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a
nonprofit
research organization focused on sexual and reproductive health.
Your response? The opinion for the director of the National Right
to
Life. This is why you are viewed as a joke out here.
You ignore the source that buries your lying *****.
You are hilarious! First you claim presidents do not have any
influence on the abortion rate, and now you say that we should not
blame Bush because he had a similar influence on the abortion rates!
I never said we should not blame Bush in regards to anything on
abortion.
Face it, you lost this debate.
Now you want to snip, run, and throw out more lies.
It's official...debate over, David Barnes loses on account of him not
doing
his research, cherry picking, and lying.
I shall repeat what I posted earlier, the piece that buries Barnes in
this
debate.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
Oh, and this little gem Barnes...abortion rates have been continuing to
decrease nationwide.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm
Overall, abortion ratios and abortion rates have declined over time
(Figure
1). The abortion ratio for 2000 (246 per 1,000 live births for the same
48
reporting areas as 1999) was a 3.8% decline from the previous year. The
abortion rate (16 per 1,000 women aged 15--44 years for the same 48
reporting areas as 1999) was also a decline of 3.8% from the rate
reported
in 1999 (Table 2). The overall declines in the abortion ratio and rate
over
time may reflect multiple factors, including a decrease in the number
of
unintended pregnancies (9); a shift in the age distribution of women
toward
the older and less fertile ages (7); reduced or limited access to
abortion
services, including the passage of abortion laws that affect
adolescents
(e.g., parental consent or notification laws and mandatory waiting
periods)
(10--14); and changes in contraceptive practices, including an
increased use
of contraception, such as condoms, and, among young women, of
long-acting
hormonal contraceptive methods that were introduced in the early 1990s
(15--18).
Run and hide now Barnes, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Clinton was still President in 2000!! Bush stole his first
presidential election in November of 2000 and wasn't sworn in as
President until Jan 2001. There is no way he could have had any
presidential influence on the abortion rate.
Do you have any data from when Bush was actually president??? Like
maybe from 2003 or 2006??
Run and hide now Bobby, I have stuck a fork in you...you're done.
Indeed you have. Osprey is frustrated. When he gets that way he just
repeats himself over and over again.
He bends over backwards trying to find some justification for George W.
BushOs un-American activities, but claims to be an ³independent.² His
life, like his statements out here, is a lie.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
*well, yes. He supports Bush and supports the illegality of the Iraq
*War. He doesn't realize that by being in support of these, he's
*underminding his follow service men, not to mention biting off the
*very hand that feeds him.
All your red herrings and lies show one thing, you know that in this debate
your buddy Barnes lost.
I will steer this train BACK on the track, since out of embarrassment you
guys need to try to pull it off and divert the direction.
Barnes claimed that under Clinton abortions declined and under Bush they
increased.
That is a lie.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedstates.html
1990 - 1429688
1991 - 1389083 (decrease from 90)
1992 - 1359437 (decrease from 91)
1993 - 1330614 (decrease from 92)
1994 - 1268166 (decrease from 93)
1995 - 1211119 (decrease from 94)
1996 - 1365700 (increase from 95)
1997 - 1186229 (decrease from 96)
1998 - 885207 (decrease from 97)
1999 - 864078 (decrease from 98)
2000 - 861343 (decrease from 99)
2001 - 853911 (decrease from 00)
2002 - 854382 (slight increase from 01)
2003 - 850230 (decrease from 02)
2004 - 542286 (decrease from 03)
2005 - 346213 (decrease from 04)
2006 - 9151 (decrease from 05)
http://www.guttmacher.org/media/presskits/2005/06/28/abortionoverview.html
In 2002, 1.29 million abortions occurred, down from 1.36 million
abortions in 1996.
http://www.factcheck.org/society/the_biography_of_a_bad_statistic.html
The Guttmacher Institute announced its findings May 19. Guttmacher
analyzed available government data "as an interim measure until
another provider census can be conducted" according to a news release.
The interim study analyzed data from 43 states determined to have
reliable state reporting systems.
What it found was that the number of abortions decreased nationwide -
by 0.8% in 2001 and by another 0.8% in 2002. The abortion rate , which
is the number of women having abortions relative to the total
population, also decreased 1% in 2001 and 0.9% in 2002. That's not as
rapid a decrease as had been seen in earlier years, but it is a
decrease nonetheless.
We give much weight to Guttmacher's analysis. Their figures are widely
used and accepted by both anti-abortion groups and abortion-rights
advocates. Their surveys of abortion providers go back to 1973, and
Stassen cites them himself as the source for the number of abortions
in 2000.
Guttmacher has little motive to make Bush and his anti-abortion
policies look good. The institute was founded in 1968 in honor of a
former president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and
describes its mission as being" to protect the reproductive choice of
all women and men in the United States and throughout the world." Had
Stassen's numbers proven accurate, the Institute "would have reported
and widely publicized a rise in abortion rates," said Darabi. But
facts are facts.
Update, May 26: Even Stassen now concedes that he can't substantiate
his original claim. In a memo dated May 25, which he sent to
FactCheck.org just as we were posting our article, he praises the
Guttmacher study and says it is "significantly better" than his own
earlier effort:
Stassen, May 25: I based my estimates in October on the sixteen states
whose data I could find then. Now, seven months later, and with their
extensive data-gathering ability, AGI (Alan Guttmacher Institute)
bases their results on 44 states. They say their results are only
estimates, projections, but I believe their results are significantly
better than what I could have obtained seven months ago. I affirm
their methods and their study, and am grateful for their effort.
You can throw out all the lies and red herrings you want, it's all you can
do. I have provided the sources and the data that shows, Barnes is dead
WRONG. Like you, he doesn't do his research. You see, I don't have to
support Bush or Clinton to show how wrong you guys are.
You are flip flopping again. Your current claim is not the point. You
stuck your nose in and said ³a person has to be an IDIOT to believe a
president has anything to do with the rate of abortions.³ Can you
prove that or not? You now seem to be admitting you pulled that out of
your *****. (I will be glad to shoot down your defective numbers,
later.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: The truth: Abortion rates didn't increase under Bush |
23 Oct 2007 10:47:18 AM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <davbarnes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:231020070839418958%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <-ZadnQcXiYTdlYPanZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Gwyneð Bennetdottir" <bennetwithonet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1193150286.162084.231440@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 22, 8:10 pm, "David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <3ogqh3d03k8i9crsnguu7vgg91bl666...@4ax.com>, Tom S.
<tscal...@cox.net> wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:14:27 -0400, "Osprey" <NoNeedtok...@mail.com>
wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020072009522175%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <VZSdnQycmdh0j4HanZ2dnUVZ_j-dn...@comcast.com>, Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071959186194%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <T6ednU5G44-djIHanZ2dnUVZ_q2hn...@comcast.com>,
Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <davbar...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:211020071952554993%davbarnes@gmail.com...
In article <gOKdncyCE89ek4HanZ2dnUVZ_o2vn...@comcast.com>,
Osprey
<NoNeedtok...@mail.com> wrote:
David Barnes, as usual, is spreading myths and lies. He
isn't
telling
the
whole story, but this i | | | | | | | | | | | | |
