I'm not a Republican. Why do you adopt their anti-science methods?I don't remember Republicans verifying statistics when deciding to block Medicaid expansion or gut women's health through Planned Parenthood.
I agree, Texas Republicans should be looking at these statistics very carefully before they cut PP or continue blocking Medicaid expansion and make the problem worse.
Right now Texas has same maternal mortality as Mexico.
Republicans aren't big on Jesus. Most of them don't know shit about the Bible, think "Koine" has something to do with change machines, and in general are precisely the scribes and Pharisees Jesus warned us all about.
Of course, ever since the higher criticism, studying the Abrahamic religions too deeply does nothing but reveal how completely contradictory and internally inconsistent they are. So self-examination is not high on the list for these people.
Data scientists are not the ones passing laws cutting funding to women's health in Texas, Republicans are, because of their political agendas.Professionals who know how to collect and interpret should be doing that, not you or the Republicans. If you want to try to say I'm following BS by following proper protocols, well good luck and all. Once causation is properly established then whatever proper remedy ought to be applied. I don't care about political agendas.
Data scientists are not the ones passing laws cutting funding to women's health in Texas, Republicans are, because of their political agendas.
Hey, at least the number of abortions is lower though, right!?
This is just gods way of telling Texans he disapproves of them.
On a serious tip:
I wonder if we were to see where higher than average increases occurred are correlated to the amount of fracking in the area.
Also, lol at those desperately trying to explain away this due to illegals, of which have been self deporting since the great recession. Its also a fact that Mexicans can get health care access in Mexico now.
You are begging the question. Infant mortality seems to be increasing (there is that science thing that won't allow "is" yet. You blame the Republicans for cutting funding although there is absolutely no causal link displayed. I maintain that the causes need to be determined and then you respond by blaming Republicans without scientific critical examination.
For the moment claims about the effects of Republican cuts on infant mortality are specious. Supposition is just that. Could it be that cuts are partially or mostly responsible? Of course, but you don't know that. You feel it, but you have nothing but faith. Faith makes poor fact finding.
No, scientists aren't the ones passing laws, but they are the ones that typically provide interpretation of data and feedback to politicians who then write the laws. I don't wan't politicians trying to independently interpret global warming data, vaccine data, and certainly not these data. I'd prefer politicians to pass laws based on consensus of scientists based on peer reviewed interpretation of data.Data scientists are not the ones passing laws cutting funding to women's health in Texas, Republicans are, because of their political agendas.
Technically this is concerning maternal mortality (the mother dying in labor/childbirth) but all other points still stand.
Are Texas politicians holding hearings and inviting data scientists before passing laws?No, scientists aren't the ones passing laws, but they are the ones that typically provide interpretation of data and feedback to politicians who then write the laws. I don't wan't politicians trying to independently interpret global warming data, vaccine data, and certainly not these data. I'd prefer politicians to pass laws based on consensus of scientists based on peer reviewed interpretation of data.
Are Texas politicians holding hearings and inviting data scientists before passing laws?
I remember a long while back seeing a funny quote, something like 'Democrats only care about you while you're alive, Republicans only care about you before you're born and after you die'. A complete generalization, but funny regardless.
I'm sure they won't find and effective way in all 57 states but they might be somewhat successful in 50 states and maybe in DC too if they are not going to be too lazy.Hopefully we can learn from this and find an effective way to reproduce these results in all 57 states.
I'm sure they won't find and effective way in all 57 states but they might be somewhat successful in 50 states and maybe in DC too if they are not going to be too lazy.
If they aren't, then even if they do look at the raw data, they will selectively interpret it to support whatever their current political positions are anyways. Those that want to understand will seek understanding, those that don't will not be swayed by data they don't understand anyways.Are Texas politicians holding hearings and inviting data scientists before passing laws?
If they aren't, then even if they do look at the raw data, they will selectively interpret it to support whatever their current political positions are anyways. Those that want to understand will seek understanding, those that don't will not be swayed by data they don't understand anyways.
Look, I agree with you that we need to fund important programs like planned parenthood and other organizations that provide healthcare to those that can't afford it. You don't need these data to make that case. But a more nuanced approach will help us better understand the problems that are truly contributing factors rather than just blindly using it as a crutch to support programs that we already have the data to support. The last thing we need is for progressives to use this as evidence to support these programs, only to have the experts say they are unrelated, providing additional ammunition for conservatives to try to reduce funding for such programs.
That would be an interesting study. Are you more likely to garner support for legislation through careful use of experts and facts or through dogma and propaganda. I'm afraid of the answer.While I agree with everything you said I honestly have to question the bold.
For half the country facts simply don't matter so does it matter other than for the converted if the left keeps things factual? Is the goal to be honest and factual or to get policies in place that will help Americans?
My brain tells me facts matter but my gut says that doesn't work when it comes to changing minds.
Basically, should the left fight dishonest propaganda with dishonest propaganda?
That would be an interesting study. Are you more likely to garner support for legislation through careful use of experts and facts or through dogma and propaganda. I'm afraid of the answer.
Sadly, I think we both know what the answer is.That would be an interesting study. Are you more likely to garner support for legislation through careful use of experts and facts or through dogma and propaganda. I'm afraid of the answer.
Praise Jesus, the enlightened internet jackasses finally revealed the truth.
Perhaps you should correlate the closing of women's health facilities and not the timing of the budget cuts. 'cause they did not wait til the money ran out to close.Here's an article from 2016 that showed maternal death increase in Texas had begun before the budget cuts took effect
https://www.texastribune.org/2016/09/04/facing-surge-texas-maternal-deaths-researchers-fin/