Day: September 8, 2008

Factcheck.org is affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania and widely considered to be non-partisan. Later today, they released a study of some of the rumors surrounding Sarah Palin. Here is their summary:

Summary
We’ve been flooded for the past few days with queries about dubious Internet postings and mass e-mail messages making claims about McCain’s running mate, Gov. Palin. We find that many are completely false, or misleading.
Palin did not cut funding for special needs education in Alaska by 62 percent. She didn’t cut it at all. In fact, she tripled per-pupil funding over just three years.
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the time. The librarian has said Palin asked a “What if?” question, but the librarian continued in her job through most of Palin’s first term.
She was never a member of the Alaskan Independence Party, a group that wants Alaskans to vote on whether they wish to secede from the United States. She’s been registered as a Republican since May 1982.
Palin never endorsed or supported Pat Buchanan for president. She once wore a Buchanan button as a “courtesty” when he visited Wasilla, but shortly afterward she was appointed to co-chair of the campaign of Steve Forbes in the state.
Palin has not pushed for teaching creationism in Alaska’s schools. She has said that students should be allowed to “debate both sides” of the evolution question, but she also said creationism “doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum.”
A few of these claims were included in a chain e-mail by a woman named Anne Kilkenny. We’ll be looking into other charges in that e-mail for a future story. For more explanation of the bullet points above, please read the Analysis.

I concur, please read the analysis. And they are only scratching the surface…

Newsweek has become the latest mainstream media source to repeat the inaccurate story that Sarah Palin cut funds for teen moms.
In a story suggesting her policies have not been family friendly, Katie Paul writes:

Meanwhile, both this year and last year, she has used her line-item veto to slash state funds for programs providing precisely the kinds of resources Feminists for Life supports for at-risk mothers on the fence about abortion. She cut by 20 percent the funding for Covenant House Alaska, a state-supported program that includes a transitional home where new teenage mothers can spend up to 18 months learning money management and parenting skills. Critics have jumped all over that decision, arguing that the decision looks especially bad in light of the news that Palin’s 17-year-old daughter has since become pregnant.

I addressed the facts on this matter via a blog post, a statement from Covenant House Director, Deirdre Cronin, and an op-ed published on Townhall.com. Today, the Juneau Empire addressed the matter in a news analysis.

In a story that’s getting repeated frequently nationally, the Washington Post reported that Palin “slashed funding for teen moms” in the 2008 budget.
The story has a delicious irony, with Palin herself to soon become the mother of a teen mom.
What actually happened was that Palin cut $1.1 million from $5 million to help Anchorage’s Covenant House expand. The transitional home for teen mothers actually received an increase of $3.9 million.
The money was in the state’s 2008 capital budget, where the state provides extra money to go with the state’s operating budget, which funds ongoing programs.

The Juneau analysis also addresses other spin and is worth the read.

I posted extensively on the APA Task Force on Mental Health and Abortion in August, including comments from New Zealand researcher David Fergusson. This month, the Psychiatric Bulletin published an editorial by Dr. Fergusson.
The editorial supports the recent Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement regarding abortion and mental health.
Fergusson’s editorial notes the contrast between a RCP statements in 1994 and 2008. The 1994 view was that no relationship existed between abortion and mental health. Currently, the RCP cautions about the possible effects and suggests post-abortion counseling.
Fergusson notes that such debates are important, especially in the UK since mental health concerns are offered as the major reason a woman is granted an abortion. If mental health status is not improved, or may be worsened, the effects of abortion have major relevance to policy.
He concludes:

It is unlikely that these problems of evidence, uncertainty and the law will be resolved by further medicolegal debates between pro-life and pro-choice advocates. What is required is a well-designed, well-funded and, above all, impartial programme of research into the mental health risks, benefits and consequences of abortion. The recent Royal College of Psychiatrists’ statement makes an important contribution to this process by highlighting the real uncertainties that exist in the current evidence on abortion and mental health.

It is hard for me to read this in any other way but as a critical contrast to the recent APA report.