Trump’s New CDC Head Made Egregious Claim About Blue States
www.huffpost.com
There is no evidence that states are purposefully misclassifying abortion data to the CDC.

There is no evidence that states are purposefully misclassifying abortion data to the CDC.

Dr. Erica Schwartz, who on Wednesday became the new director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, made some alarming comments about abortion care during her confirmation hearings and signaled a potential increased surveillance of abortion patients.

Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) asked Schwartz if she would commit to collecting better data on abortions, pointing to the CDC’s annual report of how many abortions are done each year in the U.S. The data program is voluntary, meaning some states like California, Maryland and New Jersey choose to not report annual abortion numbers to the federal agency. However, 44 states currently have some form of required reporting system for abortion care.

“Abortion surveillance is absolutely a critical component of what the CDC is currently doing,” Schwartz responded.

    • blockheadjt@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
      41·
      2 days ago

      If one state has 100x as many abortions per capita as another, I’d be curious if that state has a widespread rape issue, excessive poverty, high rate of maternal death etc. Without the data we wouldn’t know to investigate. Public health benefits from data.

    • 9tr6gyp3@lemmy.worldEnglish
      211·
      2 days ago

      Anonymously aggregating results of pregnancies, what doesnt kill moms and babies, what DOES kill moms and babies, what causes side effects, and various other outcomes of medical practice has been studied for millenia. Its the human race’s business to figure out what works and what doesnt.

      If your doctor isnt able to study patient outcome statistics to become an effective doctor, then…?

      You do know what lemmy community you are in, right?

    • Perky@fedia.io
      212·
      3 days ago

      Anonymized data can inform funding decisions, as well as collect medical data like side effects, failure rates, and demographic information that is useful for research and policymaking. That’s not what this government will use it for, but under normal circumstances there are genuinely good reasons to collect that data.

    • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
      73·
      2 days ago

      Health research needs accurate data, and it’s how we figure out which medications/procedures are better/worse/harmful. In normal circumstances, that research would protect the people involved

      However, in some situations, that potential benefit isn’t worth the potential harm from the data being abused. I can see why people would prefer to limit that data in the states, even if that is to the detriment of those seeking care

      Based on the way the new CDC director responded, it sounds like she wants the data for harmful reasons, rather than helping improve care

        • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
          81·
          2 days ago

          The point was about whether medical data can be good, and people carefully explained the cases where it can be good and why its bad in this situation.

          If you’re saying that old fashioned research was helpful but the modern “AI” junk is stupid, then yes that is the exact point I was making.

          Or we can just keep commenting “fuck this fuck that” at everything and bury our heads in the sand.

          • slackassassin@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
            4·
            1 day ago

            Modern ai in the context of medical research is not even stupid in this situation, necessarily. Ml in research isn’t the same as industry pushing an llm. Not that any of this was about ai to begin with. I think that other poster might have been drunk or defensive or some shit.