rjw@ptsfc.UUCP (Rod Williams) (04/09/85)
The following article is reprinted from The New Republic (4/8/85):
The abortion debate has been heavily influenced by the pro-life
movie "The Silent Scream". Now it turns out that the film's
evidence is flawed. "CBS Morning News" showed the sonogram last
week to five qualified obstetricians. They all denied that a
12-week-old fetus could feel pain, react to the intrusion of
the suction tube, or open its mouth to "scream." Their most
significant point was that, when the film claims the fetus is
starting to struggle, it is actually only showing the speeding
up of the film. One of the doctors said: "Any of us could show
you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted." If the
anti-abortion case was as clear-cut as its publicists say, they
wouldn't have to distort the evidence to make their point.
--
rod williams | pacific bell | san francisco
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
{ihnp4,ucbvax,cbosgd,decwrl,amd70,fortune,zehntel}!dual!ptsfa!ptsfc!rjwpmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/20/85)
From Rod Williams: >The following article is reprinted from The New Republic (4/8/85): > > The abortion debate has been heavily influenced by the pro-life > movie "The Silent Scream". Now it turns out that the film's > evidence is flawed. "CBS Morning News" showed the sonogram last > week to five qualified obstetricians. They all denied that a > 12-week-old fetus could feel pain, react to the intrusion of > the suction tube, or open its mouth to "scream." Their most > significant point was that, when the film claims the fetus is > starting to struggle, it is actually only showing the speeding > up of the film. One of the doctors said: "Any of us could show > you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted." If the > anti-abortion case was as clear-cut as its publicists say, they > wouldn't have to distort the evidence to make their point. >-- Apparently there was a great deal of "distortion of evidence" going on on the part of "CBS Morning News" with regard to its discussion of "The Silent Scream". Oh my, who *are* we to believe? Dr. Bernard Nathanson, producer of the film, recently sent a letter to CBS detailing his objections to their presentation of a discussion on the film. The letter was reprinted in the Apr. 11 NRL News. CBS Morning News set up a debate between *two* panels to discuss the merits of the film. The one panel of five experts (spoken of above) were designated as "uninvolved in the abortion controversy". Of the other panel, it was emphasized (at least 3 times) that they consisted of "three experts whose names were provided to us by the anti-abortion National Right to Life Committee" (CBS *asked* the NRLC for the names). The remarks of the panel of five "neutral" experts (all unrelenting critics of the film) were aired on the prime time morning segment of the news. Airing of the comments of the other panel was delayed until a later segment during a time that most people were at work or on their way there. Nathanson found a few problems with the designation of the other panel as being neutral: CBS conceded that its "neutral" panel of experts was proposed--at least in part--by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Is the ACOG "uninvolved in the abortion controversy"? Nathanson goes on to point out that, ... the ACOG has an umblemished record of abortion advocacy. It supplied pro-abortion *amicus curiae* briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court as far back as the *Row v. Wade* case in 1973, and most recently in the *Akron* case of 1983. It is on record as opposing restrictions on fetal research. Its president, Dr. George Ryan, testified against the Human Life Bill in 1981 and in the same year testified against the proposed Hatch amendment... I am not conversant with the details of the background and politics of all five members of the soi-disant "neutral" panel that CBS recruited for that segment. However, one member--Dr. Richard Berkowitz--is an old acquaintance, indeed a former employee. Dr. Berkowitz worked under my direction at CRASH (Center for Reproductive and Sexual Health, at the time the largest abortion clinic in the world) for a number of months, moonlighting at that facility while participating in a residency program in obstetrics and gynecology at a major teaching hospital in New York City. Not involved in the abortion controversy? The remainder of the letter reveals more of Nathanson's insights as to the lengths that some will go to discredit the film. I note with some amusement that the national Planned Parenthood organization has assembled six more presumably equally "neutral" experts to make a rebuttal film countering "The Silent Scream". Prominent on the list are the names of two more Nathanson alumni: one Dr. William Rashbaum who was already diligently at work in the abortion mines of CRASH when I took over as director, and one Dr. Ming-Ning Yeh whom I myself recruited and who labored for me conscientiously for more than a year. Might I suggest that in the future that CBS and other conscription agencies ask their "neutral" experts to sign a disclosure statement to the effect that they are not now nor have they ever been Nathanson alumni? Too embarrassing, really. In the segment in question there was a dismaying amount of purposless athetoid niggling about the size of the unborn on the television screen, the speed of the tape and a few other equally monumental pendantries. Any school child can tell you that if an image is captured on a four inch screen (the size of the realtime ultra- sound imaging device we used), then transferred to a twenty-one inch television box, the image will appear five times larger than it actually is--no deceit intended. ... As for the apparent speeding up of the tape following the thirty second clip in slow motion (slowed only to allow a more careful study of the child's readtions at that point in the procedure) was I required to continue the remainder of the tape in slow motion merely to stave off the fatuous accusation that I was somehow rigging the play? CBS correctly informed its viewers that I was out of the country when this show was aired (had they waited until I returned, I could have responded to these carpings face- to-face). But in a deeply disappoing exhibition of journalistic irresponsibility CBS read only a carefully selected portion of the written statement I had prepared before I left. In a curious way I can understand (but not forgive) this brazen act of censorship. To have read my full statement would have cowed their "neutral" experts into submissive silence and the show would have perished of its own weight. The deleted portion of the statement contained an affidavit provided by Dr. Ian Donald, former Regius Professor of Obstetrics at the University of Glasgow, inventor of ultrasound, and, indisputibly the world's leading authority on its use and interpretation. In a sworn statement dated February 23, 1985 Dr. Donald declared: I the undersigned Ian Donald ... having had experience in the development and exploitation of diagnostic ultrasound from 1955 onwards until 1981, the last four years of which were much taken up with filming fetal activity at various stages of pregnancy ... have now studied Dr. Nathanson's videotape film not less than four times and affirm that I am of the opinion that the fetal activities depicted by the ultrasound realtime scanning in this film are not faked, nor the result of artifact, intentional or otherwise. After discarding the political banalities, after the ideologic baggage, after picking one's way thorugh all the scientific dithering and waffing ... there are only four short questions of quintessential interest here: Is this a realtime ultrasound film? Is this a human unborn child on the screen? Is this a realtime ultrasound record of an abortion of a human unborn child? At the conclusion of the film, as the life of the child been obliterated, the body having been torn from the head and the head crushed and removed in pieces? Even our "neutral" experts will agree--albeit grudgingly--that the collective answer to these questions is "yes". One final question is in order: Is the brutal act depicted in this film-- the deliberate unappealable destruction of a tiny defensless human being--compatible with the declared moral certitudes of a civilized society? ... In an editorial in the March 14 issue of NRL News, Dave Andrusko detailed the NRLC's objections to the CBS presentation. An excerpt: Not only were the critics given nearly twice as much air time as supporters (eleven vs. six minutes), CBS also insisted that the defenders all had to be in CBS' New York studios bright and early Monday morning [Mar. 4, the day of the newscast]; i.e. they could not go to their local CBS affiliates. [The previous paragraph pointed out that the remarks of the film's opponents were taped beforhand. -pmd] This meant that they had to fly to New York Sunday night. As it happens, in exchange for the hassle, NRLC was promised that proponents would receive at least twice as much air time as the critics. In fact, as noted, they barely got half. In addition, the film clip featuring opponents of "The Silent Scream" aired between 8 and 8:30 am EST; the (live) comments of the supporters between 8:30 and 9 am. ... As any involved in morning television can tell you, the 8 - 8:30 morning news slot is the best watched. After 8:30 (which is 7:30 Central Standard Time), many viewers are on their way to work and the numbers watching drop sharply. ... There was more than enough time to run the panels back-to-back in the first half hour, especially when one sees how little time was devoted to those who found "The Silent Scream" accurate. Why weren't they run sequentially? Moreover, why did [Bill] Kurtis [the program host] read a news story at the 8:30 newsbreak, summarizing the critics remarks as follows: "The accuracy of the controversial anti-abortion film, *The Silent Scream*, is being challenged. A panel of experts on fetal development say that the ultrasound used in the film does not show a fetus in pain duing an abortion as the film makers claim. The panel, assembled by CBS Morning News, also says the film was magnified and speeded up in a misleading way." If they were going to do an 8:30 news item, all the more reason to have had *both* panels make their case in the first half hour and summarize *both* their remarks. In fact, NRLC had been assured that the panels *would* run next to each other. But, so what? We were also told proponents would be given not just equal time but double time to rebut the butters. (For that matter, CBS *never* explicitly said that the opinions of the second panel would challenge those of the first panel!) Maybe we could get someone from CBS out here to clear up this misunderstanding (before Jesse Helms does :-) )? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd
mag@whuxlm.UUCP (Gray Michael A) (04/21/85)
Why does Nathanson spend all his time on trying to prove that the panel attacking his film is biased and that CBS denied him promised minutes on the air? His comments in the lengthy article posted by Paul Dubuc do not meaningfully address the assertions of the original criticism - what would he have done with the extra time? When I read about his objections to the criticism and see that he spends 125+ lines bitching about TV time and a few lines weakly trying to rebut SOME of the assertions, I begin to suspect that his ideas lack substance. For example: > > Nathanson found a few problems with the designation of the other panel > as being neutral: > > CBS conceded that its "neutral" panel of experts > was proposed--at least in part--by the American > College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. > > Is the ACOG "uninvolved in the abortion controversy"? Nathanson goes > on to point out that, > > ... the ACOG has an umblemished record of abortion > advocacy. > Come on!! NOBODY in this controversy is neutral. I believe that Nathanson himself (whose film it was) is known for pro-life activities! ( :-) ). Anyway, claiming that the news media is biased is irrelevant. Why not just rebut the criticism of the panel? > > In the segment in question there was a dismaying amount > of purposless athetoid niggling about the size of the > unborn on the television screen, the speed of the tape > and a few other equally monumental pendantries. > That's right - don't rebut the criticism - just show contempt for the criticizers! A few people will think that this amounts to persuasive argument. > > Any > school child can tell you that if an image is captured > on a four inch screen (the size of the realtime ultra- > sound imaging device we used), then transferred to a > twenty-one inch television box, the image will appear > five times larger than it actually is--no deceit intended. > ... More pointless efforts to discredit the criticism with contempt. The phase "Any school child can tell you. . ." is highly suspect. Maybe SOME school children could, but they'd be really bright if they realized that the fetus in question was a couple of inches long if they had no reference. Generally, researchers indicate the true size of an observed object by inserting a ruler in the frame or some such device. Since so many people though it was larger, will Nathanson now insert a line in the narrative like "Now, we see the fetus, no larger than a walnut. . ." ? > > [a] significant point was that, when the film claims the fetus is > > starting to struggle, it is actually only showing the speeding > > up of the film. One of the doctors said: "Any of us could show > > you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted." > > As for the apparent speeding up of the tape following the > thirty second clip in slow motion (slowed only to allow a > more careful study of the child's readtions at that point > in the procedure) was I required to continue the remainder of > the tape in slow motion merely to stave off the fatuous > accusation that I was somehow rigging the play? > The weasel-wording in the above paragraph is truly breath-taking! Nathanson uses the phrase "apparent speeding up" and suggests thereby that it was NOT speeded up. Later on in the same sentence, he admits that he went from slow motion to normal speed. That's what speeding up MEANS! Review: Opponents accuse the film of being sped up. Nathanson replies by saying, yes, it was sped up, and acts as if this statement is a rebuttal! As regards the doctor's claim that any one of them could show the same image in a fetus that was not being aborted, Nathanson is silent. Why doesn't he rebut that? It's a very significant point. > > To have read my full statement > would have cowed their "neutral" experts into submissive > silence and the show would have perished of its own weight. > The deleted portion of the statement contained an affidavit > provided by Dr. Ian Donald, former Regius Professor of > Obstetrics at the University of Glasgow, inventor of > ultrasound, and, indisputibly the world's leading authority > on its use and interpretation. In a sworn statement dated > February 23, 1985 Dr. Donald declared: > > I the undersigned Ian Donald ... having had > experience in the development and exploitation > of diagnostic ultrasound from 1955 onwards until > 1981, the last four years of which were much taken > up with filming fetal activity at various stages > of pregnancy ... have now studied Dr. Nathanson's > videotape film not less than four times and affirm > that I am of the opinion that the fetal activities > depicted by the ultrasound realtime scanning in > this film are not faked, nor the result of artifact, > intentional or otherwise. > I don't think anyone is denying that the film depicts an abortion and that the fetal activities are real. This is just another straw man. > After discarding the political banalities, after the ideologic > baggage, after picking one's way thorugh all the scientific > dithering and waffing ... there are only four short questions > of quintessential interest here: > > Is this a realtime ultrasound film? > No, not quite, since he already admitted to slow motion, but close enough, probably. > Is this a human unborn child on the screen? > Sure. > Is this a realtime ultrasound record of an abortion of a human > unborn child? > Let's assume it is, just so we can keep going. > At the conclusion of the film, as the life of the child been > obliterated, the body having been torn from the head and the > head crushed and removed in pieces? > This isn't a question. Come to think of it, it's not even a grammatical sentence. But it seems to say that the abortion was unpleasant to watch. OK - probably was. So are lots of medical procedures. > Even our "neutral" experts will agree--albeit grudgingly--that > the collective answer to these questions is "yes". Of course they will - nobody was arguing about that! And it's not a "grudging" admission either! > One final > question is in order: Is the brutal act depicted in this film-- > the deliberate unappealable destruction of a tiny defensless > human being--compatible with the declared moral certitudes of > a civilized society? > ... WHAT "declared moral certitudes?" I've lived in society a few years and heard that there is disagreement on what the "moral certitudes" are! To mimic the style of Nathanson in my response: YES, my moral certitudes allow women control over their own bodies. YES, it is compatible. Are the BRUTAL laws being proposed by Nathanson, denying a TINY, DEFENSELESS, woman control over her body and threatening her with JAIL compatible with the moral certitudes of a civilized society? Mike Gray
pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc) (04/22/85)
From Mike Gray }Why does Nathanson spend all his time on trying to prove that the }panel attacking his film is biased and that CBS denied him promised }minutes on the air? His comments in the lengthy article posted by }Paul Dubuc do not meaningfully address the assertions of the }original criticism - what would he have done with the extra time? I think Nathanson's comments are meaningful. Don't you think it's fair to complain about outright dishonesty and deception (not just bias) done by the media? If you have read the whole article I think you would have to agree that if Nathanson's and Andrusko's charges are true, then CBS is guilty of this. Would you think you had no cause to complain if CBS had treated the pro-choice side of the argument that way? }> Nathanson found a few problems with the designation of the other panel }> as being neutral: }> }> CBS conceded that its "neutral" panel of experts }> was proposed--at least in part--by the American }> College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. }> }> Is the ACOG "uninvolved in the abortion controversy"? Nathanson goes }> on to point out that, }> }> ... the ACOG has an umblemished record of abortion }> advocacy. }> }Come on!! NOBODY in this controversy is neutral. I believe that Nathanson }himself (whose film it was) is known for pro-life activities! ( :-) ). }Anyway, claiming that the news media is biased is irrelevant. Why not }just rebut the criticism of the panel? Come on and read the article again. The point is that CBS deceptively presented the panal as neutral, "uninvolved in the abortion controversy". I doubt Nathanson would have had a complaint if the biases of the panel were revealed. }> In the segment in question there was a dismaying amount }> of purposless athetoid niggling about the size of the }> unborn on the television screen, the speed of the tape }> and a few other equally monumental pendantries. }> }That's right - don't rebut the criticism - just show contempt }for the criticizers! A few people will think that this amounts to }persuasive argument. Nathanson has rebutted the criticism. I posted some of that a month ago. I also think you miss the point in your critique of his rebuttles here: }> Any }> school child can tell you that if an image is captured }> on a four inch screen (the size of the realtime ultra- }> sound imaging device we used), then transferred to a }> twenty-one inch television box, the image will appear }> five times larger than it actually is--no deceit intended. }> ... }More pointless efforts to discredit the criticism with contempt. }The phase "Any school child can tell you. . ." is highly suspect. }Maybe SOME school children could, but they'd be really bright if }they realized that the fetus in question was a couple of inches long }if they had no reference. Generally, researchers indicate the }true size of an observed object by inserting a ruler in the frame }or some such device. Since so many people though it was larger, }will Nathanson now insert a line in the narrative like "Now, we }see the fetus, no larger than a walnut. . ." ? Maybe he should insert the phrase. But so what if it is acually no larger than a walnut? What difference does that make with regard to the morality of the act? The point of the film is to study the fetus in detail during an abortion. Magnification is necessary to achieve this. The fact that the fetus is actually smaller than it show on the screen has little bearing on what is actually going on. }> > [a] significant point was that, when the film claims the fetus is }> > starting to struggle, it is actually only showing the speeding }> > up of the film. One of the doctors said: "Any of us could show }> > you the same image in a fetus who is not being aborted." }> }> As for the apparent speeding up of the tape following the }> thirty second clip in slow motion (slowed only to allow a }> more careful study of the child's reactions at that point }> in the procedure) was I required to continue the remainder of }> the tape in slow motion merely to stave off the fatuous }> accusation that I was somehow rigging the play? }> }The weasel-wording in the above paragraph is truly breath-taking! }Nathanson uses the phrase "apparent speeding up" and suggests thereby }that it was NOT speeded up. Later on in the same sentence, he admits }that he went from slow motion to normal speed. That's what speeding }up MEANS! Review: Opponents accuse the film of being sped up. }Nathanson replies by saying, yes, it was sped up, and acts as if this }statement is a rebuttal! As regards the doctor's claim that any one }of them could show the same image in a fetus that was not being }aborted, Nathanson is silent. Why doesn't he rebut that? It's }a very significant point. Here you're missing the point, which is that the film was never run at faster than normal speed. The film's critics suggested that it was. }> To have read my full statement }> would have cowed their "neutral" experts into submissive }> silence and the show would have perished of its own weight. }> The deleted portion of the statement contained an affidavit }> provided by Dr. Ian Donald, former Regius Professor of }> Obstetrics at the University of Glasgow, inventor of }> ultrasound, and, indisputibly the world's leading authority }> on its use and interpretation. In a sworn statement dated }> February 23, 1985 Dr. Donald declared: }> }> I the undersigned Ian Donald ... having had }> experience in the development and exploitation }> of diagnostic ultrasound from 1955 onwards until }> 1981, the last four years of which were much taken }> up with filming fetal activity at various stages }> of pregnancy ... have now studied Dr. Nathanson's }> videotape film not less than four times and affirm }> that I am of the opinion that the fetal activities }> depicted by the ultrasound realtime scanning in }> this film are not faked, nor the result of artifact, }> intentional or otherwise. }> }I don't think anyone is denying that the film depicts an abortion and }that the fetal activities are real. This is just another straw man. They were charging the film as being deceptive and rigged. That is the point being refuted here. }> At the conclusion of the film, as the life of the child been }> obliterated, the body having been torn from the head and the }> head crushed and removed in pieces? }> }This isn't a question. Come to think of it, it's not even a grammatical }sentence. Sorry. The gramatical mistake was mine--the result of a typo. The "as" in the first sentence should be "has". }But it seems to say that the abortion was unpleasant to watch. }OK - probably was. So are lots of medical procedures. Medical procedures that "obliterate" a human life? }> One final }> question is in order: Is the brutal act depicted in this film-- }> the deliberate unappealable destruction of a tiny defensless }> human being--compatible with the declared moral certitudes of }> a civilized society? }> ... }WHAT "declared moral certitudes?" I've lived in society a few years and }heard that there is disagreement on what the "moral certitudes" are! How about the moral certitudes in our Declaration of Independance and the Constitution? }To mimic the style of Nathanson in my response: YES, my moral certitudes }allow women control over their own bodies. YES, it is compatible. }Are the BRUTAL laws being proposed by Nathanson, denying a TINY, }DEFENSELESS, woman control over her body and threatening her with JAIL }compatible with the moral certitudes of a civilized society? A person's control over his/her own body is generally limited so as not to conflict with another's rights. You aren't arguing for unlimited control are you? -- Paul Dubuc cbscc!pmd