The Great Planned Parenthood Lie





I’m sick to death of big names in American culture trying to have me believe that, as a woman, I should be a pro-abortion liberal who screams for forced coverage for contraceptives.  Scarlett Johansson is a beautiful and talented young woman.  So is Eva Longoria.  But the fact that they are lined up with other starlets to push their "vote with your ladyparts" campaign is disgusting and extremely off-putting.

In the newest ad, Hollywood is climbing all over Romney and Ryan for promising to de-fund Planned Parenthood.  Their choice of words comes across as being dishonest, though – the Obama campaign is accusing Ryan of backing laws that would "allow employers to deny women access to cancer screenings and contraceptives."  In the Hollywood ad, Johansson makes an absolutely deplorable statement: she claims that "we have the GOP trying to re-define rape!"

Oh, yes…she did.  She, like Cameron Diaz before her, is trying to accuse conservatives of wanting to undo laws that make rape – particularly marital rape – a crime.  There is no evidence of this at all.  No meetings or hearings, no drafts of bills being considered in committee, not even the slightest hint that Republicans are actually trying to do such a thing.  She is accusing me, my family and most of my friends of trying to decriminalize one of the most outrageous personal crimes that can be committed.  As a fire/rescue/EMS worker who has helped rape victims, I am furiously insulted.

As for the meat of the argument, I’m always the kind of person who wants both sides of a story, so I went looking.  Michelle Malkin recently quoted a report by Live Action that showed 30 Planned Parenthood offices in 27 states had no direct programs for mammograms.  One staffer openly admitted that they don’t provide those services at all.  The Alliance Defense Fund  asked the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for information on how many PP centers are certified to perform mammograms.  HHS said they had no such documentation for PP.

When I wanted to read investigative pieces from the other side of the argument, I couldn’t find any.  I found plenty of op-eds, for sure, but none of them offered any tangible evidence to back their argument.  Stephanie Todd, writing for The Examiner, quoted PP president Cecile Richards in claiming that 97% of all services provided by PP are "preventive care" medical services.  What she didn’t do was ask for proof to back up Richards’ claim – and since she got the quote from a Joy Behar interview, we all know why no probing questions were asked.  A Huffington Post article claimed in its headline that "women rely on PP for critical breast health care – period."  That article turned out to be written by Rachel B. Fleischer, who happens to be the Managing Director of Communications for the PP Action Fund.  She comes out and admits that PP’s staff OB-GYNs and nurses do not perform mammograms, though she never addresses cervical cancer screenings.  She says that PP gives referrals, which she says you need to get a mammogram (this is untrue, as family history can dictate that a mammogram before age 40 is important, as it is in my case).  She, like President Obama, claims that PP is vital to women who are underinsured or uninsured.

What none of the PP cheerleaders have mentioned is the CDC’s National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program (NBCCEDP).  This program "provides access to breast and cervical cancer screening services to underserved women in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 U.S. territories, and 12 tribes" (that’s straight from the website).  There’s no information immediately available for how much money is spent on the program, but the website boasts that in 2011, 333,302 women were screened for breast cancer, with 5,655 diagnosed.  253,312 women were screened for cervical cancer, with 4,695 diagnosed.  With those numbers it’s not hard to believe that between the tests themselves (which run anywhere from $75-$120 apiece) and funding for staff, equipment and facilities, funding likely runs into the $300M range.

With PP, the numbers have to be read carefully.  If you’re looking directly at their numbers, they they don’t add up.  Cecile Richards claims that only 3% of PP’s business comes from abortions.  Here’s how their pie chart breaks it down: 35% of services were for testing and treatment of STD’s, 35% for contraception, 16% for "cancer screening and prevention" (which, we’ll talk about shortly, takes place largely through referrals outside the organization), 10% "other" women’s health (which is undefined by the report), 3% for abortions and 1% for "other" (also undefined).  Even those figures are doctored, as other notes in the same report show that out of three million people who walked through their doors in 2009 (the latest year I could find expense reports for), 332,278 went for abortions.  That would, in reality, be one out of every nine people, or 11%.  Also, their revenue shows that 37% comes from actual income from their "health centers" (read: abortions).  They recorded a total revenue of $737M (aside from government funding) and recorded net assets of $994.7M.

We the taxpayers gave them $363.2M that year.

Everything that I found showed that PP doctors and nurses give referrals when someone comes in for a mammogram.  Who do they refer these women to?  Well, bless me – they refer them right back to NBCCEDP!  That’s the government program that funds cancer screenings, pelvic exams, biopsies and referrals for treatment.  Rachel Fleischer also says that PP works in conjunction with other organizations to provide mobile mammography sites. Considering what’s likely spent on the CDC’s current program, the government could transfer all of the money they’re giving PP to the CDC and expand it so those poor women who are going to PP right now can go to another participating doctor.

And we’re supposed to believe that electing Mitt Romney to the presidency is going to put PP out of business and deprive women of affordable cancer screenings?

It frightens me that those who stand on society’s pedestals are so willing to lie just to support their chosen political candidate.  I would never have lied for Bush, nor would I lie for Romney or Governor Palin.  I would hope that none of them would ever ask me to – and if they found me doing it, would insist that I stop.  I would hope that Obama would have some shred of honesty, at least enough to ask his high-powered followers not to go so far as to claim that the opposition is attempting to de-criminalize rape.  That is reprehensible.

If you’re not willing to actually research all of the facts, don’t throw your hat in the ring.  Just because you have an emotional reaction to something you’ve heard or read does not mean you’re right.

Next up: whose morality?



Tags: , , , , , , ,

Comment Policy: The Editors reserve the right to delete any comments which in their sole discretion are deemed false or misleading, profane, pornographic, defamatory, harassment, name calling, libelous, threatening, or otherwise inappropriate. Additionally, the Editors reserve the right to ban any registered poster who, in their sole discretion, violates the terms of use. Do not post any information about yourself reasonably construed as private or confidential. Conservatives4Palin and its contributors are not liable if users allow others to contact them offsite.

  • Freempg

    Thanks Mel, you did a lot of work here. The Hollywood trollops which you reference have closed off their minds to the truth. They are a lost cause. Too bad they are in a bubble of fame which allows them to spew their leftist lunacy without challenge. They don’t have a clew. And those that listen to them don’t either. I think their voice is louder than their influence, though. I think we are turning things around culturally. At least I hope and pray so.

  • wodiej

    As Judge Judy said once, "beauty fades, dumb is forever."

  • HuntingMoose

    ================================================================

    i never understand why there is something like PlannedAbortionhood and not something ,nice Orwellian named, PlannedLife, where Liberals out of the womb can abort themselves

    Or is it they want to have Obama "Care" for that?

  • sarahhasmyvote

    Thank you for such an informative post. I like to direct misinformed people to this site as a means of untwisting the facts as laid out by very biased sources. Scarlett and Eva should visit here and broaden their horizons.

    Please keep the facts coming on the attempt to portray Conservatives as harming women’s issues. I think it is vital for this election and upcoming one’s, for the left to be exposed on this front.

  • http://blogmeridian.blogspot.com John Buaas

    "In the Hollywood ad, Johansson makes an absolutely deplorable statement: she claims that “we have the GOP trying to re-define rape!”"

    How soon we (choose to) forget–how long ago was August, after all?:

    "GOP vice presidential contender Paul Ryan declined to explain what is
    meant by "forcible rape" in abortion legislation he co-sponsored with
    embattled Rep. Todd Akin.

    "Ryan, a Wisconsin congressman, and Akin
    are among the 227 co-sponsors of the "No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion
    Act," which would prohibit federal funding of abortions except in
    instances of "an act of forcible rape or, if a minor, an act of incest."
     
    (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2012/08/paul-ryan-forcible-rape-todd-akin-/1#.UIKMyoaCuSo)

    You may recall that the phrase "forcible rape" elicited so little notice that it had to be dropped from the bill.

    As the rest of your post indicates, there’s plenty of obfuscation to go around in politics.  Be honest enough about your own politics that you don’t contribute to it by pretending the non-existence of what is established public record.

    • http://www.arizonarangerems.blogspot.com The Ranger

       Sorry, John – that one line does not mean that the GOP is attempting to redefine rape.  That you or Scarlett Johansson would take it that way goes to prove that you are an anti-GOP conspiracy theorist.

    • http://www.arizonarangerems.blogspot.com The Ranger

       By the way, yes, I knew about that kerfuffle over Ryan’s wording in the bill.  Frankly, I agreed with the language of the bill and Ryan’s later comment that "there’s no splitting hairs over rape".  The only reason it was an issue was because liberals wanted it to be one; they WANTED to believe that a Republican would try to redefine rape.  Again, claiming that he was trying to do that is reprehensible and I am still insulted (even more so that you would take such a childish swipe at what I had to say).

      • http://blogmeridian.blogspot.com John Buaas

         Please.  Obviously, there IS some "splitting [of] hairs" if people believe that the word "rape" needs an adjective in front of it–and when, in previous versions of the Hyde Amendment, no one had felt the need to add an adjective.  Adjectives are qualifiers–they make distinctions between otherwise similar entities.  They are hair-splitters by definition.

        It’s not childish, by the way, to point out logical or factual inconsistencies.  It’s childish to not admit that they exist.

        • http://www.arizonarangerems.blogspot.com The Ranger

          The only thing I thought when I read that line was that the term "forcible rape" was that it was redundant.  I always welcome insight, even if the commenter doesn’t agree; you, however, are only irritating me.  I could sit here and rattle off a laundry list of genuinely insensitive things Obama has said and done, but you would find a way to defend every single one of them.

          Pointing out a single adjective that created redundancy does not mean that the GOP is trying to re-define rape.  I’ve seen the same ridiculous term in legal documents for cases I’ve had to testify on.  You’re not making a point here – and yes, you are being absolutely childish.

  • CTmom2

    Abortion is the killing of innocent life in the womb, in most cases, but also with the born alive act.  It not only violates God’s law as expressed in the Ten Commandments, it also violates American law.  I would think that the criminal who murders his neighbor might be able to use the argument that America already condones murder because of abortion, so he is not really guilty of murder.  When there is no consistancy in law, law becomes meaningless.  

    I think the abortion issue is such a stink in God’s nostrils, much like slavery, that we have been reaping what we have sown.  Awhile back, I read that because of Sarah Palin, now more that 50% of the country is pro-life.  This is a good thing.  But, will it be enough that God will have mercy on our land?  I do hope and pray that it is so.

    • SusanWo4p

      There are mainstream Christian churches out there that have completely turned their backs on the issue of abortion.

      They will urge their congregation to be activists in all forms of "Social Justice"…from FIGHTING AGAINST global warming, bullying gays, water-boarding, the military, Israel, and capitalism to SUPPORTING Obamacare, gay marriage, welfare, Mrs. B.O.’s nutrition dictates, the UN and the Occupy Movement.

      But on the subject of abortion…they are SILENT.   Even though they know that abortion is against the teachings of Jesus Christ…they have opted to stay in line with the Political Agenda of the Atheist Left instead.

      The National Council of Churches has a big hand in placing a RADICAL LEFT AGENDA IN OUR CHURCHES.

  • Exgunman

    These hollywood bimbos of whom you speak certainly got the" parts", but they missed out on the"lady" and the "smart" ……………………………………………..

  • Guest

    First of all….I DON’T believe the federal government should be funding Planned Parenthood.  But I don’t totally agree with the entirety of your article, either.. 

    Since I graduated early my father’s medical insurance would no longer cover me as a dependent because I was not a full-time student at the time.  I was working a part-time job that didn’t offer health insurance so I had no choice but to go to Planned Parenthood for basic gynecological services.  The first Pap smear I ever had was from PP.  The Pap smear I had was what they called "abnormal" and I was referred to an OB-GYN nurse practicioner.  The first breast exam I had was at PP and the NP that did it found a lump.  I was referred out to have a mammogram AND see a breast surgeon.  I was diagnosed with in situ breast cancer at 18 years old.  PP also provided my prescription for birth control pills for $9 per month.

    Planned Parenthood is NOT just about abortions.  I don’t believe the government should be funding them….but PP DOES offer services that ARE very difficult to get for low-income and young people.  It was $65 without insurance just to see the OB-GYN Nurse Practicioner and an additional $35 for the Pap smear test results.  It was only $9 for me to see the Nurse Practioner at PP and they didn’t charge for the lab services.  They also scheduled my follow-up appointments with the OB-GYN and breast surgeon and helped me qualify to have my mammogram paid for as well as the surgery to have my cancercous breast lump removed. 

    I don’t agree with everything that PP does but they are more than just an abortion provider.  Almost every hospital and OB-GYN doctor’s office will provide abortions and almost ALL health insurance plans cover it.  Aetna Insurance covers abortions.  Kaiser Permanente covers abortions.  Blue Shield covers abortions.  United Heatlhcare covers abortions.  Cigna covers abortions.             

    • http://www.arizonarangerems.blogspot.com The Ranger

       I never said that PP is only in the abortion business – what I did say was that they comprise a higher percentage of their business than they’re admitting.  All of the services you’re describing are available through another program.  What I’m suggesting is that the government pull the funding they’re giving PP and expand the programs they already have available.  PP won’t go out of business.

      • Guest

        "All of the services you’re describing are available through another program."

        Mel….you don’t understand that these services are NOT available in other places for a whole lot of young people.  And you also seemed to have missed the part where I said TWICE that I don’t believe that the federal government should be funding them at all.  Not even for those services I listed.   

  • Guest

    As a Christian I cannot vote for Mitt Romney. It takes five minutes of research on a search engine to realize this guy is bad news. He is trying to hold Catholics and Christians voters hostage with the pro-life issue while everything else he stands for is not Christian at all. Romneycare provided for taxpayer funded abortifacients and just last week he said on audio (he did not know he was being taped) that he would not introduce any pro-life legislation at all.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ek_jkwGg3I&feature=related

    • http://www.arizonarangerems.blogspot.com The Ranger

      Your statement actually scares me…you’d rather stand against Romney than work to boot Obama out of office?  Do you realize just how much worse Obama is than Romney?  Is the abortion issue honestly the only issue you recognize?  Yes, it’s important, but it is not the most important issue we’re facing.  If we don’t fire Obama next month, America as we know it – a free country still willing to fight for that freedom – will no longer exist by the time he leaves office.  I am appalled that you would take such a stance and ignore the plethora of very serious problems we’re facing today.

      • Guest

        You didn’t check "ducks" activity before replying.  Ducks is NOT a republican or a conservative or a Palin supporter.  Ducks comments at Mother Jones and Rolling Stone.  Ducks is an 0bama supporter.   

  • Emerson_C

    Government funding of Planned Parenthood to prevent unwanted pregnacies  is rather analogous to Government funding the tobacco industry to fight against lung cancer.  PP is a major cause of that which it purports to cure.  It is thus a gigantic self perpetuating racket.

  • Patriot41

    Since when has a liberal ever considered dealing with the facts?  Even when you present the facts to a liberal, if it is not in line with their ideology, those facts lie.  Liberals deal with perceptions they can create and maintain, until that perception is exposed for what it actually is.  They don’t then give up, they merely change tactics and create a new perception in line with their thought process.  Reality is the last thing that a liberal ever wants to be forced to deal with, since they live in an imaginary world where everyone agrees with their latest knee jerk ideal.  Liberals live in a state of rebellion throughout their lives, not for worthy causes, but merely to perpetuate rebellion.

    I know of no reasonable Republican who values life, that would try to prevent any woman from getting the necessary healthcare required.  However, most people I know and associate with, whether democrat of republican, detest being forced to pay taxes for killing innocent life.  When it comes to protecting oneself from STD’s or unwanted pregnancies, most people I know, believe that is an individual’s personal responsibility.  No govt., agency should be forcing citizens to pay for careless or reckless behavior by any individual, no matter what their wealth status may be.  Yet, our govt., encourages such behavior, by paying the costs to treat such behavior.  It is a policy which perpetuates careless behavior rather then correcting the problem.

  • BrianusBerkleianus

    moved

  • BrianusBerkleianus

    moved

Open Thread

Governor Palin’s Tweets