Numbers Don’t Lie…But Planned Parenthood Does

Most people have heard about the lies Planned Parenthood spews into society, which just keep on coming. PP is up in arms about the HHS mandate, and to try to improve their reputation, they’re twisting poll statistics and trying to make it look like America is on their side.

Recently, PP posted this link on their Facebook page, and commented on it saying:

” 67% of Americans oppose the Blunt Amendment, believing employers should not be able to deny health coverage for employees based on their own personal beliefs.”

Okaaay. That’s not too weird sounding, but 67%? Sounds a little fishy, huh? I haven’t been hearing statistics similar to this, and for a good reason. This number does not truthfully represent the context PP was using it in! Whoa. Is Planned Parenthood lying?!?!?! Well, they sure are twisting things a lot.

Remember it was just a week ago that CNN found a very different result showing that the public was against the Obama HHS mandate 50% to 44%.

Looking at the actual poll, you see what the people were asked:

“Q: Do you think employers should be allowed to deny health care coverage to their employees for doctor-recommended health care services if those services are contrary to the employer’s religious beliefs or moral convictions, or do you think all workers should be allowed access to all doctor-recommended health care services, regardless of their employer’s beliefs?”

Here are the choices people were given:

  • Employers should be allowed to deny coverage based on their beliefs
  • All workers should be allowed to access health care services regardless of their employer’s beliefs
  • Not sure

Now at first look, that sounds crazy. A doctor-recommended health service has got to be pretty serious, right? Who in the world would want to allow his employer to deny him access to a service his doctor finds necessary? Hmmm…not many people I’m guessing. We all want access to important health services, which is why 67% of the responders chose answer #2. This is where the number is right, but Planned Parenthood is wrong.

Planned Parenthood didn’t quite get the full memo about this poll because their post (in reference to the HHS mandate) indicated that 67% of Americans are against employers choosing to not cover something like….birth control. Funny thing: we all have access to birth control, even if our employers aren’t the ones paying for it. Did anyone ever tell them that birth control is not a necessary part of health care anyway? And how about the fact that you can get contraception without a doctor’s recommendation? AND you can still purchase the services you want (including contraception) even if you don’t have insurance. WHOA, it’s a revelation!

If PP was like Pinnochio, their workers would all have reeeeally long noses.

PP thrives on lies. They lie about basic medical facts, and twist statistics which are skewed in the first place. They’re skewing this statistic as they have with others recently. I’d be interested to go back and poll those same 1,000 people and see what they’d say to this slightly re-worded question:

“Q: Do you think employers should be forced to cover unnecessary health services for their employees such as birth control and sterilization (if those services are contrary to the employer’s religious beliefs or moral convictions), or should it remain as it is today where workers are allowed to access all health services and supplies, regardless of their employer’s beliefs and insurance coverage?” 

I think the answers to that question might be a bit different.

  • Oedipa

    The Blunt Amendment is horrid. I don’t need my employer telling me how to #@!$ my partner, thank you very much.

    I didn’t really digest anything else in the article, because, yeah I get it. You hate Planned Parenthood.

    • Kristen M

      you want to have sex with your partner? Pay for it yourself. Isn’t one of the chant pro-choicers say “Stay out of our bedrooms”? So pro-choicers want pro-lifers out of their bedroom yet they want others to pay for their contraception? How is that staying out of the pro-choicers bedroom? If pro-choicers truly want others to stay out of their bedroom they would fully be will to pay for any contraception on their own. You engage in an optional act you should pay for the optional “healthcare”

      • 12angry_men

        Just a quick question here: what about women who benefit from birth control in a way that has nothing to do with sex? For instance, one of my friends had horrible, horrible periods as a teenager. I mean just horrible; she threw up, it was very heavy, had to miss school, and it was very inconsistent. As an adult, she would have had to continue going through this but she doesn’t anymore. Why you ask? Well it’s because she got on birth control. Birth control regulated her period, and now she doesn’t get horribly ill once every month.  

        • Shelly200

          Most religious organizations have clauses in their healthcare plans in which birth control pills are covered if they are for non-contraceptive reasons. The woman would need to go to the doctor for her problem, and have the doctor file the prescription for the specified reason (acne, or PMDD, or another reason).

        • http://twitter.com/AnaDee101 Ana

          Gee ever heard of Midol? I have horrible period cramps, to the point where I have had to be hospitalized…NOT ONCE was I given birth control to alleviate my pain…

      • Rachel Ford

        “you want to have sex with your partner? Pay for it yourself.”

        Tell me why that only applies to women, but not men. Tell me why it’s ok for insurance policies to “pay” for men “to have sex”, but not for women?

        And, of course, I’m completely ignoring the many, many instances when BC is used for a lot more than preventing pregnancies….

        • http://twitter.com/AnaDee101 Ana

          THE MAJORITY of birth control is used for contraception, the medical reasons listed for non-contraceptive bc use, can be treated via other means… Also, it’s funny how you whine about men being paid to have sex but not women, but let’s think about this: Suppose a woman gets GOVERNMENT FUNDED birth control because she needs it to clear her acne… Why don’t we GOVERNMENT FUND a man’s Epidou? Or his Proactiv? After all, don’t you think it is unfair that woman get to have their acne treatment covered by the government but not men?

      • Guest

        you want to have sex with your partner? Pay for it yourself.

        Okay, so you believe that insurance companies should not cover pregnancy care and childbirth?  I mean, if women want to have sex with their partners, shouldn’t they pay for it themselves?

        • http://twitter.com/AnaDee101 Ana

          If we say no, then we are labeled as hypocrites who only care about the blob of cells while in the womb, but  do nothing for them after they are born right? I mean according to your logic, we shouldn’t pay for a BORN individual’s schooling, healthcare, or emergency medical treatment either because they are a product of a woman who chose to have sex right? I mean where do you draw the line? Paying for the health of a child, is not the same thing as paying for someone else’s birth control, especially after that someone says that government has no right to legislate what goes on in their bed rooms

  • Rachel Ford

    Laura, the fact that you consider your opinion to be more relevant than the consensus of the medical community means…well, absolutely nothing. PP was right on the money with this: 67% of Americans put more stock in the opinion of the medical community than priests (shocking, I know, that we trust people who know about, you  know, medicine rather than theologians to dictate our care!). 
    You personally might feel that birth control is unnecessary, in much the same way that a Jehovah’s Witness would feel that blood transfusions are unnecessary, or a Christian Scientist would feel that medicine at all is unnecessary (prayer is the answer, don’t you know?); but your opinion, while a perfectly valid guide for your own life choices, are irrelevant as a guide for other people’s. I choose to accept the medical community’s opinion on “doctor-recommended health services”, rather than your religious beliefs.
    And, as a last note, you act as though the fact that birth control is available if you can afford it whether insurance covers it or not is somehow an argument against covering it. What health services aren’t available if you can pay but don’t have insurance?! That, my friend, looks like a starwman argument. “Well, gosh, you can still get it, so we’re not trying to stop you; we just don’t want to have to pay for it!” The question wasn’t “should it be legal”. It was should insurance cover it. So it looks like PP is the one telling the truth here, and you’re doing the spinning. Oops!

    • Shelly200

      Just curious as to what malady birth control is supposed to be preventing? Afterall, a “health service” is supposed to make you… healthy, right? In what way does birth control –as contraception — make a woman healthy? Since most religious organizations already have clauses in their insurance plans that allow coverage for birth control pills if they are used for a medical reason (such as PMDD), then requiring further coverage would mean requiring coverage for contraceptive reasons — which… condoms, sterilizations, and abortifacients are required under the mandate as well — and… well, I’m just wondering how any of these will make the people in this country any healthier.

      • Rachel Ford

         I’m not sure what facts you have to indicate that “most” religious organizations cover BC for medical reasons, but not only is “most” not “all”, that’s not the point. The healthcare community gets to decide what is healthcare, not priests or right wing commentators.

        • http://twitter.com/AnaDee101 Ana

          If you want to pay for a woman’s birth control go ahead, but if I don’t want to that is my choice

      • stephinmedschool

        The Health Service of birth control does allow many women to be healthy.  A pill, implant, or IUD can help treat heavy bleeding, ovarian cysts, and irregular cycles.  It is not just for preventing pregnancy.  As a medical student who used to believe “the pill” was evil, I have changed my opinions after meeting several patients who need it for much much more than just birth control. 

    • Ninek

      Stop cramming your hands into my wallet.  I’m not paying for your elective birth control, your elective rhinoplasty, or your elective cosmetic breast enhancement.

      • Rachel Ford

        That’s a charming sentiment, but for many women birth control isn’t “elective”; it is used for medical reasons or to prevent pregnancy when pregnancy would threaten the mother’s life. Secondly, let’s not be hypocritical here. Viagra, for instance, is already covered by many health plans (and the Church smiles on this). Viagra is just as optional as birth control in perfectly healthy women (who certainly do not constitute the full body of women using it) — no one’s health or life is on the line because a man is unable to function sexually. And if sex is “elective” for women, it must also be for men; so where is the outpouring of righteous indignation that you’re paying for a man’s optional sexual pleasure? It seems to me that there is a lot of anger and fear about the idea that maybe women are able to have sex without consequences, and not a jot of it when men do. Hmmm….

        • debrr

          I wasn’t aware that the Church “smiles” on men taking Viagra.  I will have to check out the latest general audiences or encyclicals from Benedict XVI.  Just because something is covered by insurance doesn’t make it morally right.  I don’t think insurance needs to cover Viagra either.  What I really do know is that I don’t need to be paying for anyone’s elective activities.  Both men and women need to take responsibility for their actions.  If you engage in procreative activity then YOU have to be responsible for it, not ME.

    • MoonChild02

      Here’s a thought: If you want your insurance to cover contraception for your sexual wants (face it, they’re not needs), don’t work for the Catholic Church or any other faith-based institution. Get a job at a secular company.

      Why are you people even arguing if you don’t even like the Church? If you don’t like the Church or our beliefs, why act as if you’re going to work there? What we’re arguing about is freedom of religious institutions to exercise their religious freedom, as stated in the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” We’re not talking about establishing a government religion or about having this law apply to non-religious institutions, so this does not even apply to you.

      • Rachel Ford

        Nobody is forcing an institution whose purpose is religious to do anything they don’t won’t to do. The problem here is institutions that are religiously affiliated (many of whom take taxpayer money) but have secular missions, like healthcare, and hire secular employees.
        If religion isn’t criteria for hiring, it shouldn’t be criteria for benefits. Period. Here’s the thing, your religion doesn’t get to decide what is or isn’t health care; the health care community does. (Just as no one gets to decide what your church’s theology is). Based on the health care community’s decision for what constitutes health care, BC is health care. Simple as that, really.

        • MoonChild02

          It’s not that simple, really.

          First of all, Religious institutions cannot be prohibited free exercise of their beliefs. It is stated right in the First Amendment.

          “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

          Second of all, nowhere in the United States Constitution does it give the President or Congress the power to legislate health care. Therefore, the power of such legislation must be left to the States, as the Tenth Amendment declares:

          The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

          Third, this law is not something that the health care community came up with. This law was decided by President Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, former White House Chief-of-Staff Bill Daley, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, former Domestic Policy Council Director Melody Barnes, White House Senior Advisers Valerie Jarrett and Pete Rouse, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, two U.S. Senators, and Planned Parenthood Federation for America CEO Cecile Richards. No medical professional from the AMA, the CMA, or any other medical association was consulted in the writing of this law. None of those people even have a medical degree, not a single one. So, no, this law is not about health care, it’s about politics.
          http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/policy-and-politics-of-contraception-rule-fiercely-debated-within-white-house/
          http://www.lifenews.com/2012/02/14/planned-parenthood-ceo-a-top-white-house-mandate-advisor/
          The article from Lifesite News links to other articles from other news outlets, if you don’t trust it.

          I don’t want to pay for your sex life, which I would be doing through tithes. If I did have to pay for it, you would have to pay for the health care that members of my family and I all require, and are not optional. Since a law has not been made to force required health care on the public, it should be illegal to force optional health care on the public. I won’t pay for anyone’s breast enhancements, tummy tucks, or penis enlargements, either.

          It’s one thing if your contraception is for a health reason, like PMDD, which the Church allows for. It’s quite another to force us to kill an innocent life or support the orgies of the masses.

          • Rachel Ford

             The “orgies of the masses”?? WOW! Tell us how you really feel about people having sex?
            And, no, the law was not designed by doctors, but it is the consensus of the medical community that birth control is a useful medical service. Again, it’s hypocritical to be up in arms about paying for women’s ability to have sex but not men’s — since they’re both “optional”.
            As for prohibiting the free exercise of religion, no one is stopping you from avoiding contraceptives; you are, in fact, trying to stop *other* people from following their own consciences, though. So it’s religious affiliated groups that are trying to force their beliefs on others, not the other way around….

        • debrr

          PREGNANCY IS NOT A DISEASE TO BE CURED!!!!  It is a normal human function that occurs when male and female unite in intercourse.  If you don’t want to take responsibility for the results of an activity, then don’t do it.

        • http://twitter.com/AnaDee101 Ana

          Just because something is listed under healthcare, doesn’t mean people should be forced to fund it. Only, lifesaving medical treatments, (which birth control  IS NOT) should receive federal funding…Heck, St Judes treats child cancer without government funding, I don’t hear people foaming at the mouth about how that must mean that we want children to die of leukemia, just because  funding is not forced upon by the government onto the tax payer

  • Pingback: Thursday Roundup 2/23/12 More Apologizing for America Edition