Not a member? Sign up now
Republican Senator makes up statistics about Planned Parenthood
By Peter SmithApril 8th, 2011, 6:00 pmComments (38)
Arizona Senator Jon Kyl (R, obviously) just told the rest of the Senate that "well over 90%" of Planned Parenthood's work was providing abortions; according to Planned Parenthood (via Jezebel), the actual number is — let's see here — 3%. So somebody's off by a factor of a lot. The full quote:
"Everybody goes to clinics, to hospitals, to doctors, and so on. Some people go to Planned Parenthood. But you don't have to go Planned Parenthood to get your cholesterol or your blood pressure checked. If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood. And that's well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does."
Nice one, Kyl. (The vast majority of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to providing contraception and STD testing, and cancer prevention.) As House Republicans attempt to force (via the threat of government shutdown) the Democrats to pass a budget that would slash funding for Planned Parenthood, a lie like that is all the more damaging and insidious.
Can Senators just make up numbers that constitute more or less the opposite of the truth? The answer is pretty clearly yes, but just to reinforce that gloomy reality, Jezebel commenter "shadoop" says:
As a Congressional staffer, I can tell you that lies are told all the time on the floor, and they usually go uncontested. The Senators are speaking for the record and for the sound bites the media will use... The lie-tellers are sometimes corrected 1,000 years later in a press release or interview, but by that time the media and others have adopted the lie as truth.
Sometimes it feels a little glib or knee-jerk to call something Orwellian.
But this story is pretty damn Orwellian.
Commentarium (38 Comments)
Explain to me that even if the majority of the PP budget goes to STD detection, cancer screening and contraception why it needs to be supported by the Federal Government?
So women have access to birth control and so don't give birth to trolls.
Perchance, preventing illness might just be more cost effective than treating the disease itself? And it will cost us less in the long run? Nah, couldn't possibly be worthwhile.
If you want to be really selfish, think of how much longer you'll have to wait in the ER if there are all those cases of PID and cervical cancer filling up the hospital.
geebee - I want the Federal government to give me "access" (code for "pay for") to a new car. I'm getting clinically depressed driving mine. By Prevect's logic, it would likely be cheaper to buy me a new car because it would likely be cheaper than treating my resulting disease. On the other hand, I don't know why the Feds have to pay for that either.
One more time: Why should the Federal government pay for this? Why can't geebee, Pervect, etc support PP's work if it's so important?
because Planned Parenthood supports the working poor, who often don't have insurance, particularly at a time when contract work (read: employment with no health care) is at an all time high.
Also, the government does give you access for your new car. The $4 for a gallon of gas you pay is way less than you'd pay in Canada, any part of Europe, or really anywhere outside of the Middle East.
gdanon - You didn't answer the question: Why should the US government - as opposed to sympathetic-minded Americans - support PP?
The first part of the solution seems simple: Only 3% of PP's activity is abortion so PP should stop performing abortions. That would make forcing pro-life Americans far less odious.
In terms of gasoline, you must be joking. That the US government doesn't tax it as much as other governments is certainly not a subsidy, at least not anywhere but nerve.com-land.
As a Canadian who lives relatively close to several parts of the Canadian-American border, I can absolutely assure you that we, your northernly neighbours, pay more for our gas per volume than you do at almost all times. It's not a subsidy, but they are cutting you a break in comparison.
The US government actually gets to play the role of sympathetic minded Americans. Is there any reason we should send foreign aid to Japan or Haiti after a disaster? What about providing shelter and medical support for the citizens of New Orleans after Katrina? What about our "humanitarian" efforts in Iraq?
I get that you're pro-life and you hate abortion. Cool. I don't love them myself, but I'd be out a family member if they weren't legal. As much as you probably see them as murder, it's possible to view them like amputation, preserving as much as we can. (By the way, anti-choicers aren't a supermajority with a mandate from everyone in the nation to push the whole country around.)
You're probably right and I apologize for using the wrong terms: the tax breaks the oil industry gets aren't a subsidy. We engage in wars in part because they'll allow us access to the amount of oil the US needs for gas to continue being cheap, but technically, we're not subsidizing the final product. Certainly, we're not subsidizing corn crops anywhere to use for ethanol.
And note that NO federal dollars are spent for abortions.
So, they're mainly being assholes.
That's BS. Funding is fungible.
OK. Let's make different kinds of dollars. Yellow Stars for Jews, Red Crosses for Catholics, Blue Crosses for Protestants, White Crosses for Mormons, etc. Us atheists will continue to use the regular kind. Yellow Stars will not be allowed to circulate on Saturday. Then you can be sure cross dollars will never be used for abortions, and we will be able to show how many get used for illegal drugs, prostitution and gambling.
@NerveReader:
Think medical care for poor folks. Less STDs, cancer, and unwanted babies. If you really want to go to the far side of selfishness, that's less chance of you getting an STD when you go slumming, less chance of your trained sweatshop workers leaving work due to medical issues, and less money spent on already overloaded foster homes. If you're more of a humanist, they're good just for goodness' sake.
Selfishness? Maybe. If you feel so strongly about PP's mission, why don't *you* pay for it? Is it just selfishness on your part?
The Tea Party argument the last two years has been "the tax money is ours, we should get to say what it goes for." I want Planned Parenthood to have my tax money. So do enough other people that we're having this discussion. Your argument falls flat.
It always cracks me up that those who work hard and want to keep their money are called selfish. Those that want to take that money from those earners are virtuous. And I'm happy to let PP have your tax money. I'm just hate the fact that the government takes *my* tax money to pay for abortions. How about this: Voluntary donations support PP. You can deduct any donation to PP from your taxes. That way, you can support PP as much as you care to and I don't have to. Fair, no?
Planned Parenthood is already partially funded by donor support, and federal laws already demanded that abortion not be funded. Making up statistics or arguing that funding is fungible doesn't change that. Congress screws up all kinds of funding approvals (see funding for State Road 31 vs. U.S. 31 in my home state of Indiana) and the money approved sits on the ledgers instead of being dispersed for years. Most agencies are pretty cognizant of following the rules, and Planned Parenthood is the same.
It makes me sad that people like you obsess about things they're morally opposed to, and decide the government should get out of "the business" of doing anything for anyone who isn't "them." Taxes funding your local sports team or a golf course are fine, but medical services for people who don't have money? Forget 'em.
Well, gdanon. Appropriations and authorizations do not last past a sitting Congress so while it may seem that funding "sits on ledgers" for years, it does not.
Do you seriously claim that funding is NOT fungible?
I'd be happy to compare my charitable giving to yours, gdanon. Are you up for it? Or is your idea of charity voting to take money from others to do the things you find desirable? Do you understand that making this ad hominem is an indication of a small mind?
Sure thing @mind reader. Let's compare. I'm currently broke, dealing with law school debts and the fact that you can't work full time while in law school. Chances are you've donated more than the $500 I felt comfortable sparing last year to specific causes.
If you read what I wrote earlier as ad hominem, I don't know what to tell you. When I wrote it, I didn't feel particularly angry. I replied to NerveReader by adapting his turn of phrase, which could look like I'm trying to smear him/her. I like to argue with logic, though, and will go check what happens with appropriations. Pretty sure your quote misstates my previous post, by the way. Funding for a five year project shows up as a line item each year for five years, even if it can't be spent, at least in the organizations I've seen.
TruthSquad FTW.
I second that.
I've been posting as NerveReader ever since I received such an overwhelmingly negative response to my earlier rantings. Just thought I should come clean.
Nice try but not true!
@Nervereader
If every individual person got to choose where their tax money went, we would have a country that would be composed of approximately a church, a brothel, and a liquor store every 25 yards down every street in America - people are far too susceptible to their own biases that a collective decision making entity is required to enforce mutual sacrifices which can propel the country forwards. A majority of people vote for representatives to make decisions on where money is spent - if you don't like PP being funded, simply vote for representatives who do not support it. That is the extent of your power, and you have every right to exercise it, and to complain if it doesn't go your way, however suggesting that individuals should have direct control over their tax money is a bit silly.
I think you made the original point, D. PP will possibly, if not likely, see it's funding eliminated or reduced in the near future due to the controversial nature of "3%" of its business. Ceasing its abortion services would likely limit the motivation for reducing its funding.
If politicians are going to continue making up statistics, why should it matter whether Planned Parenthood eliminates abortion services? People who listen to politicians will continue to believe all Planned Parenthood does is provide abortions to every woman who walks in.
That's a straw man argument, Robert. 3% is the PP figure, is it not?
3% is the Planned Parenthood figure. What's the number cited by the Senator telling America to defund Planned Parenthood?
I forgot to mention: you're arguing a hypothetical situation (claiming people like yourself will in fact quit fighting sexual health funding of any stripe if we just get rid of abortion as a service) and claiming my question is a straw man. Why would you or anyone else opposed to abortion stop pressing on reproductive health if they win one point?
I'm sorry but I don't understand your question. I understand the topic to be PP funding and I described a way that imo, PP could avoid 99% of the controversy.
I don't know how many people "like [my]self" would be less opposed to PP's funding but I have heard no one oppose its funding because they provide pap smears.
drill baby drill
I love how they slam a congressman for making up numbers, yet they state that abortions are "3 percent" and never site anything to support that claim???
Breaking news: The 3% figure is probably misleading in a discussion of funding. 3% of the services PP provides are abortions. A "service" can be an STD test, counseling, etc. It is likely that in a single (non-abortion) appointment that multiple "services" are rendered. It appears that about 34% of PP funding is related to abortion. HR - I agree with your point; look on the PP website for verification.
OK, your point is excellent. Bravo.
Senator (Jek) Kyl is still a flaming liar.
He recently had his staff issue a retraction saying his number wasn't meant to be factual. Notice that the retraction itself is not meant to be factual, because numbers are indeed presumed to be factual. I conclude that the Senator NEVER is factual, because he speaks that language called propaganda.
NerveReader. I sincerely, without emotion, wish you a quick exit from this life. I'm not mad, nor am I distressed at your commentary. I realize that some people view others as objects, like chairs or disposable razors. They have little, or no empathy for their fellow human beings. Their focus is on their life, and feelings for other life forms is always a secondary consideration, if it exists. On behalf of the rest of us, please die soon.
Well, it happened. I died, hopefully soon enough for "Mr. Empathy", justanice guy. Too bad I didn't notice his apology before choosing this course of action.
Heaven is nice but I've got to tell you, there are far too many aborted babies up here. Mostly minorities, too. Interesting that the left has killed off far more minorities than the KKK could have dreamed. Jang was probably correct; I'm sure I spent too much time thinking of myself. I should have followed his example and dedicated myself to the death of children. Where, oh where, were my priorities?
If I'm allowed regular Internet access, I'll try to be as empathetic as jang by urging people to die soon.
It's a deal, justanice guy, but you have to go first. And "the rest of [you]" must get in line ahead of me, too.
I understand that you're full of empathy. So empathetic, in fact, that you wish premature death on others, either as a result of abortion or as a result of irritating you on nerve.
Come on over. We'll discuss your meglomania.
NerveReader. I apologize. I had absolutely no right to say the things I did. I sincerely apologize. I wish you a long and happy life. I will seek therapy and atone for my faults.
@justanice guy - How is the therapy going?