Skip to main content

Facebook post attempts to compare gun control to Planned Parenthood...and fails

It's amazing how many political photos and signs are getting spread via the social networking site Facebook. I just saw yet another this morning which showcased President Obama in a cartoon like fashion in a split-screen. On the left side, with the words "gun control" shown at the bottom of the picture, the president says, "If there's a step we can take to save even one child, we should take that step." On the right side, with the words "planned parenthood" displayed at the bottom, Obama says, "Never mind."

This comparison is way off base on a number of levels. I'll, however, just focus on one. Far-right politicians and religious leaders seem convinced that Planned Parenthood is nothing more than an abortion clinic - that almost all of its services are dedicated to abortion. That's not even close to being true.

As showcased by fact-checking site Factcheck.org, abortions represent only 3% of Planned Parenthood's total services. That means 97% of Planned Parenthood's services aren't related to abortion. Here's how the organization's services break down:

Contraception: 35%

Sexually Transmitted Diseases/Infections (STDs/STIs) Testing and Treatment - 35%

Cancer Screening and Prevention - 16%

Other Women's Health Services - 10%

Abortion Services - 3%

Other Services - 1%

Did you notice that first listing? Contraception. In a Guttmacher study conducted by Amy Deschner and Susan A. Cohen, the following was found:

"In countries around the world, women who are determined to limit their family size and time their childbearing will use all available means to do so; if contraception is not a viable option, women will turn to abortion -- even if it is illegal. Extensive evidence demonstrates, however, that when modern contraceptives are made available to women, their increased use over time replaces previous reliance on abortion and becomes the major factor associated with reduced abortion rates. Policymakers seeking to reduce the incidence of abortion would do well to address its root cause -- unintended pregnancy -- by facilitating widespread access to modern contraceptives and by promoting their effective use." That's right - the name of the study is, "Contraceptive Use Is Key to Reducing Abortion Worldwide."

The study and others like it show that whether or not abortion is legal, women will find a way to undergo the procedure. However, this study and others like it also show that with an increase in contraceptive use, there's a decrease in abortion. One of Planned Parenthood's two most utilized services is contraception. In all likelihood, Planned Parenthood and organizations like it are decreasing the number of abortions due to increasing contraceptive use. Like I said, the cartoon is way off base with the comparison.

The one similarity I see as depicted in the cartoon is that Planned Parenthood can be viewed as gun control in a figurative sense, for it provides a man's "gun" with contraception, which will decrease the number of unwanted pregnancies and with that, the number of abortions as well. So while the cartoon attempts to depict the president as being hypocritical, in supporting gun control legislation to save children's lives yet supporting Planned Parenthood which it paints as doing anything but saving children's lives, the cartoonist comes across as looking quite foolish. Whether the far-right wants to believe it or not, Planned Parenthood provides many more services with regard to contraception than abortion, and as numerous studies showcase, greater contraception use results in fewer abortions. So, like with gun control, Planned Parenthood is actually saving children's lives.

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10151569321146178&set=a.230039551177.135536.6333396177&type=1&theater

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/06/4/gr060407.html

http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"