9 years ago
9
Anti-Choicers Are Trying to Convince Us That Reproductive Care Isn't a Legitimate Need—and the Media Is Helping
Two of the major anti-Planned Parenthood talking points, which anti-choicers have disseminated through mainstream media, are about advancing the idea that any sexual health services that aren't about making babies doesn't count as real health care.
Continue Reading
http://rhrealitycheck.org
-
For Planned Parenthood abortion stats, ‘3 percent’ and ’94 percent’ are both misleading (Possible Paywall)
Three percent or 94 percent? Are abortions just a small portion of the array of Planned Parenthood’s services, as advocates of abortion rights say? Or is Planned Parenthood mainly an abortion provider that masquerades as a reproductive health organization, as opponents of abortion rights say?
Join the Discussion
The Washington Post article is behind a paywall.
You may have read too many free articles. :/ They're stupid that way, which is why I always use privacy/incognito mode.
Perhaps you should put 'Possible Paywall' in the link title then? There are downsides to always being in incognito mode.
Done.
Thanks.
Wow what a fair and balanced and completely unbiased article.
At least she cites her sources. If you wish to cite yours to refute her, you're invited to do so.
It's not so much that she's factually mistaken, it's just that she's uncharitable to the other side. You can tell right away in the title "Anti-Choicers". Credible journalists' policy is to call them anti-abortion. She's essentially just name calling right from the start.
I mean, I admit, I am a little biased, as I'm pro-life myself, and I fully recognize there are many problems within the pro-life movement, but I at least have the common courtesy not to call pro-choice people anti-life.
Considering that there's far more support for taking away health services for low-income women like Planned Parenthood and taking away reproductive rights than for providing support for women or babies after they give birth, I think her characterization is devastatingly accurate. If you object to it, then feel free to prove it wrong.
Tone arguments aside, she's not pulling punches because she's trying to defend women against those who would set us back forty years in women's rights. And she's backing up her statements with facts. So again, I invite you to cite your sources if you wish to dispute her claims.