Skip to main content

Planned Parenthood and mammograms

Pro-life groups like Live Action love to charge Planned Parenthood with lying when it comes to whether the organization provides women with mammograms.

Does Planned Parenthood provide mammograms? The literal answer appears to be "no," they do not. That being said, Planned Parenthood provides a) many breast exams a year (according to The Hill, 750,000), and b) referrals to organizations that do provide mammograms, much like many basic health care organizations.

As with negative political advertising, then, the activists attacking Planned Parenthood are indulging in myopia, which allows them to focus on something that is literally true while failing to see the bigger and more relevant picture. The larger and more relevant picture in this case is that Planned Parenthood provides, among other preventative and primary care, access to breast exams and mammograms for women. If those women are poor and in areas (like in rural Texas) where Planned Parenthood is one of the only places to access affordable care and referrals, then cutting off the organization's funding will deny women important health care wholly unrelated to abortion.

This controversy over mammograms is just one battle in a larger campaign to set an image in the public mind of what Planned Parenthood is, fundamentally. Is Planned Parenthood an organization that provides a range of health care services to women, or is Planned Parenthood a profit-driven abortion industry?

Which image seems more convincing depends in part on what statistics one cites about the organization. Planned Parenthood, in absolute numbers and in proportion to other abortion providers, provides a lot of abortions. Abortions, however, only make up a small proportion of Planned Parenthood's overall activities-- about 3%. It is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose, but I think it is fairest to say that while Planned Parenthood is a major abortion provider it is also primarily a provider of basic health care for women.

If one concludes that its overall body of work is valuable, then one will support continued funding of Planned Parenthood, in particular its work providing free and low-cost health care for poor women. If one sees Planned Parenthood's abortion work as unacceptable regardless of what else it does, then one will likely object to taxpayer funding of the overall organization, as it appears to indirectly subsidize the abortion side of the business.

Note that, in terms of adopting one perspective or the other, whether Planned Parenthood directly or indirectly provides mammograms is simply irrelevant.

Links:

Article in The Hill about Planned Parenthood and mammograms (October 25, 2012): SBA List blasts Obama for saying Planned Parenthood provides mammograms

Article in the National Review Online that is a good example of the focus on the mammogram question and the emphasis on Planned Parenthood's provision of abortions (October 17, 2012): Celebrating Planned Parenthood's Birthday with a Mammogram Myth

Another article in the National Review Online (October 17, 2012): Planned Parenthood Staff: The President is Wrong, We Don't Provide Mammograms

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, Pres