Planned Parenthood’s McCain-Viagra ad based on myth
This is related to my July 23 WND column, “McCain and Viagra.”
Newsweek yesterday reposted an article by Jess Henig of FactCheck.org about this Planned Parenthood ad currently airing in DC and battleground states including CO, IA, MN, NM, OH, and WI, according to Henig:
Henig determined, in fact…
A 2004 report by the nonpartisan [I know, I know] Guttmacher Institute found that in 2002, 86% of the plans that insurance companies typically wrote for employers covered the full range of approved reversible contraceptive methods (birth control pills, hormone injections, implants, IUDs and diaphragms), and only 2% covered no methods at all.
And Viagra? According to Henig, 3 studies between 1999-2007 show a coverage rate of 40-70% – actually less than contraceptives.
Henig thus pronounced PP incompetent, although she was being too kind. In reality PP is deceptive.
[W]hile it may be accurate to claim that there exist insurers who cover erectile dysfunction drugs and not birth control, it is not accurate to imply that this disparity is common…. Planned Parenthood, a major advocate for reproductive rights, should know this.
Henig asked PP for proof of its claim:
When we asked PP whether insurance companies were denying coverage for contraceptives, the group pointed us to… a 2003 amendment introduced by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), which would have prevented insurance companies from denying such coverage. [It]… includes the claim that “half of traditional indemnity plans and PPOs, 20% of point-of-service networks, and 7% of HMOs cover no contraceptive methods other than sterilization.”
This could be referring to a 1993 Guttmacher study…. By the time the Murray amendment was written, that information was 10 years out of date. Now, it’s 15 years old and irrelevant, given Guttmacher’s more recent findings.
According to Guttmacher, 27 states now mandate contraceptive insurance coverage, with some allowing for religious exemptions.
Clearly anti-choice PP is working with political accomplices to force 100% contraceptive coverage for 2 reasons: 1) it is a major benefactor; 2) it wants to squash moral and religious opponents.
And since when has PP let truth get in its way?
[HT: reader Charles C.]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I think this explains why McCain seemed so stumped when the question was asked.
Charles, yes, the article agreed: “McCain had good reason to be flustered. The premise of the reporter’s question is a myth.”
And it certainly didn’t help that Carly Fiorina opened the door by broadcasting the same false information. She should apologize and correct herself.
“…when has PP let truth get in its way?”
———————————–
Truth? What truth are you talking about???
So if y’all haven’t learned by now, if it comes out of Planned Parenthood’s mouth, you can be 86% sure that it’s a flat-out lie.
“These doors will stay open” – LIE
“We comply with state reporting laws” – LIE
“Medically accurate information” – LIE
“Gemini Office Development” – LIE
“We do more than just abortion” – TRUE
“Plan B does not cause abortion” – LIE
“We prevent more abortions than anyone” – LIE
See? It’s fun!
Clearly anti-choice PP is working with political accomplices to force 100% contraceptive coverage for 2 reasons: 1) it is a major benefactor; 2) it wants to squash moral and religious opponents.
And since when has PP let truth get in its way?
This sort of picks up where the Miss Beatie thread left off- about people imposing their beliefs on others (PP can’t possibly be doing that of course) and the idea that there is no objective truth and anyway my truth is different from your truth and well, PP must have THE truth.
Brother!
It doesn’t matter, Jill. The reporter only said that it’s unfair when health insurers cover Viagra and not birth control, not that it was common. Then she asked McCain’s opinion. All he had to do was agree or disagree.
Is it unfair? The vast majority of American women would say “yes.” But John McCain couldn’t say that without further alienating the wacky GOP base. And he couldn’t say no without alienating moderate women. So he said nothing.
Clearly anti-choice PP is working with political accomplices to force 100% contraceptive coverage
Absolutely, because every woman deserves access to birth control. If insurance companies can’t bring themselves to treat women like full human beings, they don’t need to be in the insurance business.
Cranky Catholic, 3:49 LOL
Absolutely, because every woman deserves access to birth control. If insurance companies can’t bring themselves to treat women like full human beings, they don’t need to be in the insurance business.
Posted by: reality at July 25, 2008 4:20 PM
Reality,
Uhhhh, I think every woman does have access to birth control. Women just don’t want to have to pay the price to use it. They are not being denied access to birth control.
Insurance companies are treating women like full human beings that should behave and be responsible like full human beings. If responsible full human beings can’t afford birth control pills, how about double condoms with spermacide, a diaphram with spermacide, abstinance, (there’s a novel idea)
Sandy,
Double condoms are actually less effective. The increased friction makes it more likely that they will develop holes.
A.
Well, I did suggest using them in conjuntion with spermacide.
Absolutely, because every woman deserves access to birth control. If insurance companies can’t bring themselves to treat women like full human beings, they don’t need to be in the insurance business.
Posted by: reality at July 25, 2008 4:20 PM
OH so if an insurance company doesn’t cover a non essential pill like BC, they are not treating women as humans? PLEASE!
Women do not have a “right” to BC. It’s not essential for their survival and well being.
Agree, Patricia. Folks don’t know the difference between a right and a privilege. And if I’m denied a privilege, that doesn’t mean I’m being treated as a “second-class” citizen, a term favored by pro-aborts. It’s easy to throw terms like ‘justice’ and ‘rights’ into your cause because it makes it sound humanitarian.
Very good Cranky Catholic. I quite agree. Of course this applies to babies too- there seems to be a common thought nowadays that people have a right to a baby -but a baby is a gift from God.
A baby is not a commodity, produced via any means necessary or available to satisfy the desires of a “couple”.
Cranky: Folks don’t know the difference between a right and a privilege.
Good point. Children don’t either if they are not taught the difference. Hmmm…
I’m not quite sure why you pro-lifers seem to be against giving women birth control. If more women were on birth control there would be fewer abortions. It’s really that simple. You need to look at things rationally rather than following what Bronze Age men in tents wrote. Besides the issue here is is it okay to cover erectile dysfunction pills but not birth control, the answer is no, it’s not okay. I would say birth control has a much more important use than Viagra. In Europe, the focus of sex education is contraception, in the US we focus on abstinence, Europe’s teen pregnancy rate is much lower than ours. Contraception works, period.
Wow. I feel the need to comment on this:
Reality said: “If insurance companies can’t bring themselves to treat women like full human beings, they don’t need to be in the insurance business.”
And that is exactly why little Hitlers like you should never have any political power whatsoever. You are advocating outright fascism.
Insurance companies have each right to choose what to cover and what not to cover. In fact, they do it all the time. They’ll cover one brand of antibiotic but not another. They’ll cover one form of treatment for an illness, but not another. It’s really none of your damn business.
Even if impotence medication and birth control pills were the same thing, which they obviously are not (impotence is an illness, fertility is not), then it still wouldn’t matter – if insurance companies wanted to cover one and not the other, we still shouldn’t bring the power of the government down on their heads and FORCE them to cover it. We can refuse to do business with them, and we can express how much we dislike their practices, but that’s not what you advocate, is it, Reality? No, you want your presidential candidate, Barack Milhous Obama, to require that insurance companies pay for what you personally think they should pay for… and if they don’t, they’ll just have to close up shop and find another line of work.
Reality, you and your ilk are worse than the hatemongers at Westboro Baptist Church. Fred Phelps sets out to abuse the Constitution in order offend people, but at the end of the day, his hateful attacks on decency don’t have any real, permanent effect on anyone.
You, on the other hand, wish to abuse the power of the government in order to force indecency on thousands of people. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America started this country on the basis of freedom. It was intended to be a republic of the people in which the government did little more than protect the God-given rights of the people to life and liberty. But you… you think that it is somehow “American” for the government to bully businesses to the point where they are told, “You must provide this service, or else we are going to put you out of business.” That is not only un-American, but is anti-American, totalitarian FASCISM.
I am not interested in having polite discussions with fascist monstrosities who want to tear down my country and my church and replace them with evil regimes which worship irresponsibility and child murder. So, away I go again before I get myself in trouble.
Insurance companies have each right to choose what to cover and what not to cover. In fact, they do it all the time. They’ll cover one brand of antibiotic but not another. They’ll cover one form of treatment for an illness, but not another. It’s really none of your damn business.
Go John!
ha HA! I knew you’d be back, John. As frustrated as you got on this blog, you gotta admit that it’s an infinitely better place to be than where I found you earlier this week, ehh?
Where was that, Bambino?
Lewandowski, you have to stop teasing me. Just when I think we’ll never hear from you again, you show up at the most surprising moments, state your incredible case, then drive off into the sunset.
You just don’t know what that does to me!
Cranky and Lewandowsky for the 2008 ticket
kb:Cranky and Lewandowsky for the 2008 ticket
Just rolls off the tongue. :)
Reality, you and your ilk are worse than the hatemongers at Westboro Baptist Church. Fred Phelps sets out to abuse the Constitution in order offend people, but at the end of the day, his hateful attacks on decency don’t have any real, permanent effect on anyone.
Really? People who believe in a woman’s right to choose are like the freaks who go to soldiers funerals to protest homosexuality? Doesn’t that seem silly since pro-lifers are the ones who stand outside abortion clinics with giant posters of late-term fetuses? Oh yeah and that little habit of murdering doctors and blowing stuff up. We are nothing like those hate-mongers.
Fred Phelps wants to push his religious beliefs upon everyone in the country, which side of the choice/life debate uses religion regularly to back up their claims? I can tell you it’s not my side. I think women have a right to say, “Keep your bible out of my uterus.”
But my favorite thing about the use of Christianity to defend the pro-life stance is that no where in the bible does anyone say anything about abortion. Your stance comes from a belief that women are inferior to men, that men should hold domain over women like “the good lord” says to.
I don’t want the government to “bully” business I want the government to hold businesses responsible when they fail to treat people equally based on their religion, ethnicity, gender, or any other factor beyond a person’s control. You’re the ones who want the government to bully people but you think it’s okay since those people are women.
John McCain should pick Britney Spears for his running mate. That way he could claim the average age of the ticket was under 50.
“Women do not have a “right” to BC. It’s not essential for their survival and well being.”
Whoa whoa whoa..many things that are covered fall under that category, like VIAGRA. Many users have NATURALLY lost their ability to “get it up” due to age. You guys are so hung up on things that are “natural” compared to an “illness.” But you completely lose sight of the opposite- that in many ways impotence is “natural” process, and that some forms of BC are actually used to treat real problems like PMDD.
Let’s also bitch about how new age b*ll treatments like acupuncture are covered by many plans.
“You, on the other hand, wish to abuse the power of the government in order to force indecency on thousands of people.”
Well, many conservatives wish to abuse the power of the government in order to force their standards of “decency”(/morality) on thousands of people.
“I am not interested in having polite discussions with fascist monstrosities who want to tear down my country and my church and replace them with evil regimes which worship irresponsibility and child murder. So, away I go again before I get myself in trouble.”
Bye now.
Come mothers and fathers all over this land
And don’t criticize what you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughter are beyond your command
Your old role is rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend a hand
For the times they are a changing
Wow, the pro-lifers cleared out of here. HAHAHA
From what I’ve seen, McCain’s managers are squandering what could be political gains in the last couple weeks.
Never know what’s going to happen, and I do think we’ve got us a horse race here. However, seems to me that McCain is “fighting with one arm tied behind his back” due to the decisions of the campaign managers. Some of the negative ads toward Obama have done nothing but make McCain look mighty lame here…