You may not know this but in 2008, PP performed over 300,000 abortions! Not only is the graph totally true and not at all a lie in anyway, whatever you say is wrong because I have god on my side.
I wish that infograph had actual sources. But I won’t argue it because there’s no point. I don’t care how many abortions Planned Parenthood performed (3% of all of its services). There’s nothing wrong with safe abortions. Beyonce is on my side and that’s all that matters. :)
I’m not really sure what they think they’re proving with a pie chart like this. Anyway, from a PolitiFact article, on a slightly different antichoice claim, they examine similar information and why it’s basically useless:
All stated that roughly 98 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services to pregnant women consist of abortion. They derived their information from a March 2011 fact sheet from Planned Parenthood. That fact sheet says the group performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, referred 977 patients to other agencies for adoptions, and provided prenatal care to 7,021 patients.
But there are problems with that calculation.
First, it assumes that pregnant women only go to Planned Parenthood for one of those three options.
Planned Parenthood representatives say that interpretation overstates the ratio of abortions among its pregnant clients. It ignores other statistics, such as the 1,158,924 pregnancy tests the group provided, and the fact that those 332,278 abortions were just 3 percent of the 11,383,900 total procedures that Planned Parenthood health centers provided that year to its 3 million patients.
Thirty five percent of its services consisted of providing contraception and another 35 percent consisted of testing for sexually transmitted diseases and treatment.
The fact sheet stats also don’t reflect the fact that only a tiny proportion of Planned Parenthood centers around the country provide prenatal care - just 63 out of more than 800, said Tait Sye, a spokesman for the organization. Those that don’t offer prenatal care refer pregnant women to other health care providers for those services, and Planned Parenthood doesn’t keep track of those referrals. And the 7,021 figure for prenatal clients that was used in the calculations doesn’t include pregnant women who went to Planned Parenthood for prenatal care and were sent to outside obstetricians.
The most important part, of course, is that only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood clinics have the equipment available on site to provide prenatal care and they don’t keep track of the thousands of people they referral to other clinics. So these numbers aren’t truthful and they’re not giving the whole picture.
And in terms of adoption services, it can’t really be seen as being the fault of an organization that people go to adoption agencies for such services instead of a health clinic. They provide the services their patients need and want, they can’t force them to come to PP for adoption information to increase their numbers to your liking.
If these are the types of things you want to insinuate about PP are you also concerned about all the ob/gyns who predominantly offer prenatal care that aren’t meeting a particular quota of your liking for adoption and abortion referrals? No? Interesting. How about examining adoption agencies to see how many pregnant people they give abortion referrals to? That’s what I figured.
What the above pie chart does is make it look like these three services (abortion, adoption, and prenatal care) are the only thing PP offers and that abortion is the majority of what they do. But actually those three types of services are only a small percentage of their services, the majority of which are preventative:
And lastly, 300,000 PP abortions is next to nothing compared to the total number of abortions (1.21 million), let alone annual live births (~4.1 million) in the United States. Honestly, keep your fear mongering pie charts to yourself because 300,000 people getting safe medical care in a sterile, professional environment is not something I’m ashamed of.
P.S. You know what else is larger than the 300,000 abortions you’re crowing over? 584,000. That’s the number of unintended pregnancies PP helped prevent in 2010.
OVER HALF OF WOMEN OF REPRODUCTIVE AGE LIVE IN ABORTION-HOSTILE STATES | Over half of U.S. women who are biologically able to get pregnant live in states that would be hostile to a woman seeking an abortion, according to a new study from the Guttmacher Institute. Twelve years ago, that statistic was only 31 percent. Women are not moving en masse; due to the slew of new abortion restriction laws in states across the country, they are just suddenly finding themselves in hostile territory.
Also from ThinkProgress: INTERACTIVE MAP: The Most Restrictive Abortion Measures In The States
*People capable of getting pregnant, not just cis women.
From the Guttmacher study mentioned by ThinkProgress:
This article assesses how and where the volume of abortion restrictions has changed over the last decade. To do so, we analyzed whether—in 2000, 2005 and 2011—states had in place at least one provision in any of 10 categories of major abortion restrictions.* The identified categories include
• mandated parental involvement prior to a minor’s abortion;
• required preabortion counseling that is medically inaccurate or misleading;
• extended waiting period paired with a requirement that counseling be conducted in-person, thus necessitating two trips to the facility;
• mandated performance of a non–medically indicated ultrasound prior to an abortion;
• prohibition of Medicaid funding except in cases of life endangerment, rape or incest;
• restriction of abortion coverage in private health insurance plans;
• medically inappropriate restrictions on the provision of medication abortion;
• onerous requirements on abortion facilities that are not related to patient safety;
• unconstitutional ban on abortions prior to fetal viability or limitations on the circumstances under which an abortion can be performed after viability; or
For purposes of this analysis, we consider a state “supportive” of abortion rights if it had enacted provisions in no more than one of these restriction categories, “middle-ground” if it had enacted provisions in two or three categories and “hostile” if it had enacted provisions in four or more.
Overall, most states—35 in total—remained in the same category in all three years (see map); however, of the 15 states that moved from one category to another, every one became more restrictive over the period. Two of the states supportive of abortion rights in 2000 moved to the middle category by 2011, and one had become hostile. Moreover, 12 states that had been middle-ground in 2000 had become hostile to abortion rights by 2011.
As a result, the number of both supportive and middle-ground states shrank considerably, while the number of hostile states ballooned. In 2000, 19 states were middle-ground and only 13 were hostile. By 2011, when states enacted a record-breaking number of new abortion restrictions (see box), that picture had shifted dramatically: 26 states were hostile to abortion rights, and the number of middle-ground states had cut in half, to nine.
2011: A Year for the Record Books
Over the course of 2011, legislators in all 50 states introduced more than 1,100 provisions related to reproductive health and rights. At the end of it all, states had adopted 135 new reproductive health provisions—a dramatic increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009.1 Fully 92 of the enacted provisions seek to restrict abortion, shattering the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005 (see chart). A striking 68% of the reproductive health provisions from 2011 are abortion restrictions, compared with only 26% the year before.
Although states on the West Coast and in the Northeast remained consistently supportive of abortion rights, the situation was very different elsewhere. A cluster of states in the middle of the country—including Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nebraska and South Dakota—moved from being middle-ground states in 2000 to being hostile in 2011. And of the 13 states in the South, only half were hostile in 2000, but all had become hostile by 2011.
Over a third of women of reproductive age lived in states supportive of abortion rights in both 2000 and 2011, 40% and 35%, respectively (see chart, page 18).2 However, the proportion of women living in states hostile to abortion rights increased dramatically, from 31% to 55%, while the proportion living in middle-ground states shrank, from 29% to 10%. Altogether, the number of women of reproductive age living in hostile states grew by 15 million over the period, while the number in middle-ground states fell by almost 12 million.
1. Guttmacher Institute, Laws affecting reproductive health and rights: 2011 state policy review, 2012, <http://www.guttmacher.org/statecenter/updates/2011/statetrends42011.html>, accessed Feb. 22, 2012.
2. Guttmacher Institute, unpublished tabulations of data from the National Center for Health Statistics.*Restrictions included for 2000 and 2005 were all in effect. Some restrictions enacted in 2011 are still being litigated.†The 19 individual restrictions include: mandating parental involvement (consent or notification); requiring misleading counseling (informing a woman that the fetus is a person, that a fetus can feel pain, that having an abortion increases the risk of breast cancer or that abortion can impair future fertility); requiring a woman to make two trips to an abortion facility; requiring ultrasound; limiting Medicaid funding for abortion; restricting private insurance coverage (in all private plans, plans sold on exchanges or plans for public employees); limiting medication abortion (telemedicine bans or requiring the use of an outdated protocol); instituting onerous requirements for abortion providers (medically unnecessary physical plant requirements or mandating that physicians have hospital admitting privileges); restricting later abortion (gestational limits or unconstitutional limits on later abortion); and banning abortion immediately if Roe is overturned.
This is downright vile. That set of three maps depicting the shrinking of supportive states really pulls the dire condition of reproductive rights into sharp focus. We’ve had some minor victories but the country as a whole is being pulled from a moderate middle to the extremist right by people that have no interest in human rights, science, or honesty. Time and again legislation is being passed due to the GOP’s ability to muddle the issue with religion and pseudo-science with the help of model bills drafted by antichoice groups. Seriously, go read the whole report, this is important.
Capital Words is probably the coolest thing…ever.
Capital Words is a project by the Sunlight Foundation that allows you to see graphical data on the words our legislators are using. It shows data from 1996-2012 and breaks it down by party, which states are using it most often, what legislators are using it most often, and where in the congressional record it can be found. You can also compare the usage of two words. Just for fun I thought I’d look into some of the GOP’s favorite rhetorical phrases.
A reminder from your friendly neighborhood comprehensive sex education advocates:
Why We Need Sex Ed Now!
- Among developed nations, the US ranks 1st in teen pregnancy and STDs.
- Every 2 minutes, 2 U.S. teens get pregnant. Of these, more than 80% are unintended.
- 50% of pregnant teens graduate high school vs. 90% of their peers.
- 1 in 4 sexually active teens will contract an S.T.D. this year.
- Though young people only account for ¼ of our sexually active population, they contract ½ of that population’s S.T.D.’s.
- Chlamydia among U.S. teens has nearly doubled since 2000.
Abstinence-only education is failing:
- Abstinence only states have the highest rates of teen pregnancy in the nation, but comprehensive sex-ed states have the lowest rates, yet abstinence still reigns supreme in American schools.
- In 2010, Texas rejected $4.4 million of federal funding for comprehensive sex ed programs.
- More than 96% of Texas school districts teach abstinence only.
- Gov. Rick Perry: “Abstinence works…it is the best form to teach our children.”
- Texas has the highest teen birth-rate in the nation. Out of every 1,000 teen girls, 62 give birth to a child.
Abstinence doesn’t work. Comprehensive sex-ed does.
- Teens who receive comprehensive sex-ed are 50% less likely to get pregnant than teens who receive abstinence-only.
- Teen pregnancy dropped 40% between 1990 and 2005. 80% of this drop was due to increased contraceptive usage. Just 14% was due to decreased sexual activity.
Parents believe in sex-ed, too:
- 91% of parents of high schoolers believe sex-ed in school is important.
- 93% think birth control is an appropriate topic for sex-ed to cover.
Class War in congress
Yes, let’s cut early childhood programs, low-income housing, supplemental nutrition for poor families, after-school programs, job training, heating assistance [it’s not like VT got to -30F this winter!], health centers, Title X family planning money, legal assistance for the poor, and grants for the homeless. Also, let’s add in some abortion restrictions and a contraception ban, a dash of religious righteousness, some transvaginal probing, and a heterosexist adoption law. What have you got? A recipe for success!
SYSTEMS OF INEQUALITY: CRIMINAL JUSTICE
This diagram illustrates how overpolicing and profiling of low income people and of trans and gender non-conforming people intersect, producing a far higher risk than average of imprisonment, police harassment, and violence for low income trans people.
criminalization of poor and homeless people
- Subject to profiling and harassment; excessive police presence in poor communities; increased exposure to police
- Charged with survival crimes (sex work, drugs, theft, etc.) due to lack of access to gainful employment or education
- Charged with “Quality of Life” crimes like sleeping outside, turnstile jumping, loitering, etc. due to lack of resources (housing, money)
criminalization of trans people
- False arrest for using the “wrong” bathroom
- False arrest for lack of proper documents (by INS, police, etc.)
- Trans women are often falsely arrested for soliciting just for being transgender
Low-income trans people are exposed to arrests, police harassment, incarceration and violence far more than the average person
Trans people suffer additional gender-related harms while in custody of the criminal justice system
- Isolated and/or subjected to increased sexual violence, harassment, and abuse at the hands of prisoners and correctional facility staff.
- Gender-segregated arrest procedures (searches, holding cells, policies and procedures, etc.) do not accommodate trans people. Low-income trans-people are especially targeted due to lack of access to health care that would help them “pass” as non-trans people, as well as surgical procedures, and are commonly misclassified by arresting officers as “male” or “female” based on their appearance or whether they’ve had genital surgery.
- Denied access to hormones and other trans-specific health care while incarcerated. Forced to change gendered characteristics of appearance in prison (made to cut hair, give up prosthetic, clothing). This results in mental anguish and increased exposure to harassment and violence because appearance may conform even less to gender identity.
This chart could be even more intersectional (race, PWD, etc), but I think it’s a good starting point for illustrating something that I’ve been trying to articulate in the reproductive justice movement, or the cis feminist prochoice movement specifically. Think about a hypothetical person who is working class/homeless, a person of color, a person with disabilities, non-heterosexual, and trans*. Now take this person and think about how their identity location functions in society, particularly with the police, prison industrial complex, and the healthcare system [esp. given that insurance is often tied to employment, something many trans* people lack or can be fired if they’re outed]. Now tell me that the criminalization of abortion and the defunding of social services like Planned Parenthood [they are especially important to low-come people/poc] aren’t matters of urgency for the trans* community. This insistence that we be excluded from life and death conversations is the product of willful bigotry and it’s fucking deadly.
How much does birth control ACTUALLY cost? It’s not as affordable as you think. Via.
Every year, almost 1.5 million high school students experience dating abuse, and it takes on many different forms. It can be physical, emotional, sexual, verbal or stalking and can happen face-to-face, online or by texting. Some victims don’t realize that these unhealthy relationships are abusive and normalize the abusive behavior which tends to lead to abusive relationships as adults. Teen victims are more likely to become depressed, do poorly in school and take on unhealthy behaviors such as relying on drugs, alcohol and developing eating disorders.
We have been told for decades that HIV/AIDS has no bias, and that much is true. The virus could care less about racial, sexual or gender identity. But sadly, American society very much has bias, and as a consequence HIV/AIDS is quite a bit more of a threat to some than it is to others. So it is that black Americans account for nearly half of all people living with the virus in the U.S. Nearly half. It’s such a striking stat that it overwhelms. Still, here’s another one along those lines: If black America were its own country, our HIV epidemic would rank 16th in the world.
click the image to read the whole article
Are we having a rational, fact-based, bullshit-free discussion?
Helpful flow chart is helpful
-via Nina Asay.
I don’t know how much trouble I can get in for saying this, but the company I used to work for had software that would tell us exactly how much the shirt or whatever you wanted originally cost and how much we were selling for. Sometimes the mark-ups were even bigger than that.
Courtesy of Planned Parenthood. Take a more in-depth look at the Planned Parenthood site.
This looks like “typical use” rates to me, just fyi.
(Source: , via fuckyeahplannedparenthood)
A lot of “pro-lifers” say that they believe that an abortion, even early in pregnancy, is identical to child murder. Have an abortion, shoot a four-year-old in the head; morally, it’s the same. Or, anyhow, that’s what they claim to believe.
In contrast, pro-choicers tend to think that the abortion criminalization movement is motivated by a desire – perhaps an unconscious desire – to punish women for having sex.
I used to reject that latter view as a pointless ad hominem attack. Nowadays, I’m not so sure. Although I’ve met some rank-and-file pro-lifers whose policy preferences were consistent with a belief that a fetus is morally indistinguishable from a child, those folks usually have policy preferences which are totally out of step with the abortion criminalization movement as a whole.
In contrast, the leaders of the abortion criminalization movement have consistently put their political weight behind policies which make little or no sense if they genuinely think that abortion is identical to child murder. And those same leaders routinely endorse policies that make a lot of sense if their goal is to punish women who have sex.
Well that sums it up nicely.