NYT's Ross Douthat's Flawed Analysis of the Komen-Planned Parenthood Controversy

New York Times columnist Ross Douthat criticizes media coverage of the Komen-Planned Parenthood controversy in his latest column, The Media's Abortion Blinders. Douthat argues that media coverage decisively favored Planned Parenthood, leaving the impression that the organization was itself without controversy.  Douthat, however, ignores available information that undermines his claims and that reveals his own ideological blinders regarding the abortion topic.

Partially Reporting Gallup Results

To prove his case, Douthat cites a recent Gallup survey, which he says shows that "[a] combined 58 percent of Americans stated that abortion should either be 'illegal in all circumstances' or 'legal in only a few circumstances.'" Douthat cites this survey in order to argue that the media coverage ignored millions of Americans who disfavor abortion.  He also attempts to depict Planned Parenthood as an organization that sits outside of mainstream public opinion.

The same Gallup poll, however, shows that 77 percent of Americans want abortion legal in all circumstances or legal under certain circumstances. This is so because the majority of Americans -- 51 percent -- favor abortion under certain circumstances. Only a minority of the country occupies the most extreme positions in this debate (abortion legal/illegal in all circumstances). While 21 percent want abortion illegal in all circumstances, 26 percent want it legal in all circumstances. So, more Americans favor abortion (with some restrictions) than those who do not. Also, more Americans favor unrestricted access to abortion than those who want it illegal in all cases. These numbers have remained somewhat consistent over the last two decades.

Douthat Relies Upon Heavily Biased Coverage of Planned Parenthood

Douthat contests Planned Parenthood's statement that abortions only constitute 3 percent of its services. To do so, he cites "conservative estimates," which he claims challenge this figure.

Douthat's conservative estimates, however, come from a highly biased analysis in The Weekly Standard, a unabashedly conservative and partisan publication that was previously owned by Rupert Murdoch.

The Weekly Standard article does not even dispute Planned Parenthood's statement about the breakdown of its services. Instead, it reports that revenue from abortion services constitutes a much larger share of Planned Parenthood's overall intake. Because abortion is more expensive than other services the organization provides, this result is not surprising. Still, this fact does not alter the data that Planned Parenthood presents regarding the mix of services it provides to patients. Conservatives, however, including Douthat and Mike Huckabee, continue to make this false assertion.

Douthat Ignores Available Information to Reach His Conclusion

Douthat concludes his column with a volley of claims. He that argues that fighting breast cancer is "unifying" while abortion is "polarizing"; that the Komen decision to defund Planned Parenthood was no more "political" than the decision to fund it in the first place; and that equal numbers of Americans were "probably" angered and relieved by Komen's decision. For several reasons, Douthat's reasoning fails.

While abortion is a polarizing topic, most Americans disagree with the extreme pro-life position. Furthermore, Komen made breast cancer controversial by thrusting itself into the public debate about abortion. This was unwise from a marketing standpoint. Undoubtedly, the public anger over Komen's decision led to the reversal.

Also, contrary to Douthat's assertion, the Komen defunding decision was absolutely political. It follows decisions and plans by conservative states to defund Planned Parenthood. These state policies are illegal because they violate federal Medicaid rules.

Also, reporting on this issue reveals that Karen Handler, the Vice President for Komen, is anti-choice. Handler ran as an anti-choice candidate in a Georgia gubernatorial election, during which she criticized Planned Parenthood.

When Handler arrived at Komen, she pushed the organization to split from Planned Parenthood.  Komen seized upon the fact that anti-choice House Republicans had launched a partisan "investigation" of Planned Parenthood. Komen created a rule barring the distribution of its funds to entities under federal investigation. It then used this rule to justify defunding Planned Parenthood.

Komen, however, gives money to other organizations under congressional investigation. Yet, it only cut funding to Planned Parenthood. And while the federal investigation is the initial excuse Komen provides for parting with Planned Parenthood, Douthat accepts an alternative argument the Komen made up after the controversy erupted -- that it defunded Planned Parenthood because the latter did not provide many breast cancer screenings in the first place.

Douthat's article omits a lot of available information on this subject.  Douthat does not provide this information either because he has not thoroughly researched the topic or because he wants to ignore facts that challenge his own position.

Susan G. Komen Foundation Marches Into Rightwing Camp

The Susan G. Komen For the Cure Foundation has cut funding to Planned Parenthood. Komen previously provided grants to fund breast cancer screenings by Planned Parenthood medical professionals.

Recently, however, Komen hired an anti-choice Vice President, Karen Handel, who was recently an unsuccessful candidate in the Georgia gubernatorial election. Handel actively campaigned on an anti-choice and anti-Planned Parenthood platform. She also received an endorsement from Sarah Palin.

Komen defends its decision by citing to a "new" rule it adopted that denies funding to groups under Congressional "investigation." Last year, House Republicans launched a partisan investigation to determine whether Congress should continue funding Planned Parenthood's non-abortion family planning and health services. That investigation, however, has not proceeded, due to opposition by Democrats. Because of this context, Komen's new rule seems plainly designed to target and justify the defunding of Planned Parenthood.  Furthermore, because liberals tend to support women's health issues and abortion rights, this decision could prove harmful to Komen.

Planned Parenthood has released a statement that criticizes Komen.  Planned Parenthood has also started a campaign to raise funds in order to continue providing breast cancer screenings for its indigent patients. Komen's decision is not based on good healthcare practices. Instead, it rests on partisan political ideology. Shame.

A Liberal Democrat's Take on Steele's Apologies: Imploding GOP Looks Like Democrats of the Past

Michael Steele's recent public apologies to social conservatives suggest that the Republican Party is deeply divided and that Steele is walking a perilous tightrope. Steele's need to apologize for relatively innocuous statements also indicates the Republicans, like Democrats of the past, are willing to cannibalize each other in order to remain utterly powerless.

Steele Was Right: Limbaugh Is Obnoxious (If Not "Incendiary")
Steele first apologized for stating during a CNN interview that he (the RNC Chair), not Rush Limbaugh (an popular radio personality), is the de facto leader of the Republican Party. Steele also accepted the interviewer's statement that Rush engages in "ugly" and "incendiary" rhetoric. Although Steele apologized, both of these statements are fairly accurate.

While chairing the RNC does not necessarily make Steele the party's leader, he has a greater claim to that role than Rush Limbaugh. I suspect that most people would agree that Howard Dean had a good argument that he, not Michael Moore, was the leader of Democratic Party.

And while one can debate whether Limbaugh's stances are "ugly" and "incendiary," it is indisputable that he is an obnoxious radio host. Limbaugh is a proud "shock jock" with a political agenda. People do not flock to Limbaugh expecting to get the warm and careful temperament of Diane Rehm. [Note: Despite the fact that I believe Limbaugh is obnoxious, I still believe that my fellow Democrats' concerted effort to go after him was imprudent.]

Abortion Tap Dance
Steele's latest apology comes after he stated during an interview that abortion is a "choice." A seemingly anxious Steele attempted to dance around the explosive abortion issue. Although he said abortion is a "choice," Steele also reiterated that he is pro-life and that he believes Roe v. Wade was incorrectly decided.

But the word "choice" is a hand grenade to the pro-life community, which is now up in flames over Steele's comments. Not wanting more fire on his heels, Steele has apologized -- sorry, "clarified his words" -- once again. Steele was in a definite box during the interview (trying to sound accommodating and rigid at the same time), but as a neutral observer (as a pro-choice Democrat, I do not care too much about Republican infighting), his words do not strike me as loathsome.

Current GOP = Democrats of the Past
As a result of his efforts to appear accommodating to the rightwing, commentators use words like "embattled" to describe Steele, even though other Republicans are doing the party more harm than good. And breaking news reports suggest that Republicans are planning to hold a "no confidence" vote on Steele -- which would be a political disaster for the GOP. I am not sure whether Steele is actually a moderate or not, but Republicans will continue to lack influence if they cave into the extreme right and become agitated over mere words.

Democrats used to get crazy over issues like these, but recently, they have been uncharacteristically unified. In a strange "Freaky Friday" kind of way, the Democrats and Republicans have switched roles, leaving the latter far more impotent than in recent years.

Related Readings on Dissenting Justice:

More on the Man of Steele: Can the Unexpected Hip-Hopster Bring People of Color to the GOP?

Man of Steele: RNC Chair Serves Major "Swagger" During Recent Interview

From the "Post-Racial" Vault: Slate Magazine Asks Whether Michael Steele Is Barack Obama's "Evil Twin"

A Black Progressive Law Professor Responds to News That Michael Steele Will Lead the GOP

Pregnancy, HIV, and Sexual Morality: GOP Lamaker's Statement Causes Flap in Colorado , But Both Sides Are Being Hypocrites

Here's another "bah humbug" moment, courtesy of Dissenting Justice. Colorado lawmakers are considering proposed legislation that would require doctors to conduct HIV testing of all pregnant women. A woman could decline to submit to the test, but doctors would have to record her refusal in her medical records. The child's birth certificate would also state whether or not the mother submitted to the HIV test. The Colorado Senate website has a draft of the bill (note: the "marked up" document shows all of the edits to the bill).

Republican Senator Refuses to Help Promiscuous Women
Yesterday, the Colorado Senate passed the measure by a vote of 32-1. Despite the bipartisan support for the measure, a Republican senator's comments sparked partisan flames. Senator David Shultheis opposes the measure on the grounds that it would benefit "promiscuous" women:

"This stems from sexual promiscuity for the most part, and I just can't go there . . . ."

"We do things continually to remove the consequences of poor behavior, unacceptable behavior, quite frankly. I'm not convinced that part of the role of government should be to protect individuals from the negative consequences of their actions."

Earlier this week, another Republican state senator, Scott Renfroe, invoked the Bible and attempted to link "homosexuality" with murder during a debate on the extension of health benefits for the partners of gay and lesbian state workers. Together, the comments of Shultheis and Renfroe caused some Democrats to question Republican "leadership," even though the Senate Minority Leader, a Republican, co-sponsored the HIV-testing bill.

Some Democrats have also argued that individuals who are "pro-life" must support the bill in order to remain logically consistent. Former Governor Bill Owens, for example, argues that: "It's extremely inconsistent for any person who is pro-life to oppose this effort to potentially save the life of a child. . . ."

My Take: Both Sides Are Switching Sides a Bit
Let me state the obvious before continuing. I strongly disagree with Shultheis' position. Promiscuity is not the sole cause of HIV, and even if it were, this does not discredit the policy behind the legislation -- to provide appropriate medical care to pregnant women in order to prevent the transmission of HIV to their unborn children.

The Bill Places Fetal Health Above the Woman's Privacy
Despite my opposition to Shultheis, I disagree with the notion that only pro-lifers are switching sides. Pro-choice advocates (myself included) justify the right to an abortion on the grounds that the state should not inject itself into a woman's decisions related to her pregnancy, including whether or not she will terminate it. The woman's privacy interest is so strong that it defeats the state's interest in potential life until the moment of viability. And even after viability, abortion must remain available if it is necessary to protect the life or health of the mother. In sum, the right gives women a fairly strong liberty interest.

Liberals (and conservatives), however, support this measure which involves state regulation of medical decisions surrounding pregnancy. Although women have the right to decline testing, their medial records and their children's birth certificates will indicate whatever choice they make. Placing the decision in a woman's medical records will make it available for insurance companies as well. This contradicts the abortion rights discourse which places a premium on privacy and autonomy over pregnancy-related medical decisions.

The Bill Erodes the Privacy of HIV/AIDS Patients
Furthermore, progressives have always frowned upon mandatory HIV testing and have advocated anonymous testing upon request. The bill provides for mandatory testing - with a potentially weak escape hatch - but it does not offer anonymous testing. Pro-choice politicians have decided to compromise the autonomy of pregnant women in order to protect the health of potential life -- a position that conflicts with the reasoning of Roe v Wade (a decision I strongly support).

At least one liberal blogger has framed the issue the way I have. Ari Armstrong, of the blog Free Colorado, agrees that this legislation rests on logic that could undermine pro-choice arguments:

In recent years, Republicans opposed to abortion have been most interested in politically managing pregnancy care, as by trying to require ultrasounds prior to an abortion. . . .

If the state legislature "encourages" women to be tested for HIV, for the purported sake of the fetus, legislators open the door to future efforts to politically control medicine to restrict abortions. Leftists who endorse 179 while wanting to keep abortion legal are incapable of thinking in principle or seeing more than a few months down the legislative road.

Solution: Protecting Life Without Eroding Privacy
The incidence of pregnancy-related HIV transmission is extremely small. But if the state wants to lessen the rate (which is a valid goal), it should do so in a way that does not deprive women of privacy surrounding their test results. Recording the woman's decision on her child's birth certificate and medical records seems unnecessary and too great a restraint on privacy.

If the state, however, believes that the issue is so compelling that it should intrude upon the rights of pregnant women, liberals need to accept that they are compromising the liberty of pregnant women in order to promote a broader health policy agenda. Ultimately, liberals (and others) who support the bill might have the better argument. Nevertheless, when liberals only emphasize the potential health benefits to the fetus, they distort the reality that women will lose autonomy if the bill becomes a law. Finally, when liberals defend the proposed legislation by focusing exclusively on the the health of potential life, their arguments sound exactly like the rhetoric pro-lifers use when they oppose abortion.

Pro-Life Race Card: Anti-Choice Activists Blow a Gasket Over Lifting of "Global Gag Rule"

I feel compelled to tell anti-choice activists to relax now that President Obama has revoked the so-called Global Gag Rule. This measure prohibited foreign organizations that receive U.S. financial assistance from performing or counseling women concerning abortions and from lobbying for the enactment of less restrictive abortion laws in their home countries.

Conservative outrage over Obama's decision is a bit surprising because this measure has been the subject of a very predictable game of political football since Reagan issued the order in 1984. In 1993 Clinton revoked it, but Bush reenacted it in 2000. Now, Obama has lifted it. Ah, progress.

Nevertheless, anti-choice activists are complaining loudly in response to Obama's decision. And, despite my disagreement with them on the issue of choice, I still find many of their arguments melodramatic and (therefore) entertaining. In particular, an article on TownHall.Com reaches new heights of melodrama by proclaiming that Obama is "exporting" abortion.

The author, Laura Hirschfeld Hollis, does not entertain me, however, when she pulls an anti-choice race card. According to Hollis, Obama's lifting of the gag rule is ironic because black women in the United States are overrepresented among recipients of abortion. Taking a page from Rick Warren's playbook, Hollis describes abortion as a black "holocaust" and comes across as a rightwing black nationalist as she condemns choice. Hollis argues that:

The single largest cause of death was heart disease, which claimed over 74,000 lives. By comparison, the 1400 abortions of black babies daily in the United States is over 438,000 African-Americans destroyed every year. Upwards of 13 million abortions have decimated the African-American population in this country. This is a holocaust, and one that cannot be prettied up under the rubric of “reproductive freedom.” Why does the man who hearkens back to the words of Martin Luther King not heed the call of some of King’s descendants who lead on this issue today?

Assuming that her factual claim concerning the demographics of abortion is true, Hollis, nevertheless, fails to discuss several important factors that undermine her race card. First, no one is forcing black women to obtain abortions. Hitler did not operate out of a health clinic. Instead, he used the power of the state to implement a genocidal agenda of white supremacy.

Second, Hollis distorts the demographics of women who receive abortion by focusing solely on race. But data also show that poor, unmarried women are disproportionately represented among the class of individuals who seek abortions. This fact, not race, explains the overrpresentation of blacks among women who terminate their pregnancies. Given the economic impact of parenthood, the fact that poor women might seek to terminate their pregnancies more often than wealthy women does not seem irrational. Although I believe that the relationship between race and class is an important social issue, Hollis exploits this relationship in order to portray abortion providers as racial terrorists.

Conservatives have long argued that "racial cards" anger them, but Hollis plays the "game" more dramatically than even Johnny Cochran. And while I believe that race remains an important social issue despite Obama's election, racial justice cannot mean that governments get to control the reproductive decisions of poor women (of all races).