She isn’t a doctor, and her background is in politics, not medicine.
Yet, the New England Journal of Medicine gave Planned Parenthood CEO Cecile Richards space on its pages this month as if she was an expert in women’s medicine. Richards’ article, “Protecting and Expanding Access to Birth Control” is dated March 3, 2016 and listed under the heading “Perspective.”
Richards does not mention abortion in the article, though her group does more abortions than any other business in the U.S. However, she repeatedly emphasizes women’s access to “all forms of birth control,” some of which may cause abortions.
Touting the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare, Richards writes: “Now, political attacks against women’s health care are threatening access to critical services that allow women to choose and readily obtain the birth control methods that are best for them. It is essential that we protect and continue to expand access to all forms of birth control.”
Though not mentioned in the article, Planned Parenthood launched a vicious fight against the Hobby Lobby craft chain after its owners objected to the Obamacare HHS Mandate forcing them to cover abortion-causing drugs in their employee health insurance plans. Fortunately, Hobby Lobby won protections against the mandate in a U.S. Supreme Court case. Richards and her abortion business also have been vocally attacking a group of nuns, the Little Sisters of the Poor, who also are being forced to pay for birth control and abortion-causing drugs through Obamacare. Their case is scheduled to be heard in front of the U.S. Supreme Court on March 23.
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
Richards claims that the birth control Planned Parenthood offers is responsible for reduced teen pregnancy rates, among other things. However, the Rev. James Harden, chief operations officer and founder of the Commission for Reproductive Health Service Standards and president/CEO of CompassCare Pregnancy Services, said the evidence does not support Richards’ claim.
Harden told LifeNews that Richards failed to present any meaningful evidence in her case for broader contraception access. He pointed out that statistics from New York state, “America’s abortion capital,” are evidence against Richards’ claims. Harden said New York saw an 18-percent reduction in the number of abortions from 2008 to 2013, though the state did not see abortion clinics close or pro-life legislation enacted.
“Translation: Women are still getting pregnant but simply not choosing abortion,” Harden said. “It is hard to imagine a more reckless usury of women for political power. But, we have come to expect this from the prevailing political establishment. However, we should expect more from [the New England Journal of Medicine].”
Richards’ article continues with criticisms against pro-lifers for trying to defund Planned Parenthood:
Unfortunately, politicized attacks against women’s health care are threatening to undermine the progress achieved to date. We have seen an unprecedented number of federal and state attacks on women’s health in the past year, including nine congressional votes to cease reimbursing Planned Parenthood for care provided to patients who depend on public health programs.
Politicians with extreme views on reproductive health are trying to cut public funding for family-planning services through programs such as Medicaid and Title X, which have been critical in reducing costs and expanding access for low-income women to the birth-control method of their choice. In fact, women who visit a health care provider that receives state Medicaid family-planning funding have access to a wide range of methods and are almost twice as likely to choose highly effective forms of birth control as women who visit similar providers that do not receive such funds.5 When these funds are threatened, women’s access to the full range of birth-control methods is restricted, and their risk of unintended pregnancy is elevated.
Richards even mentions a bogus Texas study that claimed to show that a Texas law de-funding Planned Parenthood hurt women and led to more welfare babies being born. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Professor Michael New explained in an article at LifeNews how the study was deeply flawed. Texas state Sen. Jane Nelson also pointed out that the study was biased because it was funded by a Planned Parenthood supporter, the Susan T. Buffett Foundation. She said the study was flawed because it did not look at women who received contraception through other programs.
Richards’ conclusion makes it clear that her piece is nothing more than a free advertisement for Planned Parenthood to praise itself and attack pro-lifers who are trying to end its heinous abortion practices.
Richards writes: “Texas stands as a cautionary tale for politicians in other states who are targeting health care at Planned Parenthood. Many have claimed repeatedly that Planned Parenthood patients can simply go to other health care providers — but tragically, that is not the case. Instead, women are left out in the cold.”
It is interesting that the journal would give Richards’ space, not only because her background is in politics, not science or medicine, but also because Planned Parenthood is embroiled in scandal and under investigation in several states and the U.S. Congress for selling aborted babies’ body parts.
“New England Journal Medicine has apparently lost its soul,” Harden said. “A scientific journal ought to constitute thoroughgoing analysis by way of research, analysis, and peer review. In this case the context is medicine, the purpose of which is to heal and maintain the health of an individual. The publication of Cecil Richards’ slanted Planned Parenthood love prose violates the purpose of a journal while insultingly ignoring the purpose of medicine.”