Planned Parenthood is a favorite target of some conservatives, perhaps because they sometimes seem to regard it as an abortion factory. As such, it was hardly surprising when Senator Jon Kyl claimed that abortion is “well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.”
Kyl’s claim is (as Colbert, Stewart and others have pointed out) far from the truth. The famous pie chart shows that the figure is 3%, although what Planned Parenthood reports is actually a bit over 10%. In any case, it is clearly not 90%.
If Kyl had simply made this error and left it at that, then the matter would probably have quietly faded away. However, the attempt made at damage control was rather odd (but comedy gold for Stephen Colbert). His office released an official statement asserting that Kyl’s claim was “not intended to be a factual statement.” Colbert has, of course, been dropping some Twitter delivered mockery bombs all over Kyl and has also inspired his Nation to join in. Kyl certainly seems to have brought this on himself, first with his wildly incorrect statistical claim and then by that rather bizarre reply.
Given that Kyl was launching an attack on Planned Parenthood and grounding his attack on the claim that the vast majority of what it does is abortion, then he certainly seemed obligated to make factual statements. After all, it hardly seems right to simply make up non-factual claims in such a context.
Then again, maybe Kyl is more versed in philosophy than the media is giving him credit for. In philosophy we distinguish between factual statements (matters of fact) and non-factual statements (statements that are not objectively true or false). Relativists and subjectivists about truth hold that truth is not objective. So, perhaps Kyl is a relativist or subjectivist. If so, what appeared to be a factual statement was, to Kyl, actually not. If so, his reply makes perfect sense.
Of course, there is a bit more to the reply from Kyl’s office. The full reply is that it was “not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, a organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions.”
This seems perfectly reasonable. After all, the general principle seems to be that it is reasonable to infer from some to 90%. For example, if some Republicans have been caught doing things in airport bathrooms, then it is reasonable to illustrate this by saying that 90% of Republicans are secretly gay. That’s just good logic.
I think this is one of the most significant facts for me. And i’m glad reading your write-up. But wanna remark on some general things, The internet site style is ideal, the articles is indubitably great
Thank you, spambot.
I have to admit, “not intended to be a factual statement” is the most amusing thing I’ve heard in politics yet.
I think Kyl inadvertently let slip the GOP’s primary rhetorical tactic.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2011/04/throw-grandma-from-the-train.html
Throw Grandma From the Train
April 13, 2011 3:18 PM
President Obama at the GOP House retreat, January 2010:
“We’re not going to be able to do anything about any of these entitlements if what we do is characterize whatever proposals are put out there as, ‘Well, you know, that’s — the other party’s being irresponsible. The other party is trying to hurt our senior citizens. That the other party is doing X, Y, Z.”
President Obama today:
“One vision has been championed by Republicans in the House of Representatives and embraced by several of their party’s presidential candidates…This is a vision that says up to 50 million Americans have to lose their health insurance in order for us to reduce the deficit. And who are those 50 million Americans? Many are someone’s grandparents who wouldn’t be able afford nursing home care without Medicaid. Many are poor children. Some are middle-class families who have children with autism or Down’s syndrome. Some are kids with disabilities so severe that they require 24-hour care. These are the Americans we’d be telling to fend for themselves.”
-Jake Tapper
Obama’s rhetorical tactic:
Even as he savaged the GOP proposal, Obama was less than specific about his own. He did not say exactly how he would reform how corporations are taxed, what he would do to achieve a simpler tax system or which defense programs he would cut. On Social Security, he not only didn’t announce a proposal but would not say whether one was likely to be included in the final legislation.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obamas-budget-speech-has-partisan-tone/2011/04/13/AFod9iXD_story.html?hpid=z1
Fully consistent with his Chauncey Gardiner approach to politics:
“I serve as a blank screen on which people of vastly different political stripes project their own views.” -B. Obama, Audacity of Hope
Everyone knows why the other guy is wrong. Just don’t ask them why they are right.
As in most all other on-line venues, someone writes a very specific article and others use it as an opening to talk about their teniously, very teniously, related pet topics.
Allergies have been bad this week. So I woke up today feeling horrible. This gave me a good laugh. Perked me up.