Planned Parenthood Action Fund ⁠87%

7/5/2026, 6:16:39 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Framing Effect, and Halo Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 93% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 357 faulty-reasoning hits from 57 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,854 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.00% of the article peer group.

Planned Parenthood was founded over 100 years ago on the revolutionary idea that women have the right to access the information and care they need to live strong, healthy lives. 
Today, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (PPAF) fights to protect that right--often in the face of extreme politicians trying to take it away. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 7.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 5.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 52.6%Common Dreams: 17.4%Framing Effect52.6%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 40.4%Common Dreams: 20.6%Negativity Bias40.4%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 2.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 40.4%Common Dreams: 3.8%In-Group Bias40.4%This article: 40.4%Common Dreams: 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias40.4%This article: 52.6%Common Dreams: 1.5%Halo Effect52.6%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.5%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 40.4%Common Dreams: 6.2%Ad Hominem40.4%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 5.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 3.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 3.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 40.4%Common Dreams: 8.9%Hasty Generalization40.4%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 2.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 52.6%Common Dreams: 18.9%Appeal to Emotion52.6%This article: 40.4%Common Dreams: 3.7%Begging the Question40.4%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 4.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 93.0%Common Dreams: 17.2%Biased Writer Voice93.0%This article: 40.4%Common Dreams: 8.6%Indoctrination40.4%This article: 93.0%Common Dreams: 17.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias93.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Common Dreams: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

57 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.