KUER0%

There’s a Utah push to bar clinics like Planned Parenthood from Medicaid74%

By Hugo Rikard-Bell0%

2/13/2026, 1:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Pessimism Bias, and Loss Aversion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 26.6% saturation with 231 hits. Analysis detected 1,855 faulty-reasoning hits from 870 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.8% and a BS Rank of 74% (5,811 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 73.50% of the article peer group.

Planned Parenthood has been under fire from anti-abortion forces across the country and now faces a new attack from Utah lawmakers. 
Last July, President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act stripped Medicaid reimbursements for one year from nonprofit clinics that offer abortion services. 
The measure did not name Planned Parenthood specifically, but the organization is one of the leading providers. 
Federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on the funding cuts since they passed. 
Planned Parenthood, including the Planned Parenthood Association of Utah, sued the federal government over the restriction but dismissed the case in early February. 
Several states have moved ahead with their own funding bans. 
Last year, South Carolina won a seven-year legal battle to remove Planned Parenthood from its list of approved Medicaid providers. 
That opened the door for other Republican-led states  Indiana, Nebraska and Oklahoma  to initiate Medicaid bans against clinics like Planned Parenthood. 
Now, Utah Republican Rep. Nicholeen Peck has introduced a nearly identical bill, HB232. 
“I think when we're talking about elective abortions, and then taxpayer dollars, to me, those two things don't go together,” she said. 
Medicaid has not paid for elective abortion since 1977, when Congress passed the Hyde Amendment. 
This limited federal coverage to cases involving rape, incest or life endangerment of the mother. 
Peck wants to stop all public funds from going to a provider who she claims makes “a ton of their money on abortion.” 
Planned Parenthood is a 501c3 nonprofit charity. 
“In essence, taxpayer dollars would be paying to keep lights on and pay for facilities that are doing lots and lots of abortions.” 
Planned Parenthood isn’t named in Peck’s bill, but it does target a provider, or a provider’s affiliate, that performs elective abortion. 
According to Planned Parenthood's latest nationwide report, in 2023-24, the majority of their services fell under sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, contraceptive services, cancer screenings and reproductive health services like pregnancy tests. 
Abortion only made up 4% of their medical services across America. 
Peck is skeptical that the reported numbers are accurate. 
“I don't think that we could say that we really know 100% for sure, according to the data that is publicly available, that they are not using the majority of that government money that is coming in for elective abortions,” she said. 
Peck believes doctors are billing abortions under different insurance codes so Medicaid pays for them. 
She points to her experience working in a dental office. 
“I used to work as a dental assistant. 
I also did the billing and stuff for dental offices. 
I know how easy it would be to classify certain things in certain categories as you bill them,” she explained. 
Peck continued, “I know Medicaid pays really low for their services, and it's hard for them to keep treating Medicaid patients when they're paid so low, but I'm just saying that it could be easy to do. 
I'm not saying that is what they're doing.” 
Peck offered no evidence of fraud. 
If it were proven, providers  who have to follow strict rules  could have their licenses revoked or face criminal charges. 
When asked about some of Peck’s claims, Jason Stevenson, the senior policy director at the Planned Parenthood Action Council of Utah, was taken aback. 
“Planned Parenthood is a medical provider,” he said, adding that their doctors and nurses abide by the same laws and are no different from any other medical professionals in Utah. 
“So when people come in to get care, the information that's entered into the medical record or billed to insurance is just like any other provider out there. 
It is checked, it is verified, and it goes into the patient's chart and record, and that is confirmed and reviewed by doctors all over the state whenever they seek care elsewhere.” 
Stevenson said Peck’s bill poses a serious risk to more than 36,000 Utahns who use Planned Parenthood. 
He emphasizes that abortion services make up less than 5% of their patient traffic. 
“So this bill, even though it's targeting Planned Parenthood,” he said, “it's really attacking the ability for Utahns to get the affordable and convenient care they need, and protecting many Utahns from STIs and cancer, and making sure they have the birth control that they need.” 
Without Planned Parenthood, he believes things like sexually transmitted infections will skyrocket in the state. 
“You take us away, and those cases for STIs are going to go undetected for longer, and they're going to affect more and more people across the state,” he said. 
Stevenson said Planned Parenthood offers affordable health care to low-income families who cannot afford to go elsewhere. 
“These are people on Medicaid, and there's a lot of providers in Utah that don't accept Medicaid or put it lower down the priority list,” he said. 
In 2024, just under half of the patients getting cancer screenings from Planned Parenthood were below the poverty line. 
“These are the ones that are going to be affected by a bill like this.” 
Peck’s bill is yet to be assigned to a committee. 
Produced with assistance from the Public Media Journalists Association Editor Corps, funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.1%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.5%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic6.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.9%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias6.0%This article: 26.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 7.2%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect26.6%This article: 17.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion17.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.0%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.4%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias20.0%This article: 5.1%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 5.4%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.2%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias9.3%This article: 2.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.6%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.1%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 5.3%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man5.3%This article: 10.3%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.6%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority10.3%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.8%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 14.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope14.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.7%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 4.7%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization6.7%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 6.7%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion26.6%This article: 9.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.9%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question9.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.2%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.5%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.5%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof8.5%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.6%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 3.2%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal6.6%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.3%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 5.9%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity5.9%This article: 5.2%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading5.2%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.2%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 2.6%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 1.4%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.4%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hugo Rikard-Bell: 0.3%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

870 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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