No, 98% of Catholics do not use contraception

This could potentially be the most blatant misuse of a statistic that I have ever seen.  Surely, you've heard: 98% of Catholics use contraception.


First, even if that were true, I struggle to understand why that means we should be forcing Catholic-related organizations to go against their own teachings.  I am equally stumped as to why we should force insurance companies to give contraception away for free, just because a lot of people like it.  When people really like a product, you usually don’t have to give it away.


But, more importantly, the statistic in question, is a complete and total lie.  It is being parroted by the media incessantly, and even being used in official Obama administration infographics.

If you take a second to think about it, it’s an obvious lie, one that just doesn’t pass the smell test.  Anytime 98% of people supposedly agree on something, a red flag should go up.   I mean, when you're poll looks like the results from a Saddam Hussein election, you know you have problems.


Think about it for a second.  Do you even think that 98% of Catholics are having sex?  Think about the people you know in your life.   Do you think 98% of them are hooking up?  Really?  Do you think that 92 year-old down the street is living an elderly version of Californication?  My guess is no.  This little bit of common sense leads to the truth.


The study in question comes from the Guttmacher Institute.   Here’s how they get the result:

1)      They didn’t count anyone that wasn’t a Catholic woman between the ages of 15-44.  Obviously, that eliminates everyone that might be too old or too young to be having sex.  But, it also eliminates tens of millions of people who are not too old to be having sex.

2)      They didn’t count anyone who was pregnant.  Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.

3)      They didn’t count anyone who just gave birth.  Obviously, the vast majority of these people were not using contraception.

4)      They didn’t count anyone who hadn't had sex in the last three months.  No, this doesn’t just eliminate ugly people.  It eliminates every non-married person who is listening to the Catholic church enough to not have sex outside of marriage.  In other words, the most likely group to be listening to the Catholic church about contraception.

5)      They didn’t count anyone who was trying to get pregnant, or was indifferent to becoming pregnant.  In other words, they eliminated the single most likely group to avoid contraception.

6)      They didn’t count anyone who was having sex, trying to avoid pregnancy, but also not using a specific contraception method.  I guess this would be the good ol’ “pull-n-pray”—which, incidentally--isn’t as religious as it sounds.

7)      Two out of every five women in the survey were so incredibly Catholic that they either attended church services “less than once a month” or “never.”  Never?


To summarize:

The study asked a bunch of Catholic women who are both 1) regularly having sex and 2) trying not to get pregnant, whether they’re using contraception.  How did you not get 100% on that question?  I mean—what are your other options in that situation?  Specifically searching out people who are medically sterile?  Buying the Cialis mailing list and trying to find guys with ED?  Punching dudes in the groin before you hook up?


There are more problems with the study, which you can read about in depth here.


The truth is, of course, that its simply not true that 98% of Catholics use contraception.  It’s absurd.  In fact, I’d venture to say that outside of basic human functions like breathing, 98% of Catholics don’t do anything.  They’re individuals, making individual decisions.


One final question:  If Planned Parenthood is doing such a wonderful job providing low cost contraception to people in need, why does Obamacare have to mandate it?

On the radio program Thursday, Glenn Beck sat down with chief researcher Jason Buttrill to go over two bombshell developments that have recently come to light regarding former Vice President Joe Biden's role in the 2016 dismissal of Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.

"Wow! Two huge stories dropped within about 24 hours of each other," Jason began. He went on to explain that a court ruling in Ukraine has just prompted an "actual criminal investigation against Joe Biden in Ukraine."

This stunning development coincided with the release of leaked phone conversations, which took place in late 2015 and early 2016, allegedly among then-Vice President Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry, and Ukraine's former President Petro Poroshenko.

One of the audiotapes seems to confirm allegations of a quid pro quo between Biden and Poroshenko, with the later admitting that he asked Shokin to resign despite having no evidence of him "doing anything wrong" in exchange for a $1 billion loan guarantee.

"Poroshenko said, 'despite the fact that we didn't have any corruption charges on [Shokin], and we don't have any information about him doing something wrong, I asked him to resign,'" Jason explained. "But none of the Western media is pointing this out."

Watch the video below for more details:

Listen to the released audiotapes in full here.

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multiplatform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

A recently declassified email, written by former National Security Adviser Susan Rice and sent herself on the day of President Donald Trump's inauguration, reveals the players involved in the origins of the Trump-Russia probe and "unmasking" of then-incoming National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn.

Rice's email details a meeting in the Oval Office on Jan 5, 2017, which included herself, former FBI Director James Comey, former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, former Vice President Joe Biden, and former President Barack Obama. Acting Director of National Intelligence, Richard Grenell, fully declassified the email recently amid President Trump's repeated references to "Obamagate" and claims that Obama "used his last weeks in office to target incoming officials and sabotage the new administration."

On Glenn Beck's Wednesday night special, Glenn broke down the details of Rice's email and discussed what they reveal about the Obama administration officials involved in the Russia investigation's origins.

Watch the video clip below:

Fellow BlazeTV host, Mark Levin, joined Glenn Beck on his exclusive Friday episode of "GlennTV" to discuss why the declassified list of Obama administration officials who were aware of the details of Gen. Michael Flynn's wiretapped phone calls are so significant.

Glenn argued that Obama built a covert bureaucracy to "transform America" for a long time to come, and Gen. Flynn was targeted because he happened to know "where the bodies were buried", making him a threat to Obama's "secret legacy."

Levin agreed, noting the "shocking extent of the police state tactics" by the Obama administration. He recalled several scandalous happenings during Obama's "scandal free presidency," which nobody seems to remember.

Watch the video below for more:

Use code GLENN to save $10 on one year of BlazeTV.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn's masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution and live the American dream.

Colleges and universities should be home to a lively and open debate about questions both current and timeless, independent from a political bias or rules that stifle speech. Unfortunately for students, speaking out about personal beliefs or challenging political dogma can be a dangerous undertaking. I experienced this firsthand as an undergraduate, and I'm fighting that trend now as an adjunct professor.

In 2013, Glenn Beck was one of the most listened to radio personalities in the world. For a college senior with hopes of working on policy and media, a job working for Glenn was a ticket to big things. I needed a foot in the door and hoped to tap into the alumni network at the small liberal arts school where I was an undergrad. When I met with a career services specialist in early March 2013 about possible alumni connections to Glenn Beck, she disdainfully told me: "Why would you want to work for someone like him?" That was the beginning and end of our conversation.

I was floored by her response, and sent an email to the school complaining that her behavior was inappropriate. Her personal opinions, political or otherwise, I argued, shouldn't play a role in the decision to help students.

That isn't the kind of response a student should hear when seeking guidance and help in kick starting their career. Regardless of the position, a career specialist or professors' opinion or belief shouldn't be a factor in whether the student deserves access to the alumni network and schools' resources.

Now, seven years later, I work full time for a law firm and part time as an adjunct teaching business to undergraduate students. The culture at colleges and universities seems to have gotten even worse, unfortunately, since I was an undergrad.

College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions.

I never want to see a student told they shouldn't pursue their goals, regardless of their personal or political beliefs. College is a time to explore, dream big and challenge assumptions. I never got access to the alumni network or schools' resources from the career services office.

Lucky for students in 2020, there are several legal organizations that help students protect their rights when an issue goes beyond what can be handled by an undergraduate facing tremendous pressure from a powerful academic institution. Organizations like Speech First and the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), for instance, are resources I wish I knew about at the time.

When I experienced mistreatment from my college, I spoke up and challenged the behavior by emailing the administration and explaining what happened. I received a letter from the career services specialist apologizing for the "unprofessional comment."

What she described in that apology as a "momentary lapse of good judgement" was anything but momentary. It was indicative of the larger battle for ideas that has been happening on college campuses across the country. In the past seven years, the pressure, mistreatment and oppression of free expression have only increased. Even right now, some are raising concerns that campus administrations are using the COVID-19 pandemic to limit free speech even further. Social distancing guidelines and crowd size may both be used to limit or refuse controversial speakers.

Students often feel pressure to conform to a college or university's wishes. If they don't, they could be expelled, fail a class or experience other retribution. The college holds all the cards. On most campuses, the burden of proof for guilt in student conduct hearings is "more likely than not," making it very difficult for students to stand up for their rights without legal help.

As an adjunct professor, every student who comes to me for help in finding purpose gets my full support and my active help — even if the students' goals run counter to mine. But I have learned something crucial in my time in this role: It's not the job of an educator to dictate a student's purpose in life. I'm meant to help them achieve their dreams, no matter what.

Conner Drigotas is the Director of Communications and Development at a national law firm and is a Young Voices contributor.