Let's address them, shall we?
Question #1: If you "get rid of" Planned Parenthood, what's the plan for the 3 million people who receive health care there?
This question is actually trying to get the reader to absorb two assumptions as truths:
1. That 3 million people (presumably annually) get health care at Planned Parenthood.
2. That if you take away Planned Parenthood, 3 million people (presumably annually) will be left with no place to get their health care.
Question #2: Why end Title X family planning for 5 million people when every $1 invested saves $3.74 for taxpayers?
The question is trying to get the reader to absorb three assumptions as truths:
1. That Title X funding is the only "family planning" option for 5 million people.
2. That paying for "family planning" is a significant cost-cutting measure for taxpayers.
3. That electing Romney would end Title X funding.
Question #3: If you repeal Obamacare, what happens to the 45 million women who would lose preventive care w/ no co-pays?
Not the clever "w/no co-pays" inserted at the end. What they want the reader to see and absorb as truth is that 45 million women would lose access to preventive care. It would be far less alarming to phrase this as "What happens to the 45 million women who would have to make co-pays on their preventive care?" People who are already making co-pays for their preventive care would say, "Suck it! If I have to make a $15 co pay, you can manage, too!"
There is also the assumption -- meant to be absorbed as truth -- that Obamacare is providing preventive care to 45 million women (presumably annually).
And that doesn't even broach the topic of what Planned Parenthood is qualifying as "preventive care." Do they mean tetanus shots and colonoscopies or do they mean a handful of condoms in anticipation of a hot date?
Question #4: When are you going to address the fact that family planning is an economic issue?
This question wants the reader to absorb two assumptions as truths:
1. That Mitt Romney opposes allowing access to "family planning." (Not wanting to pay for something is not the same as forbidding access unless the a parent is refusing to buy something for a child too young to earn money babysitting.)
2. That "family planning" promotes a strong economy.
Question #5: Is birth control the ONLY health service bosses should be able to deny their employees?The assumptions that this question wants the reader to absorb as truths are so absurd that merely pointing them out exposes them as nonsensical:
1. That Mitt Romney would allow employers to somehow keep their employees from getting health care services. (How? Would employees be kept locked in cages so that they couldn't go to doctors, even on their off time?)
2. That specifically Romney would allow employers to somehow keep their employees from getting birth control. (Okay, the employers aren't keeping the workers in cages 24/7, but how are they going to stand between an employee and the condom rack at Rite Aid?
Both of these assumptions, of course, are based on the underlying assumption that refusal to pay for something equals denial of the desired good or service. Of course, this is absurd on its face. You don't gas up your neighbor's car, but that's not denying him access to gasoline.
Your mission, as my readers, is to give me some links that show that the assumptions aren't merely assumptions but are outright falsehoods.