Relevance violation

Previously I analyzed the following statement from Obama as a case of ambiguity: 

"There are millions of women all across the country who rely on Planned Parenthood for not just contraceptive care; they rely on it for mammograms, for cervical cancer screenings." 

(Contrary to what this might suggest, Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, although it does provide access to them.)

I said: "Obama's statement could be interpreted in two ways. Either it means that Planned Parenthood enables people to get mammograms (in which case it is true), or it means that Planned Parenthood provides people with mammograms (in which case it is false). The latter interpretation might be somewhat more likely, and therefore the statement is misleading."

But it might not have been a MERE case of ambiguity. It could also have been a "quiet and unostentatious" violation of Grice's Maxim of Relevance ("Be relevant."). 

(Grice distinguished between several different ways that a maxim could be violated, including 'flouting' -- making it perfectly obvious that you are violating it -- and 'quietly and unostentatiously violating' the maxim. In the latter case, says Grice, "one is liable to mislead." The cases I have discussed so far have all been 'quiet and unostentatious' violations.)

It depends a little bit on what the Question Under Discussion is in this case. One could argue that the Question Under Discussion was such that, if Obama's statement was relevant to it, then his statement must have meant that Planned Parenthood provides people with mammograms. In that case, it would be a quiet and unostentatious violation of Relevance. I'm not sure if this is really a great example of that.