Planned Parenthood Funding Debate
On this eve of a potential US government shutdown, the issue of federal funding of abortion has come up in the debate over funding the government until the end of this fiscal year. I’m wondering where’s the proof that money that funds Planned Parenthood (PPH) also funds abortions? Many on the news are claiming this today and making this allegation a justification for defending this organization. Yet none of them that I’ve heard, cites a single case in point that we could look up on the Internet and read for ourselves. Hmmmmm. Is this more idealistic propaganda perhaps?
Indeed, we know that PPH provides some abortions. But are they using federal funds to do it? Sometime last year (I thought), Obama signed an executive order, forbidding federal monies from funding abortions. This would make such use illegal. So, has PPH broken the law, and used any federal funds to pay for abortions since Obama’s executive order banning this practice? Since an entity is innocent until proven guilty, then we should assume that PPH is innocent of this charge until clear evidence surfaces to the contrary. I believe this issue should not be part of the government funding debate.
In order to prove that PPH actually used federal funds for abortions, you’d have to provide a paper trail (receipts, witnesses, clients, et al) that follows the money from its transfer from the government to PPH, and then from PPH to an abortion provider. In short, you’d have to show that money from the government was transferred via PPH to an abortion provider, for the clear purpose of paying for their abortion services. But this is typically not done in the allegations that have surfaced during the budget debates this week. The allegations clearly and correctly claim that Planned Parenthood provides abortions. But again, they do not detail the money trail. Thus, they offer no real proof of their claims.
Some argue that even if they can’t prove that Planned Parenthood has illegally used federal funds to pay for abortion services, that they stil should be defunded, because they’re no longer needed. They say that population growth here in the US has fallen into negative numbers (it’s actually shrinking). To this, I respond as follows: How did we reach this state of “replacement birth rate” anyhow? By allowing unplanned pregnancies to run wild? No. Quite the opposite. We achieved this by educating the general population, providing affordable and easily accessible contraceptive methods and devices, and pregnancy counseling (et al) via PPH. In short, I argue that you don’t preserve this preferable state of near-zero population growth by abandoning the principles and practices that got you here in the first place. If we stopped educating, stopped providing easily accessed and affordable contraceptive implements, and discontinued the pregnancy counseling, well, it wouldn’t be very long before rampant unwanted pregnancies would again become a mainline social problem.
Some also argue that Planned Parenthood should be defunded because they duplicate already-available services elsewhere in the private and government sectors (doctors, nurses, parenting classes, et al). My response: Once I reach adulthood, I can go see a doctor for information about how to keep from making unwanted babies; assuming that I even know what to ask about. But PPH functions more in the younger sect, where people may not even know what questions to ask. PPH works with high schools to get ahead of these issues and educate youngsters before these questions become hot topics in adolescence.
Generally, we teach smart sex as part of our education system with lots of help from Planned Parenthood. Sex education is as essential as reading, writing, and arithmetic. While in some areas (namely big metropolitan schools), Planned Parenthood may duplicate some services already offered in the schools, the same is not true across the board throughout America however. Some of the smaller schools do not even have sex education programs. So in those places, PPH services are NOT duplicated enough to warrant their elimination.
At present, pregnancy and women’s health services are available in ALL states, primarily due to the coordination and dissemination work of PPH. Schools typically feature pamphlets, books, and other educational materials in their own sex education programs, which are provided by PPH. So indeed there may be some overlapping effort here between PPH and the schools; but not much duplicate effort.
Planned Parenthood came several times over several years to my school as part of the school’s overall sex education program, and provided an important part of the entire body of knowledge we gained on this topic. I therefore remain convinced that in addition to the health and screening services they provide, they’re also quite instrumental in reducing unwanted pregnancies and all the hardships said pregnancies place on society (our over-taxed foster care system for starters). So again, funding for PPH ought to continue, in order to preserve this essential service.
Then, opponents of Planned Parenthood claim that government money should be withdrawn from it, because the country is broke and could well use the freed up funds to put toward balancing the budget. My answer: The couple hundred million dollars annually that PPH receives is quite a minuscule part of the overall budget of hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars (less than a thousandth). So, PPH funding does not contribute in any appreciable way to the US deficit or its national debt. Thank God that this and other riders like it were pulled from the budget deal last night. People finally realized yesterday that cutting Planned Parenthood will not reduce the budget by much at all, yet it provides valuable services. It’s a great buy for the money. In fact, if PPH was abolished, this would likely end up costing the government more money, to tend to the increase of unwanted babies that would result. How much will cutting PPH reduce the budget. Less than one tenth of one penny on the dollar. It’s a trivial amount, just as seen in the NPR Funding Debate.
Related Posts
- NPR Funding Debate
- Planned Parenthood Cost Effectiveness
- Planned Parenthood Ideas Restrict Population Growth
- Unplanned Pregnancies Make More Neglected Children
Other Health Care Related Posts You May Enjoy
- Gender Rating Health Care Is Discrimination
- Universal Health Care Economically and Morally Superior to Free Market Health Care
References
Tags: Abortion Rights
April 9th, 2011 at 2:03 pm
Again, proponents of the PPH defunding have not PROVED their assertion that PPH uses federal funds for abortion. It’s not good enough to dismiss this request simply by saying that everyone knows that they do. I don’t know that, and without a paper trail, no one else can know that either.
April 9th, 2011 at 2:25 pm
Some make the case that by preventing those unwanted babies from appearing in our world, that we’re dismissing the tax revenue they’d produce should they become adults. My response: This assumes of course that those unwanted babies would grow up to become productive (and taxable) members of society. Unwanted children grow up to commit more crimes (statistically), and thus, end up in jail, where keeping them costs society.
Besides, it’s more than just about the money we lose by heading off unwanted pregnancies. Think about the potential child, who might have to grow up in a foster home where he’s treated as second best. This happens in homes where the foster parents raise their biological children alongside the foster kids. These blood children very often are favored over the foster kids. So, the foster kids end up feeling neglected, and their abilities to develop self confidence are hobbled.
The substandard quality of numerous foster care systems observation described above is mine. But it’s also one that many experts in child care these days make, that our foster care system is indeed broken.
Indeed there are circumstances in which a foster care home would be preferable to a home provided by the natural parents. But on the whole, and idealy speaking, children do best when raised by their natural parents.
April 9th, 2011 at 2:32 pm
The birth of a child MAY trigger an epiphany in a new parent, and transform him or her from reckless, immature, uneducated, and irresponsible, into a well-considered, loving and dependable parent. Yes, sometimes, miracles indeed occur.
But a miracle is by no means certain. That’s why they call them miracles, because they happen in so very few cases. In fact, very often, new parents (particularly those who completed an unwanted pregnancy), severely neglect and endanger the baby (thus the reason for child and youth protective services groups). So it’s foolhardy to trust that any baby will be all right even though born to parents that really don’t want him, as this epiphany typically does not occur. After the baby is born, the parents go about their lives, often as though the baby is not even there. Believing in miracles is one thing. But counting on them when making public policy? That’s ludicrous.
April 9th, 2011 at 2:46 pm
Some want to defund PPH, claiming that it is a pro abortion group. My answer: It’s not clear that PPH is definitely “pro abortion” per se. In fact, their literature discourages abortion, and the bulk of the supplies they offer target the prevention of pregnancy in the first place; they do not aim to recklessly cancel pregnancies that have already begun. I read today that only two to three percent of the entire collection of services offered by Planned Parenthood, are directly related to abortion. That doesn’t sound much like they’re pro abortion to me. Indeed, PPH only suggests abortion as a last resort; when contraceptive techniques fail. So let’s not make a tabby cat into a tiger here. PPH does offer some abortion services, but that’s a very small part of the totality of the good they do for the country.
April 9th, 2011 at 2:49 pm
True: Lacking education does not necessarily guarantee failure as a parent. But it’s hard to imagine that an untrained parent who has not learned the numerous pitfalls to avoid when rearing a child, and the most effective ways to support a child, could do the job as well as someone more learned. Dr. Phil asked one very young father the other day how much a bag of diapers cost. The “kid” said $200. As this youngster talked further, it became clear that he had all sorts of inaccurate impressions of the world and its workings. This is typical for a teen, but potentially it’s deadly for children in his care. So, to me, it’s better to avoid the pregnancy altogether in cases like this, than to allow it, and subject that now-present, future person to his father’s ignorance and immaturity. So keep up your work, PPH, and may the government continue endowing you.
April 9th, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Some Planned Parenthood opponents claim that PPH has become too politicized to remain an effective organization in the fight against unwanted pregnancy. My response: PPH had to do lobbying to combat the hostilities and propaganda against them in congress. They do have a right to defend themselves, you know, and thus, to publicize their positions before congress. Some would call this undue politicization. I call it free speech.
But if PPH has indeed become overly politicized, then I’d say that its attackers are as much to blame for that as PPH itself.
April 9th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
Until we offer ways to adequately care for all the babies that would otherwise be born without abortion, abortion will continue; legally or not. People will view it as necessary when their backs are against the wall. Those other solutions (adoption, foster care) do not reach everyone and are not always a “best fit” for each individual’s situation. I would say that abortion has its place, and if you make it too hard for women to obtain, then you’ll drive them back into the dark alleys of the 1950s, where they inserted pop bottles into their vaginas, hoping to flush out the fetus. Ugly.