Planned Parenthood Cost Effectiveness
Cost effectiveness is a basic consideration when devising any public policy. This must be so in general. Otherwise, said policies could not be implemented without totally bankrupting the public; just like what’s going on here in America currently. Since people want to get the most for their dollar, they’ll probably opt for the most cost effective over the less efficient policies. With the US being so far in debt, many government expenditures have come under scrutiny thus, and the funding of the Planned Parenthood family planning organization is no exception. The question of the cost effectiveness of Planned Parenthood has come up for debate again and the ways it addresses the unplanned pregnancy problem, as it has periodically over the past four decades. Many want to stop the flow of government money to Planned Parenthood; saying that this group is highly cost ineffective, as it duplicates services already offered at local levels, and it pays way too much for what it does offer, according to opponents.
Indeed, cost effectiveness neither determines the rightness nor the wrongness of a policy. But it does drive public perception about the policy’s practicality. How affordable the policy is indeed influences how effectively that policy is executed. Then, how effectively the policy is executed drives how good or bad people feel about funding it with tax dollars. Indeed, the cost verses. benefit ratio of a policy heavily influences public opinion about (either for or against) the policy. Whether that’s right or wrong, I will not say. That’s just the way it is. Those opposing Planned Parenthood funding believe the group “is wrong” for it’s stand on abortion. But since the abortion angle is so divisive, they instead focus on what they believe to be Planned Parenthood’s cost ineffectiveness.
It’s interesting that some folks rail against determining the validity of a policy by considering among its other attributes, how cost effective it is. But some work is necessary to fund even if it is expensive. Yet these same people also argue to de-fund organizations like Planned Parenthood in order to trim the nation’s over-swollen budget. So, is cost effectiveness important to them, or isn’t it? Apparently in some degree, cost effectiveness weighs at least a little in their choice to oppose the policy to subsidize Planned Parenthood.
Children should be loved so that they can grow into socially well-adjusted, productive adults. Planned Parenthood helps insure that children are loved by their parents, because they aid in curbing unwanted or unplanned pregnancies in the first place. Children are markedly neglected generally, when born into households where adequate planning for them has not first taken place. So if we can keep children from this sort of neglect, we reduce the chances that they’ll grow up to be criminals. Thus, we save the costs of housing them in our jails and funding their rehabilitation. In this way, the small cost of funding Planned Parenthood is paid for down the road by the huge savings in prison and re-education costs of neglected children.
I submit therefore, that Planned Parenthood is indeed cost effective because we should not create children when ill-prepared to provide for them. Planned Parenthood and other similar resources give the ill-prepared potential parents the means to head off these unplanned pregnancies, so that these “future people” they might otherwise give birth to, do not become excessively burdensome on and overly dangerous to society. Planned Parenthood may cost a little today. But it will save us much more in the future. It’s an investment that we as a nation should continue making.
Related Posts
- Planned Parenthood Funding Debate
- Planned Parenthood Ideas Restrict Population Growth
- Unplanned Pregnancies Make More Neglected Children