Planned Big Brotherhood
This past week, we had another threat against the healthcare needs of women and families. The US House of Representatives voted 240-185 to cut off all federal funding for Planned Parenthood, an organization that provides cancer screening, breast exams, contraception and abortions. The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) called it “a victory for taxpayers and a victory for life” by “banning federal funding to Planned Parenthood…“
But federal funding is already banned and has been for almost 35 years, due to the passage of the Hyde Amendment, more than three years after the Roe v. Wade decision. Not to mention that last year’s Health Care Reform Act also bans federal funds to be used for elective abortions.
But not all abortions are banned from federal funds. To those women that have become pregnant through rape or incest or in cases where the life of the mother-to-be is in danger of being lost, federal funds can and do pay for abortions. And even in these cases, it’s still a bothersome nuisance to the anti-abortion crowd that some of their tax dollars are going to pay for something they are against.
In 2010, Planned Parenthood received an estimated $317 million in federal tax dollars. In addition to abortions performed for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother [remember, the Hyde Amendment and 2010 HCRA prohibits federal funds for electable abortions], these tax dollars also provided pelvic exams, breast exams, safer-sex counseling and basic infertility counseling.
Supporters of this bill argue for those that don’t want their tax dollars being used for abortions. And if you are religious and/or have personal beliefs that oppose abortion, I most certainly can sympathize on some levels. They argue that any individual can come up with the money themselves to have the procedure done. But what if circumstances are such that something that was not their fault and there are not sufficient funds to cover an abortion? Planned Parenthood certainly has some private donors. And anti-abortion supporters, while still not happy about any abortions being performed regardless who pays for them, can’t stop private people from funding for those that seek a safe and legal place to have their pregnancy terminated.
Unplanned
But what about those children that are born instead of aborted? Unwanted, unplanned, conceived from a molestation, rape or abusive spouse or partner… regardless of how the woman became pregnant, abortion is a legal procedure that is, and should always be, left up to being the choice of the woman.
In none of these articles or arguments does it ever factor in the cost of a child born under these circumstances that may end up on some type of public assistance. I have heard several stories of children born into less than sufficient households where the amount of financial need [paid for by tax payers] throughout this child’s life is staggering. So if it’s money that’s of concern, why not also cut out programs that provide care for those children? If it’s really about where your tax dollars go to, then why stop at abortion? The average cost of an abortion at $350 vs. the average cost to of how much public assistance a child could receive [some average it’s around $11,000/yr] shows quite the financial gap, when properly amortized.
Again, those that are pro-life will argue it was worth it to save an unborn child from abortion. Adoption is a valid option in these cases. And while adoption is used a lot, regardless of other legal options, it’s not always the most cost effective, as adoptions can take a considerable amount of money and time to complete. Granted, at little or no cost to the mother giving up the child, but still the adopting party needs to prove that they are responsible enough to raise a child.
But let’s say the mother doesn’t offer up her child for adoption and factor in what kind of life that child may end up having if it ends up staying with it’s biological parent. Hopefully, it will be a good one. But depending on the living conditions of that child, what if it turns to a life of crime? Or runs with the wrong crowd? Or experiences abuse from others? All speculation, yes. But remember, from the beginning, this child was not planned.
Cutting Off All Services
Mike Pence will argue that this bill will “close the loophole that has forced millions of pro-life Americans to subsidize the nation’s leading abortion provider…”. But won’t this also mean that NO federal funds will go to any family planning services – including abortions done for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother? In my reading of the bill, all funding to any family planning center that also happens to perform abortions, will be pulled. So in an effort to cut off Planned Parenthood, they also cut off funding to anyone under the Title X part of the Public Health Service Act that was originally designated by President Nixon for the purpose of low-income individuals and families that needed family planning services.
In an effort to cut off the nose to spite one’s face, this is a big blow to family health care. Nonsense, say those who support Pence. Just pay for the services yourself. Stop using public funds for something I don’t agree with. Go get a job and get health care. All valid options that not everyone may be able to have access to. But not every HMO plan you get from your employer covers all of the necessary procedures that a place like Planned Parenthood offers. Paying individually for each one of these services can add up for anyone, including those that are at or below the poverty income level in this country.
Contraception
And I’ve not specifically mentioned contraception and birth control, which also carries some levels of opposition by those who are also against any type of abortion. In the logical sense, preventing a pregnancy also prevents an abortion. Most get this, some refuse to [for varying reasons that boggle my mind]. And a place like Planned Parenthood provides counseling to those seeking options to prevent a pregnancy. While abstinence is the best way to avoid pregnancy, controlling the collective public’s access to when they have sexual intercourse is impossible.
Summary
Regardless of my position, I get why people are against abortion. I have never met nor talked to anyone in my life that was pro-abortion. It’s not always the choice we would want for someone. But that’s not for us to decide. That’s the woman’s choice. And since 1973, it’s legal in just about every state and in varying forms and circumstances. And while some may not want their tax dollars going to pay for any abortion, there are some cases that exist where having the child isn’t always the best option. I know there are many zealots, politicians and religious fanatics [mostly male, I might add] that don’t agree, but you are not the ones carrying this child. Again, the woman is. And in the voice of those women that have had abortions and why they had them, I trust their words over any male trying to legalize and limit their opinions.
Cutting off all federal funding creates new issues, financial, emotional and physical, where an unwanted child is born to an environment that can’t properly raise and support the child, turning to the government for assistance. Which is where this argument comes full circle: tax dollars going for something you don’t agree with.
It’s expected that this bill will not pass the Senate, but if it does, President Obama has already promised to veto it. So a temporary sigh of relief for those relying on centers like Planned Parenthood for family planning, but it’s not the last time this will be an issue. And when it rears it’s head again, I hope that more will be willing to think for the needs of the living, not just the unborn.
Relevant Article Links
Defunding Planned Parenthood – Not a GOP Family Value?
Related Posts
About The Author
While I don’t disagree with your position or arguments, I do find that this is another example of what I have seen lately, which is people arguing against what the conservatives are trying to do without addressing the real issue. I don’t know if that is because addressing the real issue is difficult or if it’s just that it’s so difficult to look at things from a completely different perspective.
Conspiracies of class or racial motivations aside, the professed — and I believe actual — motivations for most anti-abortion activity is the belief that terminating the fetus is not really substantively different from killing a child. Keeping this idea in mind really makes their actions clear and simultaneous demonstrates why most of your arguments would not be considered relevant.
They want abortions to be illegal, particularly elective ones. They want this for the simple reason that they completely believe it to be murder. They’ve been unable to achieve that goal, so they’re trying to get as close as they can. Preventing funding is simply the best they can try to do for now.
On the contraception issue, I could be mistaken but I don’t think there is a significant percentage of people that are anti-contraception. Rather, there are a large number of conservatives that believe that teaching children about contraception encourages them to be sexually active. I think the evidence shows that they’re wrong, but in any event, it isn’t particularly relevant to the abortion issue from their perspective.
Finally, regarding the loss of other valuable services, if this bill became law then wouldn’t it stand to reason that new or existing organizations could offer the other services without also performing abortions? Sure, there are arguments against the effectiveness of not offering the abortion choice, but again, from the perspective of those pushing this legislation, those arguments aren’t valid.
I hope I’ve communicated my point well enough. It gets frustrating to constantly see arguments against anti-abortion efforts that ignore the fundamental issue. Arguments for women’s rights or about class warfare or the like, while possibly valid, sound hollow when they don’t even touch on the fact that the core of the anti-abortion argument is that nothing justifies murdering a child. One side thinks abortion is murdering a child and the other side disagrees. Other than medical science advancing to the point that abortions become entirely unnecessary, I do not think there is a resolution.
To be fair, I feel exactly the same about arguments coming from the anti-abortion side that focus on “baby murderers” or similar. While I understand that they feel that way, I do not feel that they give sufficient consideration to the fact that the other side simply doesn’t believe that to be the case. While I can understand that that doesn’t forgive the action, it should at least trigger the “hate the sin not the sinner” doctrine. Of course, we’ve seen how poorly that is applied in many other ways. Assigning motives to the opposition based on your own beliefs that you know are not shared by the other side is what bugs me.
I’m not sure even I can parse that last paragraph successfully, but I’m out of energy for this overly long comment now. Thanks for the forum.
Ren, after reading your comment a couple of times through, I think I know where you are coming from. I get that those that are against any abortion see it simply as the murder of a child and nothing else. And as I stated in the post, I can see that side and their position. But as I also eluded to (maybe not as detailed as I could have), those that seek out abortion may have various circumstances that are not about ending the life of a child to be, but in cases where they are trying to save their own life. I’ve read several news stories over the last couple of months where an abortion is argued against, even if both the life of the mother and the child are at risk of being lost. This is not a decision for any politician, any citizen that is against any type of abortion. This is a decision for the mother and the doctor. And while it’s sad that a future life was lost, in some of these cases, it saved the life of the mother, who may have already had children and may have children in the future.
My argument here tries not to take away the fact that I do understand the other side’s position. But it’s hard to pass judgement on everyone that has an abortion. Most that I’ve talked to see it as never an option in any case. For those where nothing is justified is equal ignorance to letting a mother die in childbirth if there was an option to save her life, losing her unborn.
The assignment of motives to the opposition is how most of us that are for the choice of women see the arguments. It’s the broadly applied bans that don’t take individual concerns into consideration. Which is why my statement about no one being pro-abortion applies.
I hope my reply was concise enough. Hard to address all topics, but I do understand your response here.
Certainly when choosing between risks to the fetus or the mother, that is a different situation. That is why I tried to focus on elective abortion. I could be wrong, but I wouldn’t think medically necessary abortions are something that is typically done at a free clinic — I would expect a hospital is the venue for that.
I’m not aware of ever having heard someone explicitly make the argument that even when the life of the mother is at stake, choosing the mother is unacceptable. I could imagine someone valuing the life of the fetus over the life of the mother for odd religious reasons, but often the life of the fetus would likely be forfeit along with the mother’s anyway.
Additionally, in the context of H.R. 217, it seems that the legislation allows for abortions in this case as well as in the case of rape. But we’re having a broader discussion, so that’s okay.
One final point I’d like to make is in regard to your mention of no one being “pro-abortion”. While I understand what you’re saying, I have certainly encountered the attitude where it is presumed that the default choice for a pregnant 16-year-old would be abortion.
From my reading of H.R. 217, it pulls all federal funds for any abortion, but I might have missed the exclusion that allowed for certain cases.
As for the consideration of saving the mother’s life, this is one of the recent situations that brought this to discussion:
http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/2010/12/22/20101222phoenix-catholic-abortion-fight-aclu.html
On your final point, yet you are correct. But I think it’s more about avoiding family reactions of having a child than wanting to go through with an abortion.
Marty, you’ve written a great piece here. And Ren’s comments only add to the discussion. The hardest part of writing about policy is that I can never say with certainty what the motivations of any or either side are because I don’t know. I can’t know what every person with an opinion thinks. However, in regard to abortion, I am prochoice on both the procedure and the prevention in the first place. The issue is loaded with gray areas no matter what either side says. One side thinks it’s murder but is fine with capitol punishment. Another side is against capitol punishment, but sees the necessity of sometimes ending a fetus’s life (fill in any number of reasons). Gray area makes policy that much harder. Better to err on the side of personal choice on this matter. Funding, on the other hand, is the bludgeon with which both sides can continue to beat the other in an effort to score political points with their bases.
Thanks Lisa. And yes, this is a touchy subject with many gray areas. But as I did with the majority of this post, it’s the personal choice for a legal procedure where my position is.
My beliefs are such that I don’t approve of abortion. But I am pro-choice because this is the United States of America, and my beliefs shouldn’t dictate how other people live their lives. Unfortunately, other people don’t have the same acceptance of beliefs different than their own, so here we sit.
I wrote a long blog entry on this very subject, but eventually discarded it. The up-shot of my entry was this… MY beliefs are such that ALL life is sacred. Even that of animals. So the USA spending millions of dollars in subsidies for the beef, poultry, and hog slaughter industries is (on some levels) just as offensive to me as abortion is to some citizens of this country. So where do I sign on to get all these abhorrent meat subsidies dropped from our tax-spending dollars?
Nowhere. Those same people that rail against abortion want their cheap hamburgers!
The simple truth is that everything the US government spends money on is offensive or wasteful to somebody. I don’t like that President Bush spent shit-loads of my tax dollars on an ill-concieved war that put our troops in danger with no exit strategy, for example. But for all the things I disapprove of in our government’s budget… there are other wonderful things the money gets spent on that I DO approve of. I just choose to think that THOSE are the places MY money is going, and it all balances out in the end.
Nobody likes taxes. Nobody likes to see tax dollars spent in a way that they disapprove of. But that’s the way it goes. So long as taxes are going to subsidize the meat industry, they can also go to Planned Parenthood, which is at least something I can endorse.
Dave, your argument on the animals is one that Reba made when we were talking about it the other night. Her words and your words are almost identical, in the argument about the meat industry.
Your last statement makes a lot of sense.
Dave, the problem I have with your argument is that there’s nothing wrong with you organizing and lobbying to have the government change how the money is spent such that it isn’t spent in ways you don’t like. That’s how it’s supposed to work. It seems disingenuous to bring up this line of argument in the context of something that is being done by elective representatives. If this were a court action or something similar, then I think your argument would be more relevant.
Whether or not the legislation is good is one thing, but whether it is a valid or legal piece of legislation is something else entirely. If “The People” want cheap hamburgers but not cheap abortions, that’s their prerogative, isn’t it?
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about. All I did was say that nobody is going to agree 100% with how their tax dollars are spent. Throwing “elected officials” into the mix does nothing to change that.
OK, then I apologize for my poor reading skills. I inferred that you were expressing that people should simply accept that the government will do things with which they don’t agree and focus on the things that the government does that they like. I just wanted to point out that there’s nothing wrong with a democratic attempt to stop the government from doing something that you don’t like.
Nope, I said that’s how >I< deal with it when the government spends tax dollars in a way I don't like… I simply choose to believe that my part of the tax collection "pot" is going towards things I DO approve of. Like Planned Parenthood. I'm not telling anybody how to think, nor am I telling anybody not to protest how their tax dollars are spent if they are inclined to do so. I'm merely illustrating how ANY use of tax dollars is not going to be something that 100% of the people are going to approve of 100% of the time.
OK, so what is meant by the final sentence in your original reply?: “So long as taxes are going to subsidize the meat industry, they can also go to Planned Parenthood, which is at least something I can endorse.”
I mean, sure, it’s a simple list of facts, but I can’t help but read it as a recommendation that others should do the same. Which seems like a criticism of their attempts to change things. Perhaps I am reading too much into that statement and your comment as a whole.
By the way, I’m all for ditching meat/corn subsidies and keeping funding for Planned Parenthood. Or, better, making sure everyone has health insurance such that Planned Parenthood doesn’t even need funding. (And perhaps doesn’t need as much health care once those subsidies are gone.)
You are inferring something that was never said. If I was telling somebody “stop complaining about your taxes going to places you don’t like” then I would have said “stop complaining about your taxes going places you don’t like.”
I didn’t say “which is at least something I can endorse AND YOU SHOULD TOO”… I said it was something I can endorse.
Now this is a humdinger conversation!
I can’t believe I just said humdinger.
Anyway
I completely agree and see where everyone’s coming from here. I definitely believe in a woman’s choice, but I can see where people who view it as murder just can’t get past that part. I’m not sure, really, where I stand on the issue, myself. It’s extremely touchy.
Oh – and I knew of a girl going for her 9th abortion – she was 19. She was offered birth control pills, and didn’t take them.
Basically, it’s an ugly issue and just what we have to deal with in a country where the people are (supposedly) the ones in charge, and every fucking one of them has a different viewpoint.
It’s a very ugly issue, that’s for sure. And this girl you know of… that’s the situation that makes me wish we could at least limit those types of selfish and non-medical purpose abortions, but if you do that, you take away their control over their own bodies.
Planned Parenthood does so much for people who can’t afford insurance (that’s me!) or healthcare. I think that if everyone had health insurance and could then afford healthcare a lot of what Planned Parenthood does would be moot because we could then afford to go to a family doctor or specialist.
Well stated. It appears those that don’t care about others that can’t afford healthcare are the first to want to eliminate it.
I was going to post on this but you said it so perfectly I don’t think I can even add anything to the discussion.
Sing it!!!
Thank you, Zoe.