As a part of conservative efforts intended to massively reduce government spending, recent legislation attempting to eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood represents a troubling step in our government’s attitude toward our reproductive and sexual health in our society.
Eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood will effectively force its closure by eliminating the structure which keeps it afloat, taking with it the hundreds of thousands of pap smears, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests and sexually transmitted infection screenings provided annually to women and men alike. The organization serves as an important institution for advocating affordable sexual health, awareness and preventative efforts for women.
Some proponents for the bill have specifically used anti-abortion rights rhetoric to eliminate funding for Planned Parenthood. But abortion is not the only service provided by Planned Parenthood and isn’t even funded by government money.
Title X funding explicitly prohibits federal money to be used for abortions. Federal funds are only allowed to be used for STI screenings, pregnancy diagnosis, counseling, cancer screening and contraceptive services, all at an affordable price. According to Planned Parenthood, only 3 percent of their total procedures in 2009 went to abortion.
Advocates of stripping funding from Planned Parenthood need to realize the organization is not synonymous with abortion, and should consider the larger societal implications of destroying the institution for the sake of subversive attempts to curb abortion.
Yes, there are valid points. Anti-abortion rights taxpayers don’t want their dollars going toward an abortion-providing organization like Planned Parenthood, despite preexisting Title X restrictions. Taxpayer money without a doubt keeps Planned Parenthood afloat. Ninety-seven percent of its commerce comes from government-subsidized procedures and screenings.
However, opposition to morally ambiguous government spending does not justify eliminating programs completely. Thousands of Americans are morally opposed to war for the same reasons pro-life activists are opposed to abortion, but you don’t see the Department of Defense or the United States Armed Forces being stripped of all their funding. Citizens don’t pay taxes on a pick-and-choose basis, and Planned Parenthood’s government funds go toward measures that are better for society as a whole.
Essentially, eliminating Planned Parenthood in the name of eliminating abortion will not stop abortion from happening. Thousands of illegal abortions occurred prior to government protection, and these “black market” abortions were characterized by dramatically higher health risks. Taking away affordable access to abortion won’t stop it completely; in fact, it may cause more urgent health problems.
Cutting down Planned Parenthood for the sake of the pro-life agenda is futile and only a step backward on all fronts.
If abortions won’t stop, then there really is no point to cut Planned Parenthood funding to the extent it is being cut. Perhaps in the age of fiscal responsibility funds may have to be cut, but completely eliminating an entire institution like Planned Parenthood instead of making smaller cuts across the board is irresponsible and would only aggravate our problems.
Lower-income individuals depend on Planned Parenthood for important sexual health and preventative procedures and screenings. According to Planned Parenthood, Title X health centers provide these health benefits to 4.7 million individuals who might not be able to afford them otherwise. Of those 4.7 million, 67 percent have incomes at or below the federal poverty level, and 61 percent are uninsured.
Financially crippling one of the largest care-providing organizations in America should not be used as a political ploy or statement against abortion services. Rather than providing women with necessary health and reproductive services, or treating reproductive health with respect, those supporting this bill risk more than just their political dignity. What is ultimately sacrificed is the financial inclusion of low-income women, the accessibility to health-sustaining procedures and the beneficial role of a positive institution in America.