Planned Parenthood ”” what a concept. A premeditated decision to have sex with the sole purpose of reproduction. Today, that concept seems about as arbitrary as arranged marriage or civil unions. But not to the majority of the House of Representatives.
On Feb. 18, 2011, the House concluded, by a vote of 240-185, to remove the Title X Family Planning Program of the Public Health Service Act. Title X is the only federal grant program providing low-income families or uninsured individuals with comprehensive health care services. Its replacement ”” the Pence Amendment, named after its sponsor Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), would ban all federal funding to such clinics like Planned Parenthood.
Planned Parenthood services more than five million clients from its 865 clinics annually, making it the largest family planning provider in the U.S. Yet, if the Pence amendment passes, as it is expected, those plastic turquoise membership cards won’t mean jack for Jill any longer.
No more contraceptive rings, patches or pills, no more screening for cervical cancer, breast cancer or diabetes, no more flu shots, pap smears or sexually transmitted infection tests and no more Plan B or access to legal abortion referral services ”” on the government’s dime, that is.
In 1970, when Title X was established, nearly half of Planned Parenthood’s revenue was funded by private individuals, foundations and corporations. Fast forward 41 years later, and the philanthropy had diminished by one quarter, leaving Medicaid, and by proxy taxpayers, to foot a third of the organization’s bill.
According to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America Annual Report, the 2008-2009 annual income was $1.04 billion ”” and a third of that is nearly $350 million.
With the bulk of the House in support to defunding Planned Parenthood, the organization will likely go out of business.
But the solution to the problem, like most solutions to most problems, will not be found by stripping the money nor by covering it. Rather, the solution can be found somewhere in the middle.
Planned Parenthood is often the only health care source for low-income and unisured women. So cutting off all federal grants is not the answer.
At the same time, the U.S. is less than $300 billion away from the self-imposed $14.294 trillion debt ceiling. So continuing funding isn’t an option either.
If the taxpayers, the government and Planned Parenthood itself, put as much effort into donations, fundrasing and grants as they have with this legislation, then Congress can quit wasting its time talking about saving money and actually save money.
Last week the Senate rejected the House-approved amendment. But it won’t be long until round two is drafted and back in the Senate’s hands. And when that happens, I hope that Republicans and Democrats alike can agree on two things: that Planned Parenthood should not be fully defunded and that Rep. Mike Pence is a psycho.
Anonymous • Mar 15, 2011 at 2:52 am
So you say federal grants shouldn’t be taken away because it provides for low-income women, but then say that because we are $300 billion shy of our debt ceiling, we should cut funding to the program that is a fraction of that number. You are not a political science, economics, or philosophy major are you? You are definitely not a logician I can see.
I am not sure why you go out of your way to try and appeal to a middle ground as some sort of “moderate” when you don’t provide any good reasons for it. If you despise Planned Parenthood (which I see that you don’t) then fine; you probably want it completely de-funded. If you like Planned Parenthood’s ability to give free rubbers and birth control to help keep stupid people from reproducing, than you probably don’t want it de-funded. But don’t argue that middle ground should be reached on the basis of budget issues. Certainly in every domain, agency and program that the government subsidizes should attempt to make no waste, in principle–that is, it should be practiced whether or not the government has a deficit or a surplus. There are legitimate arguments to be made for both points of view (even though both sides tend to reap consequences that contradict their position…see “dumbassidiot”) but balancing the budget isn’t one of them. I believe this seeking out for moderation may demonstrate your inability to grasp the nuances of providing/not providing social welfare programs, but I may be wrong in my assessment.
As far as dumbassidot’s take, I think this author is (how could she not) saying that, essentially, all reps that voted for the bill are stupid, and, yes, that the American citizens who voted those hacks into office are also retarded or something worse. I don’t see anything wrong with that, nor do I find it inaccurate (but perhaps I feel this way for reasons that aren’t voiced by this author in this article). Voters get what they deserve, and the government will reflect the citizens until voters wise up. If dumbassidiot is offended by that, being that he presumably is one of these people who voted for these reps, than I don’t see how that is anything other than a personal problem. The truth hurts sometimes. It can destroy one’s sene-of-self.
Agencies like PP do seem to not just tolerate but promote personal irresponsibility, just as welfare does to some degree. (But who is going to wise up about their sexual irresponsibility just because PP no longer exists–that’s why we call them morons.) But pointing out this obvious aspect of social programs does not subsume the whole conversation, nor does it, in and of itself, justify wiping out social programs. If welfare, in principle, is what this poster hates, it should be noted that many business ventures embarked upon by the richest of the rich take on much larger subsidies gladly (read “Free Lunch” by David Johnston), and that welfare, in particular food stamps, was a legislative compromise in order to further subsidize big farming. If poor people aren’t buying food, big food producers lose out. So, in short, dumbassidiot is an ideologue who didn’t attempt to hide the fact that he is being intellectually dishonest–a seemingly contagious syndrome around the collegian site.
There are also ramifications at many steps when one wants to drop welfare (for the poor and the rich, that is). The reason is that the political economy and policy decisions are part of one large vicious circle. You can wipe out welfare, but what do you want to do with all these people having babies who don’t have the means to? You surely don’t advocate starving infants and young children because of choices their parents made, do you? One way or the other, society pays (literally and figuratively) for allowing irresponsible people to carry out their poor decisions. I may be wrong, but I assume this poster doesn’t believe people should have an unabated right to abort their fetus (I don’t either), which is fine and dandy, but his attitude on welfare simply makes him a hypocrite. As a renowned comedian once said about the minds of pro-life conservative ideologues, ” ‘If you’re pre-born you’re fine, if you’re pre-school you’re [expletive]’ “. Surely, if abortion was banned, the government would have to pay people’s natal care in full, and perhaps require that they must give their child up for adoption if they do not have the means to care for them. I honestly think there are much worse alternatives, but what makes you think any legislative body has the balls to vouch for that one? And do you want to deal with adding to a population that has demonstrated its inability to handle a growing population? Do you want to pay their unemployment? When one realizes that even in a pristine economy, where unemployment is “just” a few million, millions of Americans (to speak nothing of the impoverished elsewhere in the world), still have no opportunity to earn a living, it becomes much more difficult to demonize certain welfare programs, regardless of the inevitable number of folks who take advantage of it.
Anybody who take a hardline stance like this poster is not being intellectually honest, because one would have to acknowledge the pitfalls each policy decision regarding the matter has in the short- and long-term. Politics usually entails having to choose between multiple alternatives that are often equally unpalatable, and always undesirable. Welcome to the real, complex, and nuance-rich world. If you don’t like it, move to a fantasy land (never mind, you are already there). I probably don’t care for the culture of PP as much as the next guy, but I am far more distressed about corporate welfare, or mass society’s seemingly endless request during rough economic times for the poor, the ignorant, and the indigent to pick up the slack. And funding for PP and other welfare programs is important because it signifies our ability (or inability) to grapple with the nuance of public policy and its ramifications on mass society and culture. I wish either the author or this poster could have illuminated this.
Philosotroll • Mar 15, 2011 at 3:41 pm
Since this pretty much hits the nail on the head, I don’t feel like I have that much to add, except to say this: some government programs are great, and we should keep them going. As all of us (I’m assuming that we’re all CSUF students) are receiving a subsidized education, ranting against how people should move to a socialist country if they want government to provide everything is a bit silly.
The importance of welfare as a political responsibility is good to be aware of. The importance of responsibility towards non-agents (by which I mean children; harder to argue for supporting the parent) is also important. Cutting these social programs is irresponsible, just as it would be to cut all subsidies to the agriculture industry, a form of welfare all its own, which would probably crash the economy in the valley.
Anonymous • Mar 14, 2011 at 10:07 pm
If Pence is a psycho, then i guess you’re calling 240 other representatives psychos. And since the American people voted them to office i guess you could call them pychos too. And yes i do believe this was the right decision to cut the funding to Title X, because we the american tax payers shouldnt have to pay for others to get tested for STD’s and pay for condoms, plan B, birthcontrol and all the other bogus they get for free. If you dont want to have a kid then you should think before you get in bed with someone and two you should probably know them first so you dont get an STD. If you want the government to provide everything for you then go to a socialist country. I also believe they should drop welfare while they’re at it.
Here She Is • Mar 16, 2011 at 1:45 am
Preventative medicine, like condoms and birth control, do not just help the individual, they help society prevent the spread of these diseases.I hope you’re never in a position where you will need any social aid because you would be hypocrite to accept any of it. I pay into the system and I would like that system to be able to support me should I ever fall on bad times. I don’t currently have health insurance so I go to the health center at Fresno State, where I am a part of the Health Access Program which is the only way I can go for my annual female check-ups. It is state-funded, it is part of Planned Parenthood.
Anonymous • Mar 14, 2011 at 7:48 am
Companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage when your costs for treatments goes up due to sickness, you can now get insurance with out caps on coverage at “Health Insurance Wise” or health insurance facts search them online.
Anonymous • Mar 14, 2011 at 7:48 am
Companies will be barred from instituting caps on coverage when your costs for treatments goes up due to sickness, you can now get insurance with out caps on coverage at “Health Insurance Wise” or health insurance facts search them online.