Funding_for_Planned_Parenthood

Funding for Planned Parenthood In April, 2011 a last minute compromise between President Obama and congressional leaders prevented a shutdown of government services that would have had severe repercussions for government workers and American citizens. There were several sticking points in the proposed budget between the President, Democratic leadership and Republicans, such as the proposed health care bill. However, one of the most contentious issues was the debate over funding for Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations. The agreement preserved the current level of funding for now, but allows for a Senate vote to revoke funding for abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood in the future. According to Erik Eckholm, there is additional legislation in the works, leaving the organization in a precarious position (16). While this issue has been resolved for the time being, I believe it will resurface with the influence of social conservatives, such as the Tea Party, pushing an anti-abortion agenda. The challenge of developing a federal budget that would reduce deficit spending is one that is important to all citizens in this country. With a current debt load of $14 trillion, the issue is how to reduce national debt while sustaining basic government services. (Bixby 2). As baby boomers reach retirement age the burden on the Medicare and Social Security systems will continue to rise. It is estimated that by the late 2050’s Medicare and Medicaid will use up as much of the national economy as the entire federal budget does today (Bixby 8). According to Bixby, “The sooner we get started, the better. Inaction now means more severe changes later” (9). Unfortunately, there is no easy way to accomplish this. It is imperative that the federal debt be brought under control in order to maintain the standard of living to which we have become accustomed and keep the government solvent. A combination of spending cuts and tax increases has been suggested as a potential solution, as well as addressing Medicare costs and unemployment rates (Clemmitt 259). Some lawmakers have proposed that one way to reduce spending would be to eliminate or reduce funding to the Planned Parenthood organization. While I agree that we must curb deficit spending, I don’t believe reducing the subsidy to the Planned Parenthood organization is an appropriate measure to undertake for the following reasons: the amount of savings would not be enough to make much of a difference in the deficit; and it would greatly limit access of important health services to the population who needs them most. The Planned Parenthood organization was founded in the early 1900’s by Margaret Sanger, an ardent supporter of women’s rights. Sanger had worked as a nurse in Brooklyn in a birth control clinic she operated with two other women. She saw firsthand how devastating unwanted pregnancies could be to the low income women with whom she worked, mostly immigrants. According to the organization’s official website, the mission remains true to her original goals: to provide contraception and other health services to women and men; fund research on birth control and educate specialists and the public on the results; and advance access to family planning in the United States and around the world (Plannedparenthood.com). Planned Parenthood operates approximately 800 clinics that deliver health services, including abortions, all across the country. According to Erik Eckholm, the organization receives more than $75 million per year from Congress to support family planning services for low-income women. In addition, millions more are provided for sex education and indirectly to Medicaid and other federal programs (16). If the federal subsidy was completely eliminated, the resulting $75 million would not go a long way to decrease the $14 trillion deficit, although proponents claim that it would help reduce national health care costs. While it is illegal for federal funds to be specifically used for abortions, pro-life advocates claim that Planned Parenthood uses federal subsidies for abortion services indirectly, since the organization receives monies earmarked for other specific health services but performs abortions at the same time (O’Bannon, Randall K. 11). Funds used to pay Planned Parenthood staff and to promote the organization come from federal subsidies, at least in part, claims O’Bannon. According to Planned Parenthood, however, federal monies are used for other services such as STD testing and treatment, HIV/AIDS testing and counseling, contraception and family planning services, cancer screening, general health care and even men’s sexual health. According to Nancy Gibbs, abortion services constitute only about 3% of Planned Parenthood’s services, while other services make up the other 97% (66). If the subsidy was reduced by that percentage, a 3% reduction would only result in about $2,250,000 in federal savings. In other words, not enough to make much of a dent in the federal deficit. The landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision made it possible for women to seek termination of unwanted pregnancies legally in this country. Prior to this decision, women turned to illegal, often unsafe, avenues to end pregnancies. According to some researchers, during the period of time that abortions were illegal hundreds of thousands of women sought abortion from unqualified providers in unsanitary conditions, with estimates that as many as 78,000 deaths occurred annually as a result (Lee and Sprague 2). Other outcomes were self-induced miscarriages with complications that potentially included infection, hemorrhage and infertility. Lee and Sprague point out that “statistics indicate that restricting access to abortion does nothing to reduce the number of abortions that take place; instead it causes major health risks and discriminates against the poor” (1). With access to abortion services restricted, a return to that scenario is possible. The services provided by Planned Parenthood include legal and safe abortion services as well as education about family planning and contraception and should continue to be funded by federal subsidy. Proponents of the argument to cut or restrict funds to Planned Parenthood are generally pro-life activists who believe that abortion should be illegal and that lawmakers should reverse the 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade. Chittom and Newton assert that women should be informed about abortion practices to help them understand the possible long-term consequences of their decision until legislation once again outlaws abortion rights for women. They claim that women experience psychological effects such as depression, anxiety and guilt following abortions (3). In addition, Pro-Life activists continue to push individual states for further restrictions on abortion rights, including barring coverage for abortions under the new health care law and requiring that a woman be shown an ultrasound of the fetus before the procedure (Jost 725). Promoting a reduction of subsidies to Planned Parenthood and its subsidiaries is just one way anti-abortion activists are trying to restrict access to abortion services in this country. Representative Mike Pence, a pro-life advocate and chief sponsor of a bill to cut funding for Planned Parenthood, has stated that the organization had “a pattern of apparent fraud and abuse” and that the time has come to deny any federal funding to Planned Parenthood (Eckholm 16). Although the bill has not been made into law, Rep. Pence has stated that he will continue to seek an end to legal abortion in this country. Supporters of the amendment have made it clear that the intention is to eliminate abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood (Dejene & Mahalet). Since the legalization of abortion in 1973, there has been a gradual shift from pro-choice to pro-life positions on the part of the public. Pro-life activists have used this shift to target Planned Parenthood, calling this the “best climate in years for passing pro-life laws” (Gibbs 1). As Gibbs explains, decreasing funding to the organization would actually cause a rise in health care spending since taxpayers save about $4 in Medicaid costs for every dollar of funding that is spent (2). Reducing the subsidy could also restrict access to many people in need and cause an increase in unplanned and unwanted pregnancies. Unfortunately, the population most impacted by these cuts would likely be those who could least afford it – low income and minority women who need access to these important services. Women in low income families are less likely to have access to education or family planning services. However, those who propose cutting or reducing funding to the organization have not suggested realistic alternatives for the services currently provided by Planned Parenthood (Eckholm 16). In the absence of viable alternatives for these services, I question whether the amount of savings would outweigh the loss of healthcare services to a needy population. Pro-choice advocates argue that the decision whether to terminate a pregnancy is a deeply personal and private matter in which lawmakers should not intrude (Lee and Sprague 2). In my career as a nurse I have had the opportunity to care for patients who were seeking legal termination of pregnancy. None of these patients took the decision lightly and all expressed knowledge of the consequences of the procedure. I firmly believe that access to family planning, contraception and abortion services gives women and their partners the ability to have children when they are ready and able to take care of them. As a concerned health care professional, I recognize that the Planned Parenthood organization provides much needed education about family planning and contraception to men and women in low income areas, a valuable service in these uncertain economic times. While I agree that we must find ways to cut deficit spending and reduce federal debt, I don’t believe that reducing subsidies to Planned Parenthood would be an effective solution. I also believe that the attempt to pull the organization into the debate about the federal deficit is a thinly veiled attack on the legality of abortion, a topic that was decided in 1973 by the U.S. Supreme Court and should no longer be an issue of controversy in this country. All women, including those in low income areas, have a legal right to seek services related to family planning and abortion. Reducing funding to Planned Parenthood would greatly impact access to these important services and could result in a higher birth rate to an already financially strained population. Works Cited Bixby, Robert L. "Perspectives on the Federal Budget: The Hard Road to Deficit Reduction." Journal of Housing & Community Development 68.1 (2011): 6-11. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 23 Apr. 2011. Chittom, Lynn-Nore, and Heather Newton. "Counterpoint: Pro-Life Activists Need to Push the Anti-Abortion Agenda." Points of View: Abortion (2009): 3. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 14 Apr. 2011. Clemmitt, Marcia. "National Debt." CQ Researcher 18 Mar. 2011: 241-64. Web. 23 Apr. 2011. Dejene, Mahalet. "Planned Parenthood, Supporters Unite Against Pence Amendment. (Cover story)." New York Amsterdam News 102.9 (2011): 1-40. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. Eckholm, Erik. "Budget Feud Ropes In Planned Parenthood." New York Times 18 Feb. 2011: 16. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. Gibbs, Nancy. "The Baby and the Bathwater." Time 177.10 (2011): 66. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. Jost, Kenneth. "Abortion Debates." CQ Researcher 10 Sept. 2010: 725-48. Web. 14 Apr. 2011. Lee, M., and Nancy Sprague. "Point: Abortion Is a Women's Health Issue and Should Be a Constitutional Right." Points of View: Abortion (2009): 2. Points of View Reference Center. EBSCO. Web. 14 Apr. 2011. O'Bannon, Randall K. "GAO Report Details $967 Million in Federal Funds Going to Planned Parenthood and Five Other "Family Planning" Groups." National Right to Life News 37.10 (2010): 11. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 17 Apr. 2011. Plannedparenthood.com. Planned Parenthood, 2011. Web. April 17, 2011.