Should Be Titled, “As I Understand The Planned Parenthood Debate” Or Similar. People Make Their

Should be titled, “As I understand the planned parenthood debate” or similar. People make their own definitions. You do have a lots of facts written in a large blog. I am all for you, maybe I’m just a newcomer.

Defunding Planned Parenthood explained

When more fuel is poured on the fire that is our national discourse on abortion, context starts missing. The question, often, is not as cut and dry as whether abortion should be legal or not, whether it’s moral or not or whether women should have a choice or not. It’s about how we can reconcile reducing abortions and making healthcare for all accessible.

As the country’s lawmakers determine whether to end funding for Planned Parenthood, which receives about 40 percent or $500 million from the federal government annually, it’s good to put things into perspective.

First off, I’m always amazed with how little sensitivity activists on both sides of the argument approach this issue. The left disregards the question of morality while the right disregards the question of choice.

The left will tell you that women shouldn’t be told what to do with their bodies. Maybe so, but 41 percent of women are pro-life. Those women seem to value morality over choice. The right will tell you that abortion in any circumstance is immoral, yet the truth is circumstances arise and in the real world the crippling, unsafe alternatives and the financial and social burden of raising a child for too many outweigh the short-term yet unspeakably painstaking choice to seek such a medical procedure, however invasive.

A couple truths here. 79 percent of the people who receive services from Planned Parenthood are low-income Americans who live 150 percent or lower below the poverty line. These people are on Medicaid or receive care indirectly through another government-funded program called Title X.

Another truth is that 95 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is not abortions. This has been debunked time and again. Numbers have been cherry-picked by conservatives and the claims have never aligned with reality.

Another truth, however, is that according to Planned Parenthood’s 2013-2014 annual report, the organization conducted 323,653 abortions. Respectable estimates say that this accounts for no more than 12 percent of all Planned Parenthood’s services. However, that is not a small number. For many who have the deepest convictions around protecting life in their view, this number is appalling. Even if you aren’t a social conservative, it’s a grim number.

The two things we don’t know are the circumstances in which these abortions were sought and how much revenue Planned Parenthood generates from these procedures.

So what does Planned Parenthood exactly do? 76 percent of their work relates to testing and treatment of sexually transmitted diseases and infections as well as contraceptive care. This is followed by pregnancy tests, prenatal care and cancer screenings.

The 1977 Hyde Amendment dictated that federal Medicaid funds could only be used to fund abortions in extreme cases like rape, incest or to protect the mother. Some states have expanded their own funding of Planned Parenthood and expanded the circumstances by which state funds could be used for abortions.

Defunding Planned Parenthood in the immediate would cut government spending. The problem is the consequences of less funding means a real probability of more unplanned pregnancies which leads to an increase in government spending because these people will at that point likely be eligible for Medicaid. Moreover, unrelated to active pregnancies, people who would have otherwise gone to Planned Parenthood for services like to treat an STI or receive a cancer screening would need to find another clinic. If those clinics are crowded, this can limit access to important services to both women and men.

These are all possibilities, yet how probable these consequences will arise isn’t clear. Those who are for protecting Planned Parenthood’s federal funding are not being modest about sounding that alarm.

On the political right, you have a very principled position. Something like, “I don’t want my tax dollars going to fund an organization that conducts abortions.” On the left, a more pragmatic position, “Women should have access to these services, so the government should help fund these services. If the government doesn’t fund them, then these bad things will happen.”

What has always gotten the political left support for funding anything is this “cause and effect” argument. “If we don’t fund this or regulate this, then this will happen.” It’s effective, frequently necessary yet creates a habit that lacks discipline and a mindset that often disregards more innovative approaches to solutions.

Those on the political right who support defunding may have determined that despite the preventative services that Planned Parenthood delivers, the organization’s continued support for abortion procedures is a non-starter. Is it truly that easy to hold that view even as someone who receives equal or better care someplace else? Or can we along with our lawmakers devise other ways all Americans can receive preventative care? These are both questions worth asking.

Like most topics and issues we confront as a nation, this is more complex than any presidential candidate, activist or cable news talking head has portrayed. At the very least, I hope this has made some sense and provoked some thought for readers here. I hope to revisit this issue again soon, perhaps with a proposal.