We Should Double Funding for Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood heroically provides medical services to a great many women who otherwise would receive little or no health care at all. This can be thankless and even dangerous work, because there are fanatics out there who do not like what they do. They perform abortions, you see, though this is a tiny fraction of their work. Some people think abortion should be illegal, arguing, preposterously in my view, that a fertilized egg is already the moral equivalent of a human being.

Some of the fanatics are well-funded and well-organized, and they devote considerable effort to “exposing” Planned Parenthood. The most recent salvo in this never-ending war is a series of sting videos which are said to show sadistic Planned Parenthood employees casually negotiating the sale of baby body parts. By publicizing these videos the fanatics have certainly scored a propaganda victory, one in which they are aided by the frequently anemic response from those who defend the rights of women to control their own bodies.

The videos, of course, show nothing like what the fanatics claim. Whether they like it or not, abortion is legal. The result is fetal tissue that is vitally important to medical research that has already saved countless lives. It is expensive for Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers to get that tissue where it needs to go, and they expect to be compensated for their costs. That is all the videos show, even after careful and sleazy editing to make them seem as bad as possible. For all the frothing denunciations from the fanatics, there is nothing more here than a bit of tone-trolling. The scandal, apparently, is that people on the videos are overly casual in discussing an unpleasant topic.

But pro-lifers never tire of trumpeting their own self-righteousness. In their warped and deeply immoral view, they are the modern equivalent of the anti-slavery movement, while those who defend women's rights are likened to Nazis. The level of depravity it takes to make such comparisons beggars belief. The people who make them are monsters who have nothing to teach the rest of us about morality.

Planned Parenthood deserves every penny it gets and millions more besides. They provide desperately needed services to people many politicians would prefer to ignore. They do this in the face of deranged opposition, relentless attacks from opportunistic politicians, and credible threats against their life. They are heroes pure and simple.

More like this

Doesn't the ACA make the "funding" of planned parenthood an act of double dipping? All the extra services (not the tiny percentage that are abortions) are now available, and available to be funded/reimbursed through ACA. Why should the tax payers pay twice for this?

By Kevin Finnegan (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

"...the fanatics claim...", "...frothing denunciations...", "...warped and deeply immoral view...", "...depravity...", "...The people who make them are monsters...", "...deranged opposition..."

Do you see what you are turning into?

By Valhar2000 (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

"Do you see what you are turning into?"

A person who describes the people who are lying about Planned Parenthood and the videos the way they should be described?

@1: the government passes supplemental funding for various things all the time. The biggest , most famous recent example was the Congress under G.W. Bush passing a budget without any DOD funding for the Iraq war, then passing a separate supplement to pay for the war, all so Bush could say that he didn't grow the budget.

Now, you can argue about the wisdom of supplemental funding (i.e., if the government knows they'll have to budget for this facility/service, they should just pay for it up front rather than passing two bills to pay for one thing). But I don't think anyone considers it double dipping. More a case of bad planning, inefficiency caused by bureaucracy, or just plain political gamesmanship.

@Eric #4

I think you missed my point. Planned parent receives funding because they provide services that many women would not be able to get. That is no longer the case with the ACA. Why should Planned Parenthood still get funding so a women can get these services that are now coverred under ACA? Planned parenthood will bill the insurance company for payment, hence the double dipping statement.

By Kevin Finnegan (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

@5: I have rarely received a doctor or dentist's bill where insurance fully covered everything. How about you? The problem you're discussing is the same problem hospitals have had for years; the actual operating costs are higher than [fees to customers + insurance coverage]. The states and federal government often makes up the difference because they think that's better public policy than either shutting down facilities or raising the cost of services to customers. The same reasoning applies here. So, do you consider federal and state supplemental funding of hospitals "double dipping"?

I think we’re moving in the right direction:

“On Friday, Arkansas became the fifth state to try to cut off state money by ending its contract with Planned Parenthood for services to residents covered by Medicaid, the health insurance program for the poor jointly run by states and the federal government. Arkansas follows Louisiana, Alabama, Utah and New Hampshire. The actions would not take effect until September, pending a period for appeal.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/18/us/states-move-to-cut-funds-for-plann…

By See Noevo (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

You beleive that states violating federal law, by restricting individuals who have coverage through Medicaid from receiving care from a qualified provider, is moving in the right direction?

Really?

I'm curious, though: how exactly does Arkansas plan to fill the gap in available health care services (such as cancer screening and prevention) that defunding Planned Parenthood will create?

#5 because at least 13% of population is still uninsured and while the ACA does mandate certain coverage it does not mandate all of the reproductive jheath coverage that a women might need, at least not fully.

@7: As JGC said, they're violating federal law. Conservatives already tried this in Indiana and Arizona, and lost. It is illegal to prevent a medicare recipient from getting covered services from any qualified provider.

Though its a nice double-whammy: Kevin insists health insurance reimbursements ought to cover all their operating expenses, while SN insists the largest health insurance plan can't be used to reimburse them.

SN believes abortion is wrong, but I wondering what authority he is basing this on. Can you quote me any Bible chapter and verse on “life begins at conception” and “abortion is murder”? This wasn’t the case in Judaism – or is this just something some pope made up a couple of years ago. And if it is the latter, then why won't SN accept evolution?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

If he can he hasn't bothered to, despite being challenged to do so over at respectful Insolence. See also, of course, ignores all Bible verses (Exodus 21:22, Leviticus 27;6, Numbers 3:15-16) that argue against 'human from conception'.

SN believes abortion is wrong, but I wondering what authority he is basing this on

His own irrationality. Note that he also believes that birth control is wrong, that women who have sex without the intention of getting pregnant are evil, and people who are poor have nobody to blame but themselves and shouldn't receive help. Those things combined show why he wants PP to close.

Kevin Finnegan #5: Why should Planned Parenthood still get funding so a women can get these services that are now covered under ACA?

What? What you are saying is essentially, "Since I have auto insurance, I don't need access to a repair shop."

Obamacare takes care of the source of funding by seeing to it that people get health insurance. PP provides clinics which actually supply services. So some of that ACA funding is going to PP for providing the services.

By Bayesian Bouff… (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

It is hopeless misogyny masquerading as concern about "innocent" babies, but are they so innocent? Why be against birth control and HPV vaccination if not just straight up misogyny?

Here is a conservative Christian view from the mission statement of Cedarville U.:

The first humans, Adam and Eve, were directly created, not evolved from previous life forms. God created humans, male and female, in His image. Human life, sexual identity and roles are aspects of God’s creative design. From creation, marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman that should be marked by sexual purity, by sacrificial male leadership, and by recognizing the divine blessing of children, including preborn children. Adam and Eve, though created in perfection, sinned, warranting physical death, spiritual death, and eternal separation from God. Consequently, all human beings are born with a sinful nature, and are sinners in thought, word, and deed.

A couple of things "sexual purity"? What the hell does that mean? Sacrificial male leadership? WTF? Are these people serious?

Shouldn't it be "all humans are conceived with a sinful nature? Those parasitic blastulae arise from sex! - naked writhing bodies (oh my!) - and are only thinking of themselves - stealing nourishment from another human. Do you think they believe in God? hardly.

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

how exactly does Arkansas plan to fill the gap in available health care services (such as cancer screening and prevention) that defunding Planned Parenthood will create?

Eh, it's just poor people...why even worry about filling it?

"Are these people serious?"

Seriously crazy. We had a noticeable contingent here in West Michigan working against same sex marriage with these "facts"
- marriage is meaningful only when the couple has children
- people in same sex relationships cannot have children
- therefore, people in same sex relationships should not be allowed to marry

They seemed convinced by their own arguments, even while others who were against same sex marriage were saying "you aren't helping - stfu!"

You can't overestimate the dulling influence of of extremist religious faith on intellect

But when you ask them "So you're arguing we should also deny opposite-sex couples where one or both partners are infertile, orwhere they've chosen not to bear children, recognition as partners in civi matrimony as well?" they remain curiously silent...

“So you’re arguing we should also deny opposite-sex couples where one or both partners are infertile, orwhere they’ve chosen not to bear children, recognition as partners in civi matrimony as well?” they remain curiously silent…

Not always. Some here said they think that people who choose not to have children shouldn't be considered married in the way families with children are. It was a little more touchy on people who marry in later years: some said that was acceptable, some didn't say anything. A common answer was "infertile doesn't mean they'll never have children" followed by anecdotes about people they allegedly knew who didn't thing they could have children but eventually did.
Not sane answers to any of it, but you don't expect reason from them.

If one believes in miracles and a God that can do anything, why not believe same sex couples can have children? Why limit your God in this way? Not to mention same sex can have children through adoption, sperm donors and surrogates.....

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 19 Aug 2015 #permalink

I've always found it strange that Christians are so committed to the "life begins at conception" concept, since the Bible clearly states a numbe of times that life begins when air is breathed in through the nostrils.

By Ashley Moore (not verified) on 20 Aug 2015 #permalink

A common answer was “infertile doesn’t mean they’ll never have children” followed by anecdotes about people they allegedly knew who didn’t thing they could have children but eventually did.

There's a difference between think and know (in our case we know we'll never have children biologically because my wife has had a hsyterectomy). When i ask them if my marriage should not have been recognized about all they can come up with is "That's different' without being able to explain why it's different..

Abortion must be illegal and the goverment should control selling of body parts.

By Ahmed wadaa (not verified) on 20 Aug 2015 #permalink

Abortion must be illegal and the goverment should control the selling of body parts.

By Ahmed wadaa (not verified) on 20 Aug 2015 #permalink

Why must abortion be made illegal, Ahmed?

@23: because you're not gay, of course. The veneer of justification is applied after the anti-gay conclusion is reached.

To Ashley Moore #22:

“I’ve always found it strange that Christians are so committed to the “life begins at conception” concept, since the Bible clearly states a numbe of times that life begins when air is breathed in through the nostrils.”

That’s because you’re not aware that Christianity comes from the Church (and the common sense) founded by its Namesake.

By See Noevo (not verified) on 20 Aug 2015 #permalink

That’s because you’re not aware that Christianity comes from the Church (and the common sense) founded by its Namesake.

If we were going to accurately name these various religious traditions after their founder, shouldn't we be calling them "Paulianity', adn their adherents 'Paulians'? It's his attitudes and philosophy what we know as 'Christianity' most closely reflects, after all--not Jesus'.

And when did the Church decide life began at conception? Last week? And on what basis?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 20 Aug 2015 #permalink

"This is what the Lord says-- your Redeemer, WHO FORMED YOU IN THE WOMB: I am the Lord, the Maker of all things, who stretches out the heavens, who spreads out the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24).

"For You created my inmost being; You knit me together IN MY MOTHER'S WOMB" (Psalm 139:13).

@31 and @32: I'm glad to hear that's what you think. Please make sure your honest motivation is represented in court. We can both agree that nobody should lie about their reasons for opposing a law in court, right?

Vessel, So? Then why did this same God kill so many babies and pregnant women?

By Michael Fugate (not verified) on 20 Aug 2015 #permalink

Vessel, the vereses you offer support a deity's involvement in an ongoing process of development following conception, but does not support the premise that what is developing represents a human being from the conception onward. They certainly aren't sufficient to counter Exodus 21:22, Leviticus 27;6 and Numbers 3:15-16 strong statements rebutting biblical support for ‘human from conception’

To See Noevo #28:

"That’s because you’re not aware that Christianity comes from the Church (and the common sense) founded by its Namesake."

I'm well aware of the history of the Christianity. On many topics, Christians look to the Bible for guidance (I'm surprised you were unaware of that). Especially Protestants who tend to disavow historical Catholic theological decisions and focus on using scripture directly.

Abortion is one of the topics where they seem to ignore what's in the Bible and rely of "common sense" as you call it.

By Ashley Moore (not verified) on 21 Aug 2015 #permalink

I really find that the notion that lief begins at conception quite humorous. Consider that 1/2 of all fertilized eggs fail to implant and are spontaneously aborted and the some 20% of eggs that do implant are spontaneously aborted. This makes god the world's greatest abortionist, according to this logic.

By colnago80 (not verified) on 30 Aug 2015 #permalink