The Unseen Costs of Defunding Planned Parenthood
Monday, 21 September 2015 00:00 By Katie Klabusich, Truthout | Report
Planned Parenthood supporters during a rally across the street from the
Louisiana Governor's mansion to protest a plan to defund the organization in
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 20, 2015. Cutting funds would deny health
care to thousands of low-income patients relying on Medicaid that other
doctors will not treat, in addition to tackling public health issues.
(Edmund D. Fountain/The New York Times)
The US House approved the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 (HR 3134) in
a vote of 241-187, on September 18, which, if enacted, could result in as
many as 650,000 Americans losing access to preventative care, and
potentially several thousand more unintended pregnancies being carried to
term, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
"To the extent that there would be reductions in access to care under HR
3134, they would affect services that help women avert pregnancies," the CBO
reported. "The people most likely to experience reduced access to care would
probably reside in areas without access to other health care clinics or
medical practitioners who serve low-income populations."
Reproductive rights and justice groups widely condemned the vote to reduce
the reach of a reproductive health-care network that one-fifth of US women
rely on at some point in their lives - to say nothing of the non-binary and
trans people who trust Planned Parenthood because of the way our health-care
system routinely fails the majority of those patients.
"It is unconscionable that politicians in Congress continue to play this
game of keep-away with women's basic health-care services," said Nancy
Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Without
access to critical health care offered at Planned Parenthood clinics across
the US, the lives and health of countless women will be at grave risk."
"This bill is especially dangerous because anti-choice Republicans are
framing it as a 'compromise': cutting off funding for one year, supposedly
to give Congress time to conduct more witch-hunt-style investigations and
avoid a government shutdown," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL
Pro-Choice America, in a statement supporting Planned Parenthood. "It's
deviously brilliant because they know if they can cut off funding for one
year, it'll be nearly impossible to get that funding restored."
The Republican leadership is attempting to strip Title X funding - which
provides contraception and preventative care to low-income patients - from
Planned Parenthood because they disapprove of abortion care. Abortion is a
mere 3 percent of the reproductive health-care organization's services and
the Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding from going to abortion,
but that isn't stopping legislators from going after the $60 million Planned
Parenthood receives under Title X.
This motivation was made clear by an unexpected "present" vote from Rep.
Steve King (R-Iowa) who felt the legislation didn't go far enough.
"The funding fight starts now - this is our marker - HR 3134 is not a
sufficient vote to defund Planned Parenthood," said King in a statement. "I
expect much stronger language than this in the CR coming up in the next few
weeks. Innocent, unborn babies deserve more than just a show vote."
Because those who would lose access are primarily low-income Americans, the
resulting unintended pregnancies and live births would largely be covered by
Medicaid funds at an average of $20,716 per birth, according to the
Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that studies and
reports on sexual and reproductive health and rights. In 2010 alone, family
planning funding saved the government an estimated $15.5 billion in
unintended pregnancy costs. This clear benefit is why Title X was
uncontroversial when President Nixon signed it into law in 1970.
"It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family
planning assistance because of her economic condition," Nixon declared at
the time.
But now, despite 71 percent of voters preferring to have Planned Parenthood
funded rather than risk a government shut down - which cost the economy $24
billion last time according to Standard & Poor's - House leadership and the
GOP presidential front-runners continue to support the legislation, which
could result in just such a stalemate.
Shutting down the government is expensive. Meanwhile, the programs the House
is attempting to cut are extremely cost-effective. According to Guttmacher,
current investments in family planning services - contraception, STI testing
etc. - save taxpayers an estimated $15.8 billion and prevent 760,000
abortions every year, making the focus on eliminating these services
contrary to the GOP's supposed motivation. An additional $15 billion could
be saved by expanding services, and further reducing the number of
unintended pregnancies.
Even the underlying misguided motivation to prevent federal funding for
abortion care is unpopular. Polling done in anticipation of the Equal Access
to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act being introduced this summer
found that even 62 percent of Republican voters agree with the statement:
"As long as abortion is legal, the amount of money a woman has or does not
have should not prevent her from being able to have an abortion."
The good news for the majority of Americans who support continued funding
for Planned Parenthood is that even if this legislation could become law,
the $390 million that is sent through the Medicaid program would be left in
place. Because only $60 million is on the table, the GOP would only be able
to take back 0.00001136 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget.
Not only is the House leadership willing to spend billions shutting down the
government over this minuscule sum, but they're also allowing programs like
the Child Nutrition Act to potentially expire because they're spending time
debating contraception coverage rather than ensuring funds are properly
allocated for programs, including School Breakfast, National School Lunch,
Child and Adult Care Food, Summer Food Service, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Program and WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children).
This focus on punishing an organization for a small percentage of what they
do rather than tending to other legislative business explains why Planned
Parenthood is so much more popular than the GOP. According to an NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll, Planned Parenthood has a total positive
rating of 45 percent (a fairly predictable party line split) versus a 28
percent positive rating for the Republican Party.
Though the Planned Parenthood funding vote got the majority of the
attention, it wasn't the only anti-reproductive health-care legislation to
pass the House last week.
"In a separate effort to choke off essential reproductive health care, the
House also passed HR 3504 today, a measure introduced by Congressman Trent
Franks (R-AZ) which would amend the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002 by adding new criminal penalties against doctors," said Northrup of the
Center for Reproductive Rights. "In addition to criminalizing physicians for
providing constitutionally protected health services, HR 3504 also mandates
vague new requirements on how physicians must care for their patients."
The Senate is also considering spending the final hours before the budget is
due debating anti-abortion legislation - most likely their version of the
20-week ban already passed by the House.
"Senator McConnell's already talked about some pro-life legislation he'll be
filing for cloture on at the end of next week," Senate Majority Whip John
Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters on September 10.
These bills aren't just about cost to tax payers and a possible reduction in
access to reproductive health care; they add to a hostile climate across the
country. States have enacted 51 new abortion restrictions this year,
bringing the total number of anti-abortion bills passed since 2010 to 282.
Every piece of anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation enacted puts
access further and further out of reach.
As Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts) said during the floor debate on
September 18, "If we pass this bill, we tell low-income families in this
country that we count their health and happiness less."
"Today's vote was about one thing: the ability of American women and their
families to access basic health care. Every day, across our country,
thousands of women, men, and children show up at Planned Parenthood's doors
for cancer screenings, diagnostic tests, family planning and other essential
health services they otherwise could not access or afford," Kennedy
continued. "Eighty percent of the patients who this organization serves have
incomes at or below 150 percent of the poverty line. Over half of Planned
Parenthood centers are in regions with a shortage of health care
professionals, or in a rural or underserved community. It is those
communities and families - already underserved, already struggling to access
care, already fighting to make ends meet - that my Republican colleagues
turned their backs on today."
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
KATIE KLABUSICH
Katie Klabusich is a writer and host of "The Katie Speak Show" on Netroots
Radio. You can find her work at Rolling Stone, Mic, RH Reality Check and
Bitch Magazine. Follow her on Twitter at @Katie_Speak.
RELATED STORIES
Planned Parenthood
By Khalil Bendib, OtherWords | Political Image
Abortion Providers Are Heroes: In Defense of Abortion On Demand and Without
Apology
By Dennis Trainor Jr, AcronymTV | Video Report
Planned Parenthood Vote Highlights the GOP's Broken Moral Compass
By Andrea Flynn, Next New Deal | Op-Ed
________________________________________
Show Comments
Hide Comments
<a href="http://truthout.disqus.com/?url=ref";>View the discussion
thread.</a>
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
The Unseen Costs of Defunding Planned Parenthood
Monday, 21 September 2015 00:00 By Katie Klabusich, Truthout | Report
. font size Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink
reference not valid.
. Planned Parenthood supporters during a rally across the street from
the Louisiana Governor's mansion to protest a plan to defund the
organization in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, August 20, 2015. Cutting funds would
deny health care to thousands of low-income patients relying on Medicaid
that other doctors will not treat, in addition to tackling public health
issues. (Edmund D. Fountain/The New York Times)
. This story could not have been published without the support of
readers like you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to Truthout
and fund more stories like it!
The US House approved the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 (HR 3134) in
a vote of 241-187, on September 18, which, if enacted, could result in as
many as 650,000 Americans losing access to preventative care, and
potentially several thousand more unintended pregnancies being carried to
term, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO).
"To the extent that there would be reductions in access to care under HR
3134, they would affect services that help women avert pregnancies," the CBO
reported. "The people most likely to experience reduced access to care would
probably reside in areas without access to other health care clinics or
medical practitioners who serve low-income populations."
Reproductive rights and justice groups widely condemned the vote to reduce
the reach of a reproductive health-care network that one-fifth of US women
rely on at some point in their lives - to say nothing of the non-binary and
trans people who trust Planned Parenthood because of the way our health-care
system routinely fails the majority of those patients.
"It is unconscionable that politicians in Congress continue to play this
game of keep-away with women's basic health-care services," said Nancy
Northup, president and CEO of the Center for Reproductive Rights. "Without
access to critical health care offered at Planned Parenthood clinics across
the US, the lives and health of countless women will be at grave risk."
"This bill is especially dangerous because anti-choice Republicans are
framing it as a 'compromise': cutting off funding for one year, supposedly
to give Congress time to conduct more witch-hunt-style investigations and
avoid a government shutdown," said Ilyse Hogue, president of NARAL
Pro-Choice America, in a statement supporting Planned Parenthood. "It's
deviously brilliant because they know if they can cut off funding for one
year, it'll be nearly impossible to get that funding restored."
The Republican leadership is attempting to strip Title X funding - which
provides contraception and preventative care to low-income patients - from
Planned Parenthood because they disapprove of abortion care. Abortion is a
mere 3 percent of the reproductive health-care organization's services and
the Hyde Amendment already prohibits federal funding from going to abortion,
but that isn't stopping legislators from going after the $60 million Planned
Parenthood receives under Title X.
This motivation was made clear by an unexpected "present" vote from Rep.
Steve King (R-Iowa) who felt the legislation didn't go far enough.
"The funding fight starts now - this is our marker - HR 3134 is not a
sufficient vote to defund Planned Parenthood," said King in a statement. "I
expect much stronger language than this in the CR coming up in the next few
weeks. Innocent, unborn babies deserve more than just a show vote."
Because those who would lose access are primarily low-income Americans, the
resulting unintended pregnancies and live births would largely be covered by
Medicaid funds at an average of $20,716 per birth, according to the
Guttmacher Institute, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that studies and
reports on sexual and reproductive health and rights. In 2010 alone, family
planning funding saved the government an estimated $15.5 billion in
unintended pregnancy costs. This clear benefit is why Title X was
uncontroversial when President Nixon signed it into law in 1970.
"It is my view that no American woman should be denied access to family
planning assistance because of her economic condition," Nixon declared at
the time.
But now, despite 71 percent of voters preferring to have Planned Parenthood
funded rather than risk a government shut down - which cost the economy $24
billion last time according to Standard & Poor's - House leadership and the
GOP presidential front-runners continue to support the legislation, which
could result in just such a stalemate.
Shutting down the government is expensive. Meanwhile, the programs the House
is attempting to cut are extremely cost-effective. According to Guttmacher,
current investments in family planning services - contraception, STI testing
etc. - save taxpayers an estimated $15.8 billion and prevent 760,000
abortions every year, making the focus on eliminating these services
contrary to the GOP's supposed motivation. An additional $15 billion could
be saved by expanding services, and further reducing the number of
unintended pregnancies.
Even the underlying misguided motivation to prevent federal funding for
abortion care is unpopular. Polling done in anticipation of the Equal Access
to Abortion Coverage in Health Insurance Act being introduced this summer
found that even 62 percent of Republican voters agree with the statement:
"As long as abortion is legal, the amount of money a woman has or does not
have should not prevent her from being able to have an abortion."
The good news for the majority of Americans who support continued funding
for Planned Parenthood is that even if this legislation could become law,
the $390 million that is sent through the Medicaid program would be left in
place. Because only $60 million is on the table, the GOP would only be able
to take back 0.00001136 percent of the $3.8 trillion federal budget.
Not only is the House leadership willing to spend billions shutting down the
government over this minuscule sum, but they're also allowing programs like
the Child Nutrition Act to potentially expire because they're spending time
debating contraception coverage rather than ensuring funds are properly
allocated for programs, including School Breakfast, National School Lunch,
Child and Adult Care Food, Summer Food Service, Fresh Fruit and Vegetable
Program and WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants
and Children).
This focus on punishing an organization for a small percentage of what they
do rather than tending to other legislative business explains why Planned
Parenthood is so much more popular than the GOP. According to an NBC
News/Wall Street Journal poll, Planned Parenthood has a total positive
rating of 45 percent (a fairly predictable party line split) versus a 28
percent positive rating for the Republican Party.
Though the Planned Parenthood funding vote got the majority of the
attention, it wasn't the only anti-reproductive health-care legislation to
pass the House last week.
"In a separate effort to choke off essential reproductive health care, the
House also passed HR 3504 today, a measure introduced by Congressman Trent
Franks (R-AZ) which would amend the Born Alive Infants Protection Act of
2002 by adding new criminal penalties against doctors," said Northrup of the
Center for Reproductive Rights. "In addition to criminalizing physicians for
providing constitutionally protected health services, HR 3504 also mandates
vague new requirements on how physicians must care for their patients."
The Senate is also considering spending the final hours before the budget is
due debating anti-abortion legislation - most likely their version of the
20-week ban already passed by the House.
"Senator McConnell's already talked about some pro-life legislation he'll be
filing for cloture on at the end of next week," Senate Majority Whip John
Cornyn (R-Texas) told reporters on September 10.
These bills aren't just about cost to tax payers and a possible reduction in
access to reproductive health care; they add to a hostile climate across the
country. States have enacted 51 new abortion restrictions this year,
bringing the total number of anti-abortion bills passed since 2010 to 282.
Every piece of anti-abortion and anti-contraception legislation enacted puts
access further and further out of reach.
As Rep. Joe Kennedy III (D-Massachusetts) said during the floor debate on
September 18, "If we pass this bill, we tell low-income families in this
country that we count their health and happiness less."
"Today's vote was about one thing: the ability of American women and their
families to access basic health care. Every day, across our country,
thousands of women, men, and children show up at Planned Parenthood's doors
for cancer screenings, diagnostic tests, family planning and other essential
health services they otherwise could not access or afford," Kennedy
continued. "Eighty percent of the patients who this organization serves have
incomes at or below 150 percent of the poverty line. Over half of Planned
Parenthood centers are in regions with a shortage of health care
professionals, or in a rural or underserved community. It is those
communities and families - already underserved, already struggling to access
care, already fighting to make ends meet - that my Republican colleagues
turned their backs on today."
Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission.
Katie Klabusich
Katie Klabusich is a writer and host of "The Katie Speak Show" on Netroots
Radio. You can find her work at Rolling Stone, Mic, RH Reality Check and
Bitch Magazine. Follow her on Twitter at @Katie_Speak.
Related Stories
Planned Parenthood
By Khalil Bendib, OtherWords | Political ImageAbortion Providers Are Heroes:
In Defense of Abortion On Demand and Without Apology
By Dennis Trainor Jr, AcronymTV | Video ReportPlanned Parenthood Vote
Highlights the GOP's Broken Moral Compass
By Andrea Flynn, Next New Deal | Op-Ed
Show Comments
