Holly Wampler L100 Final Research Paper December 18, 2015 The Dangers of Defunding Planned Parenthood Due to the clash of moral, scientific and freedom principles, abortion is perhaps one of the most polarizing social issues in contemporary discourse. In the midst of heated debates about abortion and government spending on publicly funded family planning programs, fingers often point to Planned Parenthood as the common enemy and rally cries to defund the organization ensue. However, Planned Parenthood is a vital social health care service that offers birth control, preventative screenings, and sexually transmitted disease treatment to low income or uninsured individuals. Defunding Planned Parenthood would result in disastrous repercussions for the health of the disadvantaged, the economy, and the quality of life of all women. Two landmark pieces of legislation have given Planned Parenthood both the license as well as the economic allowance to exist and function within our society: the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade and Title X. In 1970, conservative president Richard Nixon enacted Title X as a part of the Public Health Services Act (Title X Family Planning). Title X is the only federal funding program solely devoted to comprehensive family planning that encourages positive birth outcomes for low income or uninsured families (Title X Family Planning). Title X may have increase access preventative methods such as contraception in the equation of positive birth outcomes, but the taboo component of termination in the equation was left largely unanswered on a federal level. In 1973, a pregnant, single woman under the pseudonym Jane Roe challenged the constitutionality of Texas abortion laws that outlawed the procedure except in cases of rape or in a medical emergency that threatens the mother’s life. The Supreme Court found that Texas’ state laws of prohibiting abortion unless in the case of extreme circumstances
“violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects against the state action to privacy, including a woman’s qualified right to terminate her pregnancy” (Roe v Wade). However, the court also decided that a woman’s “constitutional right to an abortion was not absolute” (Roe v Wade). While Roe v Wade established abortion and a woman’s choice to pursue an abortion for any reason as constitutional, this court decision determined the parameters in which this procedure could be constitutional and the point at which the state has interest in human life. In doing this, the Supreme Court had to legally define a fetus’ viability as the point in which a fetus has the potential “to live outside a mother’s womb” under normal conditions (Roe v Wade), which would usually occur around 23 or 24 weeks into the pregnancy. Sixteen years following the decision of Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court’s decision in Webster v Reproductive Health Services narrowed the Roe v Wade decision and would ultimately pave the way to the defunding battle Planned Parenthood faces today. The Supreme Court upheld Missouri state law that restricted spending on the use of public funds and facilities for abortion services and related procedures by deeming them a state’s “value judgment” (Webster v Reproductive Health Services). The court found that: “Missouri’s decision to use public facilities and employees to encourage childbirth over abortion places no governmental obstacle in the path of a woman who chooses to terminate her pregnancy, but leaves her with the same choices as if the State had decided not to operate any hospitals at all” (Webster v Reproductive Health Services). Although this decision narrowly avoided overturning Roe v Wade by one vote, the Webster v Reproductive Health Services decision allowing states to restrict both a woman’s choice and access to abortions simply based on a “value judgment” sets the stage for the ways in which conservative politicians disenfranchise woman and adversely affect their futures based on their
own personal beliefs. As Justice Harry Blackmun so aptly foreshadowed in his dissenting statement, “I fear for the future…The signs are evident and ominous, and a chill wind blows” (Webster v Reproductive Health Services). And Blackmun could not have been more right. The Webster v Reproductive Services decision technically allows states to create obstacles such as waiting periods and mandatory counseling that limits a woman’s access and subverts her right to choose. Although states are not allowed under federal law to prohibit abortion, the conservative’s next best option is to shut down Planned Parenthood in the name of both morality and savings, neither of which arguments hold much water against economic and sociological data. Planned Parenthood currently has 59 local affiliates with 700 health care centers nationwide. 2.7 million men and women visit Planned Parenthood centers every year and more than 5 million lives are affected by the organization’s education and outreach initiatives (Planned Parenthood). Planned Parenthood offers preventative health care screenings, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, birth control, and counseling for individuals with Medicaid and without insurance. The organization does offer services to men, but the organization has the most profound impact on women’s lives and reproductive health. 1 in 5 women have visited Planned Parenthood at least once in their lifetime and the access to birth control prevents an estimated 516,000 unintended pregnancies every year (Planned Parenthood). Abortion services only constitute approximately 3 percent of Planned Parenthoods services (Planned Parenthood). These services also include counseling, so the percentage that includes the actual medical procedure is a fraction of the amount. In terms of funding, Planned Parenthood is prohibited by federal law from using government money to fund or subsidize abortion procedures. Additionally, 80% of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes from Medicaid reimbursement as opposed to up-front
federal allocation (Planned Parenthood). So the conservative claim that Planned Parenthood is “too expensive” or “uses federal money to fund abortions” is not only ill informed but outright false. Conservatives refute the risk of decreased or complete loss of access by rationalizing that a patient “could just go somewhere else” that isn’t federally funded. If Planned Parenthood were defunded, higher income individuals could easily find a different provider or a private alternative without much difficulty. However, defunding would leave millions of low income Americans seriously disadvantaged and without fair access to quality, preventative health care. The Congressional Office Budget estimated that approximately 25 percent of Planned Parenthood’s current clients would entirely lose access to care if the organization were defunded (Kliff). Even something seemingly insignificant as an increased distance from a low cost provider has negative health impact. In a study of the socioeconomic effects of family planning spending cuts in Texas and Wisconsin, economist David Klusky at the University of Kansas found that increasing an average patient’s distance to a family planning facility by 100 miles “leads to a 11 percent decline in breast exams and a 14 percent drop in pap smears” (Kliff). However, these declines in preventative health care were even more drastic amongst low income and low education demographics that may not have the means or transportation to make long trips for a routine check up. Although Planned Parenthood offers a myriad of health care services to disadvantaged and low-income communities, conservatives oppose the entirety of Planned Parenthood because the small percentage of abortion services conflicts with their moral beliefs. The crux of the prolife argument is that there are two lives at stake in an abortion procedure, both the mother and the unborn child. Pro-life advocates argue that a woman exercising her right to choose an abortion
infringes on a fetus’ right to live and consequentially leaves a fetus without a choice. However, inherent to this argument is the underlying assumption that life begins at conception or very early in the pregnancy. Although the Supreme Court defined viability in the Roe v Wade decision, there will always be controversy about when life truly begins in both a scientific and spiritual capacity. However, if these conservative politicians want to prevent women from getting abortions, defunding Planned Parenthood would actually be counterproductive. The lack of access to family planning resources and contraception would consequentially lead to a less educated and less protected population, thus increasing number of unplanned pregnancies. In a testimony given during Texas’ battle to defund Planned Parenthood, expert demographer Joseph Potter from the University of Texas explained, “You’re removing contraception with this [defunding], and if you remove contraception, you get unintended pregnancies, which means more abortion” (Marcus). It is likely that these unwanted pregnancies will either end in termination or an unwanted child. When a child grows up in substandard or hostile conditions, it not only damaging to their overall quality of life but also their psychological development. In the 2001 Quarterly Journal of Economics, economists John Donahue and Steven Levitt hypothesized that the 1973 Roe v Wade decision that legalized abortion contributed to the drastic drop in crime rates during the 1990’s. Roe v Wade allowed women who were unwilling, unprepared, or simply unable to provide for a child the choice to terminate their pregnancy. In their theory, Levitt and Donahue cited a 1999 study that found teenagers, unmarried women, and low income women were the most likely demographics to seek abortions as well as a 1996 study that found the children of these populations are more at risk to commit crimes during their teenage years (Donahue & Levitt, 2001). So when these demographics had control over the timing of their childbearing by accessing abortion services, these children that would have been at high risk to
fall into criminal patterns were simply not there to commit crimes in the 1990’s when they would have been at the peak risk range of 18 to 24 (Donahue & Levitt, 2001). State and federal crime statistics strongly support Levitt and Donahue’s theory. Oregon, Hawaii, New York, California, and Connecticut all legalized abortion procedures three years before it was legalized nationwide by Roe v Wade, and consequentially observed a drastic drop in crime rate three years before the rest of the country did (Donahue & Levitt, 2001). The ability of a woman to be a nurturer and a provider shifts throughout time and an abortion is a means for a woman to have control over when she brings a child into the world. When a woman is left without a choice and must go through with a pregnancy when she is neither willing nor prepared, the birth would be damaging to the lives of both the mother and the child. Both parties have an opportunity for a bright future under the best possible circumstances. Access to family planning and abortion services not only benefit an individual woman’s present and future, but also the present and future state of women’s position within society. In the court opinion of Planned Parenthood v Casey, the Court determined that “the ability of women to equally participate in the economic and social life of the Nation has been facilitated by their ability to control their reproductive lives” (Planned Parenthood v Casey, 1989). Motherhood requires a significant amount of physical, mental, and financial energy that may inadvertently force a woman to allocate energy away from her personal and professional development in favor of raising a child. In a survey conducted by the Guttmacher Institute, 63 percent of women reported that birth control had allowed them to take better care of themselves, and their families, 56 percent of women reported that birth control helped them financially, 50 percent of women reported that birth control helped them stay in school, complete their education, and advance their careers (Flynn). Additionally, the National Women’s Law Center found a 30 percent
increase of women in skilled career paths that require some level of graduate school, such as law and medicine, since the increase of birth control accessibility in the 1970’s (Flynn). Ultimately, birth control and abortions enabled women move out of the condemnation of the domestic sphere and into the workforce. The increased levels of education gave women a space to significantly contribute to society and the additional spending power from their income helped stimulate the economy. Federal funding for Planned Parenthood is a strategic investment in positive birth outcomes, preventative care, and the future of all American women. If the program were to be defunded, it would ultimately result in the government spending even more money on the back end to treat health problems that could have been detected early or prevented entirely by Planned Parenthood’s services. It is estimated for every dollar invested in publicly funded parent planning on the front end saves approximately $7.09 in public expenditures on the back end to treat health problems or care for unplanned pregnancies (Flynn). The government spends an average of $2.3 billion dollars of federal funds on public family planning programs that confers approximately 15 billion dollars in savings (Flynn). Because conservatives usually tout economic efficiency and streamlined policies, it is simply perplexing as to why these politicians refuse to acknowledge the economic advantages of Planned Parenthood despite the support of numerous studies and economic data. All the data shows that an investment in women is an investment in the future of our country, and there is absolutely nothing to be gained from disadvantaging women. Due to the blatant lack of statistic support in the conservative claim that the cost of funding Planned Parenthood outweighs its social and economic benefits, it seems as though the base of their opposition rests on the flimsy foundation of an unsubstantial religious argument. Religious freedom does in no way justify
systematically discriminating or oppressing women by depriving them of choice and access, especially in a nation that observes the separation of church and state. The pro-life advocates come from a short-sighted place of privilege, and would be more appropriately called pro-birth due to the fact that conservatives show little concern for the quality of life these children have after their births satisfy the conservative moral agendas. The battle cry to defund Planned Parenthood is a war on women and low-income populations that masquerades as a self-righteous moral crusade. Defunding Planned Parenthood not only undermines the economy and access to health care, but also the position of women in American society. Therefore, the existence of Planned Parenthood and a woman’s right to choose is absolutely vital to upholding the inherent human rights of all women and to shaping a world of equality.
Works Cited Donahue, John J., and Steven D. Levitt. "The Impact of Legalized Abortion on Crime." Quarterly Journal of Economics 116.2 (2001): 379-420. Web. Flynn, Andrea. "How Family Planning Helps the Economy and Women's Careers." The Atlantic. N.p., 17 Sept. 2015. Web. 17 Dec. 2015. <http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/planned-parenthood-economicbenefits/405922/>. Kliff, Sarah. "Stat Check: No, Women Couldn't Just "go Somewhere Else" If Planned Parenthood Closed." Vox, 04 Dec. 2015. Web. 17 Dec. 2015. <http://www.vox.com/2015/9/24/9373721/planned-parenthood-go-somewhere-else>. Marcus, Ruth. "Defunding Planned Parenthood Would Actually Increase Abortions." The Washington Post. N.p., 31 July 2015. Web. 17 Dec. 2015. "Planned Parenthood at a Glance." Planned Parenthood at a Glance. Planned Parenthood, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2015. <https://www.plannedparenthood.org/about-us/who-weare/planned-parenthood-at-a-glance>. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v Casey, Governor of Pennsylvania. Supreme Court. 29 June 1992. Planned Parenthood v Casey. Legal Information Institute, n.d. Web. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-744.ZS.html>. Roe v Wade. Supreme Court. 22 Jan. 1973. Legal Information Institute, Web. 17 Dec. 2015. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/410/113>. "Title X Family Planning." Office of Population Affairs. US Department of Human and Health Services, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2015. <http://www.hhs.gov/opa/title-x-family-planning/>.
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services. Supreme Court. 3 July 1989. Legal Information Institute, n.d. Web. 17 Dec. 2015. <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/492/490>.