First, a quick background. Last year, congress appropriated over $317 Million to Title X, a program that was designed to "provide access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to all who want and need them," with priority given to low-income women (Source). Republicans in the House of Representatives are supporting a bill that would drop this number from $317 Million to zero, and on top of that would prevent Planned Parenthood from receiving any public funding, whatsoever.
So this is what I have heard from a few peers of mine that I think needs correcting: "I support this bill because it would prevent public funding for abortions." Now I don't mind if they support the bill, as long as they know what it's about. But...there's one fatal flaw in the part of that statement that follows the "because." Federal funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood cannot be used to finance abortions. Given the heated pro-life/pro-choice debate, Congress has long ensured that this be the case. So this might prompt a few questions.
Question 1: So, if the bill doesn't prevent public funds from being used for abortions, what does it prevent those funds from being used for? These are the services that would lose funding: family planning (access to contraceptives, as well as counseling to help people determine how many children they want to have, and how far apart to have them), screening for HIV/counseling for those who contract it, cancer screenings, and sex education. Planned Parenthood also claims that every dollar spent to provide contraceptives to low-income women saves the federal government 4 dollars in future medical care that results from unwanted pregnancies. Supporters of the bill have not yet proposed what alternative methods would be used (if any) to provide contraceptives to low-income women.
Question 2: If not to prevent funds for abortion, why do republicans claim they want to cut funding for Planned Parenthood? Well, video tapes have been released that supposedly show employees answering questions posed by a sex-trafficker about how he could get care for underage prostitutes. Some Republicans claim that this incident is only part of the larger problem of a fraudulent, abusive organization. Planned Parenthood claims the tapes are misleading and the case is isolated, but also pledged to retrain employees to ensure they report all cases of threats to minors to the police.
If the bill passes through the House, many have postured that it is unlikely that the bill will pass through the Senate, which has a slight Democratic majority. But even though the bill may not pass, it's still important we understand what exactly is being proposed, and perhaps more important to clear up, what isn't being proposed.
Source
Editing note: On 2/24/11 I changed the statement: "Public funding cannot be used to finance abortions" to: "Federal funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood cannot be used to finance abortions," as the original statement was misleading.
US government doesn’t spend money on abortions, really?
ReplyDeleteOur current president voided the policy prohibiting US AID from going to international abortions. According to the Congressional Research Service, “In 1984, President Ronald Reagan issued what has become known as the “Mexico City policy,” which required foreign non-governmental organizations receiving USAID family planning assistance to certify that they would not perform or actively promote abortion as a method of family planning, even if such activities were conducted with non-U.S. funds.. It was rescinded by President Barack Obama in January 2009 and remains a controversial issue in U.S. foreign assistance” (Blanchfield, 2010, summary section, para. 3).
Now let’s look at domestic spending on abortion. First I want to make the statement that the government should spend money on court abortions and when using restrictive policy (danger to mother’s life, rape and incest). It’s the use of government money on non-restrictive abortions that gets me questioning. Here is the summery generated by the Guttmacher Institute (2008): law requires federal Medicaid funds to be used to terminate only those pregnancies that threaten the life of the woman or are the result of rape or incest. In 2006, 17 states officially had nonrestrictive policies, using their own funds to pay for most or all medically necessarily abortions (53,381) provided to Medicaid recipients. So, based on the survey it looks like the federal government was never billed for an elective abortion, just the state government. It’s a good thing my state doesn’t receive any federal money to prevent state bankruptcy that could possibly be used to fund state healthcare costs (no wait they do).
Even if title X is discontinued, the majority of federal funding for family planning still exists. According to the Guttmacher Institute (2008) only 12% of family planning funding comes from Title X, and 70 % of family planning funding comes from Medicaid. Although Medicaid is run by each state, Medicaid is a joint federal-state program since matching funding comes from the federal government.
Now I am not necessary against them paying for abortions, and I am not sure that title X should be cut. But the budget is way out of control and the only way to curb spending is to axe on the big four areas: Pensions, Health Care, Education, and Defense. Although I would much rather reform our defense and eliminate pensions (it’s the 21st century people, why hasn’t the car industry and the government switched from the unsustainable union pension model to a private 401K like the rest of America?), heath care costs need to be curbed. The reality is old people vote and unfortunately youth does not, so if healthcare services are going to be cut, it’s on young adults, not geriatric prescription drug coverages.
Blanchfield, Luisa. (2010). Abortion and family planning-related provisions in U.S. foreign assistance legislation and policy. Report number R41360. Congressional Research Service. http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/R41360_20100806.pdf
Sonfield, A., Alrich, C., & Gold, R.B. (2008). Public funding for family planning, sterilization
and abortion services, FY 1980–2006, No. 38. Occasional Report, New York: Guttmacher Institute. http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/2008/01/28/or38.pdf
Thank you for your well-researched response, Ryan H.
ReplyDeleteFirst, I will address US funding for international abortions. According to the Congressional Report you cited, amendments prior to the Mexico Policy already restricted the use of federal funds going directly to abortion services. The Mexico Policy restricted the organizations that received US federal funding from using their *own* money or money received from *other* organizations (not the US government) from being used for voluntary abortions (Bainfield, 2010, p.11 paragraph 4). Therefore, by rescinding the Mexico Policy, Obama was only allowing those organizations that receive US Aid to provide abortions using non-US funds. So, in short, US funds still cannot be used to fund international abortions.
Moving on to domestic policy. You're absolutely right, I oversimplified when I said public funding cannot be used to finance abortions. What I should have said was: federal funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood cannot be used to finance abortions.
Still, I remain by my claim that by cutting funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood, the US House of Representatives would not be making any changes in public funding for abortion. The money that goes to Title X and Planned Parenthood is not used to finance abortions. As you pointed out, it is Medicaid that finances abortions in cases of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. Therefore, it is still incorrect when I hear people say "I support the bill because it would prevent public funding for abortions." And that was the main point of the post.
Like you, I was not trying to say whether or not funding for Title X should be cut, but I just want to be sure people know what exactly cutting that funding is taking money from. If someone said they supported cutting funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood in order to take steps toward balancing the budget, then I think that is a completely valid argument that deserves to be debated. And I think that the percentages you quoted (only 12% of family funding is provided by title X, 70% comes from medicaid) could strengthen that argument because one might claim that cutting funding for Title X would not significantly impact family planning services. A good debate would address whether or not that would be the case. But, like I mentioned, if someone says they support cutting funding for Title X and Planned Parenthood in order to prevent public funding from going to abortion, then I find that argument holds no value because it is simply untrue
Hey Caitlyn, I'm excited about this blog, keep it up!!!
ReplyDeleteSo, first... I'm impressed with how you answered Ryan's post... you're good at this blog thing.
So, I want to analyze our country's political stance on abortions. To me, it's obvious we're "pro-life" (except in the cases of rape/incest). We used to say that we wouldn't fund another country if ANY(?) funds were used for abortions. NOW we say we won't let OUR funds go toward abortions in another country (even if they are predominantly pro-choice).... In my opinion, this was a bad move by Pres. Obama. Not only does it still maintain a pro-life stance (i.e. non-neutral), but it says that our country is going to "relax" on our policy and allow our funds to aid those "pro-choice" countries. This ties in with my second point--
I've worked with a sex education group for the last few months (not Planned Parenthood) and I understand a little bit of where funding comes from. Let's suppose you have 2 major groups that supply funding, Governmental and Non-Governmental. Now, if the Govt. gives money to an organization that provides abortions (even if those specific funds aren't used for abortions), that enables that same organization to perform abortions because it can use more of the funding from the Non-Govt. pool. It's all about accountability. If you want to buy a motorcycle but your family (Gov) will only give you enough money for room and board, you could still get that motorcycle if you have other sources of income (Non-Gov)... In that respect, you could rationalize that your family is aiding in your acquiring a motorcycle, because they are taking care of your primary "wants" so that you can fulfill your secondary "wants".
Basically, if the Govt. gives money to an organization that supports something that the Govt. disagrees with, the Govt. is supporting that cause, regardless of where THEIR money is going.
Right? Let me know if I'm mistaken, I didn't read every word of every post on this..
Hey John, glad you like the blog! And thanks for commenting, it's great to get feedback.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think our government's position on abortion is incredibly confusing. I think that the policy of not allowing funds to be directly used for elective abortions is *intended* to be neutral. However,I can definitely see how it can come across as both pro-life and pro-choice. I think that the idea is: by not allowing the federal funds to be directly used for abortions they are attempting to not pass any judgment on a federal level and allow states to make that decision on their own. But, like you mentioned, some people may see a lack of funding as taking a pro-life stance. Moreover, the Mexico Policy of not allowing organizations receiving US funds to use non-US funds towards abortion definitely came across as pro-life, and as it was put forth in an executive statement by Reagan this is not necessarily surprising. However, as both you and Ryan mentioned, some of the federal funds *indirectly* finance abortions. Ryan mentioned that certain states receive money to prevent bankruptcy, and that those funds may be used to finance health care costs. And as you perfectly described, by receiving federal funds for non-abortion procedures, that frees up non-federal funds to be used on abortions. Without those federal funds, the non-federal funds would have to be used for the essential and more basic procedures, which may lead to those organizations not being able to afford to perform abortions.
So, while I try not to make assumptions about intentions of individuals when those intentions are not directly spelled out, I do not think it's a huge leap to assume that some Republicans may hope that by cutting funding for title X and Planned Parenthood, many organizations will no longer be able to afford to perform elective abortions. However, Planned Parenthood claims that abortions only make up 3% of their budget, so it might actually be possible for them to continue to perform abortions using private funding if they can cut back in other areas.