Planned Parenthood: Just your friendly, neighborhood health clinic
Now, for those of you who think Planned Parenthood has every right to exist and do what it wants but should not receive a dime of federal money, I’d like to try to persuade you that that is in fact a pretty radical view if you were to take it consistently across the board.
The federal government funds all kinds of local and regional health-services providers. It provides funds to hospitals (except those that refuse federal funding like many Catholic hospitals), regional health clinics that treat all manner of illnesses and public-health issues, and state and local government facilities. Should the federal government stop funding all of those? …
And if you think that’s okay but funding for Planned Parenthood is not, well, why? Because of abortion? But no public funds go to pay for abortion. Public funds pay for breast-cancer and cervical-cancer screenings, and for other non-controversial family planning services – for mostly poor women, but for all women who need these services. Should the federal government not support that?
And if it should but not via PP, then why should PP be singled out? … PP receives just 11% of all federal family-planning dollars that are dispersed to clinics and hospitals across the US. So if PP should be X’d out, does that mean these other places should be too?
~Michael Tomasky, The Guardian, April 27
Hospitals are federally regulated in their practice if they accept medicare and medicaid patients.
Most religious run hospitals are in that group of federally funded institutions.
Planned parenthood offers no more than the TSA grope method of breast cancer screening. That is very cheap or free. ;-)
It would be an improvement for the federal government to remove itself further from health care than its status prior to Obamacare. With removal of funding could come removal of federal regulations. This would immediately lower the cost of health care.
Let the states and localities handle their own health care policies.
1 likes
No, the government should not support family planning. No federal monies should go to any organization which does abortions. At all. If that includes most hospitals, fine.
There, that was easy.
An alternate solution: No, Planned Parenthood should not be able to exist or do what it wants.
That was easy too.
0 likes
“TSA grope method of breast cancer screening”
Just ask your husband!
0 likes
“I’d like to try to persuade you that that is in fact a pretty radical view if you were to take it consistently across the board.”
The view is that taxpayer money shouldn’t be used to perform or subsidize abortions or the abortion industry. Since we’re striving for consistent application, I’m sure you’ll use relevant comparisons to demonstrate how radical this position is.
The federal government funds all kinds of local and regional health-services providers… Should the federal government stop funding all of those? …
Ooh, swing and a miss.
“And if it should but not via PP, then why should PP be singled out? Because of abortion?”
Ding ding – show him what he’s won! Stay focused now, you can do this!
“But no public funds go to pay for abortion. Public funds pay for breast-cancer and cervical-cancer screenings, and for other non-controversial family planning services”
At last – an attempt at a point. Unpersuasive, though. No public funds are used for abortion. They just pay for the facilities, utilities, staff, equipment and supplies that enable the biggest provider of abortion in the country to stay in business.
PP receives just 11% of all federal family-planning dollars that are dispersed to clinics and hospitals across the US
Relevancy…so elusive. The money PP receives is 1/3 of its operating budget. That provides a pretty nice cushion for all those low cost “non-objectionable” services that provide cover so they can say pay no attention to the man behind the curtain while we use the same building, staff and supplies to engage in our cash cow service.
So to sum up: The view that tax money shouldn’t subsidize abortion is actually really radical, b/c we fund non-abortion medical facilities. Why should we exclude a facility just b/c they provide abortions and can use this fungible money to subsidize it’s entire operation including facilities, staff and supplies? Ludicrous! Plus they don’t get that much of the total given out.
Persuasive.
1 likes
I’m not even going to bother responding to any of this guy’s points since they’ve all be responded to already. But I would like to reach through the computer screen and give him a really solid smack for not keeping up with those responses.
ETA: Also, CT’s response is much better than mine would’ve been. ;)
1 likes
“Planned parenthood offers no more than the TSA grope method of breast cancer screening.”
pharmer, you owe me a new keyboard — I was drinking coffee when I read that. Too funny.
0 likes
“But no public funds go to pay for abortion”
Towards what do the public funds go? Innocent things like paying staff, utility bills, building maintenance? Staff schedule abortions. Utilities provide light and heat for the rooms in which abortions are performed. Building maintenance takes care of the building in which abortions occur. Maybe no public funds pay *directly* for abortion, (what would that direct cost of an abortion be, anyway? Ten minutes of electricity to run a suction machine?) but public funds certainly could be indirectly abetting abortion.
1 likes
Again with the claim about breast cancer screening? Ugh. These people are thick.
1 likes
Oh hey guess what? Your own President, Cecile Richards, admitted that Planned Parenthood doesn’t provide mammograms and the “breast cancer screenings” are no more than little feel ups, easily done yourself or for free or cheap at other local clinics. Woops! Better rethink that one.
There are plenty of other clinics and hospitals that provide so-called “non controversial family planning services” and exams but that also don’t provide abortion.
Sorry, try again.
1 likes
Of course federal funds aren’t going to pay for Planned Parenthood abortions directly – Planned Parenthood makes a lot of money by selling abortion. Why would it need to be funded? PP sells abortions like a vendor sells peanuts at a baseball game.
It’s very simple – if your organization performs abortions, it should not get any public money.
0 likes
Let the states and localities handle their own health care policies.
How can they do this when many states and localities are broke?
0 likes
Just wanted to point out, the breast cancer that everyone is saying are just ‘feel ups’ are the same type done by oncologists to returning patients. I did a job shadow once with an oncologist, and not once during the whole day did she perform a mammogram. No, each breast exam was a ‘feel up’. When done by a doctor, these ‘feel ups’ result in discovering cancer or possible cancer at a much higher rate than a self exam or, as someone above said, having your husband do it.
PP provides these ‘feel ups’ at a low coast, whereas if one goes to an oncologist, it could cost one twice as much.
Yes, it is cheaper to do it yourself, but the American Cancer Society suggests having a doctor preform the same exact exam (called a clinical breast exam) at least every 3 years because early detection is key.
That’s all I had to say.
0 likes
About this guy who wrote the article – CLEARLY he does not get it. Pregnancy isn’t an illness that must be “cured” through abortion. All of his comparisons above are so far off the mark, it’s laughable. And as for our money not funding abortion, can you spell “fungible?”
11% of our country’s family planning funding goes to ONE organization – the so-called “non-profit” money making industry known as Planned Parenthood. That’s a big chunk when you think about it.
My OB (and any health department nurse) can do pap smears and breast exams (palpation is a better term than “feel up”), and PP has admitted that local health departments charge much less than they do for the same services.
What I find amazing is the fact that so many people are protesting the idea of federal funds being taken away from Planned Parenthood ONLY – but health departments will still be funded and can do the same things for patients, other than abortion. No one is taking away cancer screenings or Pap smears here. Those things would still be available – EVEN AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD. It’s just that our tax dollars wouldn’t pay for them. As it is, patients at PP don’t get free services, and the health dept. costs less.
1 likes
Kel –
It’s easy for him (the author of the article) to squawk, he’s not concerned with the U.S. budget because he’s living in England. I’d bet the author has never stood outside a Planned Parenthood on a day they do abortions and watched the pregnant girls streaming through the front door, then limping outside, crying in their boyfriend’s or mother’s arms.
1 likes
Annie, Planned Parenthood doesn’t want to admit that they only do TSA feel ups: they constantly lie that they provide mammograms, oh or is it “access to mammograms” which means they grope you and then tell you to go somewhere else to get your mammogram. PP doesn’t tell the truth about the groping, they lie, lie, lie and tell you that they provide “access to mammograms.”
Yeah, well, tell you what: I can provide access to transportation. Sure. Come to my house. I’ll look at your shoes, feel your feet, and then tell you, “Hey, there’s a car rental business two miles away.” See? I’ve just provided you with “Access to Transportation.” And for that I’m glad to accept $300,000,000 of your taxpayer money.
1 likes
Considering the fact that when I went to planned parenthood in “need of family planning services” and they turned me down because I knew I was pregnant and didn’t want an abortion. Yes we should single them out and not give them any taxpayer dollars. I then went to a privately funded Christian pregnancy clinic where they would have delivered my baby if I wanted them to.
1 likes
Scrap my earlier comment: I’d like three hundred trillion! Why? Because I can provide even more services:
I’ll provide more access to food. You come to my house hungry, then I’ll look you over with my eyes, then I’ll tell you: there’s a supermarket down the street.
Voila! I’ve provided access to food and transportation. Cha-ching!! Where’s my money??
Ok, I’m being silly. But what’s sillier? Me, or our government using my taxes to pay Cecile one dollar for each abortion she provides this year??
1 likes
PP should be singled out because many, many tapes show evidence that they are engaging in illegal activity. No, not abortion – I would agree that as long as abortion is legal it is difficult to argue for not funding it – but there is a systemic problem in which PP aides pedofiles and pimps to cover up their crimes. No other publicly funded HC facility that does that should receive tax dollars either.
0 likes
““And if it should but not via PP, then why should PP be singled out? Because of abortion?”
Ding ding – show him what he’s won! Stay focused now, you can do this!”
Oh? I thought the argument du jour against Planned Parenthood receiving federal funds is that it allegedly has acted in ways that do not perfectly comport with state “mandatory reporting” laws. But you seem to be quite candid about the real reason being exclusively about abortion, not illegal conduct. Certainly the whole argument about PP allegedly acting unlawfully isn’t just a very transparent subterfuge intended to (poorly) hide the real reason abortion opponents want it defunded?
“PP receives just 11% of all federal family-planning dollars that are dispersed to clinics and hospitals across the US
Relevancy…so elusive. The money PP receives is 1/3 of its operating budget. That provides a pretty nice cushion for all those low cost “non-objectionable” services that provide cover so they can say pay no attention to the man behind the curtain while we use the same building, staff and supplies to engage in our cash cow service.”
You (and others here) are awfully quick to discard this point and I’d like a better explanation for why this is. If Planned Parenthood indeed receives only 11% of all federal money dispersed to organizations that offer family-planning services, it shouldn’t matter to you if it uses its measly slice of that pie to fund 100% of its operating budget, much less one-third, because in absolute and relative terms, the other 89% is a considerably larger sum of money, and it’s being used in much the same way. So where’s the pro-life outrage over that?
0 likes
Yea because TSA screeners are Trained and Certified MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS!!!! Sure your husband can do a much better job of screening for breast cancer than a certified FEMALE nurse… Oh I forgot PP only hires janitors, hands then a vacuum and send them to work on our daughters…. Whatever!
The truth is that you guys hate abortion and will demonize anyone who provides this service no matter how much they help people with NO medical insurance… PP is just any easy target for your intolerance of the LAW!
0 likes
“I thought the argument du jour against Planned Parenthood receiving federal funds is that it allegedly has acted in ways that do not perfectly comport with state “mandatory reporting” laws.”
You’re wrong so often you should be a weatherperson, lol! I’t’s going to rain! It’s going to be sunny! The sky is plaid! Ok, I’m done being silly for now.
Some people do make that argument, but only you think it’s the argument of the day. Most of us, right here on Jill’s blog, have commented quite clearly that we don’t want our tax dollars used to kill American citizens via abortion.
1 likes
The truth is that you guys hate abortion and will demonize anyone who provides this service
Give this commentor a Klondike bar!! We’re finally making progress!!
Yes, Biggz, yes! We don’t like abortions at all ever, even if the abortionist saves puppies and gives abandonned bunny rabbits a good home after Easter!
And as far as letting your janitor do abortions, how about having your teenage daughter provide anesthesia? It’s been done, and Jill has reported it right here on her blog.
1 likes
Why couldn’t they give this money to local county regulated health clinics that exist in most towns and let them expand to cover more areas and quit giving it to any private organizations. The federal government has no business giving tax money to private organizations that are un-regulated. Who knows what they do with that money.If the need is for local low income women then funnel the money to the local and state agencies that can actually get something done with it rather than making Cecile Richards rich.
1 likes