The Hill: Republicans will try to choke off Planned Parenthood funding two ways
UPDATE, 9:50a: Word from a congressional source is the continuing resolution (2011 budget for remaining 7 months) will not be released until tomorrow. At this point the measure to cut Title X funding altogether is just a strong rumor. Need to see it in writing.
9:45a: We already knew about Congressman Mike Pence’s bill, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (HR 217), which would cut off Title X funding to organizations that commit abortion, the most obvious being Planned Parenthood.
But yesterday afternoon The Hill announced another Republican proposal that would eliminate Title X funding from this year’s budget altogether:
In a new Republican effort to cut off funding to Planned Parenthood, a new spending proposal announced Wednesday would strip away all Title X family planning funds for low-income individuals.
The 7-month continuing resolution offered by House Appropriations Chairman Hal Rogers (R-KY) would remove all $327 million from the Title X program as the GOP pushes a bill that would block such funding to PP and other groups that offer abortion services….
Title X funds cannot be used for abortion, but the House GOP is trying to choke off funding to groups that provide them as part of their “Pledge to America” promise to eliminate federal funding of abortion….
Republicans in recent weeks have been stepping up their attacks on PP. They are seizing on new videos that claim to show PP workers giving advice on how to obtain abortions for underage girls and circumvent sex crime laws. PP said the undercover tapes were highly edited, but the group fired an employee that appeared in one of the videos….
Richards sent out an “urgent” email alert yesterday, complaining on one hand about Republican attempts to defund her sex trafficking sanctuary and complaining on the other hand that Republicans were welching on their promise to address the economic crisis.
Someone needs to tell her cutting the federal budget is addressing the economy. As it turns out, being pro-life is good fiscal policy. Click to enlarge…
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Um, as I understand it, if PP quits doing abortions, they will still get the money. Seems like a pretty easy choice. They can fulfill their alleged mission to provide birth control and other reproductive health services and do it on Uncle Sam’s dime. Heck if their statements are to be believed, they will be doing better financially by getting out of the abortion business because it is just a tiny fraction of what they do.
Very good point hippie – but of course – what will they do with the huge surgi-centers they have created, and the mandate that all PP’s must provide abortions. such a quandary.
Cecile might be scared the loss of funding could force her to look for a job. How do you put in a resumé you oversaw the increase of abortion rates to 300,000 a year while making them safe, legal, and rare?
Lila Rose just zapped a Planned Parenthood in Washington, DC.
Check out:
http://www.lifenews.com
Does HR217 apply to clinics that dispense meds for chemical abortion, or only to ones that do surgical abortions on site?
Stop giving Title X money to abortionists, but don’t end Title X altogether. That way:
1) low-income women will still be able to get LEGITIMATE health services from qualifying clinics, like local health departments, and
2) Planned Parenthood will have an incentive to reconsider their plan to make every affiliate an abortion provider.
My guess is that this is a rumor– and that it’s a rumor abortion advocates started, to paint us as “anti-woman.”
@FedUp, the bill just says “abortion” without specifying medical (chemical) versus surgical. So it should apply to both. Abortion is not defined elsewhere in the U.S. Code, as far as I can tell. So the term would be interpreted according to the plain meaning of the word, which certainly includes both types of abortion.
So it should apply to both
Hi Courtney. That would be my hope, but I’m concerned that the bill fails to define “abortion” or ”performs an abortion.”
Abortion is not defined elsewhere in the U.S. Code, as far as I can tell
I haven’t found it either, specifically in the Public Health Service Act, but my failure to find it doesn’t reassure me. It troubles me that it isn’t defined or it isn’t referred to as a procedure defined by such-and-such regulation.
My concern is that it leaves a loophole to ramp up chemical abortions where meds are prescribed onsite with the intent of the abortion occurring at the patient’s home. If dispensing meds is the same thing as legally performing an abortion, that has other ramifications besides this bill.
FedUp, that’s definitely a valid concern, but keep in mind that the word “abortion” is used numerous times elsewhere in the Code, and none of those other sections has had enforceability issues because of a lack of statutory definition. I don’t think anyone could argue with a straight face that a medical abortion is not, in fact, an abortion. It’s in the very name. Additionally, the drug (Mifeprex) is FDA-approved solely for that use.
“– what will they do with the huge surgi-centers they have created,”
Convert them to birthing centers and live up to the second word in their name, parenthood.
none of those other sections has had enforceability issues because of a lack of statutory definition
Ah, I didn’t know that. That’s helpful, thanks.
Great thought hippie – Would be great if proper woman health was done – totally natural hormones, teaching NFP, natural birthing and education for mothers and families. That would be much better. Not run by those in PP of course – but by medical doctors, nurses and others specially trained.
Very regrettably it does not appear that Planned Parenthood will stop doing abortions anytime soon. However considering birth control pills work in three ways, one by preventing the egg from being released, two by preventing the egg from being fertilized if released, and three by preventing the conceived child from properly attaching to the uterus and growing, a birth control pill is simply another form of abortion.
Thus to completely rid themselves of abortion they would have to stop dispensing all forms of birth control pills as well.
However even if they stop distributing birth control pills as well, and I do not hold my breath, even their own numbers show that many times this birth control will result in, as they say, an unintended pregnancy, where an abortion will often result.
Additionally the birth control they will provide even if it keeps the woman from [a known] pregnancy will not keep her free from STDs. I note even condoms are very poor at preventing STDs.
Of course, if a woman, whose sexual behavior is being encouraged by PP, catches a STD, then they can claim they are doing good [by catching and treating it]. Yes an agency that both provides the bullets for a game of Russian roulette, and treats head wounds is most certainly one to be admired.
Of course, if a woman, whose sexual behavior is being encouraged by PP, catches a STD, then they can claim they are doing good [by catching and treating it]. Yes an agency that both provides the bullets for a game of Russian roulette, and treats head wounds is most certainly one to be admired.
= Good one!
“Of course, if a woman, whose sexual behavior is being encouraged by PP”
So do you make these same claims about other health conditions? Do you argue that the availability of cholesterol-lowering medication makes people more likely to eat cheeseburgers and other fatty foods?
Megan, as far as I know, drug companies don’t encourage people to stuff themselves with cheeseburgers.
Actually, Dr. Dean Edell says often that people DO eat more junk food if they think it won’t hurt as much because of things like cholesterol meds, but mostly because of labels like “low fat” or “no sugar added.” He says studies show that people eat more of those labelled foods because they think it’s not so bad, but overall it increases their caloric intake and they don’t lose weight.
Humans can be weak – that’s why we all make and break New Year’s resolutions.
That being said, I love to eat a nice high calorie, high fat treat especially if I’ve gone to the gym and feel I’ve “earned it.” Cheesecake is high on my list.
What drug companies are doing, as you can see on TV and in magazines, is they are advertising directly to the consumer and a lot of those drugs have awful side effects. Those quickly mumbled ‘risks’ make me laugh.
What drug companies are doing, as you can see on TV and in magazines, is they are advertising directly to the consumer and a lot of those drugs have awful side effects. Those quickly mumbled ‘risks’ make me laugh.
I cringe when I occasionally hear “it may cause death”. I don’t think those “quick-talking” ads should be legal. But, hey, no problem,. Buyer beware!
Ninek and Janet – no doubt. I too have to shake my head at times as they rattle off 5 or 6 really bad things, possibly including death. While the minimum is done to relate those risks, the good effects claimed are presented as if it comes from *the amazing new drug that you just have to have!*
Yeah, it’s advertising… But I hear them blast through what might go wrong and think, “I’d pass on this one….”