The 112th Congress: Revoking Women's Rights in the name of "Budget Cuts"

| 2 Comments

Reproductive choice may now be in jeopardy, for the republican-lead congress is looking to cut the ENTIRETY of governmental budget for Planned Parenthood.

Though the Hyde Amendment prohibits any federal funding from going to abortions, republicans accurately argued that:

"putting ... federal money in Planned Parenthood ... could actually be subsidizing abortions, because it's money that Planned Parenthood doesn't have to raise on its own to spend on those services."

But Planned Parenthood estimates that the $317 in Title X funds went to

things like breast exams, cervical exams and infertility counseling last year.

Yet, the House of Representatives successfully passed the bill, eliminating all federal funding of planned parenthood for the fiscal year.

So now the question to be asked is, where do disadvantaged women go for breast exams, cervical exams, and counseling? The answer will probably still remain planned parenthood, but absent the government funding, they will likely have to scale back greatly the work that they are able to do, meaning that not everyone is likely to get treated, locations may have to close, and equally bad, quality of care may decline due to the overburdening of the system.

Enjoy the bigoted rant of Indiana Congressman Mike Pence

Fortunately, not even all pro-lifers fall under Pence's extreme. Pro-Life Democratic Congressperson Stephen Lynch fortunately falls on the side of ration and sees this limiting of funding as unjust,

"This is about the ability of Planned Parenthood to conduct women's health care, to offer services that are deeply needed in many communities where no other source of health care is available.... I don't have many friends in the Planned Parenthood community. They don't support me. I am pro-life. But I respect the good work that they do."

Not all hope is lost though, in order for the bill to become law, the bill must still make it through the Senate where democrats still maintain a respectable majority.

2 Comments

Outrageous/ignorant in my opinion. Thanks for sharing this. He is neglecting the obvious reasons for Planned Parenthood.

It's funny that he talks about protecting the rights of young women in crisis pregnancies by giving them access to health care that is "unbiased and untainted," (I believe those were the words he used) when Planned Parenthood gives support to women who cannot afford other types of health care. It might be fine for women who can afford to go elsewhere if they cut funding for Planned Parenthood, but what about the women who can't afford to go elsewhere?

I do have questions, however, about his claim that employees of Planned Parenthood were aiding sex traffickers in instructing them how to perform abortions for unwanted pregnancies. Is this true? If there are problems with the credibility of Planned Parenthood, and therefore problems with the level of safe service they can provide women, (and I have no idea if this is true or not) why can't they figure out ways to improve the quality of these health care facilities instead of threatening to cut their funding altogether? Cutting funding would only make any existing problems related to the quality of health care at Planned Parenthood even worse (again, I am no expert in the quality of health care at Planned Parenthood), and jeopardize the health and lives of the women who have no other choice but seek out medical care and treatment at Planned Parenthood.

Leave a comment

Recent Entries

DE April 27: Group B
While this course has been my first official foray into the GWSS department, feminism and gender politics have always been…
DE March 30: Group B
La Colectiva has a few conflicting messages. While their Bill of Rights demands improved conditions to empower workers and "level…
"Vulva"...A Feminist Issue?
Since our classmates' informative and compelling blog about the perfume industry has made fragrances something of a hot-ticket item,…