It's news to me

Ya know, Junkie... I was astounded to learn that there wasn't always a Planned Parenthood to help us get rid of those pesky unwanted children.

#1 mudbug on 2011-04-08 19:01 (Reply)

PP, by itself, provides 1/3 of all Title X services (gynecology and family planning) in the entire nation - a vastly larger percentage than any other single organization. Any clinic is free to accept Title X funding if they choose; hardly any do. It's not like there are an equal number of non-profit clinics just clamoring to provide subsidized care to medically indigent women, and PP is cruelly shutting them out of the lucrative Title X market. Almost all Title X care is to poor or uninsured women; for-profit clinics won't touch them, and few others can afford to anyway. (Almost a quarter of PP's expenses every year come from donations - that's after Title X revenues.)

If PP were blocked from providing services under that program, services available to the most needy population would take a huge cut - which is exactly the point of the GOP war on PP. You can do what you want - you can probably afford it. For those who can't afford it, Title X is the only option, and PP is very likely the only provider - almost certainly if they live in a poor or rural area.

So, yeah, they're kind of an important arm of kind of an important government program. PP is the way that program gets administered. That's why the GOP is trying to kill them. It has nothing to do with abortion - Title X funds are explicitly prohibited from paying for abortion, and PP can't even meet its expenses for Title X care to begin with. PP donors are actually subsidizing the government by picking up the slack for its program that PP administers at a reimbursement rate other clinics won't even accept. What the GOP hates is women plain and simple.

#2 Kevin T. Keith (Link) on 2011-04-08 20:25 (Reply)

I can't imagine how the world survived w/o them.

#2.1 DrTorch on 2011-04-08 21:39 (Reply)

Here's my take on the issue, and I'm a supporter of Planned Parenthood:
1. For every dollar collected in taxes and disbursed, we need 1 + X to cover costs of collection and bureaucracy. Let's call X 30 cents.
2. Thus for every dollar PP gets under Title X, the cost to me is 1.30.
3. If I care about PP, wouldn't it make more sense for me to donate $1 to PP rather than paying $1.30 to the government for THEM to donate the $1?
4. If I don't support PP - shouldn't I be outraged that I am being charged $1.30 to donate $1 to a group I don't support?

This is one of the major issues I have with our current tax and disbursement system. It costs far more to force the charity than to let people choose on their own.

To be fair, there are many people who pay taxes who are not happy giving it to something like the military. HOWEVER, the military provides a service to them which they refuse to acknowledge (defending their rights). The ancillary acts of the military which they don't like (Libya, Iraq, etc.) are political activities which require manipulation of our military for political goals. Thus, the problem isn't giving money to something they don't support - it's giving money to support political activities they don't support. So for those who say "I don't want to fund the military" I respond - you have to fund it to a degree - the only difference is you should choose that degree. 5% of your taxes? 10%?

I've always liked the idea of a check box on my tax form to let the government know where they can spend my money after they collect it.
Education - check
Military - check
Infrastructure - check
Some degree of income support - check
etc.

#2.2 Rick on 2011-04-09 12:38 (Reply)

Ok, here's the deal: we will pay for your abortion and at the same time you will have a tuboligation, so it doesn't happen again! We will pay for that too--fair?

#3 apple pie on 2011-04-08 20:55 (Reply)

I don't know what your logic is, but since funding PP both decreases the amount of abortions that take place in the country and saves the Govt money on providing other health and social services, let's just assume you're missing the point.

I guess it would help if it was called The Greatest Abortion Prevention Plan Ever, but it's not like that's going to stop the fictional threat brigade of the right. Keeping us safe from Sharia Law since 2002.

It is actually hard to come up with a stupider target for a political party to take on than PP. It's one of the most trusted organizations in existence and you'd basically be jettisoning a significant portion of votes from half the population. Still, if that was a concern, you'd have less offensive immigration policies.

#3.1 Sunderland on 2011-04-08 21:18 (Reply)

Not sure how PP "saves" money for the government. Perhaps in the sense that they can do what they do in a less expensive manner than if the gov't did it. This much I support.

However, if PP takes donations, and the government is collecting taxes, then donating to PP, then there is a cost (see my post above). As a result, the government MAKES IT MORE EXPENSIVE to donate to PP.

More to the point - since we're running in deficit to the tune of close to a trillion dollars, perhaps we should rethink where all our money is going. Money is fungible. So in reality, the government is BORROWING money today at interest to give to PP, then is going to TAX YOU tomorrow to pay for the money it borrowed today PLUS the interest.
So the cost is actually ALOT more than people are willing to discuss.

I'm all for PP. I support it. But I have a HUGE problem with the government funding it.

#3.1.1 Rick on 2011-04-09 12:49 (Reply)

To be clear, this has nothing to do with women's health and everything to do with Planned Parenthood's health. 98% of their services for pregnant women are abortion services, which provide a full third of their operating revenue. An equivalent amount comes to them from the very taxpayer funding that Reid is trying so hard to protect.

http://www.catholicmaine.com/?p=12799

#4 Pajak (Link) on 2011-04-08 21:17 (Reply)

"98% of their services for pregnant women are abortion service"

My, what an extraordinary lie. That's award worthy.
Seriously, how gullible could you be. If there was an organization that was legally bound to do nothing but abortions, 98% of their services still wouldn't be abortions, you moron.

#4.1 Sunderland on 2011-04-08 21:25 (Reply)

Your elevation of the discussion is on par with Harry Reid's attempt to define "abortion services" as a women's health issue, Ms. Sunderland. Please, continue the dialogue.

Yes, killing babies decreases health costs. Brilliant and humane strategy, no doubt with a foundation somewhere deep in the caverns of Western Civilization, right? Kill them all, save all your money.

And funding the nation's largest abortion service somehow decreases abortions. That talking point must be straight out of a marketing brochure. I am pretty certain that government subsidies insure more of whatever it is the government subsidizes.

How about this strategy: “Let all the babies be born. Then let us drown those we do not like.” – GK Chesterton, 11/12/32

#4.1.1 Pajak (Link) on 2011-04-08 21:48 (Reply)

"Yes, killing babies decreases health costs."

Correct. However, in quite insignificant numbers compared to the savings from contraception, education and STD testing and prevention.

The difference being that if you defund an org that does all this, abortions don't cease, just the preventative stuff does.

"And funding the nation's largest abortion service somehow decreases abortions. That talking point must be straight out of a marketing brochure. "

I assume brochures are pretty much your reading limit if you find it hard to comprehend how funding the largest contraception provider could prevent unwanted pregnancies other than by carrying out abortions.

Really, if you can't figure this out, you must believe condoms are like a fashion accessory or something.

Sex > Unwanted Pregnancy > Abortion
Sex > Contraception > No pregnancy > No abortion

Put on a big pot off coffee, print this out, stare at it for a while and let us know if you need any more assistance. Sheesh.

#4.1.1.1 Sunderland on 2011-04-09 04:49 (Reply)

Thanks for the edification. I feel obliged to return the favor.

By former PP Director Abbie Johnson's own admission (http://www.catholicmaine.com/?p=12545) and PP's own breakdown of services (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_Services.pdf) indeed 98% of the services provided to pregnant women are abortion services. Fact seems that if you are already pregnant, and you go to Planned Parenthood, it is only to become no longer pregnant.

Brew yourself a strong cuppa tea, print this out (http://www.stopp.org/pdfs/PP09PS.pdf), stare at it for a while and let us know if you can argue with the numbers. Oy.

#4.1.1.1.1 Pajak (Link) on 2011-04-09 17:09 (Reply)

Planned Parenthood focuses on killing black babies, one of
Sanger's chief goals. Is Shumer saying that is a good thing?

#5 Bob sykes on 2011-04-08 21:51 (Reply)

What a display of prejudice and misinformation from several folks I had thought were more reasonable. Planned Parenthood provides an array of family planning services, not just abortions. It offers women classes and supplies of pregnancy prevention equipment and training in their use. Back in 1947, when I was in college and in love, I went to the Margaret Sanger clinic to obtain a diaphragm [you folks probably don't remember what they were, but they were for pregnancy prevention.] And that's what my diaphragm did for me.

I never did see or hear any abortions, since at that point, they were illegal. I don't know whether they offer them now. I do know that if I had become pregnant, I could never have aborted my baby. And at this point in my life, I am convinced that killing unborn babies is a sin as well as a crime. But I feel that you all are being somewhat unfair to an organization that was greatly needed by poor folks when it was founded.

Do I think it should be government supported? No I don't. But I don't think that "98% of their services are abortion services." You folks are forgetting the great boon provided to women by "the pregnancy prevention pill" which young women have been using since it was brought onto the market, to space out their pregnancies.

Sooo ... do I think that a private organization like this one should be funded by the Government? No I don't. Do I think it is like the abortion rackets of the 1930s and 1940s? Of course not. Has it helped folks plan their families? Yes it has.

Marianne

#6 Marianne Matthews on 2011-04-08 23:47 (Reply)

I have never been in a Family Planning clinic so I don't know first hand what they supply or what percentage is abortions. I did see where the head of Family Planning claimed that defunding them meant that women would not be able to get mammograms. Then I saw where some women called twenty or so FP clinics asking if they did mammograms and none of them did. That lady lied just to get our tax dollars. I also saw videos where people were looking for abortions for their pretend underage prostitutes and FP was glad to help out (on the sly, of course).
I also have a problem with people who follow Margaret Sanger. For a collection of choice quotes from her, go here: http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm.
I'm glad you got your diaphragm when it was probably difficult to get contraceptives, but now you can get them everywhere - even grade school - so that reason d'etre for them is past, but they're still with us.
I always enjoy your posts and respect you, Marianne. I would suspect that FP's mission has changed a lot since you used their services. To my mind, they are just like the rest of the revolutionary left who in the '60s just wanted to be left alone and now want to impose their ideas on you.

#6.1 mudbug on 2011-04-09 01:11 (Reply)

"Then I saw where some women called twenty or so FP clinics asking if they did mammograms and none of them did."

Well yeah. You can conduct the same survey yourself and discover all 20 McDonalds restaurants you call have no drive through if you select the right 20 off their website. Cmon, you can figure the surprising coincidence there for yourself.

"I also saw videos where people were looking for abortions for their pretend underage prostitutes and FP was glad to help out"

No you didn't. You were just told that's what you were looking at. Even the actors involved have admitted this portrayal is a lie which simply didn't occur.

In any event, one gotcha video (credibility and misleading editing aside) about a nationwide organization is either meaningless, or Michael Moore would like to thank you for validating his existence.
I mean damn, he got a rifle from a bank. Shouldn't that be addressed in some sort of nationwide financial reform.

#6.1.1 Sunderland on 2011-04-09 05:05 (Reply)

Apparently I missed something. Where can I find these videos and then admissions of fraud?

Michael Moore has been rewarded for this truths with millions of dollars and attention of J. Carter, noted humanitarian. He's not right?

(I can recall watching the government fund the broadcast of "Roger and Me" and wondering why anyone paid attention to this fraud. I thought for sure he'd disappear. I misjudged human nature and the needs of politicians.)

#6.1.1.1 ErisGuy on 2011-04-09 06:11 (Reply)

So, it appears there's some truth on both sides: abortion is not one of the major services PP provides by a very long shot (score 1 for the Sunderland team), but on the other hand PP is apparently the largest provider of abortions in the US (score 1 for the opposing team). Tie score, 1-1. Game called after 289,750 innings. Let's go have a beer....unless you have a problem drinking with people who condone murder of the unborn. (Yeah yeah yeah, that was a cheap shot. Forget I said it.)

"Three percent of Planned Parenthood's services include abortion procedures. Though that is a small percentage of Planned Parenthood's work, that 3 percent totaled 289,750 abortions in 2006, making Planned Parenthood the largest provider of abortions in the United States. According to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Planned Parenthood is responsible for 1 in 5 abortions in this country [source: USCCB]. Referrals to adoption agencies made up less than 1 percent of Planned Parenthood's services."

#7 Agent Cooper on 2011-04-09 05:25 (Reply)

So, it appears there's some truth on both sides: abortion is not one of the major services PP provides by a very long shot (score 1 for the Sunderland team), but on the other hand PP is apparently the largest provider of abortions in the US (score 1 for the opposing team).

And there you have it in a nut shell. The problem is in how the financing is interlocked (as both sides of this argument have noted).

Let me put my position out here before I go further - I am opposed to abortion except in very very limited circumstances. I believe it to be crime actually if the OB/GYNs that I've talked to over the years are correct (including one of my own daughters who disagrees with me I might add). In most cases it is strictly a method of birth control.

Having said that, I can say that PP does do a great service in terms of family planning and providing birth control advice and services (other than abortion). I know somebody who didn't have any other option other than PP and they provided the advice she needed - they did not push abortion, they did not advocate one way or the other and she ended up having a healthy and happy baby.

Having said THAT, the O'Keefe scandals kinda prove that PP isn't as squeaky clean as they like to portray and that they need to clean up their act. I think this is what prompted the whole defunding thing - the fact that they were willing to provide service to under age girls at the behest of a supposed "pimp".

Its a complex subject and I think this particular discussion was handled very well by both sides - which is great.

I love this place. :>)

#8 Tom Francis on 2011-04-09 06:39 (Reply)

You guys are missing the point. The reason the Democrats are fighting so virulently to defend Planned Parenthood is the campaign donations. Planned Parenthood, receiving taxpayer dollars, then donates to the campaigns of Democrat office seekers -- in essence, laundering that money. Cut off that funding, and you cut off a little of the Democrats' political power.

PP facilitates the termination of something like 60% of black pregnancies is funded by the forced contributions of taxpayers. Not sure why that's something to be proud of or continue to support with public funds. If the service is needed, let it succeed in the marketplace. Sink or swim. Enslaving taxpayers to support it isn't praiseworthy, it's reprehensible.

M

#9 Mark Alger (Link) on 2011-04-09 08:45 (Reply)

From this morning on CBS News:

QUOTE:

Whatever is decided, it could have broad implications for women, especially the poor. Seventy-five percent of Planned Parenthood's clients live close to the poverty line, according to the organization.

Planned Parenthood provides a wide array of medical services including reproductive health care, cancer screenings, and STD testing at more than 800 locations across the country.

Ya know, I never thought I'd actually see a blogger on Maggie's Farm come right out and push for an increase in both abortions and breast cancer, but I guess this was the day.

#10 Dr. Mercury (Link) on 2011-04-09 09:02 (Reply)

I volunteer at a local pregnacy/ STI clinic. We provide free/low cost testing for sexually transmitted diseases, pregnancy and ultrasounds for our moms to be. Our cost is less than the local PP clinic and they often send people to us for testing. We don't give or provide contraceptives or abortions but we do provide one thing that Planned Parenthood doesn't: Post abortion counseling.

#11 jdgjtr on 2011-04-09 09:25 (Reply)

I haven't seen a single argument explaining why PP has to have government funds to survive, or why it is something I as a taxpayer should be forced to fund. The simple fact, and it is a fact is that PP funnels a lot of money back to Democrats. That tells me it is more of a money laundering scheme than anything. There is no question, as Chuckie Schmucker demonstrated again that scaring women into thinking that Republicans want to kill them is a major campaign motto of a party that has no real idea how to govern, just how to get re-elected.

#12 Dirk on 2011-04-09 09:36 (Reply)

Having read the comments here, it appears that I have had a case of myopia about what PP does. It appears that the situation is a bit more complicated than I realized.
That being said, I still do not count myself as a supporter of PP. While it apparently does provide some worthwhile services, it seems to spend a lot of its time being a political lobbying group. I distrust the association with Margaret Sanger and I don't see why it needs to be funded with my tax dollars (the same can be said of farmers, auto companies, ethanol companies, banks, etc.). I think there is at least a subfaction of it that seems to have the morals of ACORN.

#13 mudbug on 2011-04-09 10:18 (Reply)

Most of the women I know have had more than one abortion. Half of the women I know are well educated and have professional careers. These gals have used PP for some of their "free", or "nearly free" abortions. Sadly, it has become a method of birth control. I believe it might be worth considering funding PP to perform tuboligations and other surgeries that are permanent. i believe that most of the women I am speaking about would take advantage of that service at least after having their first child. In the final analysis it may be cost effective to fund this additional service up front.

#14 another one on 2011-04-09 11:09 (Reply)

Who is it that's being aborted? Liberals. Liberal offspring, liberal Democrats. Democrats and liberals are aborting themselves.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_040811/content/01125115.guest.html

#15 Rush fan in Kansas on 2011-04-09 11:32 (Reply)

My observation is that PP spends an awful lot of money on political influence. I was shocked to see the totals. It makes me question motive. I was also shocked to see just how much Government funding PP receivess.

#16 commenter on 2011-04-09 11:42 (Reply)

PP - One abortion every 95 seconds !

http://weaselzippers.us/2011/04/08/planned-parenthood-did-one-abortion-every-95-seconds-in-2009/

#17 Weaselzippers fan in Kansas on 2011-04-09 11:43 (Reply)

Republicans would be well advised to look at the opinions of voters over the last years since Roe v. Wade. Abortion is legal, and free choice is favored by a variable majority. Drop the issue and fight the liberals on insupportable debt.
Too many social conservatives favor forcing women to bear unwanted children as punishment for their sins of incaution and/or ignorance. It's a secret opinion and a nasty one: it ignores the fate of the unwanted children.

#18 Claritas on 2011-04-09 11:44 (Reply)

Exactly wrong. The conservative perspective is you do what you want in your bedroom, with your body, and your life. But DO NOT force me to pay for it at gunpoint.

We can have the discussion about the moral reprehensibility of abortion later. This one is about what the state does with monies it forcibly extracts from the populace.

Get it straight.

M

#18.1 Mark Alger (Link) on 2011-04-09 11:49 (Reply)

Someone who cares about womens’ health could certainly found and operate a contraception-and-mammogram shop which explicitly did not provide abortions. Get the subsidy funding and provide the care, if that’s what is so important.

(ask jdgjtr if such would be possible)

Y’all are sounding like PP is too big to fail. Maybe it is too big.

And some of y’all are falling into the rhetorical trap set by the aborters. (Doc Merc set a nice one). Any increase in abortion is not the fault of funding levels. Abortion is always the product of people having ill-advised sex. Keep the blame and the shame on the fornicators (to use another highly-charged term).

If you care about womens’ health, why do you persist in enabling their foolishness? Are they, by virtue of their gender, too weak and stupid to moderate their sexual urges? How is it humane to predicate one aspect of care (screenings, etc) on the fabricated necessity of another aspect (abortion)?

#19 foxmarks (Link) on 2011-04-09 12:12 (Reply)

If Planned Parenthood performs such essential services to poor people and needs Federal money to continue to do so, and if abortion is a small part of their work, then why don't they just stop providing abortions. Then they could take Federal money and there would be no problem. Why is it that PP can't stop doing abortions?

As has been pointed out above, the lack of availability of birth control is not what causes pregnancy. The cause of birth control is sex. If two people have sex and the female gets pregnant, it's not the fault of someone who voted not to give them free birth control.

No organization that makes political contributions should be Federally funded. That would be a very simple rule to implement.

#20 RonF on 2011-04-09 12:29 (Reply)

Reading all this is making my brain hurt.

One of the greatest evils ever visited upon our society was "birth control." The social toll is definable.

The greatest is abortion.

Bombing abortion clinics is awful, btw... someone might be killed!

#21 Big___Al on 2011-04-09 12:41 (Reply)

Rick said,
For every dollar collected in taxes and disbursed, we need 1 + X to cover costs of collection and bureaucracy. Let's call X 30 cents.

I read a study about 20 years ago on the cost of collecting the income tax that concluded X is more like $1.70. I was skeptical, but am not an economist and couldn't contradict the study conclusions.

#22 Ray on 2011-04-09 13:29 (Reply)

Actually, I am an economist, though not in this field. The $1.70 figure is what many politicians tout as the amount that is RETURNED to the economy for every dollar the government spends.
You may ask "how does this happen?" Fair enough, and easy to explain, since the obvious answer is that if $1 goes out, then you only get a small portion of that back in taxes after the dollar is spent.
But the correct analysis is that the $1 that is spent on infrastructure (say), goes to a worker. Who then spends that dollar on bread. The store spends that dollar to purchase the bread from the manufacturer, who then spends different parts of that dollar on the raw materials.

At each point along the way, the dollar is spent, but a smaller and smaller part of it is actually going back into the economy since you can't double count that dollar - just the portion of its spend that is adding to the productivity of those receiving it.

Another way to look at is from a bank's perspective:
A bank gets $1 from a saver. The bank has to keep 10% as a 'reserve'. It loans .90. That .90 comes back to another bank, which then loans out .81....and so on.

Whether that $1.70 figure is true depends on a number of factors, none of which is accurate at any given point of time. At this point in the economic cycle, some studies have shown that the government spending on the economy adds much less than that figure due to cutbacks, a saving mentality, and reduction in some profit margins.

The KEY POINT, however, is that even if the $1.70 figure is true, the reality is that if that money were being recycled via the private sector, the figure goes UP SUBSTANTIALLY because there is no deadweight loss of bureaucracy in the transfer of the cash - meaning the government gets so much more back in tax revenue.

Allowing the government to spend to "boost the economy" works in difficult situations - if those difficult situations are not TOO difficult. But in any situation, it's better to find a way to stimulate private initiative without government taxation and spending.

#22.1 Rick on 2011-04-10 10:53 (Reply)

I believe in evolution, so I believe in abortion. Hurray for free abortion and plenty of it, gobs of it, give it away, give cash bonuses with it.

Why?

Because I want a permanent end to the genetic line of any woman willing to kill her unborn child.

#23 Fred Z on 2011-04-09 19:25 (Reply)

Fred, you got it.

#23.1 Teri on 2011-04-09 23:42 (Reply)

If the true value in Planned Parenthood's operations is in all of its many non-abortion services, it would be helpful to the clarity of the political discussion if a completely separate organization would perform the abortions from now on. Then we could debate whether the federal government should be funding the abortions, without having the discussion derailed into accusations that these mean Republicans want poor women to forgo birth control and cancer screening.

#24 Texan99 (Link) on 2011-04-11 11:09 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Friday, April 8. 2011