As many of you know, the U.S. Congress needs to vote before Friday on how or whether to fund the federal government. One of the most contentious issues in the budget bill is the Title X family planning program. There is a lot of misinformation about Title X and how Planned Parenthood uses Title X money. I’d like to clarify a few things:
Cutting Title X is not going to save the government any money. Every $1 spent in family planning services saves $4 in future federal and state spending, according to the Guttmacher Institute — a nonprofit organization focused on sexual and reproductive health research, policy analysis and public education.
Federal money cannot be used for abortion. The Hyde Amendment, which has been attached to appropriations bills since 1976, makes sure of that.
Planned Parenthood health clinics nationwide are audited annually by independent auditors. No matter what you read in the news or see on protesters’ signs, Planned Parenthood does not use federal money for abortions.
Title X funding does not cover all of the family planning services Planned Parenthood provides to low-income families. Therefore there is not any Title X money left over to sneak into other budgets, as some would have you believe. Planned Parenthood earns or raises the rest of the money they need to fund affordable family planning services including birth control, cancer screenings, and HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing.
If people truly want to reduce the number of abortions in this world, they should be contacting their senators telling them to make sure they fund Title X and vote against any appropriations bill that eliminates Title X funding. Write or call your senators as soon as possible.
Marina Lindsey
Juneau
Comments (55)
Add commentThank you for the
Thank you for the clarification. On tough issues like these the facts always get twisted around. This is a real case of a little money spent now will save a lot in the long run (caring for unwanted children, medical care, the list goes on). Hopefully common sense will prevail over emotion.
Common sense
Unfortunately many congressmen lack common sense! So many in the GOP are being ruled by the Christian Right
Why is this not being handled
Why is this not being handled by the states?
Were is the constitutional authority for the Feds to be spending our money on this?
If billb, jimcollman, Marina Lindsey , & others believe Planned Parenthood is so deserving of their money, why don't they just cut out the middle man(feds), & write a check directly to the slaughter house? Oh that's right, they are control freaks that want to FORCE everyone else to support their pet cause.
It's a freedom issue people, if you want to support it, have at it! If I don't, leave me the hll alone.
planned
Look Maddy, I'm pro choice but want unwanted pregnancies avoided so abortions don't need to take place. If a small amount of money can be spent upfront for education and contraception, I'm all for it. It will save millions in the long run. What's funny about people like you is that they don't want any education for contraception and every baby to be born. Who takes care of the child? I don't want THAT bill. BTW, are you a foster parent who will help raise all these unwanted children, are you donating money for their upbringing?
PPH
Madisn why do you, and all your cronies think that PPH is anymore pro abortion than you are? They are Pro FReedom and choice. I do donate to PPH everytime I drive by and see all you Right Wing Christians out there protesting the womans right to choose.
Billb has it right.
Bill - I also stop each time I see picketers at PPH. I give them $5 or $10 or whatever I can. I'm fortunate enough to be able to afford my annual exam, and contraception if I want it - many people aren't - I heard a stat somewhere that 1 in 5 women use PPH in some way for health care aside from abortions.
Here's my bigger concern about this and other current issues. Madison and those like him talk a lot about "freedoms" and others trying to "force" something on them. (though I take issue with that, a law allowing someone living 3 miles from you or 3 states from you to marry someone of the same sex or have an abortion if they choose is not "forcing" you to change your lifestyle or habits at all - the reverse does change the lives of other people)
However, it seems more and more that the party which SAYS it's for limited government and more 'freedoms' is in fact pushing for the exact opposite. In Indiana, for example, republicans are pushing a bill requiring doctors to read a statement to women saying that abortion is linked to breast cancer. Major medical organizations including the American Cancer Society has rejected this claim - it simply is not medically accurate. A proposed amendment stating that any declaration ready must be medically accurate was voted down.
Having the government tell you who you can marry - not limited government.
Having the government force your Doctor to read a medically false statement to you - not limited government.
Having the government tell me what I can and cannot do with my body - not limited government.
Having the government tell you what religious practices you may follow (no 'sharia law' scare, most of which for mainstream muslims is the equivalent of 'don't eat meat on friday') - not limited government
I've seen other examples over the last year, many at the state level, but can't think of them now. It seems the mantra of the religious right is for "freedom" only if you are a hard-core christian and "limited government" only if you are a corporation. If you have a uterus, or aren't christian, forget it.
Swimmergirl
RIGHT ON!
remembered another one
Having the government drug-test all public employees at least quarterly - - - not limited government (proposed by R-Florida Governor)
I didn't know you had to be a
I didn't know you had to be a Christian to know it’s wrong to kill a baby, all you goop gobblers cry if a baby seal is killed but don’t give a rats a$$ about a baby human, why are you libs so hateful
Freedom
It is interesting that all of you Pro LIfers always cry less government control and more freedom. Why is it that when it comes to repoduction you all want government control A woman and her partner should have the freedom to choose to have a child or not without government intervention
Pro-lifers agree that men and
Pro-lifers agree that men and women can choose to have a child or not without govt intervention. There are no regulations interfering with this decision one way or the other. Once the woman becomes pregnant, she has a child. Now the question is whether she will bring that child into the world to share a life together or abort her child and be the mother of a dead child. Same for the father - if you encourage your partner to have an abortion, you are still a father - just the father of a dead child. Same with the grandparents, etc.
www.AbortionNo.org
1861- Republicans accused of
1861- Republicans accused of supporting "big-government" for advocating freedom for the slaves.
2011-Republicans accused of supporting "big-government" for advocating the protection of the most helpless in any society, the unborn.
Just who's freedom are you defending?
$1 vs. $4: It is true that
$1 vs. $4: It is true that it is cheaper for the govt to pay for an abortion than to pay welfare. It is also cheaper to have no children than to have children but we don't go around killing our born children.
Killing Children
The US has been killing innocentchildre for the past several years in Iraq! Why is it ok to kill children in war, but it is notok for a woman to abort a non living embryo
Billb: It is very
Billb: It is very unfortunate that children, who are never targeted by the US, are nonetheless killed in war. Your statement that an embryo is non-living is incorrect. Most pro-choice people agree the embryo is a living human being. Embryos are live human beings in the earlier stage of life's continuum of development: embryo, infant, toddler, child, teen, adult, elderly... I assume you believe it is wrong to kill a fellow human (since you rightly express concern for the children killed in war). If that is correct, why do you believe killing is wrong? And what changes that makes you think it is okay to kill the innocent in the womb?
Embryos
It all boils down to what Spiritual faith one adhears to! vIf I am not mistaken it is only the Christiam faith that believes life begins at conception. Others beliieve life begins at birth, and that is when the soul enters the body. I still have never gotten and answer fro all you pro lifers. What would your choice be if it came down to the womans/ wifes life or an abortion
billb - don't waste your time....
Don't you get it? Once a baby is actually born, they don't care what happens to it - cut off health care for it, and it's mother, cut off welfare and foodstamps if it's parents don't have a job who cares if it eats, cut education programs and scholarship funds, send it to war every chance we get.
It's only "precious" until it leaves the womb. A zygote is more important, has more rights, than a full-grown woman, in their eyes.
If they would spend 1/2 of the time and effort and funds on helping children who are ALREADY HERE live full and productive lives, we'd probably have a smaller abortion rate than we do now.
Planned Parenthood, by the way? Primary health care for 5 million women in this country - mammograms, cervical exams and birth control.
You keep dropping off your $$, and I'll keep dropping off mine.
Billb: Glad to answer your
Billb: Glad to answer your question and hope you will answer mine. So many people have been duped into thinking one must choose between a woman's life and an abortion. It really doesn't come down to that: the choice that a woman may face is whether to have a medical procedure that may be necessary to save her life, such as a surgery, during which the baby could die. Thankfully, these situations are rare (less than 3% of abortions are to save the mother's life; less than 1% rape/incest). The Catholic church, which is often considered to be the most pro-life church, vehemently opposes abortion but agrees women can have a medical procedure necessary to save her life even if it results in the death of her unborn child. Without having been faced with that decision, I cannot say for certain what I personally would do but like to think I would be willing to sacrifice my life so that my child would live.
You are very wrong thinking that only Christians believe life begins at birth. It is basic science and worth learning about - 3500 innocent lives are killed through abortion each day in the US. The Supreme Court legalized abortion because they said we aren't a 'person' until we are born but just about everybody agrees we are a living human being from the moment of conception. Read up - I will look for your answer re: why you think it is wrong to kill a human unless it is in the womb.
So can anyone provide a
So can anyone provide a rational answer to my questions (Swimmergirl maybe?) - why is it wrong to kill a human? Followed by why it is okay to kill a human in the womb?
http://www.abortionno.org/index.php/blog/the_most_shocking_graphic_image...
TO JENNY
IT IS CALLED FREEDOM YOU BEING AGAINST ABORTION HABE NO RIGHT TO TELL SOMEONE ELASE IT IT WRONG! IT MIGHT BE WRONG FOR YOU BUT WHY DICTATE YOUR FELING ON OTHERS? ON OTHERS
Complex Issue
1) When we talk about a person, we talk about who they are. Not their body parts. I am attached to my friends because of their minds, not because they have all or most of their appendages. I do not think someone is less of a person if they have had a leg amputated, and I do not get upset when someone dies because their body has physically stopped working--I get upset because the personality within that body is gone.
2) Fetuses have no mind. They are not conscious, not capable of perception, and have not been socialized.
Thus, killing a fetus is NOT the same thing as killing a baby.
Some of you may argue that people have souls. Okay, that's religion and not science, but let's say they do. If it's an immortal soul, then the soul has not been harmed. If it's not an immortal soul, then you have a good reason not get an abortion yourself.
Glad we've settled that. Now shut up unless you can actually defend your viewpoint.
Billb: You still haven't
Billb: You still haven't answered the question. And as for your latest point, very weak. That's like saying if I don't believe in child abuse, I don't have to abuse my children (but presumably should tolerate others doing so). I share the facts about because abortion is an act of violence that kills a baby. It is an unjustifiable act that should neither be tolerated or protected as a right.
As for Kevin Costner, I'm not sure I follow your argument. Your first point seems to suggest that the right to kill should be based on whether the person will be missed. Sadly, many post-abortive women regret their decision to kill their own baby - they suffer years of depression and shame and miss their child very much, suggesting then abortion is wrong (or at least if the mother misses her aborted child?)
Your second point seems to suggest the right to kill should be based on how developed a person's mind and social skills are, and whether they perceive. Do I have that right? Have you seen an ultra sound of a baby being aborted - they try to move away from the instrument. Hmmm...
Hi Jenny. You apparently
Hi Jenny. You apparently didn't read my post very well. Fetus can't perceive, and is not an individual. Ergo, to equate killing a fetus to killing a baby or adult is misleading at best. And good god, do you know how many women get abortions and DON'T regret it? I would go so far as to say most women who regret it only do so because you tell them they should!
And no, fetuses do not move away from an ultrasound. They can't hear it. And even if they could, perception and sensation are two different things. A sea anemone senses the world around it and reacts, but it is not capable of perception.
You are constructing an emotional appeal that "abortion is wrong because look at this picture!" If you can't provide facts and logic to back up your argument, you are being misleading, which is very, very immoral.
You can believe that it's wrong all you want because of your religion or whatever, and you don't have to get one. But don't try to make reality fit your ideology.
Costner: Fact: From the
Costner:
Fact: From the moment of conception, all of the inherited features of a new person are set - the eye and hair color, dimples, boy or girl, etc. While the fetus is dependent on his mother, he is a separate human being/individual from the moment of conception.
Fact: At 18 days, the foundation of the brain is laid. 21 Days and the heart is beating. At 7 weeks, the fetus frowns, squints, moves his arms and legs, stretches, yawns and sucks. 8 weeks: of the 4500 strutures in the adult body, 4000 are present. At 12 weeks, he responds to skin stimulation. 4 months: turning somersaults. 7 months: hands grip strongly; eyes open and close and look around; the mother's voice can be heard AND RECOGNIZED (still a fetus).
Fact: I have friends who regret their abortions and the reason they gave me is that they regret having killed their own child.
Facts
Jenny the Soul is what makes a person human. The soul DOES NOT enter the body until birth. All the things you discribr above are present is death except for the heart beat. A persons sould leaves the body, and all that is left is a shell. That is what an embryo is a shell
I agree that the body of a
I agree that the body of a dead person is a shell. But an embryo is not dead - it is alive, developing, and growing much like a child. Most pro-choice people don't want to talk about the soul because it encompasses religious beliefs and they believe it is inappropriate to push our religious beliefs on others, which is fair. To respect those that don't want to hear about our religious views, I will say that nothing new is added to the embryo after conception except the nutrients provided by his mother. Like a sea anemone that 'is what it is' from beginning to end, so it is with man - from the point of conception until the end, a human.
I would be curious to know what your source is that leads you to believe we get a soul at birth?
Soul at birth
The moment the soul enters the body the infant crys out! Also there is a slight difference in weight at that moment. This is the same as when a person dies there is a slight difference in weight
@JennySims: I'm sorry, but
@JennySims: I'm sorry, but nowhere in your post did you prove that a fetus can perceive. You also don't need to explain development to me--I'm studying to become a biologist. Your genes are only one component to who you are--you are not born with the experiences that create your personality. I don't know where you get the idea a fetus can recognize its mother's voice, though. Once again, a response to stimulus is not evidence of perception. You're trying to paint a picture of a fetus so people FEEL abortion is wrong because you don't have any facts to PROVE it is wrong. This is an incredibly unethical way to make a point.
@billb: there is no evidence that the body gains the weight of a soul after birth. That's preposterous. Even if souls did exist, it's very unlikely they'd have MASS, especially that much, because they would be easily detectable. You're probably thinking of Duncan MacDougall's experiment about a hundred years ago where he ascertained an immediate 21-gram weight loss upon death, which he decided was the soul leaving the body. His experiment was flawed, and what was likely to blame for his measurements were gases escaping the body after death.
Costner
Your notion that one must be able to perceive in order to have a right to continue living is arbitrary and indefensible. For one, you have not proven that one must be able to perceive in order to have a right to continue living. You merely making that statement doesn't give it any credibility even if you are a biology STUDENT.
Furthermore, your idea that perception is a requirement to have a right to continue living is flawed: when you are anesthetized or unconscious for another reason, you are unable to perceive - is your life then up for grabs at the will of someone else who wishes to dispose of you for their convenience? Granted, the lack of ability to perceive while anesthetized is temporary but so it is with an embryo in its earliest stages of life.
I haven't proven a fetus perceives? Try this - very simple and doesn't require ANY education - biology or otherwise. When mothers lie down in a position that causes their unborn child discomfort, the baby perceives the discomfort and responds by kicking. Thus, even if perception were required for a right to life (which you certainly haven't proven), clearly fetuses perceive.
I have no more time to devote to this blog - I am headed to pray at the Planned Parenthood. Do you know how satisfying it is to have a mother come with her child in tow and thank me for my presence (from the prior year), which changed her mind about aborting her child? I hope when you get your biology degree, you will have the opportunity to also saves lives - perhaps you will find a cure for some dreaded disease - the reward of saving a life is like nothing else! May God Bless you and help you learn to appreciate how special life is.
Abortion should be common
There is plenty of evidence to show that carrying a pregnancy to term is fraught with much more risk and is more dangerous than having an abortion.
And furthermore, a recent well designed Danish study shows that most women do not suffer mental health problems from having an abortion.
With these two observations, I don't understand why abortions aren't seen as the protective and safe procedures that they are. In point of fact, therefore, all abortions are technically to provide safety and protect the life of the mother.
Oh, I know why abortion causes such strife. Because there is massive evidence for so-called ethereal, weightless, souls? No, that's not it. There is no such evidence, none. Rather, scientific ignorance (there is no such thing as a moment of conception) and mythological fan clubs (religions) that have a bizarre preoccupation with birth canals are the main problems that impede reproductive health. It is a sad state of affairs that even though one can have facts and evidence on their side, superstitious politics, in the end, rules the day.
Mike
(Edited)