Women’s Health and the Budget
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-04-13/women%E2%80%99s-health-and-budget
The House votes tomorrow on the budget deal struck late last Friday for funding the government for the balance of fiscal 2011. Negotiations on the $1 trillion dollar plan nearly collapsed over two items: federal funding for Planned Parenthood health services and the question of whether the DC could use it own revenues to help low income women pay for abortions. Given the size of the overall budget, the dollars involved were minuscule, but the questions are at the heart of national social policy debate. Join us to talk about women's health and the budget.
Guests
Sarah Brown
ceo, The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy
Marjorie Dannenfelser
president, Susan B. Anthony List
Laura Meckler
White House correspondent, The Wall Street Journal.
Cecile Richards
president, Planned Parenthood
Program Highlights
In last week's down-to-the-wire 2011 federal budget brawl, two issues related to women's health became major points of contention: disagreement over federal funds for Planned Parenthood and the question of whether D.C. should be allowed to use its own money to help women pay for abortions.
The BBC's Katty Kay, sitting in for Diane Rehm, explored why women's health issues figured so prominently in the national budget debate.
"If we think back to the health care debate, abortion was a huge issue there that threatened to sink the entire Obama health care plan," said the Wall Street Journal's Laura Meckler. "There are a group of social conservatives in Congress who feel very, very strongly about this issue, and they're willing to push it all the way to the mat."
One Republican proposal during the Congressional budget debate would have stripped Planned Parenthood of all federal funding; another sought to restore a ban on the District of Columbia using local money to fund abortions. While the Planned Parenthood proposal is now off the table, the proposed D.C. ban is the compromise Congress will eventually vote on, Meckler said.
Central to the Republican argument in favor of stripping Planned Parenthood's funding is the fact that the provider performs abortions. Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the Susan B. Anthony List, said that abortion is "not a small part" of what Planned Parenthood does and that the budget debate "...has been over whether we should be supporting the number one abortion provider in the nation."
Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards said that 97 percent of the organization's services are preventive care, including breast exams, STD screenings, and birth control. "One of the problems in America is that there is very little access to affordable family planning. And, in fact, even health centers, like Planned Parenthood or other providers who provide family planning through federal programs, have to raise outside private dollars to help supplement those services because the reimbursement rates are so low, they don't even begin to pay for the cost of family planning in America," Richards said.
Sarah Brown of The National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unwanted Pregnancy asked Richards how she could guarantee that the organization never used federal funds to facilitate abortion services, or, put another way, address the issue of "fungibility."
"For more than 30 years, federal funds have been strictly prohibited from paying for any abortion services. And that's true, again, not only for Planned Parenthood, but all hospitals in America. We all operate under the same regulation, and the federal funds that are provided to Planned Parenthood are reimbursed," Richards said.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
With such a slanted panel, I hope Diane remembers the comments of Vin Weber from last week regarding why these issues came up during the budget debate.
Not only do Federal dollars go to these organizations so eligible for debate, but it is only through riders like these that these issues are debated at all.
I don't expect this panel to cite these reasons, I suspect they will be focused on politics and gender-biase as they see it; but hopefully Diane can divorce herself from her bias enough to remember a conversation from only days ago, especially since it appears likely that is the only way such a view will be represented.
When ever this debate comes up around me I always ask the same question. So you do not think that the birth control pill or the IUD should be legal. The answer is away. No that is different. It is NOT DIFFERENT. No one should have the right to tell any one what they should do with your body.
I wonder why men who are against abortion try to interfere with a woman's right to choose. If the goal is to reduce the number of abortions, they should be promoting vasectomies for men. The cost is about the same as an abortion, the risks are not great, and the procedure is reversible (not to mention that men can cheaply freeze sperm relative to the cost of freezing eggs).
I call for men to step up, bend over, and get involved in family planning. Reduce the amount of sperm in circulation.
The argument against funding Planned Parenthood begs the question: What about funding religiously oriented public service programs? May we not make the same argument that funding these organizations, or providing tax relief to these organizations, frees up funding for their religious activities?
As a 25 year old woman, Planned Parenthood was a big part of my life, and the lives of many of my friends. All through high school and college, we went to Planned Parenthood--for annual exams, birth control, STD checks, emergency contraception, counseling. We were educated, middle and upper middle class, who were too afraid to go to to our health care providers (through our parents' insurance, and we were terrified our parents would find out what we were doing) but smart enough to know that we needed to protect ourselves. We went together, we went with our boyfriends, we went to the Planned Parenthood in town, or out of town. What we NEVER did was go to Planned Parenthood for abortions. We didn't need to--Planned Parenthood had helped prevent that. It respected our right, and reduced our need. And it helped save our lives.
The highest number of people living in poverty are children. I suggest that the anti-abortion folks who insist that poor women & teen girls be forced to complete a pregnancy, should now begin lobbying for education funding, early childhood programs and food security initiatives.
Instead of protesting at clinics and throwing money at politicians (who just might be using the issue to keep getting your money) – get involved BEFORE a young girl gets pregnant.
On a side note - why is it alright to subsidize erections?
It is ironic that many, if not most, of those who oppose any federal funds going to Planned Parenthood arguing that the money is fungible and cannot be separated from non-federal funds received and used by that organization, also support federal support to parochial schools. Yet, those same opponents of federal funds to Planned Parenthood accept without question the notion that parochial schools can keep federal support for books, transportation, etc., separate from non-federal funds spent on their religious missions. Their failure to do so would otherwise be unconsitutional.
Today's word boys and girls is PATRIARCHY. It means male precedence and superiority in all things. To understand this prejudice which is closely allied with business fascism and perpetual warfare, let's move from the general to the specific.
At the personal level the issue becomes male control over the seemingly possessed woman's body. And so often it is not about saving the unborn but forcible erasure of the man's reproductive mistake and responsibility. Many of the same men who (as authoritarian underlings) are militant against abortion attempted to implement abortion on their sex partner earlier in life. Being thwarted in their jackpot thinking and their projected success path they are forced to command women at the urging of their glorious leaders. Notice how this is often a class driven dynamic. In any case, if we fight patriarchy among the Taliban and other alien cultures why then do we not abandon it at home, and in our own homes? My reproductive situation is a matter of my bodily privacy, and my skin is the border. Stay out!
If Congress cuts funding to Planned Parenthood (PP), does that mean that PP would need to obtain more private funding for women's health services or would the cost of care increase for PP's patients?
I receive Social Security and am perfectly within my rights to contribute as much as I decide to Planned Parenthood. In fact, I plan to contribute as a result of listening to this program.
If the government was interpreting the constitution correctly, this topic wouldn't even be up for debate. The job of the government is not to provide health care. Government funds should not be used to maintain the health of its citizens, nor does the government to a good job of handling this area. I have personal negative experience with government mismanagement of health care funds.
Privatization is the best way to cover women's health.
I am a tax payer and i do not agree with Marjorie saying that all taxpayers are against Planned Parenthood. Please seperate yourself from all tax payers that do not have your point of view. I am pro-choice and believe that it's my choice not yours or anyone elses.
Soooo, to all of you folks who'd like to de-fund Planned Parenthood, de-fund them and all the abortions will still be provided, but the women don't get basic healthcare. Great! That makes a whole lot of sense.
And, really, the only fight over abortion should be a legal issue, but since they can't seem to win that one, they do ridiculous things like disallowing the District of Columbia to use their own funds to pay for abortions.
I have a problem with people that state "The tax payers of America are against _______". I think this issue is almost 50 % on each side. The poor just dont have the money to hire lobbyist for their arguments or have enough money to donate money to campaigns. Women have rights to choose but those rights are being taken away.
One statement talking about other places to go for the same treatment is so far off base it would be funny it it wasnt such a serious matter. In a lot of places there isnt anywhere else to go unless you are ready to do a full day and night trip to see someone.
Well this is one tax payer that is glad my money goes and supports programs like planned parenthood and NPR.
Thanks Ben
What about the issue of over population and our impact on our planet and it's resources? I hope the people against abortion are also doing something to help reduce their impact on our earth.
Here is why it is happening today: the GOP knows that it will never pass the Senate or Obama and that they can continue to use it to distract people from how they are the party of the rich and super rich. When they controlled both houses, the presidency and the US Supreme Court, they did NOTHING about abortion. That tells in a nut shell how important abortion really is to them. It is a wedge issue nothing more!
Planned Parenthood was instrumental for my then-girlfriend and I preventing unwanted pregnancy way back in 1976. Since then, we have married, have five wonderful children and two grandchildren, and were able to provide them the life and education that those precious children deserve.
Big pharma is not unlike any of the 'military industrial complex' that runs our 'representative' system - viz the recent establishment of these entities to be the same as individuals. As such, these entities have found a wonderful fear factor to capitalize upon - poor women's health. These fears have been established through the past 2 generations. Big pharma has a great deal of profit to make - the rich guys make more money - in the support of planned parenthood. All wealth purchases government support in our representative system - our 'representative democracy' is in failure mode. When we get to the mind that we are an entitlement culture, then total funding for these systems may be rational - but until then, see it for what it is. It is funding purchased by big pharma, pure and simple. This is the same as any of the wealthy hand outs to the wealthy of this culture - they own the culture, they purchase all things in our congressional actions.
I'd like to know who will be paying for the unwanted babies that women will HAVE to have- if abortion is not an option for a woman that can not afford to pay for the life of the child? Social services like welfare and wic are payed for by tax dollars and will cost the US more $ in the long run.
I am amazed how a small group of highly educated women with well paid jobs can speak for the millions of women who are poor and uneducated and who don't want to bear a child to put up for adoption. - how do they know they will be in a loving home? Why don't you put your time, effort, and money into sex education? Or why don't you just tell women to stop having sex? That is just as insulting as dictating to women where, when, and how they chose to plan their families and take care of their health.
So The panel is in favor of increased sex education programs. If you wish to reduce "Abortions" how about Sex education
Perhaps I've missed something, but didn't Cecile state that Planned Parenthood could NOT use federal funds for abortion? What's the problem then? If it's that they're using funds illegally, shouldn't the debate be framed differently?
And while I am pro-choice, I do think abortion is murder - I do. But.... until something is done to hold the males accountable in all this, and more is done by those who are pro-life toward prevention - not to mention helping families be able to take care of the children they've borne - illegality is just not reasonable.
I was in my twenties when Planned Parenthood was the only means I had to receive an annual check-up. I now work full-time and have a health plan through work. When comparing both health carriers, I can say that, at Planned Parenthood, I had a much more caring, respectful and thorough check-up than I now have under my current health plan. In other words, I pay tremendously more now for lower quality services. In the end, I believe that the abortion issue is a central focus in the debate on whether we should or not continue to fund Planned Parenthood. But at the same time, and this is my question: because the focus on abortion is so strong, does it not hide another issue that is as important, if not more crucial in the long run, namely that health insurance programs in the US are way too expensive and render services in a rather poor manner?
I really wish the pro-life crowd would be honest and say what the real issue is; they're upset over the lack of healthy, white infants available for adoption in the U.S. They're certainly not concerned about women's health, physical and mental. They're not concerned about the older children living in foster care. They're not concerned with the fate of the children they "save" or the mothers they convince to keep the child. No, all they really care about is the product.
My view was not represented on the show today. I believe, sentience is the marker of "life" for humans and until a baby is aware or responding with feeling, infanticide is acceptable under strict consultation. When will the debate be framed by my extreme rather than a right-wing zealot that wants to legislate her morality on everyone else? The poles should be anti-abortion vs. pro-infanticide. A woman's right to flush a seed is a middle of the road opinion.
none of the guests or callers addressed two points:
1. how will planned parenthood replace the money when the federal funds are cut? they have a great ability to raise money already!
2. the grisly secondary market that is hidden behind the abortion market--that is where abortion providers make TONS of money.
i think it is unfortunate the abortion proponents have captured the two words "choice" and "health." research has shown again and again that failure rates of contraceptives increase dramatically the percentage of abortions, AND over 90% of women who have abortions regret them and suffer mental problems as a result later on.
our society used to prize women. now they are "equal" (meaning most do two jobs instead of one now), a high rate are single mothers raising children alone on low incomes. no-fault divorce is also a culprit that helps with the breakdown of society.
I wanted to know if any of the panel guests had ever used the services provided at Planned Parenthood.
The government does not give Planned Parenthood money. They reimburse for services already provided. But not abortion. These services involving the reproductive system of men and woman. These same services are also available by primary care physicians, who also provide abortions and are reimbursed in the same manner. I think the argument should be why wouldn't we support an agency that efficiently, and cost effectively provides specific medical care to millions of Americans. Can any of your guests answer how much money the care that Planned Parenthood provides would cost if purchased through private health care systems? Is not Planned Parenthood a successfdull model of universal access to health care? Is this not the real reason the Republicans want to kill planned parenthood?
This debate will continue until all of the stupid people are educated and the educated people stop lying to the stupid people in order to achieve financial domination over them.
Balid, you pimp the same falsehoods peddled by anti-choice zealots for years now. Studies documenting mental health discrepancies in women post-abortions have been shown to be false on multiple occasions. The words "choice" and "health" are accurate because it is a choice to be made between a women and her doctor, not the government, and not anyone else.
As for funding, when you talk about de-funding PP the only people truly hurt are the middle class and the poor. But, I suppose thats ok - they can afford unplanned children, routine preventive medical screenings and competent trained professional family planning elsewhere right?
bethindc is Right on. You would think they would want fewer poor colored babies, unless they figure that's their future labor pool.