Alex Morris Planned Parenthood

Public health researchers with the UC San Francisco group, Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health, conducted a longitudinal study of 956 women who sought an abortion and were turned away. Diana Foster’s study reveals what happened to the women’s economic standing, health and relationship status after being denied their right. She claims that, “When a woman is denied the abortion she wants, she is statistically more likely to wind up unemployed, on public assistance, and below the poverty line” (Newitz). This is clear because one of the major factors in a woman’s decision to abort, is because of her awareness that she will not be able to financially support her child. One of a woman’s most formidable fears is to fail to adequately raise her child and provide him with his greatest odds to succeed. Naturally, a mother’s ultimate goal is for her children to have a better life than she did. This fuels the majority of people’s ambition and determination to obtain a comfortable and promising life style, to then pass on to their offspring. Women living in poverty seek abortions because they do not want to bring a child in a life of misery and suffering. The decision to terminate a pregnancy is not just blindly decided, all aspects of the mother’s and child’s life are considered. In fact, after initially being denied the right to abort, the survey demonstrates that 45% of the women were on public assistance (Newitz). However, Foster concludes, “a year later, they were far more likely to be on public assistance — 76% of the turnaways were on the dole…67% percent of the turnaways were below the poverty line” (Newitz). Therefore, it is evident that not allowing women to legally have abortions creates more strain on the state because of these mothers' increased dependence on social assistance programs.

In the news article “Abortion: Every Woman’s Rights” Sharon Smith wrote an article about women’s rights to get abortions prior to the hearing of the Planned Parenthood v. Casey court case, “which threatened to severely restrict women access to abortion” (Smith). Women wanted reproductive control over their lives and felt that they were not equal to men no matter what advances they got at work and how high their level of education was. The women’s right movement wanted women to have the choice of abortion for all women, the rich and the poor. In the US, thirty- seven states did not provide

One of the first moral issues addressed by both sides of the abortion debate concerns a pregnant woman’s so-called natural “right” to make “reproductive choices.” (“The Rights of Pregnant Women”) Anti-abortion advocacy groups claim that “the only way to actually protect the mother’s rights will be by enforcing laws that secure her child’s right to life,” (“Argument 2”) whereas pro-abortion groups contend that these laws “create a dangerous precedent for wide-ranging government intrusion into the lives of all women.” (“The Rights”) With two fundamentally contrasting viewpoints at odds with each other, it is apparent that one of the core issues concurrent with abortion is a woman’s rights versus the rights of her unborn fetus.

In the article, "Our Sex Crazed Congress" (Aug 1, 2015), New York Times writer Nicholas Kristof demonstrates that Conservative Republicans would be stupid to destroy the organization called Planned Parenthood. The author starts out by saying that dissolving the program is a bad idea, then backs it up with evidence and examples of girls who can benefit from Planned Parenthood. Kristof's purpose is to prove that, even if you are against abortions, you shouldn't condemn a whole organization that prevents more abortions than it causes in order to inform people that show that this isn't the way to deal with the problem. Nicholas Kristof writes to an audience of people looking into Planned Parenthood and those thinking about shutting it down, and the relationship he establishes with his audience is that he thinks they're stupid for shutting down Planned Parenthood and he isn't very open to other views on the matter.

In the case of Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas v. Abbott (2014), The American Civil Liberties Union, The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the Center for Reproductive Rights, and a Texas law firm filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of several women’s health-care providers in Texas for seeking to enforce their rights and those of patients for declaratory judgment and pertaining to the regulation of surgical abortions and abortion-inducing drugs by enjoining two provisions of the 2013 Texas House Bill No. 2. (Planned Parent Hood v. Abbott, 2014). To many, Planned Parenthood challenges the state of Texas abortion law as it places an unconstitutional restriction on a woman’s right to obtain an abortion. It also

This tiered system sets up privileges that are difficult, if not impossible, to break out of. “Even before the cuts less than 20% of women in need… were served… out of the 1.7 million women in need” (Stevenson, 2014). A legislation that was created to benefit and, as the advocates for the bill have said before, create the ideal world without abortion has succeed in undermining the health and safety of the individuals within the state. The benefits of this bill help little to no one as people are forced to conform based around moral ideals.

Leaked videos from Planned Parenthood have caused frenzy among Americans and there have been debates on whether or not to continue funding this organization. These videos reveal Planned Parenthood officials discussing selling fetal tissue for profit. While they are proved to be edited videos, many people are still wary about the whole situation. Joining along with this frenzy is Ruth Marcus, whose article, Defunding Planned Parenthood would actually increase abortions, argues why Planned Parenthood should still be funded. Marcus provides substantial evidence including pathos and logos to support her claim; however, it is her ethos that is questionable. With numerous fallacies plaguing her argument, her ethos is damaged, thus affecting the argument’s

As the Courts continue to argue in terms of morality, their attitudes when it comes to dealing with cases concerning abortion are vague, even as they succeed in placing financial burdens on the process (Engstrom 25). Unfortunately, the ambiguity present allows for those who can’t afford their constitutional right to go through potentially harmful ‘back-alley’ abortions and risk their lives during the process (Engstrom 7). The Hyde Amendment and Supreme Court cases, such as Planned Parenthood v. Casey, are examples of the way Courts and Congress have placed restrictions on low-income women when it comes to obtaining an abortion (Engstrom 14). They do this through ‘back-door’ attempts that succeed in eroding at crucial legislation as they are refrained by current legislation from taking on the law directly (Engstrom 2). These restrictions can lead to horrible outcomes for women who are desperate enough to explore riskier options (McGee 102-103). Low-income women are facing limitations established by funding restrictions within the Hyde Amendment and the ambiguity of the Court in contradicting cases (Engstrom

Over a hundred years later, Planned Parenthood still operates under the goal of providing comprehensive reproductive health care services to women. This provision of a full range of reproductive services has been deemed in a study by the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and National Partnership for Women and Families to be “essential not only to their health and well-being but also to their ability to pursue an education, hold jobs, support their families, achieve economic security, and function as a free and equal member of society” (Lawrence). The study goes on to say that “without access to the full range of reproductive health services, all that is in jeopardy.” (Lawrence). Planned Parenthood will no longer be able to fulfill its mission of providing a full range of reproductive services if the current federal government achieves their goal of overturning Roe v. Wade. Lawrence, the author of the study, also describes a need for “health care decisions based on patient’s health and needs rather than insurance coverage or payment capabilities.” An interesting point is presented here in that if Planned Parenthood concedes its abortion services, there is no guarantee that whatever organization fills in that gap will do so honestly. There is no other organization so committed to the concept of family planning and reproductive services that they do not run the risk of providing inadequate

Today, teen pregnancy is as high as ever. Shows like “16 and Pregnant” and “The Secret Life of an American Teenager” are centered on young girls’ journeys as teen moms, in hopes that viewers will become more aware about safe sex preventing teen pregnancy. Reducing teen pregnancy also reduces the rate of abortions. Teenagers are the ones who are most likely to get an abortion, since they are the ones that are the least prepared to be mothers. Regardless of their reasoning, abortion is an option that allows not just teens, but all women who are not ready or do not want a child. However, many are against abortion since they see it as killing a baby or taking away a potential life. According to writer Steven Ertelt of LifeNews.com, Oklahoma’s abortion laws are restrictive compared to other states especially with the passage of the Oklahoma Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, or HB 1721, in April 2015, which bans dismemberment abortions that tear babies limb from limb. Any abortion practitioners that breaks this law would face a fine of $10,000 and a few years in prison. This act is a big step towards saving more potential lives, shining light on the abortion process, and is a stepping stone for other states.

(Wikipedia, Planned Parenthood) These emotions, or pathos, run high around this topic. While women’s health issues are addressed and much good is done within the organization the overpowering emotional outcries come from preforming of abortions. Such as the case that hangs behind Ms. Richards that says, “In Case of Live Baby Break Glass.” This case contains objects that are used in partial birth abortions, again to insight emotions of the reader to visualize the abortion procedure that is considered

With only “three percent” of Planned Parenthood’s services being abortions, the majority of the services belong to ‘STI/STD Testing and Treatment’ with its “percent at forty-two” and “‘Contraception’ at 34%” (Lee). Over 50 million women and men in America were in need of places like Planned Parenthood for health services, many of which were without insurance at their time of need. Denying access to Planned Parenthood would cause an increase in STI/STD outbreaks, like in Indiana’s case when the Governor closed down its rural Planned Parenthood clinics and had an HIV outbreak, and the percentage of abortion, be it legal or illegal, would increase significantly. “Now, the state is scrambling to erect pop-up clinics to combat an unprecedented HIV

The Next Battle in the War Over Planned Parenthood is an article featured in The New York Times by writer Sheryl Gay Stolberg. The article, written in response to the recent proposal put forth by the Trump administration essentially threatening to cut federal funding to Planned Parenthood if the group doesn’t start preforming abortions, addresses both sides of the highly controversial and political topic of abortion by quoting the opinions of individuals from opposite ends of the abortion debate such as pro-choice Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America and pro-life Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, an abortion opposing organization on college campuses. Stolberg also debunks the common misconception

All in all, The New York Times editors purpose of this article is to persuade the readers to help make abortion legal. They use emotional connection with the audience, a sophisticated word choice, and logic. Ultimately, the writers have proven that abortion is a woman’s own choice, not the

The issue of abortion is notoriously controversial. Since the Supreme Court’s 1992 ruling in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, states have enacted different restrictions on the procedure. These restrictions vary from state to state. Nineteen states currently have laws prohibiting partial-birth abortion, and forty-one states strictly prohibit abortions except in cases of life-endangerment. One particularly incendiary area of abortion law is that of public funding. However, as of this year there are only seventeen states that cover abortion procedures through public funding. In this paper we will discuss federal abortion legislation, while describing the laws and political ideologies of the following states: Texas, California, New