Planned Parenthood Case Study

You didn’t hear this from me, but the word on the street is that Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded. Tax payers look towards their elected officials for guidance when taking their stance on hot button debates like climate change. Through persuasive rhetoric the masses can find themselves on either end of the topic at hand. The members of the Planned Parenthood community have shown resilience in the face of adversity when faced with the prospect of their primary healthcare provider going out of business. Mister Jesse Anders and my anonymous informant, whose name was stricken from the record upon request, shared their insight into the matter over the course

Millions of women across America will struggle to receive the medical attention they need if the federal government stops funding to Planned Parenthood. Every year 363 million dollars goes into the funding “pot” collectively at Planned Parenthood’s nationwide (Clark 5). This money is used predominantly by women; for six in ten women, Planned Parenthood acts as their main source of health care (Clark 4). Many individuals with low incomes depend on these clinics to maintain or help better their health. Recently, the federal government is trying to pass the Pence Amendment, which would eliminate funding to these institutions. The federal government needs to realize how important Planned Parenthood

Onto scarcity. Planned parenthood helps young women, young adults and basically just women all together. To have a program specifically for women is, I think, the scarcity and why so much money has gone towards that specific

I am writing to implore you to change your stance on H.R. 3134- the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015. H.R. 3134, a bill passed in the House of Representatives with a vote of 241-187, drastically limits access to affordable healthcare options for American women and men. H.R. 3134: Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015, introduced by Representative Diane Black [R] on July 21, 2015, seeks to defund Planned Parenthood based on “alleged” transactions involving fetal tissue (H.R.3134 - 114th Congress (2015-2016).

The first argument for supporting Planned Parenthood is that it provides women with other health services and not just birth control or abortion. Without these services, women’s health will decline because many people can afford treatment. “Every year, Planned Parenthood’s doctors and nurses provide more than 3 million women with preventive health care, including nearly one million lifesaving screenings for cervical cancer, 830,000 breast exams, contraception to nearly 2.5 million patients and nearly four million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Literally, they are a trusted health care provider to millions of women (Whitman).” The statistic proves that Planned Parenthood does more than prevent unwanted pregnancy but also take on tasks care for women’s health.

Bill H.R.3134 Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 was introduced by Rep. Diane Black (R-TN-6) in the House. This bill calls to call to prohibit for a year the availability of federal funds for Planned Parenthood, and it was passed in the House, but failed to do so in the Senate. Remarkably, Steve King (R-IA-4) voted present, and Charlie Dent (R-PA-15), Robert Dold (R-IL10), and Richard Hanna (R-NY-22), all Republicans voted against the bill. On the other hand, only 2 members of the Democratic party, voted in favor of the bill, these congressmen are Daniel Lipinski (D-IL-3) and Collin Peterson (D-MN-7). Contrastingly, the identical bill, S.1836, in the senate introduced by Senator Lankford James (R-OK) failed to pass. Despite its failure, it was cosponsored by 4 Republican senators, these are James Inhofe (R-OK), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Ben Sasse (R-NE), and Jeff Sessions (R-AL). Throughout this essay, I will be explaining the bill and its legislative history, as well as bringing to light the different interests at stake in this process.

According to the article, “Political Attacks on Planned Parenthood Are a Threat to Women 's Health” for some people, Planned Parenthood has come to symbolize abortion, which it has provided since 1970. But in all the rhetoric, facts have sometimes gone missing. For example, Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona declared on the floor of the Senate that abortion accounts for "well over 90 percent" of what Planned Parenthood does. That figure is actually 3 percent. Planned Parenthood clinics perform one in four abortions in the U.S. but use no federal funds for this practice. To some abortion opponents, that 3 percent is reason enough to gut the organization. If a future Congress and White House were to do so, however, it would drive women once again into the back alleys, without necessarily decreasing the number of abortions. Stripping Planned Parenthood of federal funding would also sacrifice the 97 percent of its public health work that has nothing to do with abortion, from which many people benefit directly. One in five American women have used the group 's services, and three out of four

A key argument that has been propagated by the opponents of Planned Parenthood’s continued funding and government support is that the money spent on it could be used on other community health facilities. The caseload and the large number of patients make it difficult for community health centers to provide the services efficiently. The situation in Texas presents a good case study for analysis of the effects. The state cut Planned Parenthood out of its family planning networks in 2013. They started excluding Planned Parenthood from its network of clinics where women from low-income communities got STI screening, contraception, and other reproductive health services (Muchmore 2015). The state has a significant focus on abortion restrictions and the decision to defund the Planned Parenthood federation. The other clinics available in the areas argued that they could take care of the workload if Planned Parenthood stopped and they would only have to increase their capacity.

A consensus has been made by those following the course of bill that latest healthcare proposal is possibly the worst attempt at repealing the Affordable Care Act with a heightened disposition for women. The funding for Planned Parenthood would be zeroed out under the new bill and Dawn Laguens, executive vice president at Planned Parenthood Federation of America, had this to say in a statement; “It blocks women from getting preventive care at Planned Parenthood. It slashes Medicaid, which 1 in 5 women of reproductive age rely on for care, including birth control and cancer

Planned Parenthood has become a topic of interest for the election of 2016. This is due to many reason. This article is about David Daleiden’s exposure against planned parenthood. He went undercover for two and a half years to try to expose them for selling fetal tissue products for profit.He received three hundred hours of undercover footage and released one video per week exposing the organization. Many groups have tried to take down Planned Parenthood but have not had any success, even after spending millions. David spent one hundred and twenty thousand dollars to expose this organization for everything that he did, including salaries, research, equipment, and travel expenses. Planned Parenthood receives over five hundred million dollars

On Wednesday, September 9th, House Republicans held the first hearing in an effort to defund Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides reproductive health services to men and women in the U.S.. Planned Parenthood receives about $500 million a year from the government (which is a third of their total income, which also derives from donations and investments) and conservatives are looking to eradicate all funding to this organization. In July 2015, segments of a video showing PP officials discussing to research groups about how much they were asking as payment for giving them tissue from late-term abortions and techniques on how to do them were released. The Center for Medical Progress is the group that produced

In addition, Planned Parenthood health centers serve 41% of all Title X patients (Planned Parenthood, n.d.). Therefore, preventing individuals from seeking health care services through Planned Parenthood can detrimentally result in the absence of care on a greater scale. To prevent withheld funding, in December 2016, the Obama Administration issued a final rule prohibiting states from withholding federal family-planning funds from organizations or health clinics regardless of their provision of abortion services. For instance, the Obama Administration warned all states that they would be “out of compliance with federal law” if they choose to suppress Medicaid payments to Planned Parenthood facilities. Despite this rule, Republicans, led by Vice President Mike Pence, remained adamant in their movement towards restricting Title X grant funding, which still threatens the existence of Planned

In Texas they have (F) “steadily cut off Planned Parenthood from most state funding sources”, in fact (G) “In 2013,” (Martin). This has caused an unsettling increase in STIs, unwanted pregnancies and at-home abortion attempts in Texas. In Texas “tens of thousands of women are already going without care,” this “attack [on] Texas women’s health” is a scary look into what our future could hold (Martin). (I) One could argue that women can get health care in clinics that aren’t Planned Parenthood, (J) but Planned Parenthood provides care primarily to low income women at little or no cost to them. Women are hurting themselves and getting sick and not catching their cancer, especially low-income women. (K) Low income women are the ones turning to Planned Parenthood, and when there is no where to turn, there can only be

This bill “SB 575” by Larry Taylor, is about health benefit exchange, the proposed solution for this bill is that it provides coverage for an abortion, but it doesn 't contain an exception for rape or incest, this is defined by the Woman 's Right to know Act. Meaning that there are women or minors who by their own will want to abort. It has also authorized, people to purchase supplemental coverage for elective abortion and that would require a separate premium to be paid and a separate contract to be signed. The Tea Party Rep. Jonathan Stickland, was not against the bill, he wanted “a different anti-abortion amendment and exchange it for giving SB 575 a chance at passage by getting it out of the House State Affairs Committee” (Eaton). Isn’t Jonathan Stickland a Christian? So why does he want this bill to be approved? Is he really Pro-Life? Or maybe he thinks he’s doing the right thing? Seems some of the women that are pregnant don’t want their baby, so he believes they should have the opportunity to decide what they want to do. Also, they 're not ready to be a parent and this bill will help them take the easy way out, an abortion.

In her article “How to Really Defend Planned Parenthood” (NY Times, 8/5/15) Katha Pollitt asserts that the pro-choice movement is consistently under fire due to faults in its defense, and that we, as supporters, must find ways to carefully and accurately explain why both society and the individual benefit from voluntary motherhood. She uses statistics displaying a sizable number of women receiving abortions, yet a very miniscule amount speaking up in defense of Planned Parenthood, to support her claims and to suggest that the voices of the 95% who felt they made the right decision are a potentially vital resource to the movement. Pollitt’s purpose is to highlight the necessity of public support in order to inspire all who have benefitted from