Taxpayer Funding For Abortion Insurance

In 2010, President Barack Obama signed an executive order to enforce that federal loans would not be used in abortion services (“Background: “Should” 4). The pros and consist of the choice being available to women when they need it and the cons consist of safety concerns for the living fetus. As a nation, Abortion needs to be made illegal because life begins at conception because abortion is unsafe, a waste of money, a loss of opportunity, and a toll of psychological pain.

This current debate whether Planned Parenthood should be funded by the Federal Government is a hot issue in the current election. It has become, not only a nationwide issue, but also worldwide where people from all around the world are able to put in their input on the argument. There are many people who

H.R.7 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2017 is a proposed legislation that would put the Hyde Amendment into permanent affect (govtrack2017). This would ban all federal funds and all federally funded health care coverages from paying for elective abortions (congress2017). The only time the coverage of an abortion would be covered is if the mother was raped, incest had occurred, or the mother’s life was at risk (Congress2017). This legislation would also make it illegal for someone to get an abortion by a federal employee or at a federal clinic (govtrack2017). Despite the abortion taking place, whether it was legal or illegal, insurance would cover any complications (policy.house). The No

Planned Parenthood is an organization that provides healthcare and education to both men and women, having over 650 health centers that provide healthcare to countless communities around the world. Shockingly, 78% of those who use Planned Parenthoods services live at or below 150% of the federal poverty line, showing how important this organization is to low-income families (Topulos, Greene, Drazen). Their mission statement is “A Reason for Being”, which is shown through their efforts to provide health care, advocate public policies, create educational programs, and endorse research. There are those who do not believe Planned Parenthood should be funded by the government, though, due to the fact that they provide abortions to women in need. Studies show that the effects of not having Planned Parenthood available are disastrous, causing low-income families to lack a healthcare provider and the number of those who are infected with STD’s and STI’s to rise. The biggest concern communities have about the government defunding Planned Parenthood is the effects that it would have on low-income families who would no longer have access to something that many people take for granted: health care. Although many believe that Planned Parenthood mostly provides abortions, in reality, only 3% of the people that seek help from them receive an abortion, while 97% receive affordable and, in many cases,

In contemporary America it can be argued that nothing is more contentious and controversial of an issue than abortion. From the vehement pro-life movement to the impassioned pro-choice coalition, this policy issue is one that has become increasingly important in our society. This debate has raised important questions regarding the value of human life, at what stage of development does a fetus have it’s constitutionally ensured rights take hold over that of the mother and at what stage can a state start regulating abortions.

Abortions only make up three percent of the procedures done at Planned Parenthood clinics (“2014 2015 Annual Report”). There are a variety of other life saving and essential health care procedures done at the clinics, such as STD and STI testing, pregnancy tests, contraception, exams, and other health issues relating to both men and women. Many people believe that the federal government should defund planned parenthood; however, this would make it almost impossible for many low-income individuals to receive the care that they need. The federal government should not defund Planned Parenthood (PP) because abortion is not a valid reason for opposing funding because it is allowed by law, low-income individuals and families need the affordable

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

As we have previously learned in class, abortion is considered a wedge issue amongst politicians and the general public. I believe this article to be relevant to the course work, because today abortion plays such a massive role in the way we govern ourselves as one united nation. People are either pro-life or pro-choice, or many fall into a gray area unsure of their stance on the topic. With the bill in place people are not given the option to oppose abortion, but are instead told they must or they may find themselves with a criminal record. Many citizens consider women to have the

The Affordable Care Act was a funded mandate issued by the federal government use funding to help persuade states in implementing the new healthcare reform. With almost half the country, including Texas, refusing to enact Obamacare, there is an obvious difference between what the states and the federal government want. The controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood and similar clinics is the ethical debate of abortion. Single-issue groups, interest groups that primarily focus on one specific issue like pro-life and pro-choice advocates relentlessly fight for their beliefs on the merits of abortion and seemingly, pro-life resonated with Texas policymakers. Policymaking starts in the interest of the people and their concerns which is translated to the state and local government through public interests and elections. The issue will be discussed for the state’s policy agenda whether to be pursued further. In this case, pulling funding from Planned Parenthood, which was introduced by the people and given to the attention local and state officials, will now be debated to be made an official state policy, which was successful in the favor of pro-life advocates. But by defunding Planned Parenthood, many low-income women no longer have access to effective birth control or other forms of healthcare. Krugman, in his opinion, insists that political participation of the people is the only way to prevent unfavorable state and local candidates to hold public office and therefore, prevent unfavorable legislation to be passed within state government that may negatively impact the state and its

Another issue that could lead to a civil rights movement is with our new President Donald Trump and where he stands on abortion and the funding of Planned Parenthood. This brings up controversy because on the more right side, people’s argument is that you are essentially ending a human life with getting an abortion. Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest abortion provider and has more than 7 million pre-born babies that have died as a result of the mothers visiting. The argument for the left is that Planned Parenthood is the country’s leading provider of reproductive health care. If it stops receiving federal funding it could have millions of women, men, and young people from live-saving preventive care: cancer screenings, breast exams,

In addition, on page 4 of the record it states that “federal funds can not be used for abortion nor can anyone with federal health insurance use such funds or plans to obtain an abortion except in instances of rape or incest or if the mother’s life is at risk.” This roadblock places an obstacle in the form of a financial burden on women seeking abortions. In the case of Webster v. Reproductive Health Services and Hodgson v. Minnesota, this court ruled that states were not obligated to spend their own money or use their own facilities to subsidize abortions because women had the ability to go to a private physician to obtain an abortion. However, this can be distinguished from the case at bar because under proposition 417 it requires the trans-vaginal ultra sound be performed, which is a procedure separate from the abortion. Therefore, private insurance should absolutely be able to cover the costs of this additional procedure. Because insurance cannot do this, it places a substantial financial obstacle on women, thus creating an undue burden. Therefore, Proposition 417 is written for the sole purpose of creating unnecessary barriers for women wanting an abortion to go

In her “The New Scarlet Letter -- A is for Abortion”(2011), Linda Bergthold argues that the passing of the Stupak-Pitts Amendment, as well as the Hyde Amendment, not only berates women who consider abortion an option to an unpremeditated pregnancy, but also may financially “overwhelm” and metaphorically cripple the expecting mother. Bergthold provides statistical evidence in which she states the outrageous cost of having an abortion, and the “stupid” idea of abortion coverage in insurance policies due to the fact that one does not “plan on having an abortion when they sign up for insurance coverage”; not to mention the fact that it may not work as planned in the new health system. Bergthold aims to disprove those who are attempting to

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

A person wrote a letter to the editor in “The News-Sentinel”, saying that insurance should cover women who want to go out and have babies. On the other hand, this person wants women who want to have an abortion to come up with the money themselves and that the government or insurance should not cover abortions (“The Rant,” 2009). Many believe that some women use abortions as a form of birth control. For women who find themselves in that situation, the expense for those types of abortions should be paid for by those women. However, in certain cases such as incest, rape, genetics, failed birth control and endangerment to the life of the expectant mother. Those situations should be covered by insurance.

In the past few decades, the issue of abortion rights has created debates and controversy within the United States. Those who criticize the act of abortion – pro-life – argue that the act of abortion is equivalent to the murder of a baby. Those who support the legalization of abortion – pro-choice – argues women should be able to choose whether or not they want to have an abortion. Currently, abortion is legal in all states – a result of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Roe vs. Wade. However, it has become increasingly common for states to create anti-abortion laws, which makes it more difficult to have an abortion. In 2014, Missouri state representative Rick Brattin proposed H.B.131, a house bill that would require women to receive a written consent from the biological father in order to have an abortion. This bill serves to prevent women from having an abortion.