The Women's Health Program

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

The Texas anti-abortion law has taken the country’s attention by storm. It is an issue on many different woman’s minds, especially those who live in the state of Texas. The new laws are forcing many woman to have to cross state lines in order to receive an abortion and medical care. This includes woman who needs abortions due to preexisting medical conditions and those who are carrying fetuses which are diseased and are expected not to be born as healthy babies. The Texas Governor Rick Perry and Senator Ted Cruz are leading the fight for the abortion laws to become permanent, laws that are considered the strictest abortion laws that this country has ever seen.

In Texas (Texas being the first state in America to cancel Medicaid funding), Governor Abbot recently informed Planned Parenthood that the state is cutting off the organization from the state’s Medicaid program stated by Andy Sullivan in the article “Texas Tries To Stitch a Safety Net without Planned Parenthood”, as recently released undercover videos show evidence of violations. Another huge thing they have been under fire for is whether or not they are making a profit off of abortions, if they are making a profit off of abortions the government strongly

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,

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

Planned parenthood has been a topic of controversy the last couple of years, as people throughout the nation ask whether or not the healthcare organization should be defunded. When video footage was released in 2015 of “Planned Parenthood medical officials discussing the sale of fetal tissue to researchers,” it seemed likely that federal funds would be revoked as backlash from the public was noted (Welch). Although the nonprofit organization does offer the termination of unplanned pregnancies, the organization offers many more services to women and men, such as free birth control and yearly health checkups “backed by medical experts and more than 100 years of research in reproductive health” (Planned Parenthood). As many people struggle financially to provide for their families, Planned Parenthood’s services are a relief to those who otherwise would not be able to afford healthcare, which is why the organization should not be defunded.

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

For many years abortion has been the topic of controversy among the political, social and religious spectrum. Each holds individuals with dichotomous views on the legality of abortion. In recent times, the topic of abortion has returned to the courts to challenge political and religious opposing views. In this case, Texas has attempted to combine their religious perspective of abortion into the political sphere by demanding laws restricting abortion practices in clinics. On the other hand, liberal women and women’s rights groups are demanding the unconstitutionality of these restrictions. Therefore the restriction of women’s reproductive rights in laws that are being implemented in Texas should be rejected because of its potential threat

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.

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

At the commencement of her piece, Morris discusses TRAP laws in great detail, mentioning how they’re practically unnoticeable to the American public and how they place multitudinous restrictions on abortion providers. Through her explanation, Morris is able to raise awareness of the issue, which is important because her article was written briefly before the 2016 presidential election, where the matter of abortion would be discussed thoroughly. However, to add on to her statement that TRAP laws are inconsiderate and unjust, Morris relies on the professional insight of Greater Ohio’s Planned Parenthood CEO, Stephanie Kight, who argues that Ohio lawmakers have no concern for what women who require abortions will do, and that

One government program I found was the Federal Women’s Program led by Pamela Pavek. According to http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/wa/about/civilrights/?cid=nrcs144p2_036407 , “ The Federal Women’s Program (FWP) is a special emphasis program which was established in 1963 to enhance employment and advancement of women. Executive Order 11478, signed in 1969, brought the FWP into the overall Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) Program and placed it under the stewardship of the Director of EEO.” This program is to ensure that women receive equal treatment in all areas of the workplace. Also, they providing counseling and promoting leadership in the workplace as well.

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

In a rural county of Iowa, several women and young children were showing up in emergency departments and shelters needing medical assistance. These women were homeless and living out of their cars or in nearby parks. There was not just one specific ethnicity. In fact, these women and children were Hispanics, non-Hispanics and African Americans. It was noted that they came from a neighboring city where there was little assistance given, forcing them to relocate. Consequently, these women learned about this little community of rural Iowa from local papers as well as social media, allowing them to make such a move.