Before I get into the topic of today’s post, I’d like to give a quick update on Steve Six’s nomination to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. The vote has been delayed again because of a letter Kansas Senators Roberts and Moran sent, asking the Senate Judiciary to simply stop considering Six for the nomination. It is not extremely unlikely Six will be nominated. We can’t know for sure because the possibility of him being nominated won’t go away unless President Obama removes his nomination, which I my guess is that this won’t happen until President Obama feels it would be politically damaging not to. I thank Senator Roberts and Senator Moran for publically opposing Six’s nomination, despite complaints from pro-abortion folks. I would especially like to thank Senator Moran. He kept to his opposition even after an angry call from the White House itself. [End sidetrack.]
Now for the real topic of today’s post, which originally wasn’t going to be today’s post, but I just heard about this last night.
Remember the bill that made new requirements for programs to receive Title X funding? Namely, that the organizations should offer “full service”; meaning, they would need to do primary and preventative Family Planning care to receive funding. The bill passed. Well, Planned Parenthood (PP) promptly sued for discrimination, claiming that the bill was aimed at them so they would no longer be able to receive funding form Title X, since PP pretty much only does reproductive care. And U.S. Judge J. Thomas Marten ordered a temporary injunction. Which basically means that Kansas PP may not lose their funding. Naturally, we pro-lifers were ecstatic that PP would be defunded. Why wouldn’t we? PP performs 25% of all abortions nationwide. But the idea that it was aimed only at PP is preposterous. PP was never mentioned in the bill. PP isn’t the only organization that will be defunded by this bill. There are approximately eighty other health clinics in Kansas that the funding would shift to: clinics that give more well-rounded care, including things that PP claims women would lose if PP were defunded.
PP claims that this bill is about abortion. Well, sure, it partly is, in spirit, so to speak. I won’t deny that. But it’s also about giving funds from non-law-breaking and more worthy, more well-rounded health clinics. And actually, let me point something out to you: IT IS AGAINST THE LAW TO USE TITLE X FUNDING FOR PROGRAMS THAT USE ABORTION AS PART OF FAMILY PLANNING.
Also, PP just contradicted itself: did anybody else catch that? PP claims that their funding doesn’t go towards abortions. Yet they’re saying that pro-lifers are rooting for this bill so that PP will be defunded because they perform abortions. But if defunding wouldn’t have an effect on abortions, why are they using this argument? Hmm.
Actually, let me give you a broader picture of PP. PP is about abortions. Period. That’s where the money is. If PP’s funding is taken away, they’ll be exposed as the abortion mill they are.
PP in New Hampshire was defunded recently, losing $1.8 million in funds. They promptly began to cut back on providing birth control pills and other contraceptives for all of their clinics, and “other services provided by Planned Parenthood, including pelvic exams, were also in peril”. But three out of the six New Hampshire’s PP clinics will still perform abortions. If PP is really about “preventative care”, and they claim birth control will prevent abortions (not true, but I can write a post on that later), then why do they cut back on birth control first?
So, in theory, perhaps the funding really isn’t used for abortion: they need the funding so they don’t have to dip into their own profits (Which was 63.4 million during 2008-2009) to keep up the appearance of simply being a reproductive health organization. But that’s virtually still the same thing. If they don’t keep up appearances, they’ll lose their funding, because without those appearances, they’re an abortion clinic with Title X funding (which, I repeat, is AGAINST THE LAW), not a family planning reproductive health clinic, and they would then lose their funding from Title X anyway. It’s a circle.
And I would just like to mention that PP is lying when they say poor women will lose affordable care. (look here, near the end, starting with "Kathy Ostrowski of Kansans for Life described to LifeNews how the budget provision works.") The point of this bill is that Title X money would go to fund more services than PP provides, meaning that poor women would actually have just as much access to more kinds of care. This bill doesn’t take money away from poor women. It just redistributes it to different, better places. I repeat, this is the point of this bill.
Here is a link to an excellent article by the Susan B. Anthony List. It lists all of the main reasons for defunding PP. I encourage you to read it; it’s fairly short.
