Pages

Saturday, May 5, 2012

Arizona bans funding to Planned Parenthood


Yesterday Arizona Governor Jan Brewer signed into law HB 2800, known as the Whole Women's Health Funding Priority Act.  HB 2800 is intended to prevent indirect monies from being applied to organizations that provide "nonfederally qualified abortions," but some groups believe the bill's effects are unclear. Arizona state law already prevents direct taxpayer funding of abortions.

The director of public policy for Planned Parenthood Arizona claims her organization currently provides family planning services to about 25,000 women using federal funds and to about 4,000 women using Arizona's Medicaid program. Planned Parenthood Arizona's President, Bryan Howard, expressed concern that HB 2800 could force people to go without healthcare services.

This is a familiar story.  One side seeks to prevent any funding--direct or indirect--from going to organizations that provide abortions.  The other side claims such a move cannot be done without removing people's access to non-abortion healthcare services.  We ask for your perspective, dear Reader:

  • Which is more important: ensuring people--especially low income people--have the greatest possible access to non-abortion healthcare, or  preventing indirect tax dollars from funding abortions? Why?
  • What are the best methods to prevent tax dollars from funding abortions while simultaneously ensuring people get equal or improved access to non-abortion healthcare?
  • Is there a need for a new or expanded network of abortion-free healthcare organizations to supplant Planned Parenthood?  
  • If so, what is one small step an individual pro-lifer could take to help create this network?

7 comments:

Jen R said...

Which is more important: ensuring people--especially low income people--have the greatest possible access to non-abortion healthcare, or preventing indirect tax dollars from funding abortions? Why?

I would argue the former, not only because healthcare is a crucial good in its own right, but because it's necessary to prevent abortions as well as maternal/fetal health problems. We need to make access to non-abortion healthcare easier, not harder, in order to meet these pro-life goals.

What are the best methods to prevent tax dollars from funding abortions while simultaneously ensuring people get equal or improved access to non-abortion healthcare?

Improve the number of, access to, and visibility of non-abortion healthcare options.

Is there a need for a new or expanded network of abortion-free healthcare organizations to supplant Planned Parenthood?

Abortion-free reproductive health care organizations would pretty much be a dream come true for me.

If so, what is one small step an individual pro-lifer could take to help create this network?

I guess one small step each of us could take would be to express our desire for such a network to every pro-life organization we belong to. It's taken for granted that pro-life = anti-birth-control, so we need to make some noise. If it's not too tacky, I'd also suggest that people who are interested in a "pro-life Planned Parenthood" should check out All Our Lives, because that's one of our dreams.

Anonymous said...

FETUSES HAVE A RIGHT TO LIFE!

The only people who don't have a right to life are people who can't afford to pay for health care.

secularprolife.org said...

Thank you for the thoughtful responses, Jen. Would you consider posting them on the FB link as well?

Lennavan said...

See I don't think that's the entire story, it's not just about abortions. The GOPers are just selling us a story that it's about abortions when in reality, it's just about not wanting to help subsidize health care for poor people. It's much easier to argue we should defund an entity that kills babies rather than argue we should defund basic health care for poor women.

Stop deleting my comments said...

The GOPers are just selling us a story that it's about abortions when in reality, it's just about not wanting to help subsidize health care for poor people. It's much easier to argue we should defund an entity that kills babies rather than argue we should defund basic health care for poor women.

Simon said...

100% agreement

Simon said...

University of California at San Francisco's Tracy Weitz, who for the past decade has run a program at UCSF called Advancing New Standards in Reproductive Health (ANSIRH)


For Weitz, "choice means setting up a social system where women never have to terminate pregnancies for survival reasons. They shouldn't fear living on the streets, without resources, just because they want children." source io9.com