Planned Parenthood funding threatened [Why is it tax-funded to being with?]

The Herald Palladium (St. Joseph-Benton Harbor Michigan The Newspaper for Southwest Michigan) ^ | 1-5-2002 | LYNN STEVENS

[Notwithstanding]

The Herald Palladium Archives

---

January 05, 2002

Planned Parenthood funding threatened

By LYNN STEVENS / H-P Staff Writer

With help from Southwest Michigan legislators, family planning agencies that merely mention abortion options could be pushed to the end of the state funding line.

And poor people seeking birth control could suffer the consequences, say those opposed to the bill passed last month by the state House. Opponents say the bill is a thinly veiled attack on Planned Parenthood, which has offices in Benton Harbor and South Haven.

Berrien County's state representatives Ron Jelinek and Charles LaSata voted for the bill as did Mary Ann Middaugh of Paw Paw.

The Senate will likely take up the bill in February, said state Sen. Harry Gast, R-Lincoln Township.

Gast is skeptical about the bill, calling it little more than a legislative litmus test thrown down by Right to Life of Michigan.

He said he has long tired of the organization's uncompromising ways. "Even in a life-and-death situation, there's no deviation in the Right to Life scorebook," he said.

If Right to Life shows no compromise, then "I'm ready and willing to walk the plank on this one," Gast said.

It could be a lonely walk.

"Every bill that I can remember that was a choice whether or not people would have access to abortion, the Right To Life people have prevailed. In the Senate, I would say it's 2/3 to 1/3 in favor of Right To Life."

Gast said no one is for abortion, "but I would not condemn anyone for it, in very limited circumstances."

If the bill is carried out as written, public health departments may lose federal money - distributed by the state - and Planned Parenthood offices may cut family planning services to poor and moderate-income women, say the bill's opponents. Ironically, public health officials and Planned Parenthood officials say eliminating pregnancy prevention services could increase the number of unwanted pregnancies and abortions in Michigan.

The bill would grant funding priority to agencies and organizations that do not perform abortions, do not make abortion referrals, and do not advocate for continued legal abortion.

Jelinek, (R-Three Oaks) said he understands "all the services that have been available will continue to be available ... organizations that do not perform abortions will have higher priority.

"Now if nobody else is available, funds will still go to that institution," which could be Planned Parenthood.

He said the bill does not affect public health departments because they do not perform abortions.

But according to federal law, health departments would be affected because they and all other providers that get federal Title X funding are required to explain all reproductive health options. At the moment, abortion is a legal procedure in the United States, and therefore, federal law requires it to be included in the list of options.

LaSata (R-St. Joseph) said the bill would not affect state funds going specifically to Planned Parenthood in Southwest Michigan.

LaSata said all state funding for health services is allocated by county, and each county's share is determined by its population. Because there is no alternative health care provider in Berrien County, there would be no change in family planning service levels.

"Charlie LaSata is not correct on that," said Margy Long, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood-Mid-Michigan Alliance.

"Charlie may be making the assumption that Title X funds are dispersed the same way as other state funds, but in fact, there's nothing in this bill that says that's how it has to happen," said Long, whose alliance includes Cass, Van Buren and Berrien counties. "There's nothing to prevent the money from going to some other place.

"The money all goes into one big pot. It gets dispersed among all the providers in the state. The goal is that services should be geographically widespread. There's nothing in the bill that requires that."

Jelinek and LaSata, endorsed in 2000 by Michigan Right to Life, justified their votes on the basis of a 1988 state referendum banning use of public funds for abortions for women receiving public aid unless necessary to save the life of the mother.

Although state voters stopped tax-funded abortions, legislators should not believe the public opposes legalized abortion or supports the House bill, said Charlotte Wenham, former president of Planned Parenthood.

The longtime St. Joseph resident said every poll in the last decade, including polls paid for by sitting legislators, has shown that people in Southwest Michigan overwhelmingly support abortion rights.

Wenham said Right To Life's ideology is overshadowing health care issues.

"The question is: Are legislators voting in the best interest of health care of all individuals, including those who can't afford it, or in favor of the strongest lobbyists in Lansing? I don't think health care is an area where we can experiment for religious and political reasons."

Mark Bertler, executive director of the Michigan Association for Local Public Health, wrote in August 2001 to the chairman of the House committee considering the bill. He wrote that his board, representing public health departments across the state, opposed it.

"The board is concerned that this legislation may put Michigan's successful family planning and pregnancy prevention programs at risk. Over the past two years Michigan has received $40 million in federal bonuses for reducing teen pregnancy, out-of-wedlock births and reducing the number of abortions in our state. ... As currently written, the bill stigmatizes all providers, including local health departments."

Search for
Word one
and or not

Word two
and or not

Word three

Maximum stories:

---

[ Home ] [ Local News ] [ Sports ] [ Features ] [ Obituaries ] [ Business ] [ Editorial ]
[ Business Directory ] [ About Us ] [ Archives ] [ Classifieds ] [ Subscribe ] [ Health News ] [ Amusement ] [ Town Hall ] [ World News ] [ Stocks/Market ]

---

[hocndoc]

madg in post # 68 From a constitutional perspective, a pregnant woman is generally considered to be a single individual (regardless of your rhetorical reference to a fetus as "the new individual"). Essentially, from that perspective, you are not a person until you are born; and therefore are not entitled to the constitutional rights enjoyed by the populace.

Actually, the Constitution does not define person or individual. Even in R v. W (or later judicial rulings) there is no such definition, only a (false) statement that no one knows when life begins (ridiculous in light of the knowledge base of the study of human embryology - look at the interest in embryonic stem cell research and lack of interest in gamete stem cell research), and that prenatal humans have not historically been treated as "full" persons under the law of the US. The facts that neither are infants even today, and that at one time slaves and women were not treated as full persons indicates to me that Blackburn was not clear in his thinking.

I don't believe that any ruling states that the pregnant woman is only single person. Perhaps you are confused by rulings which assert that the woman's right to liberty and privacy over-ride that of the infant to life, and the duty of society to protect life, until a certain, variable point in the pregnancy. The result is an arbitrary division of humans into two classes, prenatal and postnatal, with unequal protections from killing. Inspite of the historical position that all men are "created equal."

[He Rides A White Horse]

Perhaps you are confused by rulings which assert that the woman's right to liberty and privacy over-ride that of the infant to life, and the duty of society to protect life, until a certain, variable point in the pregnancy.

He doesn't care, doc. His perspective is "law".

[hocndoc]

There is no evidence to support the assertion that abortion has improved the health of women. The maternal mortality and morbidity rate decreased independently of the legalization of abortion, and even contraception. Take a look at the CDC information available on the net. Antibiotics and improved general health are responsible for that decrease. (I have that reference at the office, but you could search on the CDC site, if you can't wait until I can post it)

Information on abortion statistics are published in the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly by the CDC. Deaths due to abortion have only been collected since the early '70's.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00001467.htm

Of special interest is the simultaneous fall in mortality due to spontaneous abortion and that due to elective abortion in the '70's. This is probably due to improved surgical techniques, antibiotic use, and the vacuum suction.

[hocndoc]

That's why we must point out the conflicting position of the basis for our law and any rulings that discriminate against the helpless class of prenatal humans.

[hocndoc]

Planned Parenthood is an institutionalized system designed to specifically discriminate against an entire class of human beings. Those of us who believe in the Constitution should fight this two-class system.

Further, such Federal funding undermines the express purpose of the Goverment as described in the Constitution. That document says that the government is to "provide" for the common defense, while "promoting" for the general welfare. Here's an article that makes that distinction better than I could: http://www.townhall.com/columnists/marvinolasky/mo20020109.shtml

[He Rides A White Horse]

Of course.

It wasn't meant to imply that you or anybody else should desist in your efforts.

I think many "liberals" aren't liberal at all; they are people who merely have heard no alternative to liberal 'thought' due to their near monopoly on mass media. They are people who have been lied to, people who aren't presented with facts, but an endless barrage of propaganda.

Then there are those doing the lying, the "ruling elite" types, such as madg.

[SpookBrat]

I'm sorry but I just don't see the necessity of Planned Parenthood anyway. Gee, as far as condoms go, what's wrong with going to the local drug store and buying them? They aren't that expensive. Certainly a poor person who needs a condom for free, can atleast afford a place to have sex, be it a car or a home. So why can't that spring $12 for a box of condoms? Whatever! Birth control pills aren't that expensive either. Planned Parenthood still makes you pay for them, just about $10 cheaper than a doctor.

What's wrong with just going to a doctor? Oh, I forgot. Poor people don't have health care. Guess we better call Hillary to fix that problem for us. You can go to your county hospital and get them just as easily as Planned Parenthood.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought organizations who receive tax money can't support a candidate? Is that right or wrong?

[Robert A Cook PE]

Gee.

From Madg above: "And aren't SAFE abortions better than back-alley coathanger jobs? These are certainly health-related matters...."

Your "Public Health" organization is funding millions towards democratic candidates (more than say, ENRON ever gave Bush by a factor a several times), who have sold their votes on abortion to get this money .....

And you hide behind "back alley" abortions charade that was never true: "Legal" abortion kill more women than these supposed back alley lies ever did. Less than 1% of abortions are "for the health of the mother" - the rest are for convenience. To prevent her from losing her figure, to prevent stretch marks, and to make her look pretty, Planned parenthood demands that WE pay them money to kill her child.

Rather the opposite of what evolution teaches isn't it?

Planned Parenthood lives and is funded for abortion. Every action they do either creates more abortions, or increases the risk of more pregnacy: condoms ARE NOT effective ineither preventing pregnacy NOR in preventing AIDS.

And Planned Parenthood opposes abstenance training .... though that is only proven method that works.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Just look at their methods; half truths, outright lies, and distortions.

Simply for the fact that if people knew what they were really after, they would have no support. Which is why they act just like every totalitarian before them, and those that will come after them. They need to control the way people think. It's what they are.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Post 51:

He Rides A White Horse: Again, a woman capable of giving birth points to a healthy reproductive system in all probability. I can sense your smugness as you typed 'public health organization' within the quotes; indeed you folks have become bold in your application of Orwellian newspeak.

You are correct… and I apologize… I DID become smug over your invalid simile. My bad.

He knows what he's doing here.

[hocndoc]

I know you agree, I'm sorry, I was emphasizing. (Somehow, even my husband thinks I'm arguing when I do this. I need to re-evaluate my discussion skills.)

[hocndoc]

If he can justify institutionalized serial killing....... The rest of his justifications are easy. (I'm off to work)

[He Rides A White Horse]

No, not really. Rereading my original post, it might appear to some that I am saying to not even bother debating them.

More simply, what I am saying that there are those who will never be 'convinced', because they already know what the truth is. They don't care. They'll do what they want.

It shouldn't matter if these self-proclaimed "keepers of the flame" understand (or pretend to not understand). Ultimately, we are simply going to have to ignore them, do what is right, whether they get it or not. We owe them no explanation.

[He Rides A White Horse]

All they want to do is play "verbal footsy". Have a good day, hocndoc.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, but I thought organizations who receive tax money can't support a candidate? Is that right or wrong?

I wrote a letter to my Senator about this, and the answer I got (if I remember correctly) came down to what was essentially creative bookkeeping.

They jsut claim that the money they get from the government is indeed earmarked for "health services", and that the other funds they get from other places (private) are used for political purposes.

[He Rides A White Horse]

Think rob Peter (the taxpayer) to pay Paul (the DNC)

[Robert A Cook PE]

". Law enforcement and the judiciary set up "buffer zones," not special-interest groups...."

WRONG!

These restrictons on free speech were demanded BY the abortion industry (and their democratic spokesmen and national media lackeys) and by liberals - the same ones that in the 60's were taking over government offices and campuses under "free speech" riots - Reno's Justice Dept merely went along for the publicity, and for their campaign money. The liberals who quote "the right of free speech" are only interested in ME funding THEIR "speech" - they demand that the governemnt restricts MY right to free speech: The liberals (the people who abortion industry funds!) demand that conservatives be shut up during political campaigns (McCain/Feingold); that we cannot demonstrate in public nor on public property, that we cannot protest when our religious symbols are buried in manure, that our tax dollars are required to go to an organization that uses that money to fund democrats.

Or do you want to pretend that her Justice Dept was actually interested in following any legitimate part of the law?

[Galatea]

Hmmmmmmmmmm. Interesting proposition, which I differ with entirely.

How can one say that PP is all about 'controlling' sexuality, when in fact is is the right wing extremists who, in my view, want to stick their noses in the bedrooms?

What is wrong with 'planning' one's life? The right loves to use the phrase 'personal responsiblity', and I see using contraception as a perfect expression of personal responsibility.

We all have to plan our lives, do we not? We get educations, we manage our finances, we set goals and work toward them...why should childbearing be any different? Note that I am referring to contraception, not abortion.

On the one hand the extreme right chastised those who just have children willy-nilly, and yet on the other hand is quick to condemn anyone who takes control of their body/fertility. What's up with that?

As for nature having control over a woman's body and not the woman, please. You manage your weight, don't you? You manage your alcohol intake, cholesterol, blood pressure, etc., so why is reproduction any different? Because, at the end of the day, extreme groups desperately want to control citizen's sexual practices.

BTW PP, whilst founded by Sanger, who was an advocate of eugenics, does not espouse anything resembling that incredibly sick and unfortunate philosophy. I received health care as a young adult from PP, when I was poor and had no health insurance, and they were the ones who found dysplasia (precancer) and gave me the appropriate treatment for that. If it weren't for them I could have gotten cervical cancer and died in my 20s.

[bvw]

Sex is potent, powerful -- no better indication of that potency than that it results in a new human life.

Like Disneyland models life -- making it clean, safe and plastic, so to does PP model sex -- making sex "clean", "safe" and plastic.

And just as Disneyland isn't real, and real people don't live there, so too is the sexual life advocated by PP unreal, and results in great confusions -- busted people, divorces, libertine sexuality resulting in just the kind of cervical problems you had. For really, even PP can't make sex pure, "clean" and "safe". Sex defies and ever will defy such shallowness.

Sex, human sexuality, requires and will ever require all the moral and emotional strengths one and one's culture has to "control" -- convenient short-cuts and brief dalliances are not within it -- although thoughout history people have tried. Latex will never hold in its demons, or permit the "safe" full enjoyment of its sublime pleasures.

Morality was never about limiting enjoyment of life, of sex. True morality is and was ever about maximizing its full pleasures.

What is the root of zealotry? Many times it is that of sure, yet subconscious, knowledge and dread fear that a culture is denying one great pleasure.

If you love sex, go find a right-wing zealot and enjoy! Get married, have children, have a life!

[toenail]

"BTW PP, whilst founded by Sanger, who was an advocate of eugenics, does not espouse anything resembling that incredibly sick and unfortunate philosophy."

Abortionists kill 2 out of every 5 black babies, a rate three times that of whites. Planned Parenthood has never stood for anything but weeding out the poor and minorities.