|
|
June 18, 2013
|
|
Unintended ConsequencesPosted on Feb 23, 2011By Ruth Marcus House Republicans voted to increase the number of abortions, raise federal health care costs and swell the welfare rolls. That wasn’t their intent, of course, and certainly not their stated policy. But it is the predictable and inevitable impact of their twin moves to eliminate funding for the federal family planning program and strip Planned Parenthood of all federal money. If anything, this assessment is understated. The sharper, and still accurate version, would be that Republicans voted to let more women die from breast cancer, cervical cancer and AIDS. How’s that? The family planning programs also provide cancer screening and HIV counseling to millions of low-income and uninsured people. Let’s be clear about one thing. Almost none of this money went for abortions. The only federal funding for abortion involves the thankfully low number of situations in which poor women seek abortions for pregnancy due to rape or incest, or when their own lives are in jeopardy. In 2006, the last year for which figures are available, the federal government paid for 191 such abortions, according to the Guttmacher Institute. However, the House cuts are intended to punish abortion providers—specifically, Planned Parenthood, which is simultaneously the largest recipient of federal family planning funds and the largest abortion provider in the country. Advertisement But abortions represent 3 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provides; contraception accounts for 35 percent; testing for sexually transmitted diseases, 34 percent; cancer screening and prevention, another 17 percent. How does the federal money that flows to Planned Parenthood for those purposes differ from, say, Medicare funding that flows to hospitals that also perform abortions? Are those facilities next? “If Planned Parenthood wants to be involved in providing counseling services and HIV testing, they ought not be in the business of providing abortions,” Indiana Republican Mike Pence, who has led the defunding charge, told Politico. “As long as they aspire to do that, I’ll be after them.” Last I checked, abortion was legal in this country. But leave aside Planned Parenthood and turn to the larger question of the Title X family planning program. In introducing his Planned Parenthood defunding, Pence took care to make that distinction. “This legislation does not cut one penny from Title X family planning funding,” he said. “I applaud much of the important work that is done at Title X clinics across this country: breast cancer screening, HIV protection, education, counseling, pregnancy diagnosis.” Applaud, perhaps, but not fund. A few weeks later, the House spending bill zeroed out all $317 million in Title X funding. An amendment by New York Democrat Nita Lowey to restore the funding did not receive a vote because Lowey did not come up with other cuts to pay for it. This is crazy—as a matter of both abortion prevention and fiscal prudence. The Title X program was signed into law in 1970 by Richard Nixon, who proclaimed that “no American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.” Title X clinics serve more than 5 million women annually, the vast majority of them low-income. The Guttmacher Institute has estimated that Title X helps prevent nearly 1 million unintended pregnancies annually. The institute says these pregnancies would otherwise result in 433,000 unintended births and 406,000 abortions. The inevitable result of eliminating Title X funding would not only be more abortions—it would also be higher bills for taxpayers footing Medicaid and welfare costs for poor children. Guttmacher found that every Title X dollar invested in family planning care saves $3.74 in Medicaid expenditures for pregnant women and their babies during the first year of care. Imagine the lifetime savings. And then there is the other “important work” that Pence cited: 2.2 million Pap smears, 2.3 million breast exams, nearly 6 million tests for sexually transmitted infections. If Republicans really believe that this is not a wise use of government funds, they are crazier than I thought. Ruth Marcus’ e-mail address is marcusr(at symbol)washpost.com. © 2011, Washington Post Writers Group Previous item: Uprisings: From the Middle East to the Midwest Next item: How I Passed My U.S. Citizenship Test: By Keeping the Right Answers to Myself New and Improved CommentsIf you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy. |
By Lafayette, February 28, 2011 at 8:02 am Link to this comment
A SHORT HISTORY OF ABORTION
Throughout the Middle Ages Christian theologians debated about the soul of the fœtus. That is, the date of its supposed “animation” (meaning, archaically, the “state of being alive”). It was first fixed at 40 days for the boys and 80 for the girls in the 13th century. In 1532 it was fixed at the mid-point of the pregnancy, that is, when the mother first perceived its movements.
Nonetheless, in 1558, the Pope in Rome forbade all abortions regardless of their date.
However, during the period of the Renaissance, abortion for medical reasons (including internal hemorrhaging) was not permitted but neither condoned by the church. In the 1800s, in France, it was again relegated as a forbidden regardless of the woman’s circumstance. In 1920, abortions became illegal under French civil law.
Finally, about a century-and-a-half later, in 1971, was published in the press a list of 343 names of women, well-known who admitted to having aborted. Abortion at the time was forbidden, but contraception was first making its inroads.
In 1972, a lower-court judge decided that abortion was no longer a criminal offense. Matters regarding abortion then accelerated to fix the legal void that this decision produced.
In 1975, finally, a law was passed (submitted by a female Minister of Health) that permitted abortions by the French National Health System (NHS), but they were reimbursed by the NHS. Until 1982, when the French NHS finally acknowledged reimbursement for the surgical intervention of abortion.
NINE MEN-ON-A-BENCH
In the United States Supreme Court decision (Roe v. Wade) was made on January 22, 1973). Prior to “Roe”, there were exceptions to the abortion ban in at least 10 states. “Roe” established that a woman has a right to self-determination (often referred to as a “right to privacy”) covering the decision whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term, but that this right must be balanced against a state’s interest in preserving fetal life.
The current legal situation is not limpidly clear and can be accessed here
That is, to this day, 30 years later, American women cannot benefit from the same absolute protection of the law universally throughout their country as do French women. Largely because Nine Men-on-a-Bench (called the Supreme Court) have decided otherwise.
POST SCRIPTUM: Rhetorical Question
Were males obliged to carry a child in their belly and bring it to term after nine-months, would the nine men-on-a-bench have consistently refused to approve unhindered abortion?
Similarly, would a PotUS not have thought very, very carefully before send his “boys ‘n girls” off to the killing fields?
Report thisBy Morning Quickie, February 25, 2011 at 2:48 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The war on women’s rights is just getting worse. Have you heard about the new Georgian bill which equates a miscarriage with murder? http://morningquickie.com/2011/02/25/miscarriage-is-not-your-fault-and-not-a-crime/#comment-10047
Report thisBy Rodney, February 24, 2011 at 3:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
They mostly want to prevent white women from having
Report thisabortions as well having any means to any birth
control. Conservative racist Bill Bennett said it
best in his own words. If all black babies were
aborted the crime rate would go down. The real
abortion battle is between white men and white women.
Conservative white men want their women back at home
in the kitchen. They only want to let them out to
shop for the family go to church and PTA meetings.
They want their June Cleaver back. If poor black and
hispanic women were the only women in America having
abortions then they would have abortion clinics on
every inner city corner in America next to the liquor
stores and Chinese carryouts.
By louiss123, February 24, 2011 at 10:12 am Link to this comment
small thinkers produce small results
Report thisBy purplewolf, February 24, 2011 at 1:41 am Link to this comment
Queenie and Big B: The threat to ban birth control-all forms- for women was planned long ago. After they finally get abortion illegal again, the next step is to ban birth control. I follow NARAL and other women’s groups to keep up on some of the latest attacks on women and their rights of choice.
Tonight of the news a Georgia Congressman Bobby Franklin had proposed a bill to make miscarriage punishable by death. Of course he is a Republican-Repukelican-HB 1,a 10 page bill, would criminalize miscarriage and make abortion in Georgia completely illegal. Both miscarriage and abortions would be potentially punishable by death.A miscarriage would be a felony and carry a penalty of life in prison or death. Doctors still do not know what causes a miscarriage and about 25% of known pregnancies end in miscarriage and is actually much higher as many of these occur before a woman knows she is pregnant.Most miscarriages occur due to abnormal development of the fetus.
Aren’t these the same repukes that claim they want smaller government and are constantly cutting services for women, infants and children. The only thing they counts to them is a fetus. And it can’t even vote for them. And who is going to pay for this?
I saw this congress critter actually say this on the news. So much for all those Repugs and T.P.er’s wasting their time trying to ban Mosques and Sharia Law. It is already here alive and well in Georgie and it is brought to you by the Christian side of the Triad of organized religions.
Report thisBy jlt, February 23, 2011 at 3:41 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
Thoughtful but will never get past the media noise machine…They want neither to know or tell the truth! The media demands excess!
Report thisBy Patrick, February 23, 2011 at 3:38 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
The litany of wrongs, to women and society, stemming from these cuts is
Report thisindisputable. What I fail to understand is the title to the column. The
consequences do go unstated, unacknowledged by their proponents, except to
their narrow, often rabid, purist constituencies. But unintended? They clearly are
intended! Explicitly intended. Their proponents are ideological purists and
mountebanks. And even on Truthdig they are not properly characterized as such.
By Big B, February 23, 2011 at 2:30 pm Link to this comment
I am amazed that dimmos in the last 30 years have not figured out that abortion is only the tip of the right wings’ iceberg when it comes to the conservative culture war. Abortion is only the first step. If they are successful there, next will be birth control.
The left needs to wake up to what is really going on, and that is the wacko rights wet dream of the re-subservience of women. They genuinly think that the US will be a better place with women removed from all aspects of public life, and from all positions of authority.
Report thisBy Queenie, February 23, 2011 at 1:59 pm Link to this comment
This is a war on women. They couldn’t give a shit about life, born or unborn. The record speaks for itself.
The far-right,( Republicans AND Democrats) doped up with “religion” want ALL rights for women outlawed. No vote, no voice, no choices. None.
And half of them are so sexually frustrated by their own homo-erotic fantasies that reveal their inborn hatred of all women.
What next, you fuckers? Stoning in the public square?
Report thisBy louiss123, February 23, 2011 at 12:58 pm Link to this comment
oh brother..when is ruth going to realize dems and repubs are the same
Report this‘cake’..they just spout different icing. Both parties coerce us to do things we
would rather not do. That is a ‘light’ example of tyranny. As a libertarian I am
pro-choice on basically everything(not just abortion). However as a spiritual
person personally I think an abortion is a repugnant act. It is hypocritical for a
woman to speak of ‘Gaia’ or ‘goddess’ talk..and then to promote abortions. If
life moves a woman to choose to have an abortion then I am ok with that.
However I live in Santa Cruz a very left wing place. I have seen women for years
talk endlessly about..goddess talk..and the earthmother..and so on..and then
be ok with abortions. If we do live in a spiritual field of consciousness..then
how can one look at removing a baby from a womb as anything but a low
evolutionary event? I wont judge a woman for having an abortion..I will slam
the hypocrisy about it though.
Back to R’s and D’s being the same…remember all the anti-war protests against
Bush? Well how many innocent children have been bombed under this
administration? I hear crickets—yes the silence is deafening.
We need to grow up..look in the mirror at ourselves..and quit this obsolete
practice of calling ourselves Rebublicans or Democrats.
By Les, February 23, 2011 at 11:45 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)
What better way to keep the military recruitment efforts going and increase the labor force? That’s my theory on this. This isn’t about abortion - that’s just a simple convenience for which to blame the real motivation.
Report this