Planned Parenthood&
The Defunding Movement

Introduction

Planned Parenthood is a national nonprofit organization of the United States. It is a fundamental provider of reproductive health care. Planned Parenthood has 61 affiliates throughout the country, with an estimated 700 health clinics in almost all states. It is not only a health care provider, but also an educator and advocate for women’s health. Planned Parenthood assists women in making conscious and well-informed choices about health, sex, and family planning. Every year over three million women, men, and teens visit Planned Parenthood associated medical centers to receive health care such as routine gynecological exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, contraceptive services, abortion care, sexually transmitted infection/disease testing and treatment. According to Planned Parenthood, one out of five female Americans pays a visit to a Planned Parenthoodcenter throughout the course of her life (Planned Parenthood, 2014). Because Planned Parenthood is a nonprofit organization, it relies heavily on government funding to support its broad mission and programs. At the end of the 2014 fiscal year, it was revealed that Planned Parenthood health centers were recipients of $528.4 million in government funds. These funds were the largest source of income for the organization followed by private donors, charitable foundations, and non-government sources. With this being said, federal funding is absolutely essential to ensuring that Planned Parenthood’s program operations are successfully executed. Opponents of Planned Parenthood have rallied against federal funding, calling for a halt while Congress investigates the organization for its alleged practices surrounding fetal tissue extractions post abortion and their subsequent sale to research institutions. They are urging Congress to redirect current allocations of Planned Parenthood funding towards other heath care organizations (Ross, 2015). Some legislators have called for a limited defunding (up to one year), while others believe that federal defunding should be permanent. While pro-life supporters may call into question the legality and ethics of these abortion practices, an in-depth analysis will discuss this issue at length, propose resolutions, and show that federal funding of must remain in tact in order for Parent Parenthood to continue providing its critical and preventative health services for the American people. Though leaders at Planned Parenthood could not be reached for commentary, media interviews conducted by journalists George Stephanopoulos and AlisynCamerota, as well as Congressional testimony will also be used to support this paper’s claims.
Defining the Issue
Planned Parenthood offersa variety of health services, but it cannot do this without federal funding. Though others would argue that defunding the organizations would contribute to goalsof mending national debt, defunding would have dire consequences for the public for a number of reasons. Loss of funding would restrict access to reproductive health care. Since women are only able in becoming pregnant and giving birth, policies around this issue are inherently biased and damage the social and economic advancements that women have made in the United States (Annas and Mariner, 2011). Title X funding of Planned Parenthood is geared towards comprehensive family planning assistance for approximately five million women and men. These clinics aid the public, regardless of income, marital status, age, sex, or insurance coverage (Zoppo, 2013). In an interview with George Stephanopoulos (2015), Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards maintains that the organization is the largest non-profit health care provider and produces the highest standards of care. Health services are delivered at more than 4,500 health clinics across the nation;more than half of these facilities are in underserved areas (Richards as cited in Stephanopoulos, 2015). Annually, almost two million cervical and breast cancer screenings are performed, 1.2 million men and women are tested and treated for sexually transmitted infections, and contraception for 2 million women is distributed (Abramovitz, 2012). Some states such as North Carolina and New Hampshire have already terminated state funding of Planned Parenthood. Jennifer Frizzell, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood in New England, describes how these cutbacks have prevented health centers from even providing antibiotics for urinary tract infections and STIs (Abramovitz, 2012). Loss of funding for these medical services would result in low-income people losing access to health care and would further add to the issues surrounding access in rural areas and inner cities. In 2011, the National Council of Women’s Organizations formalized a letter to Congress and called for the creation of a budget that would safeguard programs that serve and employ women and block reductions that impede women’s health and well being (Abramovitz, 2012).
Servicing the Public Sector
Planned Parenthood’s services go above and beyond in benefitting the public sector. 11 million women each year visit Planned Parenthood affiliates (Annas& Mariner, 2011). A study conducted by Dennis et al. (2013) highlighted that health care reform, as legislated by the Affordable Care Act, has slightly improved access to health care. On the other hand, it has deteriorated for some populations. The following groups face barriers to access: young women and minors, immigrants, those who have little to no insurance coverage, and residents outside of urban areas (Dennis et al. 2013). Planned Parenthood helps bridge the gap in access. Medicaid and Title X funding expands health care access to economically disadvantaged women (Zoppo, 2013). The organization’s programs are efficient and result in cost savings because unplanned pregnancies, especially for adolescents, have severe economic and social impacts such as increased poverty and dependence on public welfare programs (Zoppo, 2013).Planned Parenthood does more than any other organization to prevent unintended pregnancies (Richards as cited in Stephanopoulos, 2015). Case studies from several states only bolster the cost-effective aspect of family planning. State and federal government have saved millions of dollars because of Planned Parenthood services. Funding of family planning programs has actually led to decreased abortion rates. Over a 20-year span (Kaiser Foundation as cited in Zoppo, 2013) health centers funded by Title X assisted in women evading almost twenty million accidental pregnancies. Nine million of these pregnancies would have ultimately been terminated. Beyond the state and federal level, Planned Parenthood often collaborates with local officials and administrators in establishing a variety of programs and making them available to citizens.
In New York City, Planned Parenthood assists New Yorkers in guaranteeing that they possess the information needed in making decisions regarding their reproductive health. The organization is working alongside the de Blasio administration to ensure that disparities within in health care access are addressed (PPNYC, 2015). Planned Parenthood of NYC has targeted three sexual education programs: CATCH, LYFE, and STEP UP, and urges the current administration to safeguard program implementation, reserve funding, and increase accessibility. PPNYC wants the City to invest in public education and reshape views about contraception (PPNYC, 2015). It is looking to develop and fortify programs for CUNY students, adolescents in the foster care system, the homeless, and incarcerated individuals. Furthermore, PPNYC wishes for the continued support of health care safety net providers who offer services to all New Yorkers, regardless of income status (PPNYC, 2015).While New Yorkers often see harmony between Planned Parenthood and the local government, this does not hold for the rest of the nation. One must study the government’s position and the climate of the current debate.
The Actions of the Government
The government stance regarding the funding of Planned Parenthood is split mainly between Democrats and Republicans and varies from state to state.It is been exceptionally difficult for the government to compromise policies since the subject matter is extremely sensitive. The crux of the debate around Planned Parenthood deals with the issue of abortion. In light of the covert recordings and videos from theCenter for Medical Progress (an anti-abortion group), Republicansare leading the discussion to defund Planned Parenthood. Activists from the Center for Medical Progress have stated that its videos captured Planned Parenthood doctors conversing about the sale of fetal tissue. This has undoubtedly incited staunch opposition from Republicans and pro-life Americans. In response to these accusations, Planned Parenthood has stated that it does not engage in the selling of fetal tissue and asserts that the transactions (as revealed by the videos) were donations (Kurtzleben, 2015). At the state and national level, anti-abortion advocates have rallied for new legal restrictions on Medicaid, Title X, and reimbursement of Planned Parenthood. Some of these restrictions have been legislated. Indiana, North Carolina, and Wisconsin are some of states that have initiated bans on federal funding (Ziegler, 2012). On the other hand, one central theme must be stressed. The abortion service is the smallest service (3%) provided byPlanned Parenthood.Federal revenue has not been used to support abortions and has been effectively banned since the Hyde Amendment was enacted in 1977. Medicaid funds a limited number of abortions, in only a small number of states and in cases that are medically necessary (Kurtzleben, 2015). The majority of abortion services are subsidized by private donors, organizations, and fees charged by Planned Parenthood (Ross, 2014). The 2013-2014 fiscal year report shows that funding (government, private donations, and other organizations) is shared among the following services: 42% STI/STD testing and treatment, 34% contraception, 11 % other women’s health services, 9% cancer screening and prevention, 3% abortion, and 1% other services (Planned Parenthood).
Steps have already been taken by the government to investigate the allegations made by the Center of Medical Progress. The House Energy and Commerce Committee has launched its probe into Planned Parenthood and its 58 affiliated health centers about abortion practices and the harvesting of fetal tissue. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee is examining how the organization utilizes federal funds and if the money is directed towards illegal practices. The committee also demanded an itemization of all funding (Harkness, 2015). Upon the ongoing investigation, these two committees along with the Judicial Committee have found any evidence to support the claims made by the Center for Medical Progress. As these committees complete their due diligence, the videos were cited as highly edited and the alleged statements made by Planned Parenthood executives were unsubstantiated. Furthermore, it has been found that the organization did not participate in any illegal activities (Bassett, 2015). When Cecile Richards was asked about fetal tissue donations, she stated Planned Parenthood did not engage in any legal activity; the discussions of transactions only dealt with the transfer of specimen to research facilities. She also claimed that the organization does not profit from fetal tissue donations. Women voluntarily donate fetal tissue for life saving medical research. These tissues have made great advancements in Parkinson’s, Alzeheimer’s, and Ebola (Stephanopoulos, 2015). To make better sense of the Planned Parenthood debate, we must also consider the opposing views and understand the arguments behind them. This will allow us to further comprehend why attempts toward conflict resolution have been arduous.
The Pro-Life Argument& Defunding Movement
There are two mainmotivesbehind the proposals to restrict or eradicate federal funding for women’s reproductive health services. The first deals with the primary beneficiaries of family planning services. They are economically underprivileged women and children with little to no political clout. They do not have the financial means to dispute funding restrictions (Annas& Mariner, 2011). The second motivation involves abortion being one of the most controversial issues in the United States. Abortion politics has remained and always will be a result of a broad collection of issues that surround family life, gender rules, and the Court's responsibility in checking legislation (Devins, 2009). Extensive and comprehensive reproductive health care does in fact involve abortion. While women have the legal right to choose, efforts to completely ban Roe v. Wade have been continuing for years. Now, the majority of attempts have been readdressed toward limiting or ceasing federal funding of abortion and associated programs such as those provided by Planned Parenthood (Annas& Mariner,2011). Efforts to reduce government’s funding will severely impact Planned Parenthood’s ability to perform abortions.
The recent undercover and probing videos by the Center of Medical Progress have only fueled efforts to defund Planned Parenthood. The most recent pro-life bill, HR 3134, will stop Planned Parenthood from receiving federal money while Congress investigates the organization for negotiating prices for aborted fetal baby parts (Focus on the Family, 2015). Opponents of Planned Parenthood state that it is a nonprofit organization whose revenue amounts to a billion dollars a year. They have posed questions asking if taxpayer funds should go to an organization that terminates human life and cruelly sells fetal body parts. Earll, 2015 outlines several facts about Planned Parenthood and abortion. Planned Parenthood is the largest of abortion providers, where one out of three abortions is performed at its clinics. The organization’s one in ten patients have abortions. The amount of abortions at Planned Parenthood’s facilities has increased by 30 percent since 2002, even though the number of abortions has decreased nationwide. In 2013, women who used Planned Parenthood’s services were 15 times more expected to abort their pregnancies than use adoption or prenatal care. The overall number of adoption referrals decreased by 14 percent. Earll cites former Planned Parenthood facility director Abbey Johnson as stating that abortions were the most lucrative part of the business. While Planned Parenthood contends that the loss of federal funding will result in many women losing access to health care, opponents argue that taxpayer money already supports 1200 health center organizations that deliver comprehensive services, far more than the array delivered at Planned Parenthood. Though the Hyde Amendment strictly prohibits the use of federal funds for abortion, federal funds are directed towards overall expenses where as other funds can be used to provide abortions. Opponents of Planned Parenthood have labeled its activities as anti-life and anti-family. The organization’s pro-abortion lobbying and pro-sexual activity messages should be adequate reasons for federal defunding (Earll, 2015).
The movement to defund Planned Parenthood embodies a new chapter of the abortion struggle. In an interview with AlisynCamerota, David Daleiden, activitist for the Center of Medical Progress, speaks out against Planned Parenthood. He stands by his two and a half year investigative study that display two physicians talking about selling fetal body parts. He claims that the organization openly admitted to harvesting fetal tissue and shipped fully intact fetuses to research facilities. He declares that the selling of fetal tissue illegal and barbaric (Daleiden as cited in Camerota, 2015). Pro-life advocates have worked relentlessly to develop and enforce the belief that abortion is a negative right (Ziegler, 2015). The defunding campaign also claims to be a voice for women. Abortion enables the sexual exploitation of women and teens. Opponents depict Planned Parenthood as keen to perform abortions on exploited women without reporting episodes of sexual assault or rape. The movement against the federal defunding Planned Parenthood of encourages new pro-woman and pro-life attitudes (Ziegler, 2015).

Refuting the Defunding Movement
Upon reading the literature, one can delineate that Planned Parenthood is the nation’s largest provider of abortions. The strongest arguments paint an aggressively negative picture of the organization, emphasizing only its abortion services. Labeling Planned Parenthood as “anti-life” and “anti-family” not only portrays a hostile message but it is in direct contrast with the organization’s mission. While the investigative videos indeed call into question Planned Parenthood’s practices and sensitivity towards abortion services, one must understand that the right to choose is fundamentally a woman’s right. A woman has the right to control what happens to her body and whether or not she chooses to end her pregnancy. Women spent decades fighting for this right. No one should infringe on a woman’s right to decide what is best for her health and well-being. Richards’ Congressional Testimony makes four notable points: the use of fetal tissue in life-saving medical research is completely legal, less than 1% of Planned Parenthood facilities assist in fetal tissue donation, many of the patients want to donate fetal tissue, and policies are in compliance with the law. She also declares that women should “make their own decisions about their pregnancies and their future” (Richards, 2015, CSPAN). Furthermore, the defunding movement’s enthusiasts have an argument that is narrow and short-sided. They attack Planned Parenthood based only on its abortions, which is only 3% of all the health services it provides. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood uses none of its federal funding towards abortions but rather for other client services, education, and research (Planned Parenthood, 2015). As Richards points out, the videos produced by the Center for Medical campaign were highly edited and sensationalized, and the statements by those who were recorded were taken out of context (Richards as cited in Stephanopoulos, 2015). Some may even claim that defunding laws are illegal because they violate constitutional rights. According to Zoppo (2013), Planned Parenthood may dispute defunding laws for a number of reasons. First, it could dispute defunding laws on the basis that they violate the Equal Protection Law of the 14th Amendment. Second, Planned Parenthood may argue that defunding legislation cannot be subjected to judicial scrutiny because these laws do not advance reasonable government purpose. Third, the organization can contend that defunding mandates violate freedom of speech. Since Planned Parenthood is branded as an abortion provider, these policies are considered “impermissible viewpoint-based” and/or “content-based” and are prejudiced toward the organization (Zoppo, 2013). After reviewing the counter argument, it is tough to predict if compromises will be made. This policy issue definitely portrays the difficulties in reconciling efficiency and responsiveness (Denhardt et al. 2014). Without federal funding, Planned Parenthood cannot carry out its programs efficiently. However, some of their practices are not responsive to the values presented by opponents. Knowing how both sides approach the issue, resolutions can be suggested as promising remedies to this unique situation.
Resolutions

1) To satisfy opponents, Congress must continue its thorough investigation of the evidence purported by Center for Medical Progress; however, it should continue funding Planned Parenthood.If the government did support defunding Planned Parenthood, the results would be disastrous. Fortunately, Democrats in the Senate have successfully blocked a bill called S.1881 that would have removed federal funding from Planned Parenthood and made it accessible to other programs that deliver women’s health services. Though defunding may reduce federal spending in one aspect, it could also lead to increased spending due to reduced use of services (Kurtzleben, 2015). Some women may choose not to pursue family planning services at other facilities. This would ultimately end in an increased number of unintended pregnancies and additional births. Federal spending for Medicaid would have to increase to cover health expenses that many of these newborns require. Without federal reimbursement, family planning services would only become more expensive, and access for economically and socially disadvantaged would be restricted. Defunding an organization like Planned Parenthood not only creates distasteful public policy, but also questions the constitutionality of enacted legislation (Zoppo, 2013).
2) Common ground is fundamental to conflict resolution and must be found on both sides. Current federal funding is essential to Planned Parenthood because it provides services to women and families who are not able to receive them otherwise. It works to enhance the lives of women and families in America. Women are justified in seeking opportunities to improve their health (Richards, as cited in CSPAN, 2015). Instead of focusing on Planned Parenthood’s abortion services, we should focus on encouraging family planning and contraception. Pro-choice and pro-life missions would be elevated if they redirected their energies away from questioning legalities surrounding abortion regulation and toward influencingand changing the attitudes of women who may seek abortions as well as the physicians and facilities that may provide abortions (Devins, 2009). A recent commencement speech by President Obama (as cited by Annas& Mariner, 2011) talked about the Roe v. Wade decision and the significance that it holds today. He stated that the decision not only serves to defend women’s reproductive health and liberty but also that the government should not encroach on personal family affairs. He also stressed that Americans (both pro-life and pro-choice) are unwavering in their commitment to preventing unplanned pregnancies, diminishing the necessity for abortion services, and supporting women and families across the U.S. in their decisions. Work must be done to urge compriseand broaden access to contraception and preventative health services (Annas& Mariner, 2011).
3) While it seems nearly impossible to resolve the debate between pro-life and pro-choice supporters, we must ensure that the debate remains respectful and considerate of the disparities in beliefs. Baker suggests a “pro-voice” agenda would exactly do this. Valueswould be treated with deference and individuals would not be deprived of expressing their opinions. It is necessary that women from both sides of the spectrum be heard. Those women who have had abortions must understand that their actions were not illegal even though they have been stigmatized. Pro-life advocates struggle with burden of how to uphold their standards for the lives of women and unborn children, even though their political agendas imply that they are antifeminist. Incorporation of pro-life and pro-choice values into American culture is crucial in making progress towards comprise (Baker, 2009).
Conclusion
In conclusion, Planned Parenthood provides vital health and reproductive services to women, men, and teens throughout the United States and especially in New York. Defunding the organization would have serious implications. A loss of nearly half a billion dollars year would result in major cutbacks and shortages and reduce access to health care for nearly 5 million people. Planned Parenthood’s research and education programs would also be severely impacted. Congress’ ongoing investigation into Planned Parenthood has not only undermined the claims made by opponents but has reinforced its reputation as a one of the nation’s leading providers. As an attempt to reconcile efficiency and responsiveness, we must be considerate of the differences in values and maintain respectful positions. As a way to resolve this issue, we must focus on the commonalities between both sides: promoting women’s health, expanding access for contraceptive and preventative services, and supporting American families.

References
Abramovitz, M. (2012). The Feminization of Austerity.New Labor Forum, vol. 21 issue 1. Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.rlib.pace.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=1&sid=51f26a4e-dc27-456e-a7f2-9507f914c485%40sessionmgr120&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=71795629. Annas, G. & Mariner, W. (2011).Women and Children Last — The Predictable Effects of Proposed Federal Funding Cuts. New England Journal of Medicine, 364, 1590-1591.Retrieved from: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmp1102915.

Bassett, L. (2015). Congress’ Planned Parenthood Investigation Has Turned Up ‘No Evidence,’ House Dems Say. Huffington Post. Retrieved from: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/congress-planned-parenthood-investigation_55f044b7e4b03784e2774632.

Camerota, A. (Journalist) (2015). Man Behind Planned Parenthood Video Speaks Out. (Video Interview with David Daleidon) CNN. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2015/07/31/daleiden-planned-parenthood-intvw-camerota-newday.cnn/video/playlists/planned-parenthood/.

Denhardt, R.B, Denhardt, J.V., Blanc, T.A. 2014. Public Administration: An Action Orientation, 7th edition.

Dennis et al. (2013). What Happens to Women Who Fall Through the Cracks of Health Care Reform? Lessons from Massachusetts.Journal of Health Politics, Policy & Law, vol. 38 issue 2.Retrieved from: http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.rlib.pace.edu/eds/detail/detail?vid=5&sid=0a419228-a165-48ee-93ebed572d14324b%40sessionmgr110&hid=119&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmUmc2NvcGU9c2l0ZQ%3d%3d#AN=86415373&db=buh. Devins, N. (2009). How Planned Parenthood v. Casey(Pretty Much) Settled the Abortion Wars. The Yale Law Journal.Retrieved from: http://www.heinonline.org.rlib.pace.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/ylr118&div=45&?&collection=journals.

Earll, C. (2015). A Case to Defund Planned Parenthood. Retrieved from: http://www.focusonthefamily.com/socialissues/life-issues/a-case-to-defund-planned-parenthood.

Harkness, K. (2015). How Investigations of Planned Parenthood Will Work. The Daily Signal.Retrieved from: http://dailysignal.com/2015/09/01/how-the-3-congressional-investigations-of-planned-parenthood-will-work/.

Kurtzleben, D. (2015) Fact Check: How Does Planned Parenthood Spend that Government Money? NPR. Retrieved from: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money.

Planned Parenthood. (2015). Retrieved from: https://www.plannedparenthood.org.

Planned Parenthood Funding (2015).C-SPAN. Retrieved from: http://www.c-span.org/video/?328410-1/planned-parenthood-president-cecile-richards-testimony-taxpayer-funding.

Planned Parenthood of New York City Action Fund. (2015). Retrieved from: http://www.ppnycaction.org/blueprint.

Ross, J. (2015). How Planned Parenthood Actually Uses its Federal Funding. The Washington Post.Retrieved from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/04/how-planned-parenthood-actually-uses-its-federal-funding/.

Stephanopoulos, G. (Journalist) (2015). Planned Parenthood President Says Organization Has Broken No Laws (Video Interview with Cecile Richards). ABC News. Retrieved from: http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/cecile-richards-undercover-video-controversy-32692756.

Ziegler, M (2012). Sexing Harris: The Law and Politics of the Movement to Defund Planned Parenthood. Buffalo Law Review, vol. 60, issue 3. Retrieved from: http://www.heinonline.org.rlib.pace.edu/HOL/LuceneSearch?terms=sexing+harris&collection=journals&searchtype=advanced&typea=text&tabfrom=&other_cols=yes&submit=Go.

Zoppo, D. (2013). The War Against Women: Federal Remedies to Fight Back Against States that De-Fund Planned Parenthood. Vermont Law Review.Retrieved from: http://www.heinonline.org.rlib.pace.edu/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/vlr37&div=19&?&collection=journals.