• commentary
  • MONDAY FEBRUARY 21 2011 11:04 PM

Taking Women From The Clinic To The Coat Hanger: Republicans Now Targeting Planned Parenthood

by Damon Martin

When the Republicans took over the House of Representatives, it was with a promise to balance the budget and take back the old time values of our Founding Fathers. So far the GOP’s best efforts to reduce spending has been to try to cut funding to NPR and PBS, redefine rape under the law, and now they want to take away essential medical services from women nationwide.

Yep, that’s right, the latest Republican brainstorm was proposed by Representative Mike Pence of Indiana. It would pull all Federal funding from Planned Parenthood, which was given $363 million dollars last year by the government, and helped treat or give medical services to millions of Americans.

Started in the 1920′s by Margaret Sanger, Planned Parenthood provides medical services ranging from birth control to cancer screening to pregnancy testing and counseling, as well as STD testing and treatment, and yes – that word Republicans hate so much – abortion. While the funding from the government never directly goes towards abortions, the money does fund clinics who provide those services, and that’s fundamentally why Republicans are after the organization.

Shutting down abortions nationwide by any means necessary.



The law, if it passes, would pull funding to Planned Parenthood and 102 affiliates, which according to the organization, would in turn leave 48% of Americans currently eligible for receiving care, out in the cold.

Pence has said publicly that this bill is just another way Republicans are trying to reduce the deficit and cut spending. Looking at the big picture however, as was the case with NPR, the Republicans are once again trying to fix a trillion dollar problem by cutting pennies – while moving forward with other areas of their agenda. Republicans continue to target women and abortion in many of their “cost cutting” strategies, instead of looking at real problem areas that exist with the national budget.

For example, HBO host Bill Maher on his Real Time show last Friday night used a prop to illustrate the bloated expenditures that make up the biggest part of our national budget. It was symbolized by two huge pieces of chicken, a pile of mashed potatoes and a giant mess of macaroni and cheese, which represented the military budget, Social Security, and Medicare and Medicaid.

Federal budget tweaks have yet to negatively impact those areas, and, as a matter of fact, the defense budget went up again this year. Also just to note, the nuclear program, which encompasses thousands of weapons, doesn’t even fall under the defense budget, it falls under energy.

To compound the situation with regards to women and what Pence and the Republicans are trying to pass off purely as spending cuts, several states are trying to pass laws to take things even further back towards the Stone Age as well. In South Dakota, legislation is currently pending that would make it legal to kill an abortion doctor. And in Georgia, they are trying to pass a law that would change legal terminology in “criminal law and criminal procedure” in pre-conviction proceedings so that rape victims could only be called “accusers.”

While the Pence bill has little chance of surviving beyond the approval in the House of Representatives, it’s still should be noted that the Republicans are time and time again trying to take funding away from crucial services like Planned Parenthood.

Pundits from both sides have taken up the battle, including Representative Jackie Speier, who took to the Congress floor and gave her own emotional account of an abortion she had due to unforeseen complications with a pregnancy.



“For you to stand on this floor and to suggest as you have that somehow this is a procedure that is either welcomed or done cavalierly or done without any thought is preposterous,” Speier said.

Conservative mouthpiece Glenn Beck took an entire hour on his show on Fox News to rail against Planned Parenthood, and even went as far as accusing Planned Parenthood of sex trafficking. He also painted Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger as a racist and essentially someone who hated children. His personal attacks went on for an hour straight (although I could barely stomach 10 minutes of his drivel).

Technically, because Beck is so absolutely batshit crazy, he might actually help the cause of people supporting Planned Parenthood, so I guess maybe we should encourage his personal lunacy.

Despite the best efforts of the enlightened opposition, Pence’s bill passed the House of Representatives with a vote of 240-185. Of note, three Republicans did vote against the bill (Rep. Jeff Flake, Rep. Walter Jones and Rep. John Campbell). It will now make its way to the Senate where it will in all likelihood be bounced by the Democrat controlled caucus, but it doesn’t mean the Republicans won’t keep trying. Meanwhile the left need to expose the right’s backhanded attempt to destroy women rights under the guise of cost control. (After all, if a measure like this did go through, so-called “pro-life” Republican should be prepared to increase budgets for welfare and Medicare to pay for all the additional unwanted pregnancies and children cuts to Planned Parenthood might cause. )

It’s an attack on a woman’s right to choose in America, plain and simple. Republicans should stop pretending it’s anything else.

 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next

Comments
Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

FEB 22, 2011 07:49 PM

One of my friends and i were just talking about this over dinner. She said she'd never understand people who want to outlaw abortion, that it was none of their business what a woman does with her body, and if they don't like abortions then they shouldn't get one. Thanks to another poster in a different group, I was able to point out that to pro-lifers, it's not a woman's body, it the "person" inside of her body who, in their minds, have the same rights as the woman to live.

The thing is, that just makes no sense to me because I don't think a fetus that can't live outside of the woman carrying it should have the same fucking right to living as the fully-developed person who wishes to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason. I say "terminate her pregnancy" because an abortion is just that, a woman choosing to end HER pregnancy. It's not someone else's pregnancy, it's hers. She is carrying the fetus. The fetus cannot survive outside of the woman. Why the fuck should the fetus have the same rights as the woman carrying it?

This is the concept pro-lifers really just don't seem to fucking understand.

Drama

Drama

Columbus, OH
January 2003

FEB 22, 2011 08:44 PM

One of the reasons I wrote the article was for that very reason. Politicians have no place in deciding what a woman should or should not be able to do with her body.

To me the fact that we're still arguing this in 2011 shows how far behind we are running as a progressive thinking nation.

darksphere

darksphere

Vancouver, BC
January 2005

FEB 23, 2011 01:35 AM

Otoki said:
One of my friends and i were just talking about this over dinner. She said she'd never understand people who want to outlaw abortion, that it was none of their business what a woman does with her body, and if they don't like abortions then they shouldn't get one. Thanks to another poster in a different group, I was able to point out that to pro-lifers, it's not a woman's body, it the "person" inside of her body who, in their minds, have the same rights as the woman to live.

The thing is, that just makes no sense to me because I don't think a fetus that can't live outside of the woman carrying it should have the same fucking right to living as the fully-developed person who wishes to terminate her pregnancy for whatever reason. I say "terminate her pregnancy" because an abortion is just that, a woman choosing to end HER pregnancy. It's not someone else's pregnancy, it's hers. She is carrying the fetus. The fetus cannot survive outside of the woman. Why the fuck should the fetus have the same rights as the woman carrying it?

This is the concept pro-lifers really just don't seem to fucking understand.



It goes a little deeper then that. I do agree with you. I am not religious. But many people who are "pro-life" are religious. When does someone's soul come into existence? This is the bottom line for most "pro-lifers" in my opinion.

saraberri

saraberri

Poughkeepsie, NY
June 2009

FEB 23, 2011 05:25 AM

well, whatever their argument against choice, unless they've adopted at least one of those babies they want so desperately to be born, anti-choice proponents have absolutely no credence with me whatsoever.

Cash

Cash

USA
OLD SKOOL

FEB 23, 2011 05:57 AM

darksphere said:
It goes a little deeper then that. I do agree with you. I am not religious. But many people who are "pro-life" are religious. When does someone's soul come into existence? This is the bottom line for most "pro-lifers" in my opinion.



The problem with that logic...is that it completely ignores the fact that religion...no matter how devout someone may be...is still a choice. It is a personal choice..left up to the individual to decide whether or not they will subscribe to a particular religion...or no religion at all.

I don't concern myself with the religious choices of others....except when their religion gets in the way of my constitutional rights. What most pro-life people don't (or refuse to) understand...is that freedom OF religion...also entails freedom FROM religion if one so chooses.

To seek the limitation (or abolition) of abortion based on a faith-based entity such as a soul...is to shove religion down the throats of those who do not wish to subscribe to it.

Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

FEB 23, 2011 09:49 AM

Cash said:

darksphere said:
It goes a little deeper then that. I do agree with you. I am not religious. But many people who are "pro-life" are religious. When does someone's soul come into existence? This is the bottom line for most "pro-lifers" in my opinion.



The problem with that logic...is that it completely ignores the fact that religion...no matter how devout someone may be...is still a choice. It is a personal choice..left up to the individual to decide whether or not they will subscribe to a particular religion...or no religion at all.

I don't concern myself with the religious choices of others....except when their religion gets in the way of my constitutional rights. What most pro-life people don't (or refuse to) understand...is that freedom OF religion...also entails freedom FROM religion if one so chooses.

To seek the limitation (or abolition) of abortion based on a faith-based entity such as a soul...is to shove religion down the throats of those who do not wish to subscribe to it.


Well fucking said.

saraberri said:
well, whatever their argument against choice, unless they've adopted at least one of those babies they want so desperately to be born, anti-choice proponents have absolutely no credence with me whatsoever.



And also be willing to pay more taxes to support said unwanted babies.

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

FEB 23, 2011 09:58 AM

Otoki said:

saraberri said:
well, whatever their argument against choice, unless they've adopted at least one of those babies they want so desperately to be born, anti-choice proponents have absolutely no credence with me whatsoever.



And also be willing to pay more taxes to support said unwanted babies.



I don't think I can agree with creating a bar for entry at which you've done enough to finally qualify for the right to tell other people what they can do with their own body.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Over the last few years I was lucky enough to meet & get to know some interesting feminists, & one of the more fascinating positions-- to me anyway-- that was argued about abortion was that the actual beginning of life/conception is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Even assuming that someone could somehow prove that life starts at conception and a baby has a soul (whatever the fuck that would actually mean) the argument isn't about life/soul it's about control of one's own body, which means that the law doesn't get to tell people what to do with things in it, even if it's alive. For a variety of reasons I find this argument to be more compelling that "it isn't alive yet" & infinitely more important in terms of state control of people's lives/bodies.

wildswan

wildswan

I'm lost
June 2006

FEB 23, 2011 10:15 AM

ChrisSick said:

Otoki said:

saraberri said:
well, whatever their argument against choice, unless they've adopted at least one of those babies they want so desperately to be born, anti-choice proponents have absolutely no credence with me whatsoever.



And also be willing to pay more taxes to support said unwanted babies.



I don't think I can agree with creating a bar for entry at which you've done enough to finally qualify for the right to tell other people what they can do with their own body.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Over the last few years I was lucky enough to meet & get to know some interesting feminists, & one of the more fascinating positions-- to me anyway-- that was argued about abortion was that the actual beginning of life/conception is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Even assuming that someone could somehow prove that life starts at conception and a baby has a soul (whatever the fuck that would actually mean) the argument isn't about life/soul it's about control of one's own body, which means that the law doesn't get to tell people what to do with things in it, even if it's alive. For a variety of reasons I find this argument to be more compelling that "it isn't alive yet" & infinitely more important in terms of state control of people's lives/bodies.



Totally agree.

I realized this long ago. It's a way for people to stop getting an individual to negotiate away their right to sovereignty.

The argument has mostly been "life begins at conception." And then the arguments of some has been anti-birth control, or sex for procreation only. There are a lot of opinions out there. But, the only opinion that really matters is the individuals reproductive rights. And that goes the other way as well: however opposed to people having a flock of children, it's that person's reproductive rights that trump everything else.


Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

FEB 23, 2011 10:15 AM

ChrisSick said:

Otoki said:

saraberri said:
well, whatever their argument against choice, unless they've adopted at least one of those babies they want so desperately to be born, anti-choice proponents have absolutely no credence with me whatsoever.



And also be willing to pay more taxes to support said unwanted babies.



I don't think I can agree with creating a bar for entry at which you've done enough to finally qualify for the right to tell other people what they can do with their own body.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
Over the last few years I was lucky enough to meet & get to know some interesting feminists, & one of the more fascinating positions-- to me anyway-- that was argued about abortion was that the actual beginning of life/conception is entirely irrelevant to the argument. Even assuming that someone could somehow prove that life starts at conception and a baby has a soul (whatever the fuck that would actually mean) the argument isn't about life/soul it's about control of one's own body, which means that the law doesn't get to tell people what to do with things in it, even if it's alive. For a variety of reasons I find this argument to be more compelling that "it isn't alive yet" & infinitely more important in terms of state control of people's lives/bodies.


Eh, I recant. I just think that would make them slightly less flamingly hypocritical.

In one of our groups here a while back the abortion debate came up and I finally realized that a fetus is alive, but that's totally fucking irrelevant because it's inside ANOTHER VERY ALIVE INDIVIDUAL, who, on top of being alive, is physically autonomous from the fetus.

Otoki

Otoki

SUICIDEGIRL

Minnesota, USA

FEB 23, 2011 11:03 AM

^^Wrong wording. Not "realized that a fetus is alive" but that "realized that a fetus being alive is totally fucking irrelevant". English major fail.

Fixer

Fixer

Los Angeles, CA
October 2002

FEB 23, 2011 11:21 AM

Federal funding of Planned Parenthood cannot be the only way for such an important service to survive.

If you believe in their mission, we only need $100 from 35 million people. Obama raised and spent double that amount in his election campaign.

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

FEB 23, 2011 11:33 AM

Fixer said:
Federal funding of Planned Parenthood cannot be the only way for such an important service to survive.

If you believe in their mission, we only need $100 from 35 million people. Obama raised and spent double that amount in his election campaign.



That's hardly the point. The point is not "if this is so needed a service, why can't the market provide a solution, or a charitable NGO," it's that we-- at a societal level-- have decided that women's healthcare and healthcare assistance to the poor are things the government should be in the business of helping to facilitate. Planned Parenthood is one of the best providers of such services to poor women who have little alternatives. Their ability to provide such services are being targeted because another service they provide-- that the government does not pay for-- is legal, but unpopular with a radical/extreme right group that Republicans lovingly label their base. This is a culture war move that a) won't stop or decrease PP's ability to provide abortions, and b) will have a real, measurable affect on the healthcare & quality of life of many lower-class women. All of which is perfectly acceptable to Republicans for a cheap political win they can take back to the donors and rabid, extremist base. It's contemptible.

And, just to head a potential argument off at the pass, this has absolutely zero to do with fiscal responsibility. The Republicans have not been at all shy about protecting their sacred cows from spending cuts, and I feel relatively certain any potential loss of revenue to defense contractors or energy companies would have a much less immediately measurable impact on the quality of life of people already on the margins of our society.

SPOILERS! (Click to view)
I also have to say, I think you're smarter than this argument, particularly since it's the same one that seems to be being made about a variety of potential funding cuts by those on the right. "If you love PBS so much, you pay for it. As has been discussed many a time, I didn't get to check a box on any of my tax returns over the last decade that said "
"These tax dollars are not to be used to pay CIA agents for torture, foreign powers to host secret, illegal prisons, or active duty military deployed in illegal military occupations."

Besides which, if the people who need these services the most could afford to pay for them, or could count on the generous charity of the entire nation year in & year out to pay for these things for them, government never would've needed to fund these services in the first place.

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

FEB 23, 2011 11:34 AM

Edited to move & slightly redact.

CaptainAmerika

CaptainAmerika

Washington, DC
July 2005

FEB 23, 2011 11:45 AM

Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who was deeply concerned about the quality of the gene pool. She saw that lower-income, hence inferior, people tended to have larger families than their betters. If this went on for long enough, she feared, the human gene pool would be overwhelmed by bad genes. Her writings in support of Planned Parenthood explicitly advocated focus on poorer people. She even said they would have to be tricked into believing that having less children, in many cases even sterilization, was actually a good thing for them, although she herself did not see herself as acting in their best interest. She was concerned with the species as a whole. Her views would be rightly condemned today, yet her agenda lives on...

ChrisSick

ChrisSick

Philadelphia, PA
March 2008

FEB 23, 2011 11:51 AM

CaptainAmerika said:
Margaret Sanger was a eugenicist who was deeply concerned about the quality of the gene pool. She saw that lower-income, hence inferior, people tended to have larger families than their betters. If this went on for long enough, she feared, the human gene pool would be overwhelmed by bad genes. Her writings in support of Planned Parenthood explicitly advocated focus on poorer people. She even said they would have to be tricked into believing that having less children, in many cases even sterilization, was actually a good thing for them, although she herself did not see herself as acting in their best interest. She was concerned with the species as a whole. Her views would be rightly condemned today, yet her agenda lives on...



Hahahahaha. Okay, that was funny. You're obviously parodying foolish right wing arguments, right?

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

Next