By Garrick Hoffman, Liberal Arts

One of the most prominent topics being shared in the discourse is whether to defund Planned

Parenthood, an organization designed to treat women for vital health needs, including cancer

screening and STI/STD tests, and for abortion services. Now, in the wake of what’s ostensibly a

scandal, the House of Representatives has agreed 241-187 to freeze federal funding for PP for

the next year, which will allow Congress more time to investigate the matter. The Senate

recently rejected the bill to defund PP.

Those who crusade to defund Planned Parenthood are exasperated by what’s evidently a

deceitful video in which a representative from PP expresses interest in selling fetal tissue. (This

has been vehemently disputed by supporters of PP who claim the video is a highly-edited,

misleading falsity designed as propaganda from PP opponents. The PP representative was

charging money for handling and processing costs, not the fetal tissue itself.) The same PP

opponents are also no doubt offended by their abortion services, which, according to an article

by NPR, account for 3% of their total services, though this number has been disputed.

(Abby Johnson, who was a Planned Parenthood employee for eight years and clinic

director for eight, wrote in a piece for The Hill, “Planned Parenthood’s claim that abortions make

up just 3 percent of its services is also a gimmick. That number is actually closer to 12 percent,

but strategically skewed by unbundling family planning services so that each patient shows

anywhere from five to 20 ‘visits’ per appointment (i.e., 12 packs of birth control equals 12 visits)

and doing the opposite with abortion visits, bundling them together so that each appointment

equals one visit. The resulting difference between family planning and abortion ‘visits’ is

striking.”

Johnson later remarked in her article that Planned Parenthood “claims to help reduce the

number of abortions. Not only is this not what Planned Parenthood actually accomplishes, but its

goal couldn’t be more opposite. As a Planned Parenthood clinic manager, I was directed to

double the number of abortions our clinic performed in order to drive up revenue.”)

The question that remains is whether defunding the entire organization is warranted. If

this organization, which receives the majority of their funding from the federal government (over

$500 million, none of which goes to abortion services except under extreme Medicaid cases), is a

vital social resource for low-income women and provides important health-related services for

them, then can we justify terminating what would effectively be the entirety of Planned

Parenthood?

There are enough variables at play to be in a tug-of-war of decision-making regarding the

defunding. From a supportive stance for PP, we can consider that the overwhelming majority of

PP services are for STI/STD testing and contraceptives provisions (42% and 34%, respectively),

and “As of 2012, 79 percent of people receiving services from Planned Parenthood lived at 150

percent of the federal poverty level or lower (that comes out to around $18,500 for a single

adult)” according to a citation in the same NPR article.

We can also consider that although abortion itself at its core may be morally abhorrent or

at least questionable, it should probably still remain a legal option for women in extreme cases,

rather than as a convenient method of birth control. Consider, for example, that one crusader in

Portland who championed for the end of abortions had four abortions before she became a pro-

life advocate; or that conversely, although maybe statistically unlikely, any woman could be the

subject of rape in which her rapist has a serious disease that would carry on to the child. Should

the woman then be obligated to have the child? If abortion was illegal, would women seek

questionable practices in the black market? Considering these cases, should criminalization of

abortion be absolute?

Finally, the lack of federal funding for PP might actually backfire by costing taxpayers:

states could choose to continue funding (especially in blue states) at will, which could hurt

residents in those states. Further, more births for low-income women almost invariably means

more funding from the government to support those children. Of course, abortion as a means to

spare taxpayer money is a moral fallacy.

From an oppositional stance, we can consider the fact that taxpayer money is forwarded

to an organization considered nefarious – an institution that while also aiding life is also

producing death (327,653 abortions and 1,880 adoption referrals in 2013, according to the

Planned Parenthood 2013-2014 Annual Report); they have reportedly skewed their numbers to

appear less abortion-oriented to continue operating; there are other avenues women can take to

receive the same services, such as hospitals and federally-funded community health centers; and

abortion in itself is considered morally abhorrent.

Ultimately, if Planned Parenthood is truly vital for women’s health and chiefly provides

imperative services for them, its opponents should perhaps instead elect to find an end to its

abortion practices but continue to maintain it to provide the other services for the sake of public

health. However, if Planned Parenthood is operating in a morally deprave fashion and provides

misleading data to deceive the public, and is in its essence a “death factory” chiefly designed for

abortions, maybe it is then time to defund it, paving the way for community health centers to

become the primary source for women’s healthcare and allowing federal funds to be re-allocated

where necessary.