Americans have often criticized policies introduced by the Congress arguing that they are inefficient or even inadequate. It is possible to evaluate a healthcare policy to understand whether it can be improved or not. One of the most problematic issues is concerned with funding. Thus, the attempt by Congress to stop federal funding to the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) has created a national debate regarding whether the taxpayer should finance an organization that procures abortions, or not (Ross, 2015). Through an objective analysis of the proposed healthcare policy, this paper shows that the bill undermines women’s rights to gain access to healthcare services and slows down America’s quest to provide universal healthcare coverage.
Policy Problem Description
Since President Richard Nixon signed the Family Planning Services and Population Research Act in 1970, millions of women in America have gained access to family planning health services through PPFA (Ness, 2015). However, since the organization started its operations, there has been an increase of abortion services at PPFA (Ness, 2015). This development has caused some legislators to question whether it is right for the federal government to continue funding the organization because it is unlawful for the government to finance abortion services (Ross, 2015).
Background Information
Social Factors Underlying the Issue
The legality of abortion, as a reproductive health service, is a divisive issue in America because of the debate between pro-life and pro-choice supporters (Farrell, 2010). The stakeholders involved in this discussion are Congress, pro-life advocates, pro-choice supporters, and women (SBA, 2015). The proposed bill affects them in different ways. For example, women would have to spend more money to seek reproductive health services if the proposed bill becomes law. Congress has a stake in this debate because it has the power to pass such a law. Pro-life and pro-choice supporters of abortion create the political pressure to influence such a change (Ziegler, 2015).
If the bill becomes law, pro-life supporters will make progress in the anti-abortion campaign. Conversely, if it fails, supporters of abortion will make progress by increasing support for abortion. If the proposed bill becomes law, it will affect more than 2.7 million people who seek reproductive health services from PPFA and its affiliates. It is noteworthy that PPFA performs one out of four abortions procured in America (Firozi, 2015). In fact, since its start, the organization has carried out more than 6 million abortions. In 2013 alone, the group performed more than 357,000 abortions (Ness, 2015).
Economic Factors Underlying the Issue
Women are the primary victims of the proposed PPFA bill. The bill aims to save the American taxpayer $528 million, which PPFA receives from the government through Medicaid reimbursements (Ness, 2015). The total government funding to PPFA is 60% of the organization’s revenue while other sources of income are private contributions, revenue from non-governmental health services, and “other” funding sources (Ness, 2015). According to the Congressional Budget office, cutting federal funds to PPFA would increase the cost of reproductive health services by $130 million (Firozi, 2015). This figure contradicts the views of proponents of the bill who argue that funding of PPFA would decrease public spending towards reproductive health.
Ethical Factors Underlying the Issue
Informed consent is a moral issue underlying the acceptance or rejection of the proposed healthcare bill. Some people have accused Planned Parenthood of selling fetal tissue for purposes of medical research without the mother’s consent (Kaczor, 2014). This issue questions whether it is ethical for the public to continue financing the activities of PPFA or not. Another ethical issue concerning the PPFA defunding bill concerns whether it is a moral right to terminate pregnancies before normal childbirth or not (Steffen, 2012). This debate stems from perceptual differences regarding when life starts: at conception or birth. While some people believe that abortion is like killing a human being, others believe there are particular circumstances when abortion is legal (Torre, 2015).
Political and Legal Factors Underlying the Issue
Pressure from pro-life groups has prompted six states to propose legislators to defund Planned Parenthood (Randall, 2015). Many of these cases have resulted in protracted legal debates that have often overturned the decision to defund PPFA (Ness, 2015). The main reason for the refusal to enact such laws is a conflict between federal and state laws. However, in some states, legislators have successfully pushed for the enactment of such legislations. For example, Louisiana successfully changed its contract with Planned Parenthood, thereby offering no public funding to the organization (Randall, 2015). Such enactments have often led to increased cases of unplanned pregnancies as well as increased incidences of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) and sexually transmitted infections (STIs). People who have supported the defunding campaign cite PPFA’s failure to follow federal or state laws when undertaking their activities. Undercover videos that showed evidence of child abuse and sexual abuse highlight this fact. However, proponents of PPFA funding say the organization gives women more power to control their reproductive health (Ness, 2015). There is no bipartisan support in this debate. The political aspect of this impasse is the uncertainty regarding whether it is right to use public funds to finance abortion services or not. Its legal component is the possible contradiction between women’s rights and moral reasoning.
Issue Statement
Should the federal government fund an organization that offers abortion services?
Stakeholders
The primary stakeholders of the defunding debate include legislators (Congress), women, pro-life supporters, pro-choice supporters and women’s right groups. Although Congress has a divided opinion about the debate, gender groups oppose the proposal to defund PPFA because they believe it undermines women’s rights (Ziegler, 2015). Comparatively, pro-life supporters support the bill because it advances their anti-abortion campaign.
Policy Option/Alternative
In July 2015, Rand Paul (a junior Senator from Kentucky) introduced a bill to stop funding PPFA and its affiliates (Randall, 2015). The bill’s number is S.1861, and it seeks to prevent the misuse of fetal tissue and other unethical acts undertaken by PPFA by cutting federal funding to the organization (Randall, 2015). However, it does not explain how this action would affect millions of women who depend on the organization for accessing reproductive health services.
Evaluation of the Bill
(See appendix one)
Results of the Analysis/Summary
This paper has already shown that many proponents of the PPFA defunding bill argue that funding of PPFA is similar to funding abortion (Randall, 2015). However, to comprehend this issue, it is important to understand the bill’s effectiveness, efficiency, and equity. Regarding its efficiency, the bill fails to consider the contribution made by PPFA in improving sexual health outcomes of women in America. It adopts a particular understanding of the role of PPFA by assuming that it only performs abortion services. However, abortion is not the only service provided by PPFA. The organization also provides other services, such as cancer screening, contraceptive use, and HIV testing (among other services). Therefore, defunding of the organization would mean defunding of other essential reproductive health services. Its focus on abortion means that the bill is inefficient. The defunding bill is also ineffective because it would decrease the uptake of reproductive health services at PPFA facilities and cause unnecessary strain in other facilities that possibly lack the capacity to treat large numbers of patients.
In terms of health equity, the defunding bill limits access to healthcare services, thereby promoting inequity in the healthcare sector. The defunding bill also fails to promote the political and social development of women in the USA because it not only makes healthcare more expensive for low-income women, but it also undermines the progress made by gender activists in helping girls to take control of their sexual health. Its potential to increase cases of unplanned pregnancies would also cause social upheaval in low-income American families because parents would have less power in the planning of their families. In this regard, there is no ethical justification for supporting the bill because it deprives low-income families of the power to take control of their sexual health. Based on these issues, my support for the defunding bill would only increase if it selectively defunds abortion services as opposed to cutting funding for all health services provided by PPFA.
Conclusion
This paper has shown merits and demerits of the defunding bill. Nonetheless, an independent analysis of the facts shown in this paper reveals that defunding of PPFA is an assault on women’s rights in the US. Furthermore, the bill would only increase health disparities that have already undermined progress in the health sector because fewer women (especially from low-income families) would not be in a position to seek reproductive health services. Although other healthcare options exist, the bill minimizes the access to reproductive health services for low-income women. In this regard, the bill does not have much value.
References
Farrell, C. (2010). Abortion debate. New York, NY: ABDO Publishing Company.
Firozi, P. (2015). Poll: By 2-1, funding for Planned Parenthood supported. Web.
Kaczor, C. (2014). The ethics of abortion: Women’s rights, human life, and the question of justice. London, UK: Routledge.
Ness, I. (2015). Encyclopedia of interest groups and lobbyists in the United States. New York, NY: Routledge.
Randall, K. (2015). US states move to cut Planned Parenthood funding. Web.
Ross, J. (2015). How Planned Parenthood actually uses its federal funding. Web.
SBA. (2015). Top 12 reasons to defund Planned Parenthood now. Web.
Steffen, L. (2012). Ethics and experience: Moral theory from just war to abortion. London, UK: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Torre, S. (2015). Congress should end federal funding to Planned Parenthood and redirect it toward other health care options. Web.
Ziegler, M. (2015). After Roe. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Appendix 1
Evaluation of the Bill
Appendix Two
Talking Points
Bill: Planned Parenting Defunding Act
Bill Number: S.1826
Description of the Bill: The Planned Parenthood defunding bill seeks to stop the misuse of fetal tissue, sexual abuse and other unethical acts undertaken by PPFA by cutting federal funding to the organization.
Problem/Issue
- Is it right for the public to continue funding Planned Parenthood considering it is the largest center for procuring abortions in the USA?
Number of People Affected by the Bill
- PPFA serves more than 2.7 million women.
Impact of the Problem
- The total government funding to PPFA is 60% of its revenue.
- Cutting federal funds to PPFA would increase the cost of public spending to reproductive health services by $130 million.
- The defunding bill also fails to promote the political, social and political development of women in America because it not only makes healthcare more expensive for low-income women but also undermines the progress made by women rights activists in helping women to take control over their sexual health.
Estimated impact of the bill
- Defunding the PPFA is an assault on women’s rights in America. Furthermore, the bill would only increase the health disparities that have already undermined progress in the health sector because fewer women (especially from low-income families) would be in a position to seek reproductive health services.
- My support for the bill would only increase if it selectively defunds abortion services, as opposed to cutting funding to all activities undertaken by PPFA.
- Defunding of Planned Parenthood undermines women’s rights to access healthcare and undermines America’s quest to provide universal health coverage to all people.