iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Planned Parenthood Plays Key Role For Some Low-Income, Rural Uninsured

First Posted: 03/25/11 04:37 PM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:40 PM ET

Dont Take Away My Birth Control

As a teenager growing up in small-town Indiana, Elizabeth Miles didn't know that the local Planned Parenthood offered affordable contraception and other subsidized reproductive health services.

"I just wasn't educated," Miles said in an interview. "I knew about it, but wasn't real knowledgeable on what all they did or anything, and I was scared of telling my parents I needed to go there."

Following the birth of her child at age 17, she finally visited the local clinic. At the time, she was unemployed and uninsured, and they were able to provide her a birth control prescription for $3 a month. Now 32, she still visits the same Planned Parenthood in her hometown of Seymour for pap smears, annual check-ups and birth control, because they provided her an affordable way to take control of her reproductive health.

When lawmakers in Washington debate whether to strip federal funds from Planned Parenthood clinics, most of the discussion revolves around the access to abortion that the clinics offer.

But many of their patients never undergo an abortion -- Planned Parenthood estimates that such procedures account for only 4 percent of the services they provide. Most of the rest, the group says, are affordable primary care services, often in rural, low-income parts of the country.

In Miles' hometown -- population 17,503, as of the 2010 U.S. Census -- the Planned Parenthood clinic is the only affordable health care option for people without insurance. She says she's not sure how she would be able to get to the next nearest clinic in Columbus, Ind., if hers were to shut down.

"A lot of people in my town don't have their own transportation," said Miles, a mental health technician. Seymour is about a 30-minute drive from Columbus. "They rely on the 'Recycle to Ride' bus to get around, and the bus won't take you to Columbus. It would be especially hard for the teenagers who want to prevent pregnancy, but don't want to tell their parents."

The teen pregnancy rate in Seymour's home county of Jackson was 4 percent in 2005, according to county-provided data -- nearly double the statewide figure. While there are plenty of regular doctors in Seymour, Miles said, many of them don't take uninsured patients, and the ones that do are too expensive.

"There aren't any options for women that don't have insurance, unless they want to pay $200 to $300 for their pap," she said. "I didn't have insurance for the first four or five years that I went to Planned Parenthood. If it wouldn't have been for them, I would not have been able to have a yearly checkup or be able to be on a birth control. I wouldn't have been able to afford it."

There are 28 Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana, but the Seymour clinic and the seven others that receive federal funds -- which the organization considers necessary to their continued operation -- may soon be on the chopping block. House Republicans are hoping to eliminate Title X, the federal law which provides funding for family planning services, because while federal law bars those funds from use for abortion services, the GOP argues that the money indirectly supports such activities by helping keep the clinics afloat.

According to Planned Parenthood figures, the Title X funding allows its recipients -- including the group's own clinics and others -- to serve more than 5 million low-income Americans annually. Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), the chief sponsor of the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, said in a recent radio interview that he appreciates much of the work that such clinics do and has "never advocated reducing funding for Title X" in total, but appeared confused as to where that work is concentrated.

"Title X clinics do important work in our inner cities," Pence said. "They provide health services for women and children that might not otherwise have access to them."

Indeed, a 2009 report by the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research and advocacy group, found that a majority of low-income women consider a family planning center like Planned Parenthood their primary health care provider. But 73 percent of Planned Parenthood clinics are located in rural or medically under-served areas, according to the organization's own data.

The eight clinics in Pence's home state that Planned Parenthood says would be in jeopardy if Title X were eliminated are in the poorest areas of northwest Indiana and the southwest part of the state, which is largely rural. The organization estimates that it receives about a third of its funding from federal programs like Title X.

"I really wish Mr. Pence would do a little bit of homework before he takes to the floor and does what could be real harm to good public health policy," said Betty Cockrum, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana. "For funding to be taken away from those rural areas would put a real hardship on the women and men who use those services. Contrary to the arguments we hear, there aren't other health care providers just waiting to step up and provide those services at the cost that Planned Parenthood provides them."

Pence's office did not respond to a request for comment.

But Miles, for one, says her life would have been a lot more difficult if she hadn't been able to start visiting her local Planned Parenthood clinic 15 years ago.

"I obviously needed to be on birth control," she said. "I had no job, no insurance, a baby, and I was living with my parents. There were no other options."

Do you rely on a Title X-funded clinic for health care? Email your stories and comments to LBassett@huffingtonpost.com.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
As a teenager growing up in small-town Indiana, Elizabeth Miles didn't know that the local Planned Parenthood offered affordable contraception and other subsidized reproductive health services. "I ju...
As a teenager growing up in small-town Indiana, Elizabeth Miles didn't know that the local Planned Parenthood offered affordable contraception and other subsidized reproductive health services. "I ju...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 1,566
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (13 total)
08:57 AM on 03/29/2011
Planned parenthood is like the devil or if -You- don't believe in religion how about a mass murderer who does some good but still is a butcher and mass murder? How do -You- allow a mass murderer to continue with taxpayer monies which means that we -All- agree that killing babies is OK? If -You- want another example of -Liberal- philosophy just look at the mental health industry and all the pain and suffering and experimentation and brain washing and false hope and suicides payed for by taxpayers money? Are we all responsible for experimenting on children as young as two years old and call this mental health recovery? So when -You- go down the slippery slope of -Liberalism- be careful you might not like associating with people that think it is OK to kill babies like planned parenthood etc.?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
08:07 AM on 03/28/2011
Avoiding pregnancy prevents abortion? Who would have thought? An ounce of prevention....but we must have an America in control by social conservative, says so somewhere in the Constitution. Nobody else is American enough to rule. Only social conservatives. Nobody else hav the right to speak for God and Country.....
07:07 AM on 03/28/2011
Sex is for having babies. Teens shouldn't cross that line, riiiight? After all, look at Mom and Dad. They wouldn't do that. Would they?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Fi
A Gluten-Free life!
04:52 AM on 03/28/2011
America, where life begins at e.r.e.c.t.i.o.n.!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
04:45 AM on 03/28/2011
All this "theft" hoopla would be more convincing if contraception wasn't a huge money saver.

There are other, MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE, programs out there that we have to pay for currently that you have to cancel FIRST. Otherwise canceling contraception will end up costing at least 4 times more than you save so you haven't reduced the amount government "robs" me but have in fact INCREASED it.

By canceling title X without first canceling these other programs you are TAKING MORE MONEY AWAY FROM ME!!! Which by your own twisted logic is making the problem worse and make you vile thieves.

Before you can attack PP with a clear conscience you need to end the spending of taxpayer money on:

1 - Orphanages for the unwanted children.
2 - Medicaid and all other programs that help the unwilling woman go through pregnancy and labor ( pregnancy is massively more expensive than an abortion or contraception ).
3 - Free Lunch/breakfast programs in schools that keep the unwanted children from being to hungry to learn.
4 - Social Services that ensure the unwanted children aren't being abused or neglected by the parents who resent their existence.

Pretty much all forms of financial assistance to impoverished children really.

Yes I know medicaid is already in your crosshairs. But until you take it down you can't de-fund title X organizations with a clear conscience because doing so increases my tax burden instead of decreasing it. And yours for that matter.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
05:01 AM on 03/28/2011
Unless of course you are really a raving theocrat and this fiscal chatter is just your cover. You really don't give a crap about saving money. You'll spend any amount of my money to advance what you think God's Will is.
04:35 AM on 03/28/2011
Wow, lots of ugly comments so far!! Many refer to "choice" and "rights" but no one has a "right" to have someone else pay for their abortion. Don't confuse topics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
04:52 AM on 03/28/2011
Um, none of the federal money that goes to PP is spent on abortions per the hyde ammendment.

So you are the one confusing topics.

We are talking about completely non-controversial preventative medical care for impoverished women that saves us a bundle of money by getting the access to and education about contraception. Smart pennies spent so we don't have to fork out piles of dollars in medicaid and welfare expenditures.

Its the theocrats that are demanding a policy position with the higher price tag. They want us, the general taxpayers, to foot the bill for all the unwanted pregnancies that stopping contraception education will produce.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
01:46 AM on 03/29/2011
Unless you'd rather pay hundreds of thousands through medicaid to treat the malignant breast cancer that Planned Parenthood would have detected when it could be treated for a couple hundred bucks.

Unless you'd rather pay higher insurance premiums as people who would have gone to PP for cheap preventative care go to the Emergency Rooms for expensive care instead that they can't pay for which means it gets rolled into operating costs which means your insurance company and thus you end up paying for it.

And I get the Holly Rollers are happier paying out the nose for a system which increases human misery by trying to cure things instead of trying to prevent them.

But I'd rather go with the cheaper system that maximizes happiness too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Cynthia Dudley
06:50 AM on 03/28/2011
That comprehensive health care for women and men in underserved areas is even an issue that has a $ attached is a sad telling sign of the state of moral teachings in America.
12:53 AM on 03/28/2011
It really shouldn't matter if PP performs abortions or not (at considering that they are legal). Nor should it matter if they do good or bad. If you think they do good, contribute. If you don't, do not contribute. It's the forcing of other people to pay for something that you feel is good that is the problem. That is still theft. No charitable act begins with force.

I know it sounds like a good idea. You like PP, so the federal government should force everyone to pay for it. But accepting the premise that the federal government can force people to pay for anything legislators deem as good will eventually lead to things you don't deem as good. Was TARP good? Imagine if instead of federal funding for PP and TARP, the federal government stayed out of it. Which entity do you think would benefit more, PP or TARP? Now which organization do you think benefits more under federal resource allocation?

I understand that republicans are picking programs they deem as not being good. That's politics. But it doesn't change the principal that taking other people's money to use for something you consider to be good is still theft.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
02:49 AM on 03/28/2011
I find the concept of taxes as theft very intriguing and bizarre.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
03:49 AM on 03/28/2011
It's even funnier when you back them down to the fact that even they want the government to do certain things ... and that costs money. Said money has to come from somewhere.

So in the end "theft" is apparently OK as long as its for things they personally approve of.

=P
09:10 PM on 03/28/2011
The great american experiment was a government limited by a constitution. The states began producing constitutions at the onset of declaring independence. The union began operating under a constitution about 13 years later.

The government is authorized by the constitution to perform certain activities. Those activities are funded by taxes (which includes fees/tariffs/etc). Taxes that represent theft are those used for unconstitutional activity.

If you think of the constitutions as contracts, where we choose to live establishes the contract. Taking money as authorized by the contract is legal, e.g. taking your salary from your job. Taking money that is not authorized by the contract is theft, e.g. embezzling money from your job.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
03:40 AM on 03/28/2011
By that logic you guys have to stop the wars right now because I don't want to pay for them.

Sorry kiddo. Doesn't work that way.

A more accurate mental model is this.

The nation is a club. We all pay dues to be members.

X% of our dues goes to general maintenance needed too keep the club afloat. Electricity, lights, etc. We all use it, we all owe.

Y% of our dues goes to *extra* stuff. Now the club does different extra stuff for different people. Say this year they are putting in a hot tub and adding a pool table to the smoking lounge. Now *I* don't smoke, but enough members do smoke that the pool table can be paid for out of their Y% without touching MY Y%. I do love hot tubs, and my Y% isn't enough to pay for it all by itself. But the total Y% dollars of all the hot tub lovers IS enough so we get a hot tub even though you, Mr. Smoker, don't like them.

Neither the hot tub nor the pool table is "theft".

It's only a problem if the club starts buying things that there aren't enough supporters to fund with their Y%.

like, oh, these massively unpopular wars that none of us want to pay for. Several thousand dollars of my taxes went to those against my will cause the folks who want them can't pay for them.

That is a problem.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
03:46 AM on 03/28/2011
( the tiny fraction of that amount that went to PP is not a problem because enough of us want it that it can be paid for by a few dollars each from our taxes ).
09:14 PM on 03/28/2011
If the wars were declared by congress, you would have a contractual obligation to pay for them. If you don't want to pay for them, you can live under a different contract. Since none of the current wars were declared by congress, you should have no obligation to pay for them.

Does your club have rules? Can the president of the club, just come take whatever he wants out of your wallet at any time? Taking money for unconstitutional activity is against the rules.
photo
jumpingjackflash
Liberalism will ultimately destroy America.
11:50 PM on 03/27/2011
If planned parenthood provides such essential services to the poor, they should stop doing abortions. The truth is that's were they make their money so they won't.
02:54 AM on 03/28/2011
Abortions only count for 4% of the services provided by PP. Logically, that is not where they make their money from. And what reason would there be for them to stop providing a completely legal medical procedure? There is none. They do provide essential services to so so many people who do not have another place to go. Why punish so many people just because you do not agree with 4% of the services that are provided by them? It is not rational nor logical.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
madisonlike60
opinion will not belie the truth
03:28 AM on 03/28/2011
Well done.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
03:44 AM on 03/28/2011
That is like demanding gay people leave the army ... you guys just hate it when people you want to attack do things that deserve respect.

Life would be so much simpler if it was like a children's book and anyone who disagreed with you was a mustache twirling villain who kicks puppies for fun.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gypsysailor
Things that might have been never were.
11:44 PM on 03/27/2011
These people love to have their daughters barefoot and pregnant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ibreathe4u
you call me a heretic like it's a bad thing
03:35 AM on 03/28/2011
not just their daughters, everyones daughters
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SmileAndActNice
Utilitarianism, the -ism that works.
03:51 AM on 03/28/2011
Um .. no.

Their daughters will get top notch reproductive care on the taxpayers dime cause they are the children of senators and house reps.

Later they'll get top notch care cause they are wealthy.

Just poor people's daughters.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
msjimmied
11:40 PM on 03/27/2011
Why are they so fixated on abortion? Read on, really interesting...

http://www.salon.com/news/abortion/index.html?story=/politics/war_room/2011/03/27/marcotte_abortion_republicans
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
10:43 AM on 03/28/2011
That's very interesting, and unfortunately, very true. The GOP are just pandering to their woefully ignorant base, while they keep on funneling the wealth to their corporate masters/future employers/best friends.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindsay Schutz
slower minds keep to the right....
09:19 PM on 03/27/2011
What part of "my body, my choice" do the anti-choice freaks not comprehend?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Vikingdave
Treat friend like it's your last time together.
09:40 PM on 03/27/2011
Lindsay. They hear voices. Voices that tell them god says so. And THAT is all they need to know. Religion and politics are the same, in that it's about winning the hearts and minds of it's adhearants.
photo
jumpingjackflash
Liberalism will ultimately destroy America.
11:54 PM on 03/27/2011
The problem is that it's not part of your body, it's another human being living inside of your body.
photo
Pavane
I pick my battles and walk from the rest.
12:55 AM on 03/28/2011
No. It is a only POTENTIAL human being. Just like a seed is only a potential plant.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
02:50 AM on 03/28/2011
It's not. And unless you are the pregnant woman, it is not remotely any of your business.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindsay Schutz
slower minds keep to the right....
09:18 PM on 03/27/2011
The GOP can have my rights when they can pry it from my cold dead hands!!
photo
Debbie Shoemaker
bleeding heart and proud of it
09:27 PM on 03/27/2011
Right on, I am right there with you. Fanned and faved.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Lindsay Schutz
slower minds keep to the right....
09:48 PM on 03/27/2011
(:
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Hoosierbrad
I know it when I see it.
09:07 PM on 03/27/2011
If most of today's Republicans were honest enough to tell the truth they would be in favor or going back to 1964, when it was illegal in many states to provide birth control without a husband's consent! How can you keep them barefoot and pregnant if they have access to birth control? However, hopefully the SCOTUS closed the door to that idea with Griswald v. Connecticut, which was the legal precedent for Roe v. Wade.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Klarsonent
Semi-retired landlady, small business entrepreneur
08:47 PM on 03/27/2011
We need to provide the GYN services for women that are needed; otherwise, we're going to have a spike in population among the teens who will not get the birth control they need. But, the GOP says, "House Republicans are hoping to eliminate Title X, the federal law which provides funding for family planning services, because while federal law bars those funds from use for abortion services, the GOP argues that the money indirectly supports such activities by helping keep the clinics afloat."
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
georgieboyme
07:21 PM on 03/27/2011
Sometimes I wish I were a fireman, with one of those long water hoses filled with ice cold water.