iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

What Exactly Is Title X Funding?

First Posted: 04/08/11 05:55 PM ET Updated: 06/08/11 06:12 AM ET

P1120267

Title X, the only federal grant program dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income and uninsured patients, has nothing to do with abortion.

But House Republicans have said limiting abortions is the primary reason for their proposal to cut more than $300 million from Title X for the rest of fiscal 2011, even though abortion is explicitly excluded from the program's coverage.

Ironically, cutting Title X funding might actually increase the incidence of abortions. Family planning services at Title X-funded clinics helped prevent 973,00 unintended pregnancies in 2008, which would have caused more that 400,000 unintended births and more than 400,000 abortions, according to a report by the Guttmacher Institute released that year.

The Title X family planning program was enacted by President Nixon in 1970 to fund a range of preventive health care services free of charge to patients at or below the poverty level. For low- to moderate-income patients, there is a sliding fee scale for access to Title X services, which include breast and pelvic exams, Pap smears and other cancer screenings, HIV testing, pregnancy testing and counseling, and affordable birth control.

Title X funds can be allocated to any clinic that provides family planning services to poor and low-income patients, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services reports that there is at least one Title X funded clinic in around three quarters of all U.S. counties.

"Title X is a longstanding, highly successful program," said Helen Burstin, a volunteer physician at La Clinica del Pueblo, a Title X-funded community health center in Washington, D.C. "It does not cover abortions. I find it extraordinary that they're commingling this with abortion in such a bizarre way."

Republicans are targeting Title X because roughly a quarter of its funds are allocated to Planned Parenthood, which provides abortions in addition to its preventative care services. Although Planned Parenthood has long been banned from using federal money for abortions, conservatives argue that the money it receives from Title X frees up other money that can indirectly be used for abortions.

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.), who introduced the amendment that would defund Planned Parenthood, told Politico in February that he thinks the government might be able to stop the organization from performing abortions by stripping away its federal funds.

"We should end the day when the largest abortion provider is the largest recipient of [Title X] federal funding," he said. "What's clear to me, if you follow the money, you can actually take the funding supports out of abortion. We then have a much better opportunity to move forward to be a society that says yes to life."

But what's actually at stake with the loss of Title X, according a report by the National Family and Reproductive Health Association, is a highly effective program that serves over 5 million men, women and children a year and has prevented 20 million unintended pregnancies and nine million abortions over the past two decades. The report also finds that every dollar invested in Title X saves almost $4 in Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related and newborn care alone.

"Title X is a core component of the U.S. public health care system and an important source of primary health care for millions of men and women," says the report. "Especially in this time of tight state and federal budgets, further investments made to strengthen the Title X system will pay hefty dividends."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Title X, the only federal grant program dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income and uninsured patients, has nothing to do with abortion. But House Repub...
Title X, the only federal grant program dedicated solely to family planning and reproductive health services for low-income and uninsured patients, has nothing to do with abortion. But House Repub...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 577
  • 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 »  (6 total)
08:01 AM on 04/10/2011
they want to take away a woman's right to plan their families. however, should a woman have a child the GOPs want the ability to subject the child to unclean air, poisoned water and unhealthy food.

the GOP also wants to put a gun in the child's hands on the way to college if the child is lucky enough to get education experiences that aren't defunded to meet college elgibility.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mike dougles
09:49 AM on 04/10/2011
We also want the mom and dad to be able to choose what school the kid goes to, dems like Obama are not pro choice on schools, strange.

Women can plan their families but why do I have to pay for it. Its your family.
08:12 PM on 04/10/2011
"An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure." is a tried and true.

the GOP HATES education not the President. he's boosting education funding and affordabliity not cutting it for jails unlike the GOP. it cost 3x less to educate than to jail. the GOP pick jails all the time, right AZ Gov Jan Brewer (poster child for this practice)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
lisalulu
I stand for Planned Parenthood.
11:30 AM on 04/11/2011
Mike - seriously - how have you been personally impacted by Title X Funding?

Newsflash: we all pay no or later

Newsflash: we live in a pluralistic society- community.

Newsflash: birth control, family planning and wellness is key to personal responsiblity.

Newsflash: Personal Responsibility does mean "here's your bootstraps at birth - have at it."
photo
buddbo1
Progressive voter.
05:15 AM on 04/10/2011
I hope those blue pills for men are being defunded. For a lot of women, denying sex to men can be a worst form of planned parenthood. Those sex toys don't complain, and you don't need a drink or cigarette later. Go ahead congressmen make your day !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldgraymare
Congress is the opposite of Progress
05:54 AM on 04/10/2011
Unfortunately, the little blue pills are more often covered by insurance than are birth control pills! I too wouldd like to see them de-funded if women's reproductive services get defunded. This entire bruhaha is just a sneaky way to overturn Roe v Wade.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fg159
12:55 AM on 04/10/2011
Here is just another example of the GOP not believing that middle class and poor woman are very important.
For them to not fund Planned Parenthood would cause woman not to have much needed medical exams.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
03:18 PM on 04/09/2011
"The report also finds that every dollar invested in Title X saves almost $4 in Medicaid costs for pregnancy-related and newborn care alone."

Too bad Republicans are not too interested in the fetus once it is born.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TheAntiOkie
04:06 PM on 04/09/2011
Plus, they simply don't care what they are cutting as long as they get to feel powerful doing something that blends in nicely with their hateful ideologies - the ones they pretend are based on their pretend Christian Values.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
05:35 PM on 04/09/2011
Well said!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
05:13 PM on 04/09/2011
You would think they would be interested in saving money...
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
realpolitic
When in Rome.......
05:36 PM on 04/09/2011
Yes, but they are only interested in fighting the culture wars.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sophiemaki
01:35 PM on 04/09/2011
tax payer monies do not fund abortions. period.
monies for abortions are derived from ..donated funds.
i have donated to PP before and i am proud of it. i will continue to.
why do right wingers have a problem with birth control. ?
to quote some poster yesterday:
"to a repub: " life begins at conception and ends at birth." ..per barney.
01:18 PM on 04/09/2011
I just have to ask for a quick poll....
As HCR will address all of the medical issues being used to defend PP, when it comes into affect in 2014, can the funding then be removed?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TheAntiOkie
04:08 PM on 04/09/2011
What about the people who will not be covered under the HCR bill?  Are they just left out in the cold?

Because it does not cover everyone.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chevalier Dupin
12:49 PM on 04/09/2011
So Obama and the dems agreed to this deal, that means the approve of it and all that comes along with it.
photo
buddbo1
Progressive voter.
05:23 AM on 04/10/2011
It has to be debated and voted upon. Let's hope someone in Washington will think about the 98% who aren't being served . To give a 25% tax cut to the richest in the country while the remaining taxpayers have to makeup that lost of revenue with all these budget cuts is insane. That fuzzy math isn't that fuzzy !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Chevalier Dupin
03:03 PM on 04/10/2011
It's completely untrue that any loss of tax revenue due to breaks to the wealthiest would have to be made up for by those in a lower marginal tax bracket. We're already borrowing trillions above and beyond what we collect in taxes. Why not just borrow the difference in this instance as well??
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
12:29 PM on 04/09/2011
Perhaps you missed this line?
"...fund a range of preventive health care services free of charge to patients at or below the POVERTY level."
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JStading
"Shall NOT be infringed" means what it says.
11:04 AM on 04/09/2011
I agree - no one should take the birth control away from the woman holding the sign.  Just like no one should take away my private property or my right to make certain decisions in my life.  That being said, how exactly does one equate "I don't want to pay for your contraceptives" with "I'm taking your contraceptives away?"
photo
triplettam
Mind Bender
12:40 PM on 04/09/2011
If you read the article, you would see that Planned Parenthood supplies birth control to poverty level women who might not otherwise afford it. So, if you force them to close or cut back, many women will not be able to afford contraceptives. So, let's take it further. According to a reputable study mentioned above, there would be 400,000 more abortions if these services were lost. Fine. The federal government by law has nothing to do with that. But it also stated there would be 400,000 unwanted pregnancies. Let's halve that and say 200,000 unwanted preganancies. Many of these will be given up for adoption and sent to foster homes. They will be in the system and the state will--one way or another--foot the bill for housing, clothing and food. The ones not given up will be more than likely be on a food stamp program or some other form of goverment assistance. A lot of money spent instead of just helping to offset the charges for contraceptives. Got it?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
05:15 PM on 04/09/2011
Just thought I'd mention...there are already over 100,000 children in the US waiting to be adopted.
12:38 PM on 04/11/2011
clear and concise - f&f!
09:59 AM on 04/09/2011
One more time: the hard right isn't interested in abortion. They are after birth control. This is the untimate end game.
10:17 AM on 04/09/2011
Link?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pita143
Virtue mine honour
01:24 PM on 04/09/2011
I don't need a link to tell me 1 + 1 - 2. It is very obvious that this is about Birth Control because the GOP has repeatedly tried to control all aspects of Reproduction at the bidding of the Church.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cwebster
predominantly exasperated
12:31 PM on 04/09/2011
I don't think it's either, except as a side note.
Their real aim is to distract their base with an emotional issue, while they continue pillaging what is left in the treasury and passing it on to their rich friends/family/future employers/corporate masters.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pita143
Virtue mine honour
01:26 PM on 04/09/2011
Hitler did the very same thing to the German People. Before he rose to power he got the German People to look at and HATE the Jews. While the German People were looking at the Jews, Hitler slowly took away all the rights from the German People. The GOP is using the same type of misdirection and what really gets me is these people do not realize that the GOP is ONLY interested in serving the Wealthy and the Corporations.
IreneNH
Please feel free to disagree
09:58 AM on 04/09/2011
If Republicans - including Tea Partiers - were willing to take on the financial responsibilities of raising children who were not born of people who can, financially and otherwise, raise them, this would make some sense. What is their ultimate goal? More homeless children? More child abuse? More children suffering from illness including poor nutrition?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joyf1
Glad I live on an island.
10:44 AM on 04/09/2011
punishment of women for daring to have sex.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JStading
"Shall NOT be infringed" means what it says.
11:06 AM on 04/09/2011
I love that response.  Let's check out the dualism in the debate of "responsibility" and sex:

To a man - "If you couldn't afford having a child, why did you have sex? By consenting to sex, you consented to decades of child support and have no say in the matter."

To a woman - "How dare people try to suggest that by consenting to sex, you took responsibility for a child.  That's misogyny at its worst!"

Either having sex means you're taking responsibility for the outcome or it doesn't, but it's time to end this nonsensical double standard.
photo
Dead Che
Give me deer steaks or give me death
09:22 AM on 04/09/2011
324,008 abortions performed by PP in 2008. $349.6 million in government funding.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pita143
Virtue mine honour
09:49 AM on 04/09/2011
Post a link to prove your numbers.........Abortions amount to 3% of the breakdown of services at Planned Parenthood. The fact is more abortions are preformed every day in Hospitals than in Planned Parenthood.
photo
Dead Che
Give me deer steaks or give me death
IreneNH
Please feel free to disagree
09:59 AM on 04/09/2011
Government funding does NOT cover abortions. Did you read the article? Or are you buying the convoluted argument?
10:40 AM on 04/09/2011
I read the article. It said both yes and no. That's politics for you. Is a half truth a lie? That's what pisses people off, not the actual issues.
08:31 AM on 04/09/2011
“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” – Margaret Sanger (founder of PP)
09:58 AM on 04/09/2011
A) Show your source (including the date) that she said that.
B) Show the exact context
C) Be sure to include exactly what were the circumstances for large families that lived below the poverty line at that point in time (early 1900's). Be sure to include infant mortality figures for disease and hunger.
10:40 AM on 04/09/2011
You don't know anything about Sanger, so why comment? She wrote a book called Woman and the New Race. The quote is taken from the book.
10:55 AM on 04/09/2011
"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need ... We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock."
Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

"Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.
Margaret Sanger. "The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda." Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
joyf1
Glad I live on an island.
10:45 AM on 04/09/2011
She was not the founder of PP. She resigned for a different birth control organization in the late 1920's. PP came later.
10:57 AM on 04/09/2011
Don't they give "Margaret Sanger Awards"?
08:19 AM on 04/09/2011
Guess this would make Mike Pence and the other TPGOPers the biggest "BABY KILLERS" in US history if they had their way.
07:13 AM on 04/09/2011
I had a career in Public Health for over 25 years. During that time funding was always hard because prevention is hard to prove in the short term. The last few years of my career, prior to the Tea Party, I was told by a local politician who is now a congressman and supporter of the Tea Party, that he was against any "give away" programs. That it makes no difference if the government program is the most efficient service offered, cheapest way to provide the service, and decreases future governmental costs - the bottom line is the government should not be involved! You cannot reason, debate, use logic, or talk about the good of a program with a person that has that philosophy. This congressman, felt in general that local government should provide police, water, sewage, and streets; all other programs (librarys, parks, public health, housing, etc) should be paid for by the user of the service preferably through a non-profit organization.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
09:02 AM on 04/09/2011
They do live in a different universe, don't they?
10:00 AM on 04/09/2011
I wish they did, literally instead of figuratively .
11:54 AM on 04/09/2011
As you stated, the Tea Party are believers that federal funding should not go towards programs that “give away” free services. But, what about those who lost their jobs due to the recession that we are still trying to recover from? How about the citizens whose jobs could no longer afford to provide health insurance to them because of the drastic increase in the costs of health care? There are a lot of people who have been fired from their jobs because of the current state of the economy, an issue which we can’t control. Without a job, many people can’t afford adequate healthcare. Because of this, people now depend on programs such as Planned Parenthood for their free services. With the economy the way it is now, how do you know that 2 years from now you’re not going to lose your job and rely on these same current non-profit organizations? In my opinion, Obama’s healthcare reform would be helpful if it would help decrease the debt of the country, and prevent the use of programs like Planned Parenthood from being necessary. Though taxes would increase, what’s more important, money or the welfare of our people?
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
TheAntiOkie
04:25 PM on 04/09/2011
I asked the questions you asked regarding people who were laid off through no fault of their own.

According to baggerology, the laid off person brought it all on themselves and they should have thought of the consequences before they got themselves laid off their job.

And if they got laid off and didn't have any savings, they were at fault for that as well.

Never mind if they were working their first job out of college and had not had enough time to save - that's their fault too. 

They should have thought of that before they spent all that money going to school and not saving it.

Illogical, irrational and completely without any compassion, reason, rationality, ability to think critically or carry on civil discourse with anyone who has even the slightest difference in opinion from theirs.  Only their opinions matter.

They do not want to pay taxes.  They expect magic wands to be waved over streets, highways, and bridges to keep them in good repair.
07:11 AM on 04/11/2011
There is no question that the National Debt must be lowered. Most individuals and corporations manage cash flow through income and loans. The US government is no different. It must do it is a wise manner. Spending must be reduced, thus you look at what to reduce in relation to who it is going to hurt and where you can get the most from the cuts. Social Security is an easy fix. Medicare and Medicaid not so easy. Therefore, cut the military and balance the budget. Cutting Medicare and Medicaid does not stop illness only shifts the costs - citizens still pay the costs. Remember cutting bases is America (Under Clinton) hurt American Cities economies but allegedly was good for the country. Close overseas bases and end the 3 wars (designed to help foreign countries) and if the savings are used correctly could be shifted to Medicare & Medicaid helping Americans.