iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

House GOP Targeting Title X In Push To Axe Family Planning Programs

Plannedparenthood

First Posted: 10/04/11 12:45 PM ET Updated: 12/04/11 05:12 AM ET

WASHINGTON -- Title X, the federal family planning grant that funds birth control and preventative health services for more than five million low-income people annually, saves U.S. taxpayers massive amounts of money in Medicaid costs, but GOP lawmakers are trying to axe the program for the second time this year in the name of slashing the deficit.

The cost of covering a Medicaid-funded birth, including prenatal care, delivery, postpartum and infant care for a year, was an estimated $12,613 in 2008, according to a May 2010 Guttmacher Institute study. This far outpaces the cost of providing birth control and other contraceptive services to low-income women at Title X-funded clinics, which averages only $257 per client per year.

Crunching the numbers, every dollar the U.S. government spends on family planning services to help people plan how many children to have and when to have them saves taxpayers about $3.74 in Medicaid birth-related costs. The government spends about $300 million a year on the Title X program, but in 2008 alone, it saved the country $3.4 billion dollars in return.

Nevertheless, House Republicans seeking to cut spending have repeatedly targeted the program. Rep. Denny Rehberg (R-Mont.), who chairs the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, proposed a budget bill for fiscal year 2012 last week that "eliminates 79 wasteful programs," including Title X. The budget would also defund Planned Parenthood, cut funding for teen pregnancy prevention initiatives and redirect it toward "abstinence only" education programs, and prevent abortions from being covered by insurance under the Affordable Care Act.

Rehberg's proposal, while still just a draft and only a piece of the whole FY 2012 budget, already has the support of the House Appropriations Committee.

“It reflects the Republican position on those issues ... it reflects the opinion of our members,” Jennifer Hing, the committee’s GOP communications director, told the Washington Post.

House Republicans already cut funds for Title X by 5.5 percent during budget negotiations earlier this year, and health advocates say that even that small cut was devastating to the increasing number of unemployed and uninsured people who rely on the program for basic health and preventative care. Title X-funded health systems have had to furlough and lay off employees as a result of the cuts, while the recession is driving more and more patients to seek services there.

"In 2009, 5.2 million patients sought care through this program, and we're expecting to see higher numbers for 2010 because of the recession," said Clare Coleman, President and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. "Congress doesn't get it. This battle over Title X will not save the government any money. It will cripple systems that are already scraping by on very little money and doing everything they can to help people in the recession."

Title X was established under President Nixon in 1970 with bipartisan support and remained largely uncontroversial through the 1990s. President George H. W. Bush and his family actually sat on the board of Planned Parenthood, and during his term in office he approved giving Planned Parenthood about $2.2 billion in federal funds.

Yet Title X has more recently become a political whipping post for the GOP -- despite the fact that none of the program's dollars are used to fund abortions. Title X does partially fund family planning services at Planned Parenthood providers, some of which also offer separately funded abortions, but the majority of the country's 4,500 Title X-funded clinics have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood and are located in cash-strapped county health departments instead.

Title X supporters argue that anti-abortion advocates should be the program's biggest supporters, since it helps more than a million low-income women to prevent unwanted pregnancies every year and thus reduces the overall number of abortions. Yet the latest wave of anti-Planned Parenthood sentiment among conservatives seems to have leaked over into all federally funded family planning programs.

"I believe in the conservative movement there's been a 15-year effort to conflate contraception and abortion," Coleman told HuffPost. "Many elected officials do not make a distinction like they used to, so the issues have become so overlapping in many Republicans' minds that they can't separate them anymore."

Even the anti-abortion activist group Susan B. Anthony List, which recently called for all GOP presidential candidates to sign a pro-life pledge promising to defund Planned Parenthood, has no position on defunding Title X.

"We are going after programs that center around abortion services, so that's not a target of ours," Marjorie Dannenfelser, the group's president, told HuffPost.

Rehberg's office did not respond to multiple calls for comment, but he said back in March that his support for the GOP plan to defund Title X was about eliminating "duplicate services."

“Over the years, we noticed there were women who were already being served by Medicaid,” Rehberg told the crowd at a town hall meeting in Montana.

But Medicaid and Title X are not actually duplicate services. Many low-income women who don't qualify for Medicaid still rely on Title X-funded health clinics for contraception, pap smears, diabetes screenings and other basic care.

House Democrats are gearing up for battle over Rehberg's proposed cuts, which are likely to meet strong resistance in the Senate.

"The Republican majority has targeted this funding not out of any interest in reducing the deficit, but instead as a means to end family planning opportunities for women," Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), ranking member on the Labor, Education, Health, and Human Services Appropriations Subcommittee, told HuffPost. "I am a survivor of ovarian cancer, and am only here today because my cancer was found early. Chairman Rehberg’s politically charged elimination of this vital program is bad policy and will cost women’s lives."

For information on the GOP presidential candidates' views on women's health issues, check out the slideshow below:

Former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.)
1  of  6
PLAY
FULLSCREEN
ZOOM
SHARE THIS SLIDE 
Romney's position on abortion and other women's health issues switched from pro-choice to anti-choice during his term as governor from 2003 to 2007, and his record on choice-related issues is mixed. He vetoed a measure that would have allowed pharmacists to dispense emergency contraception without a prescription to rape victims, but he signed into law a measure to expand family planning services for low-income women and families in Massachusetts.

Romney was also one of the few GOP candidates who refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony List's pro-life pledge, because his camp said it could have some "potentially unforeseen consequences." But he believes abortion should only be legal in cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother, and he said if he were president he would support the reversal of Roe v. Wade.

"This is not the time for the Republican Party to put up a candidate who is weak on the pro-life issue or has a history of flip-flopping over it," Bachmann said of Romney at a National Right to Life convention in June.

Romney said as president he would defund Planned Parenthood, and then took it even further saying he'd "get rid of that" altogether.

RELATED VIDEO:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
WASHINGTON -- Title X, the federal family planning grant that funds birth control and preventative health services for more than five million low-income people annually, saves U.S. taxpayers massive a...
WASHINGTON -- Title X, the federal family planning grant that funds birth control and preventative health services for more than five million low-income people annually, saves U.S. taxpayers massive a...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,874
  • 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 »  (48 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
slickbottom
03:59 PM on 10/13/2011
Republicans. Forever lowering the bar on humanity. The difference between Progressives and Conservatives is that we Progressives evolved. The Republicans on the other hand don't believe in evolution because it never in fact took place in their ranks. They are knuckle dragging Neanderthals with underdeveloped brains. Period.
javagirl023
It should be easier to vote than to own a gun.
07:10 PM on 10/12/2011
There doesn't seem to be much common sense reason for the right to persue this path, but I think that it has much to do with the fact that the right is winning on the abortion issue. In almost every state, barriers are going up to prevent abortion. Abortion foes have been the biggest contributor to the Republican party. If they win, they have to keep moving the goal posts, so their supporters keep sending checks and turning up at the polls.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
VonMarco
Common Sense is not so Common
02:06 PM on 10/12/2011
Didn't the GOP promise jobs before the 2010 elections? Where are they? What proposals have they put forth? Folks, stop being a mark for the CONS!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina Bussmann
Card-carrying, loud-mouth Liberal!
12:57 PM on 10/12/2011
So the government invests 300 million per year into Title X, and the program saved the country 3.4 billion in 2008 alone? How very un-Teabagger of them! It makes sense that the Republicans would want to cut programs that actually save money for people who are not wealthy. It's just good politics.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Kathy Levittown
I love all animals better than most people!
10:19 PM on 10/11/2011
It is appalling..TitleX is a program passed by Nixon(republican) in 1970..a program designed to help the poor women with contraceptive services..and health svcs. This is a great service to federal and state budgets to save money since if "a woman is pregnant and poor". the hospital costs etc., costs 4 the poor rests on taxpayers shoulders..we dont dump new mothers and babies in the street(not yet-but soon)..Availability to birth control is vital 2 stop pregnancy..Im not debating morals here..just economics..it is a fact that uninsured people(thru no fault of their own) go to the ER as a last resort..and cant pay the bill....and we get stuck in the end..
javagirl023
It should be easier to vote than to own a gun.
07:12 PM on 10/12/2011
Half of all pregnancies are unplanned, the state pays for half of those and I think, nearly a third of all planned pregnancies. The government pays for more than 25 percent of all pregnancies.
photo
Olethea
Life may be sweeter for this- I don't know.
10:49 PM on 10/16/2011
I cannot find those statistics. Please cite your source.

Thanks.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gevan
big dubya
01:36 PM on 10/09/2011
Republicans believe that all families should be accidental (I was a Republican once myself). Unprotected sex by teenagers is the goal. So let's get it on.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PEM1019
Retired HealthCare Provider, Passionate Liberal
12:23 AM on 10/09/2011
Dog gone it...I wisg I could have bought Bachmans MOTHER a 10 year supply of BIRTH CONTROL PILLS!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
04:06 PM on 10/07/2011
Plan? Preventive? Just breed to your heart's content, the Republicans need more disenfranchised people to feed the Wall Street Beast
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
JordanPerry
Resist.
06:00 PM on 10/06/2011
These fundamentalist GOPers are not very smart. You'd think they'd be opposed to allowing poor folks to make more poor folks, thus expediting the day when the masses truly realize the chains are in no one's hands but their own. Freedom is, in fact, free. You just take it.

But abstinence only? See when you're someone like Michelle Bachmann, married to someone like Marcus Bachmann, abstinence seems reasonable. I mean, yikes. No wonder they had to start importing children. The thought of another night together.....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christina Bussmann
Card-carrying, loud-mouth Liberal!
01:02 PM on 10/12/2011
LMAO! F&F, you cheeky devil!
photo
Olethea
Life may be sweeter for this- I don't know.
10:50 PM on 10/16/2011
Indeed! And 20 out of 20 foster kids were girls.

No coincidence, methinks.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kathy smelser
01:57 PM on 10/06/2011
TITLE X IS A GOOD THING BUT MAYBE THE GOP WOULD SEE THIS DIFFERENTLY IF ON SPECIAL DAYS THEY CAN FIX ALL FATHERS WHO DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THERE CHILDREN
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sueinmn
02:15 PM on 10/06/2011
How about dead beat dads in congress?
10:18 PM on 10/07/2011
gotta start someplace.
javagirl023
It should be easier to vote than to own a gun.
09:53 AM on 10/17/2011
Give Joe Walsh a break, he only owes 100,000 and can't show up for his court dates 'cause he has important media interviews. Sheesh.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PEM1019
Retired HealthCare Provider, Passionate Liberal
12:25 AM on 10/09/2011
MAJOR FAN, FAV AND BADGE KATHY SMEISER!!!! Briilliant idea!
photo
dollbaby
Spice...."The Toughest Fighter."
10:26 PM on 10/05/2011
is strongly opposed to family planning, believes that abortion should be considered murder under the law and has said that as president, he would "veto any spending bill that contains funding for Planned Parenthood ... and all government family planning schemes."
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
How can you believe in the right of the individual to do anything he or she wants, yet insist a woman does not have the right to protect herself from pregnancy? I guess it interferes with the free enterprise/ free market of OB doctors. Jerk!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
PEM1019
Retired HealthCare Provider, Passionate Liberal
12:32 AM on 10/09/2011
Because the Republicans have been historically lead by stupid men. And one of them...I think is was Glen Beck referred to a study that said Birth controll pills do all sorts of things like make a woman hate sex, be more aggressive to her partner and when she says NO she damn well means NO! He went on to say since the BC pills women have NOT SUBMITTED as they should to their men....AND THEY WANTED TO WORK OUTSIDE THE HOME and not be the private little slave her partner wanted her to be....and she expects to MAKE HER OWN DECISIONS all because of the BC pill!!! Did I answer your question? LOL! In other words BC pills gave women a choice and one choice elads to another and another and those STUPID MEN CAN'T STAND THAT!
fanned, faved and badged!
02:23 PM on 10/05/2011
Republicans NEVER factor in over population into their rigid NO-Choice views. They've NEVER complained about the Viagra pills and the commercials or the Viagra NASCAR either. Where's the Abortion NASCAR? Just more proof that Republicans hate women and think they all belong in the kitchen. I don't see how a reasonable women could vote republican.

Why don't Reps ever address God for creating us with such strong sexual desires in the first place? Reps don't seem to have a problem with snipping cats or dogs. I can always count on Reps to be arrogant & conceited in their hypocritical double-standards.

What Does The Bible Say About Abortion?

"...Spontaneous abortions occur far more often than medical abortions. Gynecology textbooks conservatively cite a 15% miscarriage rate, with one medical study finding a spontaneous abortion rate of almost 90% in very early pregnancy. That would make a deity in charge of nature the greatest abortionist in history!"

http://www.ffrf.org/publications/nontracts/What-Does-The-Bible-Say-About-Abortion/

Put that in your pipe & smoke it Reps!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MiddleMolly
Working to better the USA!
01:12 PM on 10/05/2011
"The government spends about $300 million a year on the Title X program, but in 2008 alone, it saved the country $3.4 billion dollars in return." The right-wing Neanderthals (this is probably insulting to Neanderthals) would say that the country could save that $3.4 billion by not bothering to fund prenatal, births, or follow up care for poor people and their children at all.

"Leave it to the states" or just let poor, uninsured women "pay the price" for making "bad decisions" and "not planning": They can just have those babies in the street or in a homeless shelter somewhere. After all, why should the American people pay for a woman who is irresponsible?

(sarcasm, of course.)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
new beginning
Practice random acts of kindness-change the world
09:43 AM on 10/05/2011
Does anyone know if the 5 million women who they claim are provided with preventative healthcare through PP were counted among those without healthcare access that were used as justification for the Affordable healthcare Act?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davegstein
08:40 AM on 10/05/2011
I need not point out to you all what a fraudulent claim the GOP makes regarding wasteful spending and necessary budget cuts...I won't insult your intelligence the way they routinely do,as we understand the value of a dollar spent on prevention....
No,I want to point out some sort of fundamental flaw with the actual workings of the brains of these cats.Maybe it's lack of oxygen at birth,or frayed synapses,or simple inbreeding,but somethings not firing on all cylinders up there.
Example: Should we even point out to them,that by denying birth control they are creating future generations of disenfranchised liberal voters?
SHHH...I say,if their to stupid to consider this,lets keep it on the down-low....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pmoschetta
Where are the Jobs, Speaker Boehner?
08:24 AM on 10/11/2011
Can't people see what the republicans are about yet? Been in control of Congress since January yet haven't legislated ONE bill that is beneficial to either our economy or the middle class, and these same voters continue to listen to their nonsense about wasteful spending.
The only spending I see being wasted anymore is the paychecks the federal government gives to these leeches of our government
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
davegstein
10:05 AM on 10/11/2011
Yes.But all else aside for now,the real problem behind our "problems"is the influence of money in our body politic.We do not practice true representative Democracy here,we practice a pay-for-play system of legislative bribery where the common needs of the people and the nation is decided on the size of the check,and who writes it.
Both parties practice this,but the Republicans happen to use it more for greed,deception and fraud,than the Democrats.For now,I choose the lesser of two evils.....until the message of the OWS movement,which ultimately boils down to the corruption of money in our politics,has any impact or effects a change...