More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Cecile Richards

Cecile Richards

Posted: February 10, 2011 08:08 PM

Richard Nixon may not be the first name most people associate with women's health and reproductive rights. But as House Republicans ramp up their unprecedented assault on women this week, I'm starting to think of the Nixon era as an age of enlightenment. The Title X Family Planning -program, which Nixon signed into law in 1970, is one of this country's great achievements in public health and social justice. Clinics funded through Title X now prevent nearly a million unintended pregnancies every year. They save women's lives through cancer screening, immunization and blood-pressure testing. Publicly supported family planning even saves the government money -- $3.74 for every dollar invested.

To the extremists now running the House of Representatives, this is somehow bad news. The Republican majority's FY 2011 continuing resolution to fund the federal government, released this week by the appropriations committee, would end all federal support for the Title X program. The continuing resolution is the latest in a series of Republican assaults on women's rights and health. Reps. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Joseph Pitts (R-PA), and Mike Pence (R-IN) are all pushing bills that shred basic health care in their zeal to restrict access to women's health, including abortion. The Pence bill would gut the Title X program by defunding any health center that provides abortion services -- even though Title X has never paid for a single abortion. Pence has mounted a heartless, even vicious, assault on the millions of women who rely on Title X clinics for primary health care. Yet the appropriations bill is even harsher. It would simply kill the whole program..

Title X's bedrock role in women's health care is due in large part to Planned Parenthood -- the sole provider of Title X services in some states. Our health centers provide family planning care to more than a third of the five million women served by Title X, and our services play a critical role in reducing unintended pregnancies, decreasing infant mortality, and detecting cancer at early stages, when there is a better chance of treating effectively. Altogether, Planned Parenthood's 800-plus health centers provided care to about three million patients in 2009. The services they delivered include not only family planning and contraception but also breast and pelvic exams, cervical cancer screening, testing for sexually transmitted infections, post-partum care, and community initiatives to help teens stay healthy.

These aren't niche services that supplement to people's regular health care. More than six out every ten women who receive care in a Title X family-planning health center say it's their main source of health care --not a supplement, but a lifeline. That's because 85 percent of them live at or below 150 percent of the federal poverty level, and two thirds lack health insurance. What do the House Republicans have in mind for these women and families? Gail Collins distilled their attitude beautifully in a recent New York Times column: "Let Them Use Leeches."

My question (one that Nixon might ask) is: What are you guys thinking? For a modest $327 million a year, the Title X program improves health, saves lives, empowers women, and combats poverty and saves the government nearly four times what it costs. Title X funding has already shrunk by 62 percent since 1980, even though the population has grown and the cost of labor and supplies has risen. And now you want to kill it. If healing the economy is your key objective, how exactly does destroying this program advance it? Five million women need to know, and so do the voters who sent you to Washington to get the economy back on track. A recent Hart Research poll showed that that 71 percent of all voters, including 60 percent of those who voted for a Republican candidate for Congress in 2010, opposed Pence's effort to exclude full-service clinics from Title X. The push to defund the program is a blunt attack on women -- and a betrayal of the public trust.

 

Follow Cecile Richards on Twitter: www.twitter.com/cecilerichards

 
 
  • Comments
  • 251
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
02:55 AM on 04/05/2011
Planned parenthood doesn't even do Mammograms. Pay me Only 50 million. I want to partner with a Dr. Friend and open referral offices in all the poor neighborhoods of the country. We will simply have an office and refer women to other Doctors to perform a mammogram. President Obama, Schumer, Reid, Pelosi, where do I go to sign up? This is one of the services Planned Parenthood offers and they receives 363 Million in recent years, per year, of tax payer money. You could pay me 50Million. I am happy to refer women to another Dr. to perform a mammogram and receive Millions of dollars just to refer. Colleen:) maybe I could just refer for 20.00 a person and the government wouldn't have to pay me anything and I would be helping women in disadvantaged communities. Let's see make a 87 million dopllar profit anf the governemt pays you 363 Million of our tax dollars or offer true services for women, LESS Abortion, and the government doesn't have to pay anything or can pay a very minute amount.
02:08 AM on 02/14/2011
Pence bill proposes to defunds Title X recipients that provide abortions. Shame on them for enforcing the law. The Pence bill is not a "blunt attack on women" it is merely GOP legislators enforcing existing law.

According to the US Department of Health, and I quote:
"By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html
photo
abbienormal
What hump?
03:27 PM on 02/11/2011
In order for the, ahem, fine folks posting here that say that the government is somehow funding abortion because PP subsidizes them through their other services to have a convincing argument, they will have to show this:

Show that PP charges less than any other abortion service provider within a 50 mile radius of each location. That is the only way that you can support your argument. Otherwise, it is all hot air.
12:10 AM on 02/14/2011
Reality according to "abbienormal"?
photo
abbienormal
What hump?
12:19 AM on 02/14/2011
Hey, if you are going to argue numbers, then back it up.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
kmswriter
You can't handle the truth
02:52 PM on 02/11/2011
Unless women "break through" and unite, these "poor excuses for men" will continue to make all women subserviant....seems we have NOT come a long way baby....

We fought through these issues long ago - have the women of today become so complacent they have forgotten how to fight back? No fight, no freedom of choice....why are you letting these "Ps' " dictate?
09:20 PM on 02/13/2011
If Planned Parenhood wants (Title X) non-abortion health care funds, then Planned Parenthood needs to get out of the abortion business. That is a bit of a conflict of interest don't you think?
photo
abbienormal
What hump?
10:50 PM on 02/13/2011
Hospital perform abortions and receive Medicare and Medicaid funds. See any problem with that?
02:17 AM on 02/14/2011
Another Anti-man activist....Surprise, surprise.

This just in: New, guaranteed effective form of birth control, the scent of ANTI-MEN.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
yorkie
02:39 PM on 02/11/2011
SPOT ON AND TOTALLY agree with ! May Pres O and team put in place whatever executive orders that will enhance, strengthen women's and families' reproductive rights and family planning needs !!! What's frightening is there are many ninny's who are female that were raised in rt wing churches and part of the rt wing /pro life anti tax.anti public education, ant gay coalition
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
LaurieAnn
Wake Up! Grow Up! Lighten Up!
02:18 PM on 02/11/2011
When those of you who are so vociferously advocating for these bills because you believe that their main intent is to limit federal funding of elective abortions become equally vociferous advocates for safe, legal and available family planning including abortion at a reasonable cost to the woman, then I will listen to you on the federal funding issue.   Until then I will continue to view these and other bills which in any way limit the right of a woman to have an abortion as just that, a bill designed to limit a woman's legal right.  

To those of you who insist that those not willing to raise a child refrain from sex so as to avoid pregnancy I say to you:  I am tired of my tax dollars going to fund overcrowded classrooms because you gave birth to that unplanned pregnancy and now have multiple children consuming public resources because you didn't have the fortitude to abstain.
11:24 PM on 02/13/2011
America does not agree with you that is why they fired Liberal Democrats and elected Conservative Republicans. Title X funds cannot be used to finance abortion. That’s the law. Planned Parenthood is the nations largest abortion provider. You do the math.
12:57 PM on 02/11/2011
Your Org. is mis-named. It should be the Un-planned Parent Hood Action Group. Abortion is your main cause.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicalchoice
logic is as logic does
02:47 PM on 02/11/2011
Ignorant! When was the last time you used PPH? Me and plenty of other women with no health insurance thanks to capitalists like yourself rely on PPH for birth control pills and pelvic exams. Without them we would have nothing. but why would repubs care for woman, they aint money after all.
03:12 PM on 02/11/2011
So the STD testing, cancer screening, pre-natal care and post partum care (neither of which would be needed if an abortion was involved) are what? In many areas these clinics are the only places poor women can get any care. Of the 5 PP clinics on my side of the state, only one of them provides any abortion services. So the rest are just eye candy?
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
LaurieAnn
Wake Up! Grow Up! Lighten Up!
11:43 AM on 02/11/2011
If I have to pay with my tax dollars to support the pre-natal care and child birth costs of women, who for religious reasons choose to have 4, 5, 6, 7, or more children, then heck yes I want the full spectrum of family planning options publicly funded for those of us who chose to limit the size of our families.

{Devils advocate above.  While I don't personally think large families are responsible I would never chose to limit a families right to have children, as I would not like my right to limit the size of my families infringed upon.}
10:54 PM on 02/13/2011
You are confusing the issue. The article is about Title X funding of contraption not the "full spectrum of family planning options" such as abortion. Then again perhaps you do have a point. Perhaps that is exactly what the Pence bill proposes, it would defund Title X recipients that provide abortions. Shame on them for enforcing the law.

"By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning."
http://www.hhs.gov/opa/familyplanning/index.html
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kyrose777
11:12 AM on 02/11/2011
Those who support non-funding of Title X because of the abortion myth, need to read the law. What's going on with the GOP mind set to suppress women? Women still make less wages than men. They spend more time & money in Dr's offices for birth control or pregnancy care. Women need pap smears and other preventative care. A woman is not a man with "wo" in front of it!
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
10Lost
12:38 PM on 02/11/2011
Please, enlighten us. Where does the bill take away your ability to get a pap smear?
01:13 PM on 02/11/2011
Let's do some logic.
Title X allows me access to affordable pap smears and other services.
Insurance is too expensive on my salary to afford.

Therefore, I would be able to have access to affordable services through Title X.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Frustrated in PA
I am not frustrated, I am NOW disgusted
02:48 PM on 02/11/2011
PP provides those screenings and is able to do so for low income women at little cost due to Title X funding. Educate yourself on the services PP provides rather than just go blind and deaf when you see or hear the word "abortion."
12:40 PM on 02/11/2011
Studies that show that women make less money than men also show that they work less. So unless you honestly believe that they should get the same money for less work I don't know why you would mention it. So the government should pay for those things for women? Based on your statement about the GOP you think that opposing forcing a woman's neighbors to pay for her medical care supresses women.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicalchoice
logic is as logic does
02:52 PM on 02/11/2011
how very christian of you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
logicalchoice
logic is as logic does
02:53 PM on 02/11/2011
where's the bill that opposes forcing a farmer's neighbors from paying for thier losses. or stops a CEO from getting bonuses paid for by the rest of us. Why start here?
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
11:12 AM on 02/11/2011
We cannot continue to borrow 40 cents of every dollar we spend, any more than you or I could continue to run up our credit card without paying it off. Already the IMF is suggesting that the world needs some other currency for it's reserve currency besides the dollar:

http://money.cnn.com/2011/02/10/markets/dollar/index.htm

And rating agencies are threatening to downgrade US sovereign debt.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/249350-moody-s-says-probability-of-negative-outlook-for-u-s-rating-in-next-two-years-has-risen

Every single economist says the current US budget deficits are UNSUSTAINABLE.

Things have to be cut. A LOT of things. Look at President Obama - suggesting cuts to the funds to help the poor pay for heating oil.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-02-10/obama-said-to-call-for-cuts-in-heating-oil-aid-update1-.html

This is not something imaginary. It is an existential threat to the US.

If we are going to spare social security, Medicare, and other higher priority items, things like federal aid to Planned Parenthood needs to be cut.

It's as simple as that.
12:44 PM on 02/11/2011
They are for cutting as long as they are not cutting something that effects them. An article written by the president of the planned parenthood action fund is her whining saying don't cut my job cut someone else
12:48 PM on 02/11/2011
Exactly right. The argument needs to be framed along the what do we want to pay for. Things that are medically necessary or things that are not. We can't keep operating under the faulty premise that we can afford to pay for it all.
3RawBob
venti latte w/3 raw sugars
11:08 AM on 02/11/2011
There seems to be a lot of confusion about the women that are eligible to have their abortions paid for by the Federal Government. There seems to be a misunderstanding that all women who are victims of rape or incest, or have life-threatening complications are eligible. Rich women are not eligible. The only people eligible, and only 220 were approved last year, are women who are on Medicare and by definition poor, and women in the armed services. The†let them pay for it themselves argument†is simply not based on reality. How many Medicare women have $1,000 to pay for an abortion?
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
11:17 AM on 02/11/2011
"How many Medicare women have $1,000 to pay for an abortion? "

Since Medicare basically covers people over 65, I'm rather amazed that you found 220 of them pregnant at all.....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
10Lost
12:45 PM on 02/11/2011
Good one.
3raw, if the fed money is so important for women's health other than abortion, then why give fed money to an abortion clinic?
and link your stats and source to the '220'.
schatsie
banks are more dangerous than standing armies
10:10 PM on 02/11/2011
Duhhh...there is disablity provision in Medicare, some women are disabled and choose to have an abortion since they are disabled get it??????
photo
abbienormal
What hump?
11:57 AM on 02/11/2011
F/F. But, rich women don't have abortions. They have D&Cs. It sounds so much better.
10:50 AM on 02/11/2011
Are we supposed to believe this is anything but a desire to keep the gravy train going for Planned Parenthood from the federal government? Maybe we could consider them something other than abortion mills if they didn't perform 200 abortions per referral they make for adoption. They are the leading abortion provider in the country. The rest is just window dressing.
01:59 AM on 02/14/2011
Exactly!
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
jessicadevyn
Do you like Huey Lewis and the News?
01:09 PM on 02/14/2011
A first trimester abortion costS $400. The raw cost of an annual exam plus birth control for a year can easily be $500-$600. A pregnancy and delivery can cost anywhere between 10,000-40,000+. I'm not even counting the after birth cost such as if the baby is a premie and has to stay in the NICU for months. So considering first trimester abortions are cheap compared to the other alternatives exactly who is getting rich off of abortion? Doctors who work for PPed are some of the poorest MDs.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:53 AM on 02/11/2011
A story I heard, maybe it's urban legend:

A judge up for appointment was questioned re abortion, asked when he thought life began.
He replied "life begins when the kids grow up and the dog dies".
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
ThatsTheTheWayItIs
religion, ideology, partisanship are delusional
09:40 AM on 02/11/2011
Solution: clinics spin off their abortion services to new clinics, funded by donations.

As to clinics saying they don't use their Fed funds for abortions: that's ridiculous. All revenues fund the organization and it's activities, there is no way to track or separate revenues. Not in a corporation or a non-profit.

Women have a right to an abortion, not a free one. That right is not being abridged in any way. Stop "crying wolf" on this or people will ignore you, and get eaten when the wolf actually does arrive.
3RawBob
venti latte w/3 raw sugars
10:11 AM on 02/11/2011
“there is no way to track or separate revenues.†There are generally accepted accounting standards, auditors, cost reporting requirements by the Feds for the Title X funds, as well as the internal procedures of the corporation itself.
I will assume that you meant “costs†and not “revenues†in your statement. For revenues, simply look at the amount written on the check from the Feds.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
JStading
Trust me, I'm an attorney...
10:51 AM on 02/11/2011
I think his broader point was that you can cross-subsidize programs by artificially inflating/deflating the costs of services and goods.  E.g. if I knew the government would pay 110% of the costs of contraceptives given to the poor pursuant to a cost plus contract, I could always form a subsidiary and sell the contraceptives to my primary company at inflated costs - capturing both markups and redirecting them to abortion services.

I'm with the original poster. I'm sick of the "if they are against funding it, they are going to overturn Roe/Casey and destroy the right to an abortion" - no they aren't.  I'm unclear what abortion should be a carve out amongst all other rights, one where the government should pay to allow you to get an abortion.
photo
George Hanshaw
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
11:14 AM on 02/11/2011
"There are generally accepted accounting standards,"

There are generally accepted legal standards too. Like having your employees report statutory rape. If Planned Parenthood doesn't follow THOSE standards (and that's well documented) why would anyone think they'd be averse to fudging a few entries on a balance sheet?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
kyrose777
11:00 AM on 02/11/2011
I am a Public Health Nurse and you are wrong to say that Fed funds are used for abortion. I know I worked in the family planning clinics for many years. You should visit a clinic and learn about how they save women and unborn babies' lives. They need funding unless the heath care insurance law provides this care for the uninsured. Believe me, society will pay more if these women are left to fend for themselves.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
LaurieAnn
Wake Up! Grow Up! Lighten Up!
11:40 AM on 02/11/2011
I hear you.  And I say that society is paying a terrible price already.  And not just society, individual women and their families are as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
unitarianuniversalist
I LOVE Bernie Sanders & Elizabeth Warren!
11:56 AM on 02/11/2011
You are so right! My wife is a post-partum nurse and has spent almost twenty years bringing little babies into the world. She has seen just about every situation you could imagine and is a firm advocate of a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. At one time, she and I worked together in a large military hospital in Germany (I was a chaplain there and assigned to cover the NICU). As you undoubtedly know, the military hospitals cannot perform abortions precisely because of the Federal funding issue. My wife and I witnessed some horrific situations where women were given no choice but to bring their unborn to full term. In one case, a baby was born with half of the brain on the outside of the skull. There was no real chance for this baby to have a viable life outside the womb, yet, nevertheless, the baby came into the world. The result, of course, was catastrophic for the parents, the baby and for the caregivers. The parents basically abandoned the baby and it was left to the nurses, doctors and (in my case) the chaplain to provide care. This baby should never have come into the world! In good conscience, the baby should have been aborted early on. Yet, this is what so-called "pro-lifers" argue for, whether they know it or not. A woman should be able to make difficult decisions in consultation with her doctor and the professional caregiving community. Period!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
urfree2speak
Justice though the heavens fall
09:03 AM on 02/11/2011
A woman right is LAW already, the GOP seem to be shooting themselves in the foot, "again"
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
LaurieAnn
Wake Up! Grow Up! Lighten Up!
02:23 PM on 02/11/2011
Faved my friend.  The GOPpers have an effective wedge issue with this.  It takes away the scrutiny of their dismal record on the economy, family friendly domestic policies and civil rights--and keeps a voting base which might otherwise look more closely at the above issues.