Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Donna E. Shalala

GET UPDATES FROM Donna E. Shalala
 

Women's Health Shouldn't Be a Partisan Issue

Posted: 04/07/11 11:37 AM ET

As a former secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services who has worked with leaders of both parties, I believe we should always agree on fundamental principles of public health. As a nation, we must always rise above partisan differences to ensure that the most vulnerable people in our society have access to affordable, high-quality health care -- especially when that care can prevent serious illness. We must always put politics aside when health is at stake. Though partisanship is currently high, and the goal of balancing the budget looms large, we hope our elected officials will stay true to this bedrock principle -- by supporting the national family program (Title X) and recognizing the value of Planned Parenthood's network of health centers across the country.

Investing in the health of our women should not be a partisan preference. It's good for families and in the best interests of our country. Like other HHS Secretaries, I saw what a difference these investments can make. A stellar example is the national family planning program, known as Title X of the Public Health Services Act. It was passed by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican President, Richard M. Nixon, in 1970. For 40 years, this program has given low-income women access to family planning services, including affordable birth control, well woman exams, and lifesaving screenings for cancer and HIV and other sexually transmitted infections. This kind of basic, preventive care builds healthy families and healthy communities, and this bipartisan program has ensured that tens of millions of women have received it over four decades.

Having served in public life, I am well aware of the different voices and views on abortion. But health experts have long agreed that the politics of abortion must not obstruct women's access to essential primary and preventive health care, including family planning and birth control. That's a mainstream public health position and a commonsense prescription for the health of women and children.

As secretary of HHS, I presided over a large national network of safety net providers at the federal, state, and local level, and we oversaw the federal funding of insurance programs, hospitals, community health centers, family planning centers, mental health programs and HIV/AIDS programs. In this network of providers, Planned Parenthood's more than 800 health centers have played a critical role for decades. While some may object to Planned Parenthood's role an abortion provider, its network of health centers is an essential part of the nation's safety net, delivering much needed health care to millions of people who lack other sources. More than 90 percent of the care that Planned Parenthood consists of basic preventive services such as family planning, screenings for cancer and blood pressure, and testing for HIV and other STIs. Planned Parenthood's health centers specialize in reproductive health care in many parts of our country, a Planned Parenthood health center is only place women and young people can turn for these services.

Three percent of Planned Parenthood's work involves abortion, a service that is legal in this country and is not supported by taxpayer dollars. While people may disagree over abortion policy, we cannot allow our differences to undermine the other services provided by this irreplaceable network. I believe that U.S. Senators of both parties will recognize this in the coming days, as they carefully assess the proposal from the House to bar Planned Parenthood from providing any service through federal programs.

I urge everyone to embrace the fundamental public health principles that have united us for decades. The national family planning program (Title X) and Planned Parenthood provide critical services to those least able to access primary health care. Eliminating Title X and barring Planned Parenthood from receiving any federal funds would irreparably damage the health of millions of women, their families and communities. We should debate our differences over abortion respectfully -- and separate them from the principles we agree on. I believe that is the best prescription for health for the American people, especially women, mothers and children.

Donna E. Shalala served as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services from 1993 to 2000 under President Bill Clinton. She served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1980, as Assistant Secretary for Public Development and Research at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. She is now president of the University of Miami.

 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 43
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
10:51 AM on 04/08/2011
Not taking sides on whether Planned Parenthood should or should not be funded by the federal budget, can someone honestly explain how funding Planned Parenthood, (the largest provider of abortion in the US), is not exactly like funding abortion? Say I'm low on cash and can't afford both groceries and gas next week. You give me money and tell me "this is grocery money; don't use this money for gas!" I agree, but next week with your funds I have enough for groceries and gas. Planned Parenthood receives hundreds of millions every year for health services from federal, state and local governments. Federal funding can't be used for abortion. Planned Parenthood says it provides non-abortion heath care at lower cost than alternative providers. Planned Parenthood claims its the only provider available to parts of the population. I don't know how many other providers actually bid on federally funded non-abortion services, and with over 800 clinics Planned Parenthood is so big it is, in fact, accessible to many who lack an abundance of alternatives. But it is a fallacy to think that without Planned Parenthood no other provider would ever exist to do what they do at comparable cost. It's pretty hard to compete with a federally funded behemoth operating on close to $2 billion annually; enough to pay for lobbyists and PR, not to mention its "gold standard" endorsement for liberals and Democrat politicians.
11:51 AM on 04/08/2011
Because of PPA's size, and their ability to purchase in bulk, they actually get a better rate on meds, and thus are often able to offer their clients a better rate, and sometimes free meds & tests, than medicaid/medicare or other public health clinics. If PPA's funding is discontinued, they will no longer be able to do this. This is proven, factual, and can be found rather easiliy if one wishes to look the information up online in an impartial location.
10:26 PM on 04/09/2011
Thatgirl's comment makes the point that PPA's size enables it to provide cost effective services on a large scale, which I think is not refuted even by those who would stop its funding. It's size is to some extent the result of decades of public funding for a variety of health services it provides. What then distinguishes PPA from other government contractors be it military, IT, education and training or other procurement of goods and services? True, if PPA contracts are not funded it won't provide these services, but other health providers could take its place and with federal funds could presumably "buy in bulk" and be as or comparably cost effective. Boeing, General Dynamics and Halliburton lobbyists use exactly the same sales pitch for funding their government contracts as PPA for funding its government contracts.
12:23 AM on 04/09/2011
Reading through your premise, interesting. Sounds like you've already done enough research to come upon a conclusion. But that number of clinics sticks with me. Familiar in some way... I wonder how many tax-exempt churches across the nation have, do and will preach which candidate to vote for, which one to blacklist, which one to block from Communion, etc? Federal funding can't be used for that either, right?
07:42 AM on 04/11/2011
19th amendment knows a thing or two about the US Constitution. The Federal government has no power to tax churches and churches don't get federal funds either. My guess is people who regularly attend congregations that" preach" who to vote for are preaching to their choirs anyway. How the church treats its members in terms of participating in its rituals is not something Congress can dictate. We can agree or disagree with our pastors and stay with or leave our congregation. One can try to change the message from pulpits to the extent a congregation may be influenced by changing and different thinking. In Congress its the majority that determines who gets the pork and what its spent on. And its all pork in one context or another. PPA, to its credit in my opinion has never shied away from the controversy of its mission. As of last November the majority in congress consists of a constituency of members that want to grab PPA's pork mainly in response to PPA's stated mission or perhaps a widely percieved if not completely accurate view.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Erin N. Marcus, M.D.
10:10 AM on 04/08/2011
Thank you for providing us with a dose of reality!
05:37 PM on 04/07/2011
"Women's Health Shouldn't Be a Partisan Issue"

I agree 100%. Am always amazed that the elect republican females almost always stand in the back while the republican men have their way with issue concerning women. Strange, real strange!!!
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
04:10 PM on 04/07/2011
Women need to vote in their own interests.
03:45 PM on 04/07/2011
While the abortion issue is the rallying cry, this is more about one group trying to control and force their agenda on everyone else (more accurately, to force everyone else to act how they want them to, but excluding themselves). You don't reduce the frequency of abortions by reducing access to birth control, you don't reduce the illness care load by reducing preventive services known to be effective. Since what they are doing undermines what they say their goals are, what are they really trying to do?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
02:18 PM on 04/07/2011
I agree. Planned Parenthood doesn't even provide abortions.
01:41 PM on 04/07/2011
I am fairly certain that not only women go to PPA to get BC (condoms) or have screenings for STD's, and then get the meds, if needed. Wouldn't it be humerous to see a gaggle of men protesting in D.C. about cutting PPA's funding? I was informed once during a class, if you don't want your insurance company, or possibly your employer, to have a record of testing done, and *esp* the results, PPA, or a similar place, is exactly where one needs to go, as it can be cash & carry, so to speak. Supposedly insurance companies & employers can discriminate based on STD testing/results down the line. Who knew?
01:40 PM on 04/07/2011
I agree this should not be a partisan issue, but should be looked at as any business would in troubled times. Planned parenthood is simply no longer nec. State medical card programs are available to women of low to moderate incomes, this card allows women to go to a Dr. of their choice for women services. Those that are above the moderate guideline, obviously can afford their own care and most likely have insurance that covers their services. For those that do fall between the cracks, practically every county in the US has Health Dept., that offer free or sliding scale services. Quite frankly there are no services that they perform which are not already duplicated.
02:18 PM on 04/07/2011
You are wrong. Did you know, and obviously, you don't, or you wouldn't make such comments, that medicaid/care - whichever it is for the needy, always forget, is based on total household income? If the person that needs assistance is living with 2, 3, or 8 other people who are working, it could disqualify the person in need, regardless if they are related? It is NOT just based on the one person's income, or lack there of. PPA, and places like them - this potential funding issue doesn't just affect PPA, BTW, are very much required, now, more than ever. There are also people, not just women, who prefer to go to clinics, without the potential intrusion of insurers, or their employers finding out their biz.
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
04:11 PM on 04/07/2011
What world do you live in?
04:51 PM on 04/07/2011
Is this to me? Cuz I live in the real world. And know first hand how applying for any kind of assistance works.
01:28 PM on 04/07/2011
Just a little self-control goes a long way when it comes to sex.
02:12 PM on 04/07/2011
And here we have it....the unspoken reason why PP is being attacked....it is about controlling poor? women and their sexual lives. Basically, the unstated is "'if a woman is going to have sex, then she needs to suffer consequences...pregnancy, STD's, AIDS etc....her fault, she just couldn't control herself. T

Why providing health care to women and their "bits" is a political issue is beyond me.
03:34 PM on 04/07/2011
Lol. So not giving out free birth control means that people are forcing women to become pregnant, get STDs or Aids? Ok then. Why don't women pay for their own healthcare? If they are with a man that won't buy birthcontrol if she wants him to then that is a hint that SHE MIGHT NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HIM. That he might not be around to help her face the consequences of their sexual relationship should it come down to that.
12:08 AM on 04/09/2011
That "self-control" practice doesn't work out so well during a sex-ual assault (rape) situation. Most situations are not so black and white. There are grey areas where education can assist as well.
01:11 PM on 04/07/2011
Healthcare, in general, for all citizens should not be a partisan issue.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eskeeemo
True patriotism isn't selfish
12:51 PM on 04/07/2011
Three percent of Planned Parenthood's work involves abortion, a service that is legal in this country and is not supported by taxpayer dollars - THIS is the line that people need to hear!! 3 percent and NOT supported by tax-payer dollars. It is also still LEGAL! What galls me most is, people have NO problem taking healthcare and education from our nation's children - our FUTURE! - but they want to quibble over abortion rights. Have those children, ladies, but don't expect your politicians or neighbors to support you in raising it!
DrSnuggles
You label me and I'll label you
12:37 PM on 04/07/2011
As we minimize the access to abortion we will find that the only the rich can afford it. This allows the wealthy to avoid the financial burden of unwanted children while somewhat forcing the underprivileged to accept it.

This will increase the labor pool and dilute the political and financial power of the underclass. It's actually brilliant in a rather sick way.
12:27 PM on 04/07/2011
Cutting funding for Planned Parenthood will INCREASE demand for abortions, since it is the ONLY place many women can get access to birth control. If we really want to reduce abortions, comprehensive sex education and access to birth control are the BEST means of doing so.
JEP57
To the right of Genghis Khan
12:58 PM on 04/07/2011
Send the boyfriend or husband down to the drug store to pick up some condoms. Problem solved.
02:19 PM on 04/07/2011
Condoms can break or be used improperly (wrong size, etc). Not all abortions are because someone "accidentally got pregnant. Things cvan and do go wrong in even the most wanted pregnancies.
been2there
Facts have a liberal bias.
04:12 PM on 04/07/2011
No, it isn't. Condoms are far less effective than other methods.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:47 AM on 04/07/2011
While Planned Parenthood does provide good services, you are never going to get people who believe abortion is baby murder to agree to fund them or be happy about funding them.

If that was your belief about another company, you wouldn't want to fund their non baby murder (in your opinion) part.
 
The best bet would be to separate Planned Parenthood into two entities.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eskeeemo
True patriotism isn't selfish
12:55 PM on 04/07/2011
But, for the most part, the people who call it "baby murder" are the same ones who are anti-public healthcare and public education, right? Why? Because the abortion argument is more about controlling women's sexual and reproductive rights than it is about saving babies. These people don't care about babies. If they did, they would care as much about them OUT of the womb as in.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:54 PM on 04/08/2011
Actually, they do. Pro lifers are more likely to adopt, and they give more to charity. Catholic Charities is the largest charity in the country, etc.
 
Some are against public healthcare. Some aren't. It really depends.           I dont think the average pro lifer is anti public education.
11:29 AM on 04/07/2011
The 3 percent statistics is derived from a method that counts performing an abortion as 1 event and handing out a pamphlet or condom as one event. It isn't an honest statistic. Planned Parenthood is the leading provider of abortions in the US. It performs 200 abortions for every child they refer to adoption. It would seem that the abortion operation of Planned Parenthood would have a conflict of interest with the other parts. Why not seperate the two? If taxpayer funding is truly not going to pay for abortion then the two should have been seperated long ago.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Gretchen Watson
By the way, that dress you are wearing is green.
01:14 PM on 04/07/2011
How many times does someone have to repeat it for you? Not one dime of taxpayer money goes to funding abortions.

If you don't believe that, and I know that you won't, then here's a great idea for you Fundies - PRAY ON IT.
03:28 PM on 04/07/2011
Again if that is true then why not create a seperate entity that performs abortions. It seems like a conflict of interest. To have a government sponsored entity called "Planned Parenthood" to also be the leading provider of abortions in the country is unseemly. The fact that they perform 200 abortions for every child they refer to adoption is also indicative of the conflict of interest. Out of 200 women that come to Planned Parenthood because they are pregnant and aren't ready to be a mother only 1 has the baby and gives it up for adoption? It makes it seem like they are pushing people who come to them in one direction.

I love the name calling and the attempted insult. It just shows how naive you are on your perceptions. Which goes into how you form your opinions. You have to believe that a person pointing out obvious truths is some extreme fundamentalist who is trying to push religion on you. Nothing could be further from the truth. Yet you believe what you believe so that you can feel better about yourself and your opinions.
CognitoErgoSum
CogitoErgoSum was taken when I signed up.
01:26 PM on 04/07/2011
If they ever found a way to predict how many unwanted conceptions were stopped by them dispensing birth control, you'd probably find they have PREVENTED more abortions by several magnitude then they've perfomed.