Spoiled Lunch: How the Abortion Issue Helped Pass the Budget
James Dugan
Now that the Armageddon deadline of shutting down the Federal government is passed, and the IRS can breathe easier that just the very wealthy and corporations won’t pay their taxes on time or ever, it is time to ask: How did the final day come down to an attack against Planned Parenthood, or more exactly, who raised the abortion issue and why?
The abortion issue is no place for lunch; in fact, there is no place in my memory that a candid and respectful discussion has ever occurred. It is like walking into a swamp with your new Sunday shoes and hoping they won’t get dirty. But it bothers me that it did come out, and I don’t know who to blame for pushing a social agenda on a day when military families and government workers would have been delayed their payments, courts would have been shut down, and all government websites quieted.
No matter how far we come as an American people, or retreat, this infected, puss filled sore of contention between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice never heals. It just goes into remission until a politician or minister wants to fire up their political base, and I believe that is exactly want happened last Thursday and Friday.
Let’s first look at the gasoline for this barn burning in Planned Parenthood. Republicans wanted its funds cut from the budget, in fact they wanted $110 billion in cuts overall, so how did $330 million in Federal Funds (what Planned Parenthood gets) become an inferno? The compromise was around $38 billion that allowed our federal government to keep moving. The Democrats pointed towards the Republicans' insistence that this potentially cut program was an attack against … (you name it, one politician or another suggested it) and it left the Republicans scrambling. Even the Tea Partiers knew it was over when someone mentioned abortion rights. How can the people be comfortable with this compromise when it feels so low down and dirty in its accomplishment?
By ctrouperThe Hyde Amendment or Rider prevents federal dollars from paying for abortions. The cost of abortions, as you will find on the above Planned Parenthood website, are nominal in comparison to most health care surgeries, at least in the first trimester. This is an important revelation when arguing if Planned Parenthood is a worthy organization for federal funding. It spends over 80% of its budget, which comes from both federal and private donors, on reproductive counseling, testing for diseases, and sexual education services. In this light, maybe the Democrats were trying to save this organization that fosters women’s health and choices in America and abroad because Republicans believed that it only promotes abortions.
The abortion topic has been a hot issue since Dr. Kermit Gosnell's gruesome death lab was found in Philadelphia in January. Here is a place that Planned Parenthood was not working. There was no counseling occurring as child and mother were misused and tortured. When I heard that the federal budget debate had come down to Planned Parenthood and abortion, this doctor and his clinic came to my mind. Here in this lab, Roe vs. Wade never happened because back alley abortions were being performed. Here Planned Parenthood and the $330 million were not serving inner city women with education and counseling. I don’t think I can ever have a Pro-Choice or Pro-Life argument again without considering the failures of medical personnel, including its boards and inspections, and women advocate groups that just abandoned this large segment of the populace.
I don’t think America will ever sleep soundly with legalized abortion. It is not so much the clamoring of the religious groups or even being a majority Christian country that puts us at unease. It is not that we don’t see women equally. I don’t even think it is about our refusal to see the poor’s problems as an indictment against our social and economic policies since our founding. Our persistence with this problem is that America has no hierarchy of importance so that we can place one member’s needs of society above another. We are so insulated in our self-reliance that we refuse to see that our individual problems are part of our grandiose national notion that we are better than our society, and we all deserve the rights and voice to support that.
When new life is not welcomed into a society, there is a serious problem with the framework of acceptance that is broken by fear and despair. Planned Parenthood is not the devil, but a reactionary option that attempts to band aid social ills. Pro-Life is not the problem, but a group who will only see a complicated issue in its simplest terms without factoring the social and economic juggernauts facing most of the poor and youth in this nation. Pro-Choice is not the answer because it tries to imply that one member of American society is more important in their choices than the rest.
And so abortion remains mostly a silent issue that does not have a solution in modern America’s democratic ideals or capitalistic structure. It is an issue that will continue to divide families, communities, states, and the nation. It remains silent and personal until some politico sees an advantage in raising it to a national consciousness like last Thursday during the budget fight. And when that happens, I’m too confused and sad to eat lunch because there is no satisfying feeling.
Reader Comments (11)
" Felt the need to respond to this article, unfortunately I cannot post on this website anymore for some unknown reason. I keep getting spammed in an endless loop. Sigh. Thanks to Nick for posting this response.
I always equate abortion to Pandora's Box...once it is out there, you are never going to put it back in. Whether you are Pro-Choce or Pro-Life, I think we can agree that if abortion is ever deemed illegal again, it will not stop desparate women from having them at any cost or means. Last time I checked, pot is illegal and I do not think anyone here would have much trouble finding it. We all remember how well Prohibition worked in the 1930's. If there is one thing Americans have proved, is that if they want something bad enough they will do anything to get it. Same here.
Education to young men and women is the best counter. This is where the Christian Right loses in this battle. They are vehmently against abortion but are also against sex education, birth control, etc. Unless it is abstinence...they do not want to hear it. Well, while abstinence is full proof against pregnancy and STD's it is not realistic to assume that today's children are going to wait until marriage to have sex. You do not have to condone sex to ensure your children understand the risks involved. "
thankS!
I liked this as a follow up to the "Breast Feeding Baby" and the hazardous implications addressed within that piece. You're right to note that abortion is the stickiest of subjects, but it doesn't mean we should avoid it.
Not enough people realized the efforts of the Republican party to politicize Plan Parenthood was merely a religiously motivated spectacle, and it's a real shame that it had to occur. The Republicans never-ending need to align itself with religious zealots is so disappointing to me. 80% of Plan Parenthood is dedicated to sexual education and helping the prevention of STDs and the reduction of teenage pregnancy.
Its efforts have helped reduce the STD rates and teenage pregnancy rates lower than they've been in years, which is a good thing. Anyone who is opposed to abortion should support the efforts of Plan Parenthood because it's attempting to prevent pregnancy from even occurring, especially amongst teenagers. If you are also opposed to crime, poverty, dysfunctional education, etc., then you should again support and help fund Plan Parenthood.
The single most common denominator amongst imprisoned criminals, regardless of race, is poverty and growing up in a single parent household.
Just this week in Philadelphia, the Public Health Department has opted to start providing condoms to children as young as 11. This is how urgent this issue is. I'm not saying I support this, but I can't help but be worried about it, and when people attempt to politicize it, I get infuriated about it. No one is willing to connect all the dots and see how the budgetary decisions actually affect people, and communities, and towns, and entire cities and states.
Here's a link to some of the stats for just Philadelphia, which is apparently the most poorly sexually educated large city in America according to the numbers, http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110413_Sex_in_the_city__The_stats.html
There's much more I want to say, but as you said, I'm too confused about this to continue. Thanks for an insightful lunch.
I agree with CJ and Edmonds that more influence has to be created in education, but condoms to 11 year olds seem drastic. I understand why and read the articles.
I am going to suggest a theory that I have never heard suggested, but I think could work to curtail teenage pregancy, poverty, and the perceived societal ills with children raising children. Those who read the site know that Dugan is off his rocker at times and this might be another example for the asylum.
The proposal is that any child under the age of 18 who has a child must place their baby up for adoption and it becomes a ward of the state. A family member or adult with a home and job may legally adopt the child until the mother or father reaches legal age and/or capable of providing a safe and productive environment. The criteria will be set by the state's health and human services. Visitation is part of the plan, but only if they are actively proving they are trying to improve their lives for their child.
I want it to work. This might not stop teenage pregnancies, but it could stop some of the negative impacts on society and for the child, mother, father, the families involved and locality. There are many who would adopt and care for an infant to make sure they feel loved and are provided for. No matter what, it is better than the message of giving our condoms to pre teens, no matter how important and vital a program for disease prevention it may be.
I do applaud the organizations trying to stem teenage pregnancy and sexual transmitted diseases. There are no easy answers, but my theory goes with the idea that it takes a society to raise a child, even when the children are making the child.
Thanks for your comments.
But Dugan if your idea is passed, where would MTV get its stars for "16 and Pregnant" and "Teen Mom?" How else would they cast the roles for that cash cow? Who else would US Weekly and Star have on their covers and pretend that they are actual celebrities on the likes of Johnny Depp and Jennifer Aniston??? BLECHH.Side note: there is nothing that makes my blood boil more than when I am shopping and these rags make these dumb girls think they are real celebrites and have paparazzi follow them around. It is by far the most irresponsible thing I have ever seen these magazines do.
Getting back to your post Dugan, anytime the government can come in and remove a child from a mother simply due to the mother's age (and not something else like being an addict or abusive) seems like something out of a horrific totalitarian regime, not this country. I agree that the process and idea of giving up a baby for adoption should be made alot more palatable and easier for these kids but it being forced...even temporarily gives me the chills. And what of the grandparents in this case? Do they not have rights to choose if they want to raise their 16 year old daughter's kids themselves? What you are describing seems like foster care and talk to alot of people that went through foster care...I have and some describe it as horrific at best.
I have to agree with CJ. It's an abhorrent concept. I do not feel the government has the arbitrary right to take a child away from its' mother no matter the circumstances, be they age or whatever. I mean, for crying out loud, how many ill fit parents do you know who are well over the age of 18? And what would constitute ill fit? Not to mention, who would just up and adopt these hundreds of thousands of kids? What happens in the interim? Who takes care of and pays for the kid until someone "fit enough" decides to adopt? Adoption takes time and money and sometimes people who are willing don't necessarily have either or both of those things so who takes care of the children in the meantime?
Also, what if the irresponsible teenager gets her life back on track but it takes 10 years to do so. In the meantime, the baby has been brought up (ideally) in a loving, supportive, nurturing home, and one in which the adoptive parents fully desire to continue being parents. What happens to the child then?
I think the only answer is that we should fully support prevention in every way we humanly can. It's the kindest and most cost effective way to address this situation.
Interesting arguments on the piece and the comments. However, I am of the belief that the unborn are society's most vulnerable members and should be the most worthy of the government's protection. If Planned Parenthood is really spending 80% of its budget on health and education, then it should make those operations its exclusive function. Let private money form their own agency to fund abortions for those who support a woman's right to kill her unborn.
As you point out, it's doubtful that Roe v. Wade will ever be repealed, but at the very least we should make it illegal to have any taxpayer money funding abortions or agencies that perform them. One because it is such a controversial issue and two because we simply can't afford it. If you really look at the coming deficit crisis, everything must be on the table no matter what your political views. Whether Planned Parenthood or the Defense Department, all spending must be reduced because we won't have the luxury of debating social mores if the US government defaults on its debt and our economy collapses.
To tell you the truth CJ. Those shows make me ill. They are on in my house and I do not understand the fascination my better half has with them. But I have the internet and now that the baseball is back, I will not see it until November.
If anyone out there can defend those pregnancy shows, will you? I promise I won't berate you. I just want to know why intelligent people would want to watch them.
We live in a society now where the idea of "famous for being famous" has taken on a whole new meaning. Paris Hilton, the Kardasians, Nicole Richie, Lauren Conrad, Heigi Pratt...these are people that have no business being in the public conscience. They are not singers, actors, politicans, commentators, athletes nor do they have any discernable talent other than keeping their names on E! and faces on US Weekly. There are too many impressionable and naive teens out there who look to them as role models not for working hard to attain a craft that allows celebration of...but to just be famous. They want all the benefits of fame without even trying to attain the talent that normally can lead to it. And this is why the "Teen Mom" series and the resulting exploitation around it angers me to no end. For as many girls that may watch these shows and learn from it how difficult it is to actually be a teen mom, there are maybe just as many that sees how much money these girls are making...having their faces on the most popular network their peers watch and their paparazzi pictures plastered all over the rags at the checkout counter and think: "That is my ticket to fame. All I have to do is get pregnant and let the circus begin." Teen Moms have been on as many covers as Lindsey Lohan, Angelina Jolie and Bradd Pitt since this show exploded and todays' teens do not differentiate between celebrities with actual talent and faux reality celebrites...it is all the same.
I am sure that at some point, some executive at MTV had an idea about doing a show detailing the stress and hardship for 16 year old girls who get pregnant and thought it would be a good idea to perhaps stem the tide of potential teen pregnancies. But at one time, there were those that thought splitting the atom was a good idea as well.
Life,Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ever wonder why the framers put it in that order? Think about it.
And by the way, Planned Parenthood is the largest abortion provider in the country. Americans who object to killing innocent children should not be forced to pay for the killing with their taxes.
After reading Caraway and Right Wing Flier's comments, I do concur that taxpayer money shouldn't be used to fund abortions in any case whatsoever. However, to potentially shut down our government on account of a $320 million budget, 80% of which apparently is used for preventative contraceptives, is still absurd to me.
But this is definitely a case that deserves more exposure than was given, as always.
As an aside, can anyone explain why Plan Parenthood is able to be the #1 provider of abortions if they do in fact receive public funding? I know they also receive private funding, but is there anyway to prove that public funding isn't being used to perform abortions? I know this was an issue with the new health care legislation. Aren't there federal laws preventing the use of public funds for abortions? Any explanation would be much appreciated.
Read the Hyde Amendment hyperlink in the post if you think Federal dollars pay for abortion. I believe that the American government does not have federal dollars directed towards abortion unless it is an medical emergency.
I would not support any legislation that supports one life over another and I think Planned Parenthood is very aware of its federal and tenuous status if it uses tax payer money for that purpose. I support the good it does for women's health and the education it provides.