The Planned Parenthood Federation of America is a not-for –profit organization in the United States that provides reproductive health services to women. The organization receives part of its funding from the federal government. However, last year the House of Representatives were torn between providing 60%, proposed by Republicans, or 40%, proposed by Democrats as the recommended cuts on the budget (Coulter 19). The Roman Catholic is for the view that the Planned Parenthood should be completely defunded (Pro-life 1). Each of the said parties have their own reasons of opposing or rejecting the cuts. The issue of inducing cuts on Planned Parenthood’s funding has attracted much controversy from political and religious parties in the recent past, but there seems no hope of reaching to consensus in the near future.
The Democrats support a 40% cut on the budget (19). They feel that further defunding the Planned Parenthood will make it hard for women to access the most crucial health services that they need. Senator Harry Reid rules this as sacrificing women’s health to reach a deal. Secondly, the Planned Parenthood offers vital services such as cancer screenings; and that the federal funds cannot be used to facilitate abortions (Parker 6). Thirdly, the Democrats’ take on abortion is that it is an individual’s decision; every woman should be allowed to act in her own opinion concerning if to go for abortion or not. Hence, the Democrats feel that the issue, in this case, is not abortion, but the ideology.Want an expert to write a paper for you Talk to an operator now
The Republicans proposed a 60% defunding of Planned Parenthood’s funding (19). Religious leaders are not left behind in this controversy. The Roman Catholic church rules that the Federal Government should completely defund Planned Parenthood (Pro-life 1). Cardinal Daniel DiNardo addressed a letter to the United States House of Representatives urging the congress to pass a resolution to ban the funding of Planned Parenthood. Cardinal DiNardo described the organization as the largest abortion network in the U.S.(Pro-life1). The cardinal also says that even if the Planned Parenthood provides some legitimate health services, there are other institutions that can provide the same. Cardinal DiNardo says that Catholics and other religious health care providers do provide such services as prenatal and maternity care and mammograms for women; which Planned Parenthood does not (Pro-life 1). According to the Republicans, it appears as if funding abortions is the Planned Parenthood’s main mission and the government should not fund it. They feel that if the resolution is passed, it will strain the America’s economy further.
The implication that the government encourages abortion by funding Planned Parenthood is clearly incorrect. First, the government is not the only source of Planned Parenthood’s finances; there are other donors that fund the organization (Coulter 19). Secondly, abortion is just one of the organization’s services provided and only takes 3% of their total funds (Coulter 19). Moreover, there are laws that clearly state that the federal funds should be used for services such as mammograms, and never to be spent on abortions.
Opponents of Planned Parenthood also argue that it has to do with protecting the U.S. integrity. While the organization uses other funding services to spend for abortion services, the decision on abortion remains a personal opinion. This means that those proposing the cut seems like it has everything to do with ideology and not fiscal integrity of the United States.
They also claim that the Planned Parenthood is an abortion network. However, Planned Parenthood reports that 97% of the services (Coutler 19) it provides are not abortion related. In fact, only three percent of Planned Parenthood services concerns abortion. Though the importance of cutting government spending cannot be underestimated, Reid says that women’s health should not be sacrificed to attain that goal. It is very unfortunate that somebody would wish to put such services to a halt, just to cut on the budget that is serviced by the same taxpayer receiving those services.
Planned Parenthood provides important health services to women. It provides very crucial services such as cancer screening (Parker 6). According to Schroeder (6), the federal law prevents its funds from being spent on abortions. Therefore, there is no way the federal money will be used to commit crime. After all, there is no evidence to prove that the Planned Parenthood spends the government’s money to fund the abortions.
In conclusion, a majority of Americans do agree that it is prudent to cut the overall government funding, but sharply disagree when it comes to the details (Parker 6). When it involves matters of health, much care should be taken in deciding what course to take. Abortion is one of the world’s most controversial topics. Looking at the above points, one can evidently see that different parties have their own reason each for either supporting or opposing the cuts. The most interesting part is that the religious point of view is that the funds finance abortion, while the political parties are divided on basis of ideology. One can also learn that Planned Parenthood is really much more of a good healthcare provider than an abortion network .One may think that some issues such as abortion are personal, but from this analysis it is clear that people still differ on its credibility; some think it is a crime. It appears that an agreement is not much likely in this case.