Post 4: Trump on Planned Parenthood: Deeper Analysis
Trump’s plans for Planned Parenthood have become a big topic for many news outlets recently. One can see that in numerous articles, like “Trump Tells Planned Parenthood Its Funding Can Stay if Abortion Goes” by Maggie Haberman, which was published in The New York Times on March 6, 2017, the anger emanating from those who use pathos to bring out an emotional response in readers (Haberman). Between those who are angry with Trump for defunding Planned Parenthood, or those who commend him, it is important to observe and analyze other sources in order to have a deeper understanding as to why many are trying to reach readers with pathos. Mary Ziegler’s article, “Sexing Harris: The Law and Politics of the Movement to Defund Planned Parenthood,” was published in 2012 and shows an interesting perspective in the movement to defund Planned Parenthood. This article provides a more in depth perspective on why one might think differently than another.
Because this journal article gives previous court cases on the politics and laws to defund Planned Parenthood, it gives a deeper understanding on both sides of the issue along with the historical significance of the fight being debated today. Ziegler aids in taking a look at previous court cases that battled between defunding and defending Planned Parenthood. One example of this includes court cases such as Harris v. McRae, where it “upheld the Hyde Amendment, a ban on the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion services” (Ziegler 703). Another example of showing both sides includes the court case, Gonzales v. Carhart, where Ziegler showed what both sides argued and why each side either supports or wants to defund Planned Parenthood. “Carhart claims that abortion restrictions justifiably protect women from the psychological harms they will suffer as the result of regretting an abortion decision,” while Gonzales argued that, “the defunding movement draws on longstanding feminist anxieties about the power dynamic of heterosexual sexual relationships” (Ziegler 704). By being able to show both claims in previous court cases, Ziegler is able to show the long history between those who adamantly debate for or against Planned Parenthood.
This article does not seek to use pathos in drawing emotion over the reader like in previous op-ed pieces, but however, wants to give information on what was done to change the conversation when it comes to having a deeper understanding of what defunding Planned Parenthood means, and gives a way to see how it was done in the past. Interestingly, one can see previous past claims of both sides of the fight, seen because one can see the claims being said to either defend or defund Planned Parenthood. However, it also shows what each side used in order to change laws in their favor, including how both sides used different narratives to change laws and restrictions.
Showing both perspectives helped evolve the perspective on why those using pathos and are angry with Trump are so adamant on their stance. However, it was also good to see the strides those who want to defund Planned Parenthood have already made to restrict the program, to see, and to put into perspective why this has become a major issue today. One can also see the different tactics both sides are willing to do to get what they want.
Whether one wants to defend or defund Planned Parenthood, this article gives a good history of the previous battles between both sides, giving a better perspective on each side of the argument, and helps one understand why each side in the debate are doing what they are doing in either passionately using pathos to criticize Trump’s actions, or those who defend them.
Haberman, Maggie. “Trump Tells Planned Parenthood Its Funding Can Stay if Abortion Goes.” The New York Times. March 6, 2017. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/06/us/politics/planned-parenthood.html?_r=0
Ziegler, Mary. “Sexing Harris: The Law and Politics of the Movement to Defund Planned Parenthood.” Buff. L. Rev. 60 (2012): 701.