Show me the Money, Planned Parenthood
Planned Parenthood is a federally funded health center. Without the financial support of the government, it would not be able to provide affordable general and reproductive health care for those who are in need if it. It also receives financial support from donations. The money Planned Parenthood receives from the government causes debate between supporters and non-supporters because of the fact that taxpayer money is used to fund the health centers throughout the country.
The money Planned Parenthood receives comes from a few sources, the majority of it coming from the federal government. Planned Parenthood receives a large amount of money per year from the government. Without it, Planned Parent would struggle to exist. Although the majority of the funds come from the government, according to an article written in the Conservative Review by Calvin Freiburger titled “A Comprehensive Guide to Planned Parenthood’s Funding”, other sources that provide significant amounts of funds are generous donations, service fees, and other operating revenue. The government provides $528.4 million (41%), donations from private groups $391.8 (30%), service fees $305.3 million (23%), and other operating fees $77.9 million (6%) (Freiburger). These are percentages reported by Planned Parenthood in the year of 2013–2014 totaling over $1.3 billion. If the government were to pull back funding for the health centers, it will impact low income citizens who need the services provided by Planned Parenthood. In a statement by Cecile Richards in an article posted on the Washington Post written by Danielle Paquette titled “Here’s what happens if Congress ends funding for Planned Parenthood: The CBO estimates defunding Planned Parenthood would lead to more unplanned births as patients lost access to birth control” she says, ‘”In their obsession with attacking women’s access to health care, extreme members of Congress would take basic health care away from people who need it most…”’.This shows how much power the government has over Planned Parenthood. Even though government funding constitutes less than half of the overall revenue, it would still impact the organization to the point that it would no longer be able to exist. If Planned Parenthood were to stop operating, it would not only affect its patients but also employees, and tax paying citizens.
The fact that the government funds Planned Parenthood has caused much of the discussion and debate in recent times. Republican conservatives are pushing for legislation to be passed that will effectively end federal funding for Planned Parenthood. They hope to shut down government support for the healthcare center because the government should not be in support of an organization that provides abortion services. They also argue that the money spent on Planned Parenthood could be used for other public services that will benefit the country. In the article written by Paquette she says that, “cutting off the women’s health organization from federal money would actually increase public spending by an estimated $130 million over 10 years” (Paquette). This is interesting because it makes sense that if the government were to no longer spend money on the operation of Planned Parenthood, taxpayers would no longer have to worry about paying for health care services they do not agree with. Public spending would be increased in the form of increased money going towards Medicaid and welfare programs. It would increase because there would be more unwanted births and therefore more children being born to low income women who would rely on affordable birth control services provided by Planned Parenthood (Paquette). This creates a more complicated debate because the conservative Republicans cannot win if they end government funding for Planned Parenthood.
The issue of money for Planned Parenthood causes different reactions and rhetorical strategies from opponents and supporters. The opponents of the health organization use a tone of voice that seems to attack Planned Parenthood and its supporters. This can be seen in In the article “The Pros and Cons of Planned Parenthood” by Republican senator Joni Ernst of Iowa et. al, “The American taxpayers should not be asked to fund an organization such as Planned Parenthood that has shown a sheer disdain for human dignity and complete disregard for women and their babies” (Ernst 12). This statement by senator Ernst is an example of the rhetorical strategies used by republicans who wish to abolish funding for Planned Parenthood because she uses negative words and phrases to describe the way Planned Parenthood operates. It is an appeal to pathos because it invokes a feeling of anger and disgust in the reader for taxpayers having to support immoral services provided by the health centers. On the other hand, the supporters of Planned Parenthood use rhetoric that helps defend themselves from the hostile attacks of the opponents. In the same article, Democratic senator Harry Reid of Nevada states “Defunding Planned Parenthood would limit American women’s access to critical health services, such as contraception, breast and cancer screenings, and well-women visits” (Reid 11). This is an example of the rhetorical strategies used by supporters of Planned Parenthood in the way Reid defends the health organization. The rhetorical appeal to emotion is important because it makes the audience feel bad if republicans were to succeed in ending federal funding for Planned Parenthood.
Issues regarding whether or not Planned Parenthood should continue to receive funding from the government arose between those who fully support Planned Parenthood and those who do not support it. Money is a powerful resource and it is also a necessary resource to survive. Without financial support of the government, Planned Parenthood would not be able to continue providing women with affordable health care.
