The Virginian-Pilot
©
RICHMOND
The pro-life Family Foundation has one idea to cut money from a state budget facing a revenue shortfall: Eliminate funding to Planned Parenthood.
As part of a campaign to restrict abortions in Virginia, the socially conservative advocacy group has long called for the end of taxpayer support for Planned Parenthood.
While past arguments have been ideological, foundation officials seized on state budget woes to make their case anew Thursday.
"Virginia taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize the activities of the nation's largest abortion provider. They should not be asked to subsidize their partisan political activities," Family Foundation President Victoria Cobb said during a news conference.
Jessica Honke, policy director for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia, said cutting the group's state funding would reduce some women's access to health care.
"If anti-choice hard-liners such as Family Foundation really want to make abortion rare, they would want to expand access to family planning, which is what we do at Planned Parenthood," Honke said, noting that abortion services make up 7 percent of the group's state operation.
Declining tax revenue because of a weakened state economy has made sharp cuts to the biennial budget necessary.
Gov. Timothy M. Kaine last month announced that $2.5 billion must be eliminated from the $77 billion budget. At a legislative retreat this week, some Republican legislators suggested the hole may be as deep as $4 billion.
"What they are seeking to do is eliminate one service provider from the commonwealth's use, which is not a sensible way to manage the budget," Kaine spokeswoman Delacey Skinner said Thurs day. "It isn't practical, it's not rational, and it's not an approach that is results-based."
In the past four years, Virginia has paid Planned Parenthood a little more than $250,000 for a range of health and education services. The organization also receives state and federal reimbursements for medical services provided to Medicaid-eligible Virginians.
Julian Walker, (804) 697-1564, julian.walker@pilotonline.com
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Twitter
Google
Yahoo
Oh good, more cannon fodder
Oh good, more cannon fodder for the next Republican administration to send to die in the sands of the Middle East fighting for Israel and Big Oil.
Like a firing squad . . .
I have thought about this all AM and have come to a conclusion that, while I suspect the majority of those writing comments against the pro-life position might be Democrats, there is another reason for their comments than the idea that the government should pay for everything.
When I suggest that those who think a woman has a right to an abortion, even if she can't pay for it, send her the money themselves, it's repugnant, isn't it? I mean, who wants to know for sure that their cash paid for an abortion? So what we do is pursue the human nature cop-out line. If we make the "government" pay for abortions, we can forget that the money comes from the pockets of real people like you and me--that we are, indeed, forking over cash for abortions. It's kind of like firing squads where only one person out of ten has the real, live bullet and no one knows who that was. We can all claim lack of responsibility for the deaths of babies. But they go on dying . . .
Severine
2/3's of all pregnancies are unplanned, yes? But many, many women (and men) rejoice at the news anyway. It just means they did not consciously intend to expand their family that week. Maybe their child comes several months or a year earlier than they would have wished, but they are flexible and accommodate that (there was no birth control, to speak of, before about 1960 so that was a normal way of doing business back then).
Again, I am *not* saying I will regulate another person's abortion. That is between that woman (and man) and God. What I am saying, for about the fourth time, is that I will never approve of using my taxpayer $$$ to pay for it. Somehow, ya'll keep coming back with the statement that I am denying other women abortions. No, I am staying out of their way as long as they pay for abortions themselves (or collect funds from those of you who are afraid they should abort the child so they won't abuse it).
Eugenics? Seriously????
I never said all so-called "undesirables" should get abortions; I myself wouldn't be here then, & bad parents can be of any color or class. I first & foremost am for planning & contraception, but 2/3 of ALL pregnancies are unplanned. So then what? I DO believe a child is better aborted than had by a woman who doesn't want &/or can't care for it. Statistically such children often are unhappy & maladjusted, & they don't fare well in many aspects of life. Many do end up as strains on society or their family. However, ONLY the pregnant woman can really know what life she can provide for her child, so ONLY she should make the final choice. Whatever her choice, PP will get her the help she needs. They provide MANY valuable services, & deserve our support.
"stand by and witness the murder of babies", don says
"It just isn't enough for the aborto-centrics to make us stand by and witness the murder of babies, it must be rubbed in our faces by making us accomplices."
Yet Don, Mary and their fellow supposed pro-lifers just stood by mostly silently while living baby Sun Hudson was deliberately killed against the mother's wishes because he was an inconvenience to the state.
Pro-life is a myth.
Don, I didn't say you were uncompromising
You and Mary said so.
Don: "But some things are not subject to compromise."
Mary: "Planned Parenthood knows that pro-lifers will not compromise"
Seems pretty clear to me. But you can reduce abortions legally by family planning and education. So don't say you there is nothing you can do. You, of all people, should realize that it would be more effective to reduce and even eliminate abortions that way rather than at the point of a gun from the government; all that does is push the procedure underground. The right to life movement has a long history of sabotaging any family planning funding because it may contain provisions for abortion. And even if it doesn't, they view many birth control methods to be abortifacient drugs and refuse to budge. So, in the end, more abortions take place. Kind of ironic that the "all or nothing" stance encourages the very procedure that they are trying to eliminate. I gather you do not see abortion as infanticide before 10 weeks of gestation, so I assume you are ok with birth control methods that prevent implantation of fertilized eggs.
Len, How is it that MAry and I are uncompromising?
We have already conceded that we have no legal way to prevent someone from having an abortion, even though we see it as infanticide.
Is it not enough that we can't prevent abortions? Is it necessary to force us to participate by funding them?
How is it that we are the ones who are not willing to compromise?
It just isn't enough for the aborto-centrics to make us stand by and witness the murder of babies, it must be rubbed in our faces by making us accomplices.
It is not from the political right that fascism arises.
Len
I really don't expect PP to compromise--I just want to expose the hypocrisy of collecting government $$$ for "birth control and education" while making more money, down the hall, from providing abortions, partially, however small a percentage, at government expense.
It is safer to get abortions at hospitals (just as some people recently stated that home births are dangerous, in a related discussion), but PP makes their money primarily from the times when birth control fails or is not used. I don't think it is right for them to provide both services in the same facility and, as long as even one penny of taxpayer money goes to supporting their abortions, I will never see ground for pro-lifers to compromise with them.
Don and Mary you have certainly made your point
Don, I have never stated my position on abortion, but it is interesting to see the inferences drawn that I am willing to kill babies just because I am trying to find a middle ground. No question this is an emotional topic that allows for little agreement among the various positions.
Mary, you have put into words what I have felt is the biggest sticking point in the whole debate: "Planned Parenthood knows that pro-lifers will not compromise--that compromise will have to be on their part when they end their abortion providing services and only provide education and birth control." Why do pro-lifers, then, expect the pro-choice camp to give in at all? I think most Americans would like to see and end to abortions, some at the point of a gun, and some through education and better family planning. Personally, I would prefer the latter because that would also prevent the back alley abortions that would certainly reappear were the procedure outlawed. Legal or illegal, without better education and family planning, abortions will be performed.
Right to Choose? You can
Right to Choose?
You can choose:
1)not to have sex
2)use birth control
3)use more birth control
4)keep your child
5)give child up for adoption
So really all we're talking about is abortion.