It is true that in an ideal world, abstinence is the only effective way of preventing pregnancy and STD’s; however, we do not live in an ideal world. For most teenagers who, for whatever reason, become sexually active during high school, few legitimate resources exist to provide sex education and health services. I distinctly remember my health mini-course in summer school of freshman year, where a few scientific facts and educational videos—strongly encouraging abstinence, of course—sufficed to cover an extremely broad range of topics.
Turning to one’s just-as-clueless friends or the internet can lead to acquiring false information, and although the option exists of speaking with the school nurse or counselor, some Pitman students consider the impending embarrassment too troublesome. When asked if she would consider turning to a counselor or the school nurse for information, a female Pitman student commented, “First of all, I only met the school nurse once… so I have no personal connection whatsoever to the school nurse or anyone.”
Another interviewed female student asserted that if she went through the school for such information, she feared that word would reach her parents. In addition, some students may be completely restricted from any source of information or birth control by their parents or outside influences, and do not know where to seek help.
For issues such as these, a nonprofit organization called Planned Parenthood exists to render sexual health services for women and men across the United States. Planned Parenthood has been federally funded since 1970—also known as Title X of the Public Health Care Service Act—and mostly works to aid women in preventing pregnancy and STD’s. Not only are the organization’s services free to those with demonstrated financial need, they are also completely confidential for patients of all ages. With the nearest clinic located in Modesto and plenty of free information on the Planned Parenthood website, the health care provider has proven to be extremely comprehensive and useful over the past several decades.
Although President Obama initially expressed the hope to continue public access to the organization, a recent budget deal in the House of Representatives has drastically altered, and possibly eliminated the funding for the social program.
As of late, the House of Representatives in tandem with the Senate have been scrambling for ways to curtail the increasing spending deficit. On Friday, April 8, legislation managed to push a $39 billion budget deal in order to avoid closing down the federal government for the weekend. If the government were to shut down, federal employees (including the military) would not be paid, and national services and programs would close down until the government could afford them again.
As an unfortunate side-effect of the budget cuts, the GOP introduced and helped pass an amendment that cut all federal funding for Planned Parenthood. The issue has evolved into an impasse over whether or not some representatives are simply in favor of cutting the program because they want to do away with easy access to abortion clinics—another service of the organization. This debate sparked accusations that pro-life advocates purposefully slander the name of Planned Parenthood and its services to achieve these ends.
Conversely, some in favor of continuing funding for Planned Parenthood have been charged with turning the budget cuts into a controversy over abortion, rather than an attempt at preserving federal funds. Another common counterargument included the organization using its tax dollars to pay for abortions. In contradiction, Planned Parenthood, by law, cannot use Title X funds to pay for abortions provided by the clinic.
This debate is only a small segment of the ongoing squabble over federal spending: should the United States use taxpayers’ money to fund social welfare programs and healthcare programs such as Planned Parenthood? Constitutionalists favor using individual states to institute such programs because voters could work to legislate and fund these programs where necessary. In an article featured in The Washington Post, the Republicans offered a compromise by giving “Title X money to the states to dole out to health groups of their choice”—an offer the Democrats rejected. Suggesting that individual states legislate and fund their own healthcare programs has led me to wonder if most of us have come to regard nationalized healthcare programs as a right, instead of a privilege. Moreover, Planned Parenthood acted as a privately funded organization for the first few decades of its existence.
On a more local level, what can the complete elimination of Planned Parenthood mean for us? Pitman students have mostly reacted with anxiety. When asked about how she felt about the Planned Parenthood budget cut, a junior responded, “I think that… wouldn’t it just lead to teenagers getting more abortions and no birth control at all?” One could venture to say that without Planned Parenthood, many more teenagers would not know where to seek birth control services.
Another female junior passionately replied, “I think that’s [expletive] ridiculous! Because now, girls don’t have any privacy if they don’t want to or can’t tell their parents. They can’t just go and get birth control without anyone knowing.” If privacy remains an issue for teenagers, it’s safe to say that Planned Parenthood has not ceased its services… yet. Teenhealthlaw.org has a pamphlet describing the California minor consent laws, which includes birth control. It’s still possible to receive birth control, an abortion, and HIV or STD screenings from one’s doctor confidentially, if no other options exist.
Planned Parenthood has made great strides in providing accessible and affordable contraceptives, preventative health measures, and sexual information. Ultimately, the votes of the Senate have yet to decide its future.
For more information on Planned Parenthood and updates on the budget cuts, visit plannedparenthood.org.