Reply #35: But Is Women's Health Care Really Safe?

[AngryOldDem]

The kinds of programs that you describe could very well be at risk, and not from the government, if this is any indication:

At the top of the front page of the Metro section of my newspaper this morning, there is a story about my county being pressured by a handful of pro-lifers to cut funding for Planned Parenthood. PP is asking for a share (roughly $65,000) of money from a human services levy. (PP has received funds from this levy since 2000.) The pro-lifers are arguing that no public money should be used by PP, because of PP's attitude toward abortion, despite the fact that it does not do abortions here, nor does it pay to have them done elsewhere. (Not coincidentally, a local Right to Life official is running for a county commission seat against a well-known pro-choice opponent. Once again, abortion is being used as a wedge issue. Right now, the commissioners seem to be split on the issue.)

So...if these people are successful, who loses? Poor women, for starters, who use PP for health exams, cancer screenings, pregnancy tests, medications, and other concerns. "For a lot of these low-income women," says someone at PP, "we are the only doctor they see." Other losers are teens, because part of the money would go to fund pregnancy-prevention programs.

It seems the right-to-lifers are upset that PP includes **all** alternatives to pregnancy, including abortion, and offers contraceptives to teens, as well as programs about safe sex.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I find it not surprising, though, that those who are the most vocal in their opposition to PP seem to have no plan of their own to help out those women and teens who will be hurt if PP does not get its money. But for some in the pro-life crowd, women's health is always a mere afterthought anyway.

Just wanted to throw this out to show that not even basic health care is safe from this "pro-life" mindset.