I need Title X funding. You need it. Texan women need it.

The GOP intends to cut Title X, which is government-funded family planning. All of it. Entirely. Title X funds places like Planned Parenthood and covers services like contraceptives and cancer screenings. It doesn’t fund abortion. (Interestingly, they do intend to help out wild horses who need contraception.)

There’s a hashtag for this, started by Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon. It’s #thanksppfa, and it’s about emphasizing the great care that Planned Parenthood provides for women who need affordable reproductive services. I was horrified by this proposed cut when I heard about it last week. But last week I had a full-time job and group health insurance.

On Tuesday, I lost my job. My insurance will run out on March 1. I am on the pill. I also was treated in November for severe cervical dysplasia, which means I am at high risk for cervical cancer. If I cannot find another job with group health insurance, Planned Parenthood will be my first destination for cancer screenings and birth control pills.

As of March 1st, I will be one of the estimated 35% of Texas women who are uninsured. If I buy an individual health plan, which will cost me around $150 a month, my pre-existing cervical condition will not be covered by insurance. I need Title X funding to stay healthy. There are hundreds of thousands of women like me in Texas alone. Please ask your representative to vote no to cutting Title X.

Because I think it’s difficult to dismiss real women talking about what they need and believe in, I wanted to put my own face to this and made a #thanksppfa video. Here it is:

(Not a Texan? Click here for Guttmacher’s guide to Title X funding in your state.)

About andrea grimes

Andrea is a journalist living in Austin, TX. She has a master's degree in anthropology and did her thesis work on gender and stand-up comedy. Seriously. Also, she has a bunch of cats. Three of them. Is three a bunch? Discuss.
This entry was posted in abortion, feminism, health care, news, politics, workplace. Bookmark the permalink.

67 Responses to I need Title X funding. You need it. Texan women need it.

  1. Lara Emily Foley says:

    I’m so sorry to hear about your loss of employment. This endless stream of attacks on women’s rights and health has just been abhorrent. Your video was poignant and powerful and I thank you for putting your face to this issue.

  2. Molly says:

    A bill to defund PP just passed a committee in Indiana. I find these attacks appalling beyond belief. I’ll keep fighting for you and for the millions of women who depend on PP for their health care. Thanks for sharing your story.

  3. joereform says:

    Sorry to hear about your job loss, Andrea. I was pretty surprised at that news, to be honest.

    Planned Parenthood does indeed provide a lot of useful and often life-saving services for women (and men). And Title X funding helps make that possible. However, it is a little misleading to say that Title X does not help the abortion cause. Even if Title X funds cannot be earmarked specifically for abortions, it frees up other financial resources to be available for abortion services.

    If you were low on money and I gave you sixty bucks to fill up your gas tank, you may go spend the sixty dollars at the pump. However, let’s say you had thirty bucks of your own already set aside for gas. Now you have thirty dollars to allocate to something else that you would have had to say “no” to in favor of having fuel. That is the way Title X funding does indirectly “fund abortion.”

    If it came down to it, would Planned Parenthood agree to stop providing abortions and abortion referrals in order to continue receiving Title X money? I know that you think they shouldn’t have to, Andrea. But would they, if it meant still having the funding for the cancer screenings and the contraceptives and the women’s health education programs? Or is abortion “a hill that they would die on”?

    • Well, I suppose I will say in response that I appreciate your passion in feeling entitled to hold my health hostage to prove a political point.

      • Cara says:

        No kidding. With a long, pontificating, bullshit “How the world really works, my dear”) lecture to boot. And he wonders why nobody with any brains takes him seriously.

      • joereform says:

        I didn’t author the bill, Andrea.

        My question was whether Planned Parenthood would toss all of the other valuable services out in order to prove a political point.

        This isn’t a hypothetical issue, either. While some are indeed seeking to completely cut off Title X funding, the Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act (H.R. 217) is summarized thusly:

        Amends the Public Health Service Act to prohibit the Secretary of Health and Human Service (HHS) from providing any federal family planning assistance to an entity unless the entity certifies that, during the period of such assistance, the entity will not perform, and will not provide any funds to any other entity that performs, an abortion.

        The scenarios of rape, incest, and the saving the life of the mother are exceptions. So if such a resolution passed, as awful as that would be in your opinion, would PP get out of the abortion business to save your life, Andrea?

      • joereform says:

        I may dictate where and how my donation is spent at an agency, but I can’t tell them how to spend yours.

        But you are most certainly within your rights to say, “I don’t like this other thing you are doing over here; so, until you stop, so do my donations.”

        The House of Representatives did not vote that Planned Parenthood had to return any money; they voted that it could not have any more.

    • so glad you’re here to explain politics to us little ladies. whatever would we do without you?

      • joereform says:

        Oh, I see. Because I have a penis and you have a vagina, any debate between us automatically becomes me trying to assert the superiority of men over women. Clever move; I’ve never seen that tactic before.

        Now, care to address something I actually wrote? Or is that all you (“you” personally, not “you women,” in case you were confused again) have to contribute to this discussion?

      • Cara says:

        No, it’s more the fact that you haven’t the sense or grace to recognize that what’s a special funtime “debate” for you is about our actual lives. Which, we know, mean absolutely nothing except in terms of how many little Joes we can gestate per lifetime; still, being foolish women, we like to pretend we have intrinsic value, amusing though that concept is to you.

        But, yeah. Your wife is sick of listening to your bloviating, so you show up where there are other women all over the place. A captive audience, somewhat. Tell me, just out of curiosity, do you ever post somewhere you’re welcome and where your company is enjoyed by the other posters? Or is it just special funtime to show up where you can “debate” bad bad girls?

      • joereform says:

        Cara, I realize it is about your actual lives. I even acknowledged the work that Planned Parenthood does that we both would agree is beneficial. To this point, not a single person in this thread has directly responded to my very non-rhetorical question: would PP give up providing abortions in order to continue to receive federal funding to help Andrea and you in every other way that they do?

        Does no one have an answer to that?

        But, yeah. Your wife is sick of listening to your bloviating, so you show up where there are other women all over the place.

        Did I say I was married? We have left discussing facts and have resorted to making up biographies now, have we?🙂

        A captive audience, somewhat.

        Not really. But let’s not let reality interrupt your train of “thought.”

        Tell me, just out of curiosity, do you ever post somewhere you’re welcome and where your company is enjoyed by the other posters?

        Yes. And I didn’t realize that you viewed this blog as only welcoming to people who agree with every opinion that Cara holds.

        Or is it just special funtime to show up where you can “debate” bad bad girls?

        More melodrama. Cara, I don’t know whether you are a “bad bad girl,” whatever that means. Your posts show you in particular not to be very bright, but that does not make you “bad.” I am sure that you will chalk that statement up to “male patronizing,” but the fact is that “dumb” is something that neither sex is immune from.

      • SunlessNick says:

        Does no one have an answer to that?

        Your question is built on the sly implication that if Planned Parenthood doesn’t stop doing abortions in order to keep their Title X funding, then it’s their fault – rather than that of the anti-choice politicians who are arguing for this grotesque law – if women suffer or die as a result of that law. It’s also built on the obvious fiction that if Planned Parenthood did such a thing, it would not immediately be attacked on another front anyway. And therefore, maybe no one thinks your question is being asked in good faith.

      • joereform says:

        Nick, it’s pretty cut-and-dried.

        1. The U.S. government is not Constitutionally obligated to continue to fund Planned Parenthood or any other non-profit.

        2. Congress has the authority to put conditions on funds disbursed. This is done all the time, whether we are talking Title X, the Department of Energy, or the Department of Education. Here in Dallas, the city is in hot water because they took HUD money and didn’t meet the low-income housing conditions that were attached to it.

        3. If Planned Parenthood is given the choice of “either stop performing and funding abortions, or no more Title X money,” then it is 100% in its control how it responds to the conditions placed upon it. It can either stop killing the unborn and continue to receive government money to do everything else it does, or it can continue killing the unborn and look for other sources of funding for everything else it does.

        Pretty simple. You don’t like the conditions, but Congress has the authority to set them.

      • Cara says:

        Joe, you show up just to disagree with Andrea on a topic that’s none of your business in the first place. That’s clear enough. I’m not arbitrating the blog; it’s hers. It seems to me that her remark about your passion in holding her health hostage would have at least clued you in to the point that you’re sort of stomping all over people’s genuine needs in your zeal to be right, or whatever your true aim is. I vote for “need to put women in their place”, since you show up HERE, on these topics, to get your jollies.

        You mentioned adopting children and given your retrograde attitude toward women I assumed one was doing the labor for you. So, forgive me. Perhaps you have a husband instead; I might even have imagined the “we” when you talked about adopting. My mistake (if there was one). I don’t care enough about you to check.

      • svente says:

        Joe, that’s not how funding works. A funder, in this case the Federal govt, can restrict what a grantee does with its award (like they currently do by not allowing PP to use it for all abortions) but they cannot dictate how a grantee uses its other funding.

        So even if Title X “frees up” general operating support from individuals that may go towards a legal medical procedure the Federal govt restricts, they don’t have a say.

        That’s why it’s irrelevant whether PP would stop referring for or performing abortions in order to get Title X.

      • SunlessNick says:

        If Planned Parenthood is given the choice of “either stop performing and funding abortions, or no more Title X money,” then it is 100% in its control how it responds to the conditions placed upon it.

        As I said, the sly implication that any women who die as a result of this law are the fault of Planned Parenthood, not of the people who elevate the rights of foetuses above living women with minds and souls.

        Even the dead are not required to surrender their bodies to the upkeep of others.

        It can either stop killing the unborn and continue to receive government money to do everything else it does, or it can continue killing the unborn and look for other sources of funding for everything else it does.

        And, also like I said, the sly fiction that it will not simply be attacked from another angle, regardless of what it does in response to this.

      • joereform says:

        Perhaps you have a husband instead

        Perhaps I do. There are pro-life gays and lesbians out there.

        You could argue the actual points raised in this post rather than fabricating “the real reason” behind my pro-life stance. But I know that it’s more convenient for you to imagine that it is merely a cadre of old, heterosexual, Christian, Republican men out there who defend the unborn.

        Joe, that’s not how funding works. A funder, in this case the Federal govt, can restrict what a grantee does with its award (like they currently do by not allowing PP to use it for all abortions) but they cannot dictate how a grantee uses its other funding.

        And the laws which back this assertion are…?

        As I said, the sly implication that any women who die as a result of this law are the fault of Planned Parenthood, not of the people who elevate the rights of foetuses above living women with minds and souls.

        I didn’t say anything about fault. Planned Parenthood is not legally obligated to keep doing the good it’s doing. But if all this legislative wrangling ends up with something that looks like HR 217, Planned Parenthood will have to decide between two options, neither of which are desirable from its perspective. One will allow it continue to help the health of thousands of women; the other will allow it to keep killing the unborn in the womb (if they can stay afloat without the Title X money).

      • svente says:

        And the laws which back this assertion are…

        Are in the written governance of an agency.

        I may dictate where and how my donation is spent at an agency, but I can’t tell them how to spend yours.

    • SunlessNick says:

      If it came down to it, would Planned Parenthood agree to stop providing abortions and abortion referrals in order to continue receiving Title X money?

      You mean would they surrender the principle that women should be in charge of their own bodies? Seeing as it’s not hyperbole to say that Planned Parenthood staff are risking their lives for that principle, I think many of them wouldn’t give it up for the sake of money.

      • joereform says:

        Seeing as it’s not hyperbole to say that Planned Parenthood staff are risking their lives for that principle,

        It is most definitely hyperbole. Would you say that high school teachers are “risking their lives” for the principle of education on account of school shootings?

        I think many of them wouldn’t give it up for the sake of money.

        So they would rather shut their doors and not be able to provide health screenings and treatment, contraceptives, and education programs if it meant they couldn’t perform abortions, too?

      • Cara says:

        Oh, good grief. Compare actual constant terrorist threats with a rare occurrence like a school shooting. But, no, Joe’s not just playing, here, he cares deeply about women.

      • SunlessNick says:

        So they would rather shut their doors and not be able to provide health screenings and treatment, contraceptives, and education programs if it meant they couldn’t perform abortions, too?

        I don’t know what they’d do, that’s why I said “I think” and “many” (since not all PP employees think alike, and may make different choices – hey, there’s that word again).

        But even if this doesn’t apply to you, the movement that’s opposed to abortion is also in large part opposed to contraception and reproductive education. And if PP gives up on women’s right to their own bodies when it comes to abortion, they’ll be attacked on one of the others until they’re made to give that up, and then another, and then another.

        The people to whom the Republicans and Democrats are pandering won’t stop until organisations like Planned Parenthood, and the security they offer to women who can’t get it elsewhere, are completely destroyed. That is their goal.

    • enb says:

      I’d like to turn that question around, if I may.

      Why should I worry about whether or not this is “a hill that [PP] would die on” when opponents to Title X funding have made it clear that this is a hill they will kill on, to butcher the phrase.

      What they’re saying is that it is more important to restrict access to abortion than it is that the poor receive gynecological screenings, cancer screenings, contraception, etc. Gilda Radner died because she didn’t receive the results of a gynecological exam. But she did have the exam. What this proposes is that because PP provides abortion services, independently of government funds, women don’t deserve to even have the exam. Cervical cancer, breast cancer, endometriosis, I could go on. These things kill women. Denying access to these exams in protest of a legal medical procedure is making abortion the hill that Title X opposers (pretty sure that isn’t a word, but you take my meaning) are willing to kill on.

      Why should I require PP to forsake a legal medical procedure as a moral imperative higher than requiring legislators to not hold the health of women hostage?

      • SunlessNick says:

        Why should I worry about whether or not this is “a hill that [PP] would die on” when opponents to Title X funding have made it clear that this is a hill they will kill on, to butcher the phrase.

        Exactly. Hence that other sick law allowing hospitals or doctors to let a woman die if that’s what it takes not to abort a foetus (even though letting her die would take the foetus with her).

    • DK says:

      “If you were low on money and I gave you sixty bucks to fill up your gas tank, you may go spend the sixty dollars at the pump. However, let’s say you had thirty bucks of your own already set aside for gas. Now you have thirty dollars to allocate to something else that you would have had to say “no” to in favor of having fuel. That is the way Title X funding does indirectly “fund abortion.””

      By your own metaphor, stripping Title X funding indirectly increases the amount of abortions.

      If I only have $30 put aside for gas a month and you give me $60, that $30 can now go to food and bills and I am better able to make my budget. When you take away govt funding to PP for family planning services, millions of women and men suddenly lose access to contraceptives, STD tests, pap smears, pre-natal counseling etc. That extra $60 gives PP the opportunity for people to pay what they can afford and have more accessible facilities, but when left with just $30, it’s out of reach. The risk of unwanted pregnancy goes up and the use of emergency facilities for primary health care. The overall cost is higher for taxpayers and abortions will increase.

      Abortion is part of life, Joe, and women are going to have them whether PP exists or not, so the question is what is better – indirectly funding abortion facilities by funding the organization that provides them with money for services that reduce abortions? or indirectly increasing the need for abortions by stripping the ability to prevent them?

  4. Sarah B. says:

    😦 I am sorry to hear about your job, Andrea! Do you think it had anything to do with your subject matter?😦😦 If paying for exams and meds becomes a real issue, maybe your readers can put the word out on pandagon, digbysblog, shakespearessister, etc. (only if you wanted to, of course …)

  5. Clever move; I’ve never seen that tactic before.

    and we’ve clearly never had our rights and bodily autonomy explained away by anyone with vast amounts of unexamined privilege. guess we all learned something new today.

    • joereform says:

      What does “unexamined privilege” have anything to do this discussion?

      Again, if I am in factual error in what I said in response to Andrea’s post, call me out on it. So far, all you are doing is name-calling and contributing nothing of value to the issue addressed here. Once more I ask: is that all you’ve got?

      • Cara says:

        You haven’t made any points, except “nah, nah, I got mine”.

      • the fact that you won’t even read what i asked you to read, to see what my point was, to actually examine your privilege and how it might be informing your point of view, tells me a LOT more than your arguments ever will.

        what name, exactly, did i call you? white? male? pretty sure those aren’t insults unless you twist them pretty hard.

      • joereform says:

        Actually, I did read it. I agree with a great deal of it.

        It also has absolutely nothing to do with whether Planned Parenthood would rather go under than stop performing and paying for abortions.

  6. and if you’re honestly not sure what i mean by unexamined privilege, or still believe you don’t have it, as a white man in our society, please read these.

    http://amptoons.com/blog/the-male-privilege-checklist/
    http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html

    your entire argument is a “cut off the nose to spite the face” kind of thing. “they won’t stop doing this one thing i don’t like, that is a very small portion of their business, so i won’t support any of the other things that i say i’m okay with”. that’s disengenuous at best, and if you honestly can’t see that, then no, i don’t have anything more to add, no matter how immature that makes you think i am. i, andrea, and millions of other women have spent far too much time in our lives already defending our rights, our HUMAN RIGHTS, to people who want to take them away, people like you, joereform, and i’m honestly out of energy today. you call me unoriginal? at least i’m speaking out for the oppressed, instead of trying desperately to cling to the status quo.

    • joereform says:

      your entire argument is a “cut off the nose to spite the face” kind of thing. “they won’t stop doing this one thing i don’t like, that is a very small portion of their business, so i won’t support any of the other things that i say i’m okay with”.

      What you are assuming is that Planned Parenthood has some inalienable right to that money. They don’t, any more than groups whose aims I do support 100%.

      Just out of curiosity, would you support continued federal funding of an organization that provided much-needed health and human services to those in poverty, if it had an unabashedly pro-life agenda? Let’s say none of the funds could be earmarked to advance that agenda. Would you support Congress pulling the plug on them?

      We both know what this is about. This is not about old men saying, “Ha-HA! Now poor women cannot get pap smears. We win!” It is about duly, legally elected representatives of the American people doing what the majority of the voting population in their districts elected them to do: putting a stop to other Americans paying for your abortion.

      • Cara says:

        Actually, it’s EXACTLY about men wanting to control women’s lives. Keeping them poor, keeping them pregnant, returning them to chattel status. Keeping them pumping out cannon fodder (by raping them if they won’t give it up voluntarily), keeping them doing unpaid labor, throwing every poor man a bone by alloting him an unpaid servant of his own. Because there’s no way of keeping everything going for the rich white men if there’s no slave labor. Just ask the “illegal” immigrants picking the crops and building the houses.

        I don’t expect you to get that, Joe. You’ve demonstrated how little you get much of anything that you’re not forced to think about. You’re mind’s a shut steel trap.

      • Spline says:

        Actually, the people who elected these… representatives powermongers, elected them on their promises to CREATE JOBS. Why the heck aren’t they increasing PP’s funding so they can hire more of those unemployed nurses and teachers and such? Do people without jobs stop needing healthcare? Are we flooded with cheap foreign IUD’s in every discount store? Or maybe we should call a toll-free line in India for advice on contraception?

      • drst says:

        What you are assuming is that Planned Parenthood has some inalienable right to that money. They don’t, any more than groups whose aims I do support 100%.

        “promote the general welfare” sure as fuck involves securing the health of the nation so your argument that there is no Constitutional mandate for the federal government to invest/spend/whatever on healthcare is bullshit right out of the gate.

        if it had an unabashedly pro-life agenda?

        Planned Parenthood is pro-life. It’s pro “life of the woman who comes in our door needing medical help of some kind.”

        It is about duly, legally elected representatives of the American people doing what the majority of the voting population in their districts elected them to do: putting a stop to other Americans paying for your abortion.

        Wow. You’re really new at this aren’t you? The Hyde Amendment has been in place for decades. No taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortions. Not at PP, not anywhere, because it’s federal law.

        Also? I’d much rather my tax dollars go to pay for an abortion that a woman decides she wants so she doesn’t have to become a parent against her will, than to pay for bombing civilians in Pakistan in an undeclared war being conducted against a supposed ally. Or my tax dollars going to torture people imprisoned unlawfully in GITMO. People’s taxes go to pay for shit they hate all the time, why does your personal objection get that exemption? And don’t tell me it’s the “will of the people.” Every reputable poll shows most people in the US favor keeping abortion legal.

        Also the staunchest forced birthers from your side, Sharon Angle, O’Donnell, etc. all lost the last election, so please stop the bullshit that the last election was about this. It wasn’t. It was about the economy, which you guys apparently don’t give a shit about since this is the offensive tripe you’re wasting taxpayer dollars trying to get into law.

      • SunlessNick says:

        Planned Parenthood is pro-life. It’s pro “life of the woman who comes in our door needing medical help of some kind.”

        Quoted for truth.

      • Well done, drst. Nicely put.

      • joereform says:

        “promote the general welfare” sure as fuck involves securing the health of the nation so your argument that there is no Constitutional mandate for the federal government to invest/spend/whatever on healthcare is bullshit right out of the gate.

        Of course! How could every Congress since 1789 miss what is a plain as the nose on your face? *eyeroll*

        Planned Parenthood is pro-life. It’s pro “life of the woman who comes in our door needing medical help of some kind.”

        Yep, let’s play with words. That changes reality, right?🙂

        Wow. You’re really new at this aren’t you? The Hyde Amendment has been in place for decades. No taxpayer dollars go to pay for abortions. Not at PP, not anywhere, because it’s federal law.

        Yeah, and if you can’t buy new rims for your car because you need to spend limited funds on a new transmission; and then I come along and say, “I won’t pay for your rims, but I’ll take care of that transmission,” guess what I have enabled you to do that you wouldn’t have been able to do otherwise?

      • DK says:

        Rims and transmissions? You’re comparing women’s bodies to cars and medical health to automotive repair? Is this how you think of your own medical procedures or those of your family? It makes me wonder if you’ve ever had to make hard choices between finances, health insurance, and medical necessities.

        In my city, only one PP actually offers abortions on site, the rest offer referrals to abortion clinics. These clinics offer some medical care like pap smears, STD testing, and contraceptives as they are a medical clinic revolving around female sexual health, but are primarily funded by their abortion services as it is a highly common and often expensive procedure. If anything, the abortion services are funding the prevention services, not the other way around.
        So if we are going to compare women’s bodies to cars and their medical health to automotive repair, Title X is like ensuring everyone gets an oil change. Your shop does that 99% of the time, but also provides the expensive and sometimes necessary install of a new engine when it hasn’t been oiled.

      • SunlessNick says:

        Yep, let’s play with words. That changes reality, right?

        No, it just reveals a reality that the anti-choice position would rather deny.

        Rims and transmissions? You’re comparing women’s bodies to cars and medical health to automotive repair?

        It’s rather telling that the anti-choice similes always seem to reference inanimate objects (despite claiming that foetuses are people being murdered), while pro-choice similes are the ones that refer to bodies and people.

  7. Don’t you know your health is entirely theoretical, a little thought experiment for men? Bonus points to the troll for the phrase “a hill that they would die on” when we are talking about an actual woman’s actual risk of actually fatal disease.

    • Cara says:

      No kidding.

      I’m getting slime on my boots. No, wait, it’s…

      *biffs off in search of Lysol*

      • joereform says:

        Then it will just come at a similar cost to the women who need an abortion for health reasons, and can’t get them elsewhere. Could it be that Andrea is concerned for those women too?

        Cool, because HR 217 makes allowances for that.

    • joereform says:

      And Sweet Machine is yet another poster who avoids the question I asked in favor of talking about how bad men are.

      You call this whole thing a “thought experiment” for men. Do you really think we are indifferent about the health of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters?

      Also, you have a pretty lame definition for “troll.” Just sayin’.

      • Cara says:

        Did you respond to Andrea’s saying your “political point” comes at the expense of her health?

        Anything in there? Anything at all, besides “dammit, I’m right, it’s a baby it’s a baby it’s a baby why why why mommy why”?

      • of YOUR mother, sister, wife? no. of other people’s, yes. in my experience, EVERYTHING changes once it’s YOUR loved one who is affected. so go find someone you love and put her out on the street with no access to affordable health care and then come talk to us again once you’ve seen how that really feels.

      • Rebecca says:

        First of all, Joe, stop using the word lame.

        And, yes, you are being indifferent to the rights of women (whether they are personally known to you or not) by saying that Title X and all that it does is not important.

      • And Sweet Machine is yet another poster who avoids the question I asked in favor of talking about how bad men are.

        or possibly another woman who has already done a LOT of work on this front and is too tired to deal with your disingenous bullshit. most of us are taking time out of very busy lives to write our own blogs, organize/participate in protests, write our representatives who, in this state, often don’t listen to anyone on the left, and fight for our (AND your) rights. so sometimes, we don’t have the energy for a full on fight and logical argument. sometimes, we see the fight, and only have the time and energy to make it known that we’re here, supporting. but you’ll dismiss us, without seeking out the information right there in our usernames. we’ve all had this exact same argument a thousand times over, probably elsewhere on this same day, and you tire us joe. but we keep fighting, because if we don’t, you’ll win. and this is a fight we can’t afford to let you win.

      • SunlessNick says:

        Do you really think we are indifferent about the health of our mothers, sisters, wives, and daughters?

        Like InfamousQBert said, your female relatives, probably not (and indeed, even in the case of abortion, its opponents have a long history of exceptions for women in their in-crowd, as opposed to those other women out there). But for women in general, yes, you’re talking like their health is an abstraction, and expecting everyone else here to do the same.

      • joereform says:

        Did you respond to Andrea’s saying your “political point” comes at the expense of her health?

        Yes, by replying it does not have to if PP stops aborting.

        First of all, Joe, stop using the word lame.

        Yes, ma’am. Any other words that I should strike from my vocabulary?🙂

        And, yes, you are being indifferent to the rights of women (whether they are personally known to you or not) by saying that Title X and all that it does is not important.

        Actually, I have quite explicitly said the opposite in my comments here.

      • SunlessNick says:

        Yes, by replying it does not have to if PP stops aborting.

        Then it will just come at a similar cost to the women who need an abortion for health reasons, and can’t get them elsewhere. Could it be that Andrea is concerned for those women too?

    • personally, i was really excited to see you pop up over here. i’ve really enjoyed your writing over at SP and it’s nice to see a familiar, friendly, smart face.

  8. Spline says:

    Fine, let’s put it another way then.

    Why are YOU (Joe) willing to hold the other 94% of Planned Parenthood’s health services hostage to prove a political point?

    The government uses my tax money for lots of things I don’t like and don’t support, including abstinence-only programs in public schools. YOU are the ones holding women’s health hostage because Planned Parenthood has ONE function with which you disagree.

    What PP does have is the right to use its funding for its stated purpose – providing health services, contraception, and sex education, ESPECIALLY for services that no other agency, insurance, or organization can or will provide. Don’t pretend this is about anyone’s agenda or the federal budget. This is about cutting off the options of half the citizens of this country.

    • joereform says:

      Why are YOU (Joe) willing to hold the other 94% of Planned Parenthood’s health services hostage to prove a political point?

      I am not one of the authors of this legislation. And saving the unborn from slaughter is not a “political point.”

      It’s funny how only one individual in this comments section has even considered what actions Planned Parenthood would take if Title X funding were restricted to organizations that do not perform or pay for abortions. You are all about “choice.” Its choices would be more limited, but it still would have them.

      • SunlessNick says:

        I am not one of the authors of this legislation. And saving the unborn from slaughter is not a “political point.”

        Are you one of those who would have a woman prosecuted for murder if she gets an abortion? The woman herself, not her doctor.

        Because if not, then you aren’t treating the foetus like a person. And since the majority of those who are anti-choice don’t – witness how difficult it is to get a straight answer to the question “how much time should she get” – it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they’re insincere in their equation of foetus with person. And therefore that their position has more to do with misogyny than anything else.

  9. Julian says:

    If it came down to it, would Planned Parenthood agree to stop providing abortions and abortion referrals in order to continue receiving Title X money? I know that you think they shouldn’t have to, Andrea. But would they, if it meant still having the funding for the cancer screenings and the contraceptives and the women’s health education programs? Or is abortion “a hill that they would die on”?

    Hang on. Last time I checked, abortion was a legal medical procedure with which some people (including Joe) disagree. Just like… contraception, in fact. Or providing services to people whose “lifestyle” (ick) landed them with a health problems – whether that’s a 40-a-day smoker with cancer or whether it’s a keen athlete with a recurrent knee injury.

    I’m off to ban any state funding of sports physio. Pesky athletes.

  10. DW says:

    SweetMachine!
    Yay!

    I think it’s a damned sin that NASCAR is more important than say, oh, exams for cervical cancer.

    Priorities, y’all!

  11. SunlessNick says:

    Joe: Seeing as I have answered your question, at least as well as I can without being a member of Planned Parenthood or a clairvoyant, it’s my turn to ask one of you. Actually, I’m going to ask two – you may choose which to answer.

    How do you reconcile the term “pro life” with the proposed law to allow doctors or hospitals to let a woman die rather than performing an abortion to save her life or refer her to someone who will, even though her death would take the foetus with her?

    In your opinion, are pregnant women the only people who should be required to yield up their bodies to support another, or do you favour compulsory blood and organ donation? (Presently even the dead don’t have their organs compulsorily taken).

    • joereform says:

      How do you reconcile the term “pro life” with the proposed law to allow doctors or hospitals to let a woman die rather than performing an abortion to save her life or refer her to someone who will, even though her death would take the foetus with her?

      I fully agree that such a proposed law would be horrifically ridiculous, to say the least. And, really, Nick, what do you think the chances are of that becoming a law?

      In your opinion, are pregnant women the only people who should be required to yield up their bodies to support another, or do you favour compulsory blood and organ donation? (Presently even the dead don’t have their organs compulsorily taken).

      Do you favor legislation that would permit a kidney donor to get his kidney back if he changed his mind?

      Nor is it the same as taking someone off life support, since the fetus is intentionally killed in the womb before removal.

      • SunlessNick says:

        Do you favor legislation that would permit a kidney donor to get his kidney back if he changed his mind?

        No, because in this case, the recipient is a born person with a consciousness and a soul, who is no longer supporting their life by parasitising the donor’s body.

        A foetus has neither a mind nor a soul* – left to its own devices, it will get them if nothing goes wrong – but on no account would I support requiring anyone to surrender her body to support it until it does. To say that she must is to declare that the foetus has more right over her body than she does. If there were a way to remove a foetus without killing it – and somewhere else it could go where it could continue to develop, then I would consider that more ethical than abortion. But there is no such possibility, and in that absence, I regard the woman’s rights as outweighing the foetus.’

        * While I’m not a Christian, the Bible agrees with me on this, since Biblical law counts a pregnant woman as one person not two, counts a miscarriage but nothing else as the least serious consequence of accidently striking a pregnant woman, and says the soul enters the body when it takes its first breath.

  12. Generally I think it’s best to ignore trolls, but I’ve learned a lot from the responses to joereform. I’m grateful for a conversation where someone like me can become firmer in my support of reproductive rights and better at discussing why I take that position. You other posters have been so articulate, not to mention factually accurate and logical. Thanks for your perspectives.

    I’ve taken advantage of Planned Parenthood’s services multiple times, and since I haven’t had health insurance in 4 years, I’m really grateful for the knowledgeable staff and services at an affordable (for me) cost. I wonder how the whole funding issue would look if we had universal health care. Maybe it’s a pipe dream at this point, but I think it’s worth pointing out that the same people who worked so hard to keep a single payer system off the table are the ones who are trying to remove funding from Planned Parenthood. It’s not about “small government”, it’s about control of the masses, and maintaining a hierarchy with women and the poor and people of color (and people who belong to more than one of those groups of course- the groups who are more likely to need services from Planned Parenthood) at the bottom.

  13. Russ says:

    Here is the bottom line, courtesy of Kate Barr from MoveOn.org.

    1) Republicans not only want to reduce women’s access to abortion care, they’re actually trying to redefine rape. After a major backlash, they promised to stop. But they haven’t.

    2) A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.” But victims of other less gendered crimes, like burglary, would remain “victims.”

    3) In South Dakota, Republicans proposed a bill that could make it legal to murder a doctor who provides abortion care. (Yep, for real.)

    4) Republicans want to cut nearly a billion dollars of food and other aid to low-income pregnant women, mothers, babies, and kids.

    5) In Congress, Republicans have proposed a bill that would let hospitals allow a woman to die rather than perform an abortion necessary to save her life.

    6) Maryland Republicans ended all county money for a low-income kids’ preschool program. Why? No need, they said. Women should really be home with the kids, not out working.

    7) And at the federal level, Republicans want to cut that same program, Head Start, by $1 billion. That means over 200,000 kids could lose their spots in preschool.

    8) Two-thirds of the elderly poor are women, and Republicans are taking aim at them too. A spending bill would cut funding for employment services, meals, and housing for senior citizens.

    9) Congress voted yesterday on a Republican amendment to cut all federal funding from Planned Parenthood health centers, one of the most trusted providers of basic health care and family planning in our country.

    10) And if that wasn’t enough, Republicans are pushing to eliminate all funds for the only federal family planning program. (For humans. But Republican Dan Burton has a bill to provide contraception for wild horses. You can’t make this stuff up).

    • SunlessNick says:

      A state legislator in Georgia wants to change the legal term for victims of rape, stalking, and domestic violence to “accuser.”

      Another Georgia bill proposes what amounts to a criminal investigation into every miscarriage in the state to make sure it wasn’t induced by any deliberate action.

  14. Marla B. says:

    Andrea,

    I’m so sorry for what must have been a shocking change in plans for you, but have no doubt that you are already onto amazing things. Thank you for your fearlessness and candor and for putting into words so eloquently the things I wish I could.

  15. Pingback: Will Medicaid fund mandatory sonograms in Texas? | HAY LADIES!

  16. Pingback: Texas Anti-Choice Lawmakers, Non-Profits, Unable or Unwilling To Provide Planned Parenthood Alternatives | HAY LADIES!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s