I have had it...again! Today I read that Governor Walker is planning to cut funding to Planned Parenthood. He has already proposed cutting funding to BadgerCare. On top of that, there are federal proposals to cut food stamps and WIC (food AND nutrition education for low-income pregnant women, infants and children). I don't even know where to begin with explaining my outrage!
First, I am trying to give the Governor the benefit of the doubt here, but it is hard to overlook all of the cuts that are affecting women's and children's health. I realize men's health is being affected as well, but many of the cuts are directly related to women's health, pregnancy and the ability to care for children (which affects fathers equally of course). I do not understand how the government can cut family planning and health programs while simultaneously cutting the programs that help those families (who couldn't afford the birth control or didn't have access to the education) care for their unplanned pregnancy. Fine, cut funding for abortions or family planning, but then increase funding to programs that help low-income and/or teenage moms be successful parents. That just makes sense- if you don't want to end life, then support it!
Second, this is not a cost saving. Women that cannot afford prenatal care risk many more birth defects or premature births that could have been avoided with regular checkups and interventions/education. Increasing the number of babies born premature means huge medical costs, even if the babies are completely healthy otherwise. And a lot of premature babies have special needs or require early intervention to catch them up, even if they end up being completely healthy once they catch up. Many premature babies born into poor families never have that luxury. And that doesn't even take into consideration that some of those infants will be born with preventable long-term problems that we will pay for the rest of that human being's life, through the education system, social security, etc.
There are enough things about this world that are tough. Do we need to increase the number of kids that start off with insurmountable struggles? Especially those that, even if completely healthy, are low income, which puts them at a disadvantage in every area of their lives. And really, didn't we already do the whole equality for women thing...do we need a Rosa Parks event to remind people that saying you believe in it and actually believing it are completely different things. Maybe the Governor's motto should be Wisconsin: Making families work harder for less. Or better yet, Wisconsin: Open for businesses that are run by wealthy white males.
I completely agree. Taking away Planned Parenthood would do so much more harm than good. It helps girls struggling with pregnancy and std's and cervical cancer and provides check ups and so many other things to people who may not be able to afford care anywhere else. It would be a great loss if Scott Walker took it away and thousands of people would be affected.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion (now don't freak out on me) - I think it's each individual's responsibility to make sure that if he/she is having sex, he/she does everything possible ON HIS/HER OWN to prevent from having an unplanned pregnancy, particularly for those who KNOW they have not enough money/education to support a child.
ReplyDeleteI think that having so many planned parenthood places and government aid for those who have children unexpectedly because they just can't resist the urge to have sex, only supplements the behavior of having sex at early ages, unmarried, and without caution.
Don't get me wrong - I wouldn't want to eliminate planned parenthood, because I understand that accidents do happen, even when protection IS being used, and I understand that women get raped and drugged, so yeah, we DO need some amount of help for these reasons. However, by offering more, people are going to take more without hesitation, and people are going to take advantage of it (like those people who are buying cartons of cigarettes or booze, but then use their food stamps for groceries). But, by cutting down what is offered, people might think twice before they have sex, and they might REALLY try getting their shit together by maximizing the benefits of what they already get from the government (i.e., by NOT purchasing unnecessary things while using food stamps in addition for other things).
And don't be confused, I'm not saying that people actually want or try to have more unplanned pregnancies since they know they get the funding, I'm saying that people are less likely to take necessary measures to prevent unplanned pregnancies, knowing that if they were to have a child, that child will be taken care of by SOMEONE.
Overall, don't eliminate planned parenthood and government aid, because in some cases it is necessary and justified. But perhaps cutting it down will force more people to take more responsibility, because it is my guess that not everyone is fully aware of or concerned about their own responsibilities when it comes to having sex and consequently bringing new life into the world.
Anon 9:08, I completely appreciate what you are saying. We do need to think through our actions and the natural results that follow. The world is becoming such that we sometimes need to act irresponsibly in one area of our life in order to be responsible in another.
ReplyDeleteDid you know that if you buy health insurance by yourself (not through a group employer plan) you have to pay quite a bit extra/ month for a pregnancy rider? I'm guessing that if you get pregnant without it, they call it a pre-existing condition and don't cover that. That puts women in a horrible situation. Do you get the rider and pay $50-200/month more just in case you need it, since you are of child-bearing age? Or, since you are not planning to get pregnant, do you spend that money on other things (we'll assume more responsible things like house payments) and just deal with any surprises that might come along.
I think it's time that people take women's healthcare more seriously. Pregnancy is a part of life. It's expensive. Get over it insurance companies. Cancer treatments are expensive too, but you don't need to carry a rider for cancer...because that would be ridiculous! Fertility treatments are considered above and beyond the responsibility of insurance companies? Really? If there is something physically wrong keeping a couple from having children, that's not worthy of medical attention? Right, because kids are not a necessity.
When are we going to start celebrating life, children, families, and the awesome power that women have (and probably men will have in the near future) to create new life? When we start caring as much about women's health as we do about wars, gun rights, taxes...
Ok Anon 5:26, so we should celebrate life and all that. That's cool with me. However, what about the parents themselves who don't give a shit about the life they bring in this world? The ones who are addicted to drugs/alcohol, have 5 other kids from previous relationships already, and don't care if their children have just as shitty (or shittier) an existence than they did because they themselves grew up in a shitty home, whose parents didn't give two shits? What then? Must we support all of these people's children (and their lack of responsibility or aptitude for raising children) too, and tell them it's OK if you pop out 6 kids in 10 years when you aren't married, haven't a steady well-paid job, nor a good enough head on your shoulders to realize there's a problem with your SELF that must be addressed and that the government isn't your mom? How do we reverse these attitudes without supplementing them with free care? And I know these people are out there, using (and abusing) the government support with no intention of changing their ways.
ReplyDeleteAnon 8:31
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think we should do? Sterilize the women and castrate the men? Perhaps a bullet in the temple of all "these people" would meet with your approval. We would not have to worry about these dope heads. Just whack em! But not before salvaging their organs.
Years before Hitler, America sterilized thousands of people deemed unfit to have children, especially the mentally challenged. Getting rid of unfit elements in the populations was called eugenics.
ReplyDeleteA leading proponent of eugenics, including the sterilization of unfit people was none other than Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood.
(This article first appeared in the January 20, 1992 edition of Citizen magazine)
How Planned Parenthood Duped America
At a March 1925 international birth control gathering in New York City, a speaker warned of the menace posed by the "black" and "yellow" peril. The man was not a Nazi or Klansman; he was Dr. S. Adolphus Knopf, a member of Margaret Sanger's American Birth Control League (ABCL), which along with other groups eventually became known as Planned Parenthood.
Sanger's other colleagues included avowed and sophisticated racists. One, Lothrop Stoddard, was a Harvard graduate and the author of The Rising Tide of Color against White Supremacy.
Stoddard was something of a Nazi enthusiast who described the eugenic practices of the Third Reich as "scientific" and "humanitarian." And Dr. Harry Laughlin, another Sanger associate and board member for her group, spoke of purifying America's human "breeding stock" and purging America's "bad strains." These "strains" included the "shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of antisocial whites of the South."
Not to be outdone by her followers, Margaret Sanger spoke of sterilizing those she designated as "unfit," a plan she said would be the "salvation of American civilization.: And she also spoke of those who were "irresponsible and reckless," among whom she included those " whose religious scruples prevent their exercising control over their numbers."
She further contended that "there is no doubt in the minds of all thinking people that the procreation of this group should be stopped." That many Americans of African origin constituted a segment of Sanger considered "unfit" cannot be easily refuted.
While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917.
She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
These eugenic and racial origins are hardly what most people associate with the modern Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), which gave its Margaret Sanger award to the late Dr. Martin Luther King in 1966, and whose current president, Faye Wattleton, is black, a former nurse, and attractive.
Though once a social pariah group, routinely castigated by religious and government leaders, the PPFA is now an established, high-profile, well-funded organization with ample organizational and ideological support in high places of American society and government. Its statistics are accepted by major media and public health officials as "gospel"; its full-page ads appear in major newspapers; its spokespeople are called upon to give authoritative analyses of what America's family policies should be and to prescribe official answers that congressmen, state legislator and Supreme Court justices all accept as "social orthodoxy."
So run with it!
Ok, first I don't know what I wrote that gives the impression that I would advocate forced sterilization/castration.
ReplyDeleteAll I wanted to get across was the fact that the government should NOT continue to be this mom figure that people become dependent upon...I mean, there are a lot of people out there who I honestly think are less likely to take action towards helping themselves because they realize that the government will be there to help them instead, so why work hard when someone else will take care of you, expenses paid?
By keeping up all of these free services such as planned parenthood, there's little incentive for people to make serious commitments to their children, and work hard to financially support their children instead of catering to their own selfish desires.
Therefore, I think people in general need to be weened from the government aid...so future generations will learn to become more responsible and self-conscious of their actions. Individuals have to remember that they themselves can affect society just as much as society can affect them, if that makes any sense. You know - stop thinking about society making the person, and get the people to make society.
My idea - shift the spending from birth control, condoms, medications, tests, operations, etc (all things that only treat the symptoms of the problem) and target the causes. And I personally, as an individual, cannot claim to know what the causes are and what should be done (a lot of research and investigation is going to be required for anyone to do that effectively, because life is complicated so yeah), BUT, it is MUCH easier to treat symptoms sometimes than to THINK and figure out ways to eliminate the problem that lies at the core.
So here's the point -
You can treat the problems on the surface, by giving handouts to everyone, or you can focus on getting to the core of the problems, and stop enabling people to continue with habits that are burdening society.
And remember - I would not advocate getting rid of planned parenthood. I would advocate working on getting society to a point where we don't NEED planned parenthood (not that I know for a fact we can actually reach that, but it never hurts to TRY).