What is wrong with Planned Parenthood and why Planned Parenthood must be defunded

Planned Parenthood claims to be a “trusted health care provider” who “delivers vital reproductive health care, sex education, and information to millions of women, men, and young people worldwide,” but is really a pro-abortion organization whose primary purpose is to make as much money as possible from abortions. In addition, there are many other things that are wrong with Planned Parenthood, including but not limited to the sale of fetal body parts that are harvested from aborted children, the cover-up of statutory rape and the sexual abuse of minors, encouraging children to engage in sexual activity outside of marriage through its sex education programs, lobbying to get pro-abortion politicians elected and to keep abortion legal, pressuring pregnant patients into undergoing an abortion, and lying to prospective abortion patients about the facts of fetal development. As such, Planned Parenthood should lose its government funding, and individuals and corporations should stop donating to Planned Parenthood.

One of the biggest problems with Planned Parenthood is that it misrepresents itself to the government, to its donors, and its potential patients. First, Planned Parenthood claims that without birth control, women are unable to choose when they want to have children and how many children they want to have, but women are actually able to make these decisions without birth control by choosing to completely abstain from sexual activity when they do not want to have children. Second, Planned Parenthood represents abortion as a safe procedure on its website and portrays abortion as being a safe procedure in its YouTube video on in-clinic abortion, but there have been incidents of botched abortions being performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics, including an abortion performed at a Chicago Planned Parenthood clinic that resulted in the death of Tonya Reaves back in 2012. Third, even though Planned Parenthood claims that only 3% of its services are abortions, Planned Parenthood performs abortions on approximately 92% of its pregnant patients and Planned Parenthood’s primary source of revenue is from the abortions performed at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Fourth, Planned Parenthood receives over $500 million dollars of taxpayer funding, but Planned Parenthood has lied to the government in order to receive taxpayer money that it should not have been able to receive in the first place. Moreover, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself as a comprehensive woman’s healthcare provider that cares about women when they are primarily in the business of performing as many abortions as possible.

Another major problem with Planned Parenthood is that at least some Planned Parenthood clinics are believed to be involved in the sale of fetal body parts from babies who are aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics. It is also believed that Planned Parenthood is violating the law by profiting from the sale of fetal body parts, by altering the manner in which the abortions from which these fetal body parts are obtained, and by performing abortions with the knowledge that fetal body parts will be harvested from these aborted babies and resold. In addition, Abby Johnson has recently admitted that the Planned Parenthood clinic that she used to work for did harvest fetal body parts from aborted babies. Furthermore, there are even indications that Planned Parenthood might possibly be willing to kill babies who are born as a result of a failed abortion in order to harvest fetal body parts. Finally, many individuals are outraged by the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts that are harvested from babies aborted at Planned Parenthood clinics.

In addition to misrepresenting itself as a comprehensive woman’s health provider and in addition to possible involvement in the harvesting and resale of fetal body parts, Planned Parenthood is actively trying to increase demand for abortions in order to make additional profit, and they are taking several measures in an attempt to achieve this goal. First, Planned Parenthood is pushing comprehensive sex education to school-age children with the intentions of increasing the number of sexually active teens, increasing the number of unplanned teenage pregnancies, and increasing the demand for abortion. Second, Planned Parenthood imposes quotas on the number of abortions that each clinic must perform in order to maximize its profits. Third, Planned Parenthood promotes birth control with the knowledge that it will sometimes fail to prevent unplanned pregnancies in order to increase the number of unplanned pregnancies and in order to increase demand for abortion. Additionally, pregnant women who seek medical care at Planned Parenthood clinics are usually pressured into undergoing an abortion by Planned Parenthood employees because Planned Parenthood wants to do as many abortions as they can and because they want to make as much money as they can off of abortions. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood is willing to cut corners on patient safety to maximize profits, to increase the efficiency of its abortion operations, and to increase the number of abortions that it can perform. Finally, Planned Parenthood actually cares more about the money than it does about protecting the health of women and reducing the number of unplanned pregnancies.

Individuals and corporations must stop donating to Planned Parenthood, and taxpayer funding of Planned Parenthood by federal, state, and local governments must also be stopped for several reasons. First, Planned Parenthood is using the taxpayer funding and donations in order to increase demand for abortions. Second, Planned Parenthood misrepresents itself to the government, to the general public, to its patients, and to its prospective patients in order to receive donations and taxpayer funding that it would not otherwise receive. Third, Planned Parenthood might be covering the cost of abortions by overcharging Medicaid and other health insurance companies for other medical services that are rendered to patients who had undergone an abortion at Planned Parenthood abortion clinics. Furthermore, Planned Parenthood contributes large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates in order to ensure that they can continue to legally make money off of its abortion services, and the large sums of money paid to these campaigns come from taxpayer funds, donations, and abortion revenue. If people and companies stopped donating to Planned Parenthood and if the taxpayer funding to Planned Parenthood is stopped, there will be a reduction in the demand for Planned Parenthood’s abortion services and Planned Parenthood would not be contributing large sums of money to the campaigns of pro-abortion candidates.

The defunding of abortion providers is constitutionally permissible in the United States

The United States Supreme Court has already decided that taxpayer funding of abortion is not required under the United States Constitution in the Maher v. Roe, Williams v. Zbaraz, Harris v. McRae, Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, and Rust v. Sullivan decisions. In addition, Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution prohibits the United States Treasury from funding abortion providers unless such funding is in accordance with appropriations made by the United States Congress.

Here are the conclusions that the United States Supreme Court arrived at with respect to taxpayer funding of abortion in the United States:

  • “The Equal Protection Clause does not require a State participating in the Medicaid program to pay the expenses incident to nontherapeutic abortions for indigent women simply because it has made a policy choice to pay expenses incident to childbirth” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “Financial need alone does not identify a suspect class for purposes of equal protection analysis” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “A State is not required to show a compelling interest for its policy choice to favor normal childbirth” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “Since it is not unreasonable for a State to insist upon a prior showing of medical necessity to insure that its money is being spent only for authorized purposes, the District Court erred in invalidating the requirements of prior written request by the pregnant woman and prior authorization by the Department of Social Services for abortions” (Maher v. Roe).
  • “The funding restrictions of the Hyde Amendment do not impinge on the ‘liberty’ protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment held in Roe v. Wade, 410 U. S. 113, 168, to include the freedom of a woman to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “Although Congress has opted to subsidize medically necessary services generally, but not certain medically necessary abortions, the fact remains that the Hyde Amendment leaves an indigent woman with at least the same range of choice in deciding whether to obtain a medically necessary abortion as she would have had if Congress had chosen to subsidize no health care costs at all” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “The Hyde Amendment does not violate the equal protection component of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment” (Harris v. McRae).
  • “The regulations do not violate a woman’s Fifth Amendment right to choose whether to terminate her pregnancy. The Government has no constitutional duty to subsidize an activity merely because it is constitutionally protected and may validly choose to allocate public funds for medical services relating to childbirth but not to abortion” (Rust v. Sullivan).

The United States Senate should pass the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion and Abortion Insurance Full Disclosure Act of 2015 (S. 582), because the United States Supreme Court has already decided that the taxpayer defunding of abortion being proposed under this act is constitutionally permissible as a result of the Harris v. McRae and Rust v. Sullivan decisions. In addition, Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers should not receive taxpayer funding because these providers are primarily in the business of performing abortions, because abortion is the primary source of revenue for these providers, because the business model of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers is fundamentally different from healthcare providers who are not in the business of performing abortions, and because the majority of abortions that are performed at Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers are clearly medically unnecessary to begin with.

While prohibitions on taxpayer funding of abortion providers have previously been determined to be constitutional by the United States Supreme Court, the abortion industry might attempt to get these laws declared unconstitutional through the federal courts on the grounds that these laws would lead to the closure of many abortion clinics in the United States and on the grounds that many of the abortion-seeking women would be deprived of the ability to obtain a legal abortion in the United States as a result of the prohibition of taxpayer funding of abortion. Additionally, these abortion providers might make the argument that these laws were enacted as a means to prohibit abortion in the United States, despite the fact that these laws do not prohibit physicians from performing otherwise legal abortions that were not paid for with taxpayer money. Finally, the United States Supreme Court should continue to uphold laws that prohibit taxpayer funding of abortion, even in the face of attempts to get such laws declared unconstitutional by the abortion industry, because upholding these laws would respect established legal precedent on the issue of taxpayer funding of abortion, because the government has various legitimate interests that justify prohibiting the taxpayer funding of abortion, and because the United States Treasury has an obligation under Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution to not fund abortion providers unless permitted through appropriations enacted by law.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if it leads to the closure of abortion clinics in the state of Texas, because the Texas Legislature did not intend to prohibit abortion clinics who are compliant with the requirements of HB 2 from performing abortions prior to 20 weeks post-fertilization, abortions necessary to prevent the death or “a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function, other than a psychological condition” of the mother, or an abortion of an unborn child who has been diagnosed with a severe fetal abnormality. In addition, several of the regulations contained within HB 2 are constitutionally permissible because these provisions of HB 2 regulate abortion in a manner that is “reasonably related to maternal health” and because they do not prohibit abortion providers who are compliant with HB 2 from performing abortions.

The United States Supreme Court should decide that laws that prohibit or regulate abortion are constitutionally permissible, even though the United States previously declared state laws that prohibited abortion as being unconstitutional in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases, because these laws further the legitimate governmental interests “in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child,” which had been acknowledged in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey case. In addition, the state has legitimate governmental interests not acknowledged in the Roe v. Wade case that justify the prohibition of abortion, including but not limited to a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against pain that might be felt during an abortion, a legitimate governmental interest in protecting unborn children against irreversible harm that might result from an attempted abortion that fails to result in the death of the unborn child, and a legitimate governmental interest in deterring infanticide.

One of the major reasons why abortion providers in Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court is that some of the pregnant women who reside in the state of Texas and who are seeking to end pregnancies through an abortion would be deprived of the opportunity to have an abortion if HB 2 is upheld by the United States Supreme Court. However, a law that regulates or prohibits abortion does not become unconstitutional simply because of opposition by the abortion industry since these laws can be constitutionally permissible if these laws are not prohibited by the United States Constitution and if proper procedure was followed by the legislature and the governor in passing these laws. In addition, the United States Supreme Court should uphold HB 2 if it determines that the provisions of HB 2 are permitted under the United States Constitution, even if there is opposition to HB 2 by Texas abortion providers.

The majority of pregnant women who are seeking to end their pregnancies through an abortion choose to do so because they do not want to take care of their unborn children after birth. Having an abortion and raising the child on her own after birth are not the only options available for a woman who is in an unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy because she also has the option to give up her unborn child for adoption if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. In addition, the denial of an abortion to a pregnant woman who is in a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy is not unreasonable if the mother is able to safely carry the pregnancy to the stage at which her unborn child is likely to be viable outside of the womb with proper medical care, if the mother is able to safely deliver her unborn child alive with proper medical care, if the mother has access to proper prenatal medical care, and if the mother is able to transfer legal custody, physical custody, and financial responsibility to another individual who can take care of her child after birth if she does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth. Furthermore, there is always the risk that a pregnant woman will not be able to abort a pregnancy that is already at the stage at which her unborn child is viable outside of the womb, even if abortion is perfectly legal for any reason during all nine months of pregnancy, because there is always the risk that she will go into labor prematurely.

Improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance for women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies in the state of Texas would reduce the demand for abortions in the state of Texas. Additionally, improved access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas will provide real help to pregnant women who would no longer have easy access to abortion if Texas HB 2 is upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court. Furthermore, the plan to improve access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance in the state of Texas should include improved access to pro-life prenatal medical care, unemployment assistance to pregnant women who are unable to work because of a complication of pregnancy, improved access to material assistance to a parent of a child who is born as a result of a unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancy, and making it easier for a woman who does not want to take care of her child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Finally, improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance would send the positive message that abortion is not the only option for those women who are in unplanned, unwanted, or crisis pregnancies.

Texas HB 2 should be upheld in its entirety by the United States Supreme Court, even if some women would be denied abortions as a result of upholding HB 2, because the need and the demand for abortions in the state of Texas can be reduced by improving access to pro-life crisis pregnancy assistance and by making it easier for a pregnant women who does not want to take care of her unborn child after birth to give up her child for adoption. Furthermore, the failure to uphold Texas HB 2 will unnecessarily endanger the lives and health of women who undergo abortions in the state of Texas. Finally, abortion providers who operate abortion clinics in the state of Texas are seeking to have HB 2 declared unconstitutional in order to increase their profits and to avoid the expense of having to upgrade their existing abortion clinics or to relocate to new abortion clinics that meet the new standards.