A positive choice

I have been one of the millions of women nationwide who have used Planned Parenthood’s services at a time when I could not afford unsubsidized health care. Thus, the recent attempts in the U.S. House of Representatives to eliminate Title X funding and federal funding for Planned Parenthood have shocked and appalled me.

This legislative attack has been presented to the public as being about the sensitive issue of abortion, but that is not at all what is at stake for millions of low-income American women. Abortion services are already barred from federal funding.

What is really at stake is affordable access to the services that make up more than 90 percent of Planned Parenthood’s services — preventive care (such as Pap smears and breast cancer screening), contraceptives, and STI testing and treatment.

In addition to being the humane thing to do, voting against the elimination of Title X funding and federal funding for Planned Parenthood is the economical thing to do. Affordable access to birth control and preventive screenings will save money in the long run; for every public dollar invested in family planning, taxpayers save nearly $4. In addition, affordable access to birth control will actually decrease the number of women who seek abortions.

It seems to me that protecting Title X funding for family planning and federal funding for Planned Parenthood is the logical choice from every side of the issue, economic or humanitarian.

Laurie Griesinger, Lewiston

What do you think of this story?

Login to post comments

In order to make comments, you must create a subscription.

In order to comment on SunJournal.com, you must hold a valid subscription allowing access to this website. You must use your real name and include the town in which you live in your SunJournal.com profile. To subscribe or link your existing subscription click here.

Login or create an account here.

Our policy prohibits comments that are:

  • Defamatory, abusive, obscene, racist, or otherwise hateful
  • Excessively foul and/or vulgar
  • Inappropriately sexual
  • Baseless personal attacks or otherwise threatening
  • Contain illegal material, or material that infringes on the rights of others
  • Commercial postings attempting to sell a product/item
If you violate this policy, your comment will be removed and your account may be banned from posting comments.

Advertisement

Comments

Kaileigh Tara's picture

OMG Ernest

In our history since when have men taken responsibility for BIRTH Control? Are you kidding??? What planet do you live on???
Your 2 cents is what some men spend on their responsibility to their current children before they go out and make more!
Throughout history women have born the burden and blame for birth control.
Reducing this issue to paying for someone's pleasure to have sex is symbolic of the complete lack of understanding of the complexity of this issue and its impact on cost to communities, cost to women and children's lives.

Blows my mind how you can ignore the health care advantage, $1 to $4 cost savings and jump right into the sack, but then again... you are a man.....why should I be surprised??

ERNEST LABBE's picture

Who said it wasn't the mans responsibility also.

However one would assume that the one facing possible consequences for their actions that will stay with them for 18 years would take measures to prevent those consequences. The best prevention is to abstain. Remember it takes two to tango.

ERNEST LABBE's picture

A possitive choice

Laurie I would think that a woman or for that fact a male who was old enough to participate in sexual activity would be able to come up with the small cost of birth control, or cease and desist such activity until they were financially able to afford the contraceptives. I do not the general public is responsible for the cost of your pleasure. Just my $0.02.

RONALD RIML's picture

Since when do persons "In Heat" think, Earnest?

Earnestly or otherwise........

You're obvious oblivious to prevention, Earnest.

Steve Bulger's picture

Planned Parenthood,

like Public Broadcasting, needs to stand (or fall) on its own. The annual dole to these PRIVATE organizations should cease immediately, and any shortfalls in their operating budgets should be offset by increased donation solicitations from people who support their activities. How's that for reason and logic?

RONALD RIML's picture

Similar to BIW standing on its own?

Rather than scrambling to build ships the Navy really doesn't want nor need any longer? - The DDG-1000 Zumwalt Class.

A bit of corporate and political Welfare for General Dynamics and the State of Maine.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/weapons/RL32109.pdf

Steve Bulger's picture

In one respect,

I agree with you that the DDG-1000 (like its namesake) is not the right fit for the Navy. That being said, BIW would not be completing their build if they had not competed for, and won, a full-and-open competition contract for the vessels. And the funds budgeted in FY 2010 and 2011 for DDG-1000 are only to complete the build of the last of three ships. No additional funds will be budgeted for this class of destroyer.

Unlike BIW, entities such as PBS and PP do not compete for tax dollars - they are simply handed whatever sums the left-leaning fools on the hill wish to give them. Since they are supposedly donation-based businesses, let them live or die by their benefactors and not by the average tax-paying citizen. The dire economic straits faced by this country warrant nothing less.

RONALD RIML's picture

The first - and the last - three of the DDG-1000 ships.

The Navy is building them only to keep BIW open.

BIW competed for the other ships and lost. BIW is now a government donation business.

Ed Enos's picture

BIW

This happens to be an enforced welfare. I've read that BIW is precluded from building any commercial ships because they are a military contractor. So not really comparing apples to apples.

RONALD RIML's picture

Got a link to "I read?"

Hundreds of firms do both military and civilian work.

Ed Enos's picture

I did try to find my source,

I did try to find my source, but was unable. I know I read it in either the Sun Journal, or the Portland Press, and it was quite a while ago, years ago. What I did find was that it seems GD's choice to keep BIW focused on military applications and not to attempt civilian sources of work.

RONALD RIML's picture

Should be able to google it up - if it exists....

GD's going to want BIW profitable, and one shouldn't have an exclusive relationship without a long-term committment. Three Zumwalt's just won't cut it - especially after Sen. Trent Lott (R) Mississippi wrested the LPD-17 contract that BIW down to to Ingalls for four DDG-51's. The LPD's were much more labor intensive.

There's no future to the Zumwalt's at this point.

Mark Wrenn's picture

logic

"It seems to me that protecting Title X funding for family planning and federal funding for Planned Parenthood is the logical choice from every side of the issue, economic or humanitarian." Very true, but we're dealing with people who have a genetic aversion to reason and logic (and women).

Advertisement

Stay informed — Get the news delivered for free in your inbox.

I'm interested in ...