The issue of federal funding for Planned Parenthood (PP) has essentially always divided Americans. This divide is caused, in part, by the stark contrasts between people's opinions on the organization's business practices. Some Americans believe that the organization benefits and openly serves the American community as a reliable center for reproductive health, providing both preventative and reactionary measures to ensure the safety and well-being of its patients. Therefore, these people support the federal government allocating funds towards Planned Parenthood. On the other hand, some Americans believe that the organization is at the core immoral and deceptive to the public, so they argue that it should not be federally funded. Oftentimes, those in opposition to Planned Parenthood cite a pro-life abortion stance as their primary argument. However, this should not be the case. With the future of Planned Parenthood in jeopardy, it is imperative that the public understands why they should separate their stance on abortion from their stance on Planned Parenthood.

 In recent years, many states, including Indiana and Texas, have begun to enact legislation that attempts to limit the amount of Medicaid funding that goes towards Planned Parenthood clinics; most side effects to this have been negative, some of which counteract the Republicans' goal of reducing the number of abortions. Furthermore, after undercover videos released in 2015 showed the company's staff members discussing fetal tissue donation, "a firestorm erupted and now conservative Republicans on the Hill are following Indiana's lead. They say they will not vote for a federal budget that includes any Planned Parenthood funding," according to Shannon Muchmore. Federal legislation that defunds Planned Parenthood would only make widespread the negative effects that some states have already experienced. Unfortunately, many Americans are not aware of these consequences, and many do not care to be. For them, the notion that Planned Parenthood provides abortions is enough to create an unwavering stance on it. With the majority of media focus on PP's most controversial aspects, specifically abortion, the American public is often not able to form an accurate depiction of the organization. In this case, one could argue that the stereotypes do not even remotely represent the reality, which the widespread controversy about Planned Parenthood does not take into account.

Federal legislation that defunds Planned Parenthood would only make widespread the impact that some states' low-income citizens have already experienced. In part, this is because the amount of women Planned Parenthood serves compared to the non-affiliated clinics is disproportionally high when considering the small number of PP clinics compared to the non-affiliated clinics. In 2011, Texas was the first state to enact legislation against Planned Parenthood when lawmakers cut family-planning grants by 66% across the state, according to Deborah Netburn. This cut ended up being responsible for the closure of 82 clinics across the state; one third of these were associated with Planned Parenthood. In 2013, because the state's federally funded Medicaid program was not legally allowed to target the funds allocated to Planned Parenthood specifically, the state essentially left this program and created its own: the Texas Women's Health Program. The program is legally allowed to withhold funds from any family planning clinic associated with an abortion provider (Netburn). In this way, the state specifically targeted Planned Parenthood. The connection between Texas politicians' abortion agenda and their Planned Parenthood agenda was made more obvious when state Representative Wayne Christian declared, "Of course this is a war on birth control and abortions and everything  --  that's what family planning is supposed to be about" (Netburn). Considering how strongly many politicians like Christian connect the issues of abortion and Planned Parenthood, the public should consider that politicians are not considering (or concerned with) the aftermath of the legislation they're supporting. However, it is notable that "[although] only 23 of the 254 counties in Texas had a Planned Parenthood clinic before 2013, they served 60% of the state's low-income women" (Netburn). With this situation, it was inevitable that Texas's low-income women would be affected by the reduction of Planned Parenthood clinics. The researchers of a study done by the Population Research Center at UT Austin calculated that over 18 months "the relative increase in births was 27% for women who lost access to Planned Parenthood. Many of these births were probably unplanned, since the increase was only seen in counties where women faced new hurdles in access to contraception" (Netburn). The increase in births within low-income families has strong negative economic consequences that will be discussed later.

Indiana legislators have put into place similar measures that greatly restrict the amount of state funds that can go towards Planned Parenthood clinics. Betty Crockrum, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, noted that "many women in the state, particularly the poor and those who live in rural areas and struggle with reliable transportation, do not know where to find affordable birth control, preventive care or simple accurate medical information" (Muchmore). If there were plenty of family planning clinics in the state that low-income families could afford, these problems would not be as urgent as they are. Unfortunately, the "Guttmacher Institute found that Planned Parenthood clinics constitute about 10% of all publicly funded family planning centers, but provide care to about 36% of those seeking family planning services" (Muchmore). Similar to Texas, Planned Parenthood clinics in Indiana serve a disproportionately high amount of women. If the changes made by Indiana and Texas are implemented on a federal scale, the impact will most certainly be significant, which is why the public needs to be educated on all of the services Planned Parenthood currently provides and the benefits the organization brings to society.

The most common misperception regarding Planned Parenthood is that the company is built on and centers on abortion service, but this is simply not the case. Many people know that Planned Parenthood provides other health services but focus on the fact that they provide abortions. Yes, they provide abortions, but out of all the services the company provided in 2013, these abortions constitute 3% of these services. Emily Canal notes that "contraception accounted for 34 percent of services, and STI/STD testing and treatment made up 42 percent of services." In addition, cancer screenings and prevention makes up 9% of the services. This percentage may seem low, but on a large scale PP's cancer services make a world of difference. In 2015, the American Cancer Society estimated that 44,390 women would die from breast and cervical cancer. Through their cancer services, Planned Parenthood detected cancers in their early stages and abnormalities in almost twice that amount of people. Essentially, it is not farfetched to assume that if Planned Parenthood is not able to perform as many cancer screenings (due to lack of funding), more women will die from these cancers. 

A recent misconception about Planned Parenthood is that the company is beginning to provide less of its other services so that it can keep providing the same amount of abortions. In January of this year, The National Right to Life Institute published a column about Planned Parenthood's annual reports. A central argument that author Randall O'Bannon discussed centered around a recent shift in the frequency of each kind of service PP provides. O'Bannon says, "Abortions at Planned Parenthood have remained steady. This is true as Planned Parenthood's total delivered services ... dropped, and even as many of its clinics closed" (O'Bannon 13). He then provides statistics to prove this point, none of which seem exaggerated or inaccurate. The flaw with O'Bannon's argument is that these shifts will actually continue more quickly as a result of the defunding he promotes. This is because the Hyde Amendment of 1976 makes it illegal for certain federal funds to go towards abortion services. Medicaid, "a social insurance program that allows underprivileged individuals to receive medical care", and Title X, which "provides that federal money must be used exclusively for family planning-related medical services," are the two sources of federal funds for Planned Parenthood (Ramelb 503-505). Since neither source funds abortions, PP clinics must use other sources of funds: those from states (most of which still fund it), donations, and the revenue they get from charging the patients for the abortions. Consequently, Planned Parenthood does not receive any less money to provide abortions when it stops receiving funds from the federal government. Instead, it just receives less money to perform all of its other services. 

Another reason why Planned Parenthood benefits women is the simple fact that it provides birth control. Like abortion, birth control can also be a controversial subject, but only because of one normalized misconception: women only take birth control so that they cannot get pregnant. Yes, this a reason why women take birth control, but it is only one of them. In "10 Medical Reasons Why a Woman Might Be Prescribed Birth Control," Sally Holmes and Ruthie Friedlander write about their interview with Dr. Eileen Krim, an ob-gyn for the North Shore University Hospital in New York. Krim declares that "birth control pills are not named correctly as they do so much more than prevent pregnancy ... There are a multitude of reasons why a physician might prescribe birth control pills to his or her patients" (Holmes). She then outlines 10 other ways that birth control pills help women, which include treating painful periods, premenstrual syndrome, and acne, as well as protecting against ovarian and uterine cancers. After recognizing that birth control pills are oftentimes used to help women in ways that have nothing to do with pregnancy, it is easier to understand why their availability is important. By blocking federal funds from going towards Planned Parenthood, the government would significantly decrease the availability of birth control overall, which would in turn also raise the price of the pill. 

The release of undercover footage depicting the discussion of aborted fetal tissue donation understandably amplified the way many pro-life Americans already felt towards Planned Parenthood. People who hold the pro-life opinion (generally) already view PP as immoral, sick, and twisted. From this standpoint, the thought of dissecting an aborted fetus can makes some people sick to their stomachs. However, understanding exactly why some Planned Parenthood locations are designated as donation centers opens up another point of view. In the New Hampshire Business Review, Dr. Barry Smith, a professor Emeritus and ob-gyn at Dartmouth, discusses why the donation of fetal tissue is important. He says that "tissue donation is a legitimate medical practice, and has helped lead to important medical research and breakthroughs such as the polio vaccine and research into many diseases such as Parkinson's and diabetes" (Smith 23). A key argument of people who are anti-Planned Parenthood is that the selling of fetal tissue is illegal. It is, but that is not what PP does; up until recently, two of the three locations in the country that provide fetal tissue received small reimbursements for the service (Ludden). Following the public outrage that ensued from the undercover video, Planned Parenthood decided to stop accepting any reimbursements at all. 

 In the October 2015 edition of The Nation's Health, Lindsey Wahowiak discusses the decision made by the American Public Health Association (APHA) to support Planned Parenthood. The AHPA argues, "in some states, Planned Parenthood is the only health care provider participating in Title X" (Wahowiak 2). The truth in this one fact opens the possibility for a massive economic problem, one that would arise if the federal government stopped funding PP. Considering Title X is the only federal grant program that entirely goes towards family planned services, defunding Planned Parenthood would cause millions of low-income Americans to lose their access to reproductive health care. In turn, similar to what happened in Texas, the national birth rate within low-income communities will increase. The number of Americans that qualify for and need Medicaid coverage will then increase, thereby creating the political dilemma of having to decide either to increase the country's Medicaid taxes or to lower the income level at which families qualify for Medicaid. All in all, not only would federally defunding Planned Parenthood create social problems, it would also create an economic problem.

While promoting Planned Parenthood, it is necessary to recognize and discuss some of the specific arguments against it. In an op-ed written for the Susan B. Anthony List, Mallory Quigley lists 12 reasons why PP should be defunded. Although Quigley writes emotionally and powerfully, not all of her reasons are well supported. Six of her twelve arguments center on the issue of morality but do not discuss abortion. One reasons is outlined, "Planned Parenthood's founder, Margaret Sanger, was a strong believer in eugenics" (Quigley). Her following explanation of this idea is based on multiple chopped-up quotes that are not given context. Another is that "Planned Parenthood has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours of employee time in order to protect its government handout" (Quigley). Yes, this may be true, but extensively campaigning for its credibility after being repeatedly scrutinized in the political world does not necessarily make the organization "immoral." Only three out of the twelve reasons are backed up with solid, statistical evidence. However, all three of them focus on abortion. If almost all arguments against Planned Parenthood that do not involve abortion cannot be effectively supported, maybe it's time that the American people consider that Planned Parenthood is, at the roots, an organization that serves to keep women healthy. Coming to this conclusion means that the government can then begin to create a compromise for Planned Parenthood funding that satisfies both pro-life and pro-choice points-of-view. Christine Ramelb outlines a possible compromise in her journal in the Valparaiso University Law Review. Sustaining government funding for Planned Parenthood, which would indirectly benefit both sides of the issue, could happen fairly easily if the goal is to ensure that absolutely no public funds go towards abortion services. "States could mandate that Planned Parenthood clinics create physically separate facilities for their patients who receive abortion services instead of family planning services" (Ramelb). On the other hand, if a state's goal is to reduce the number of abortion services provided, the state may have to address and change its public health policies.

 After understanding the ways in which Planned Parenthood really operates and the reasons why it is so important, one can recognize that the organization does indeed benefit women's health and safety. Jennifer Hamady, a woman who writes solely based on her personal experience with Planned Parenthood, identifies why the public's perception of the organization needs to change when she says, "villainizing the entire organization is a mistake. It ignores -- and dismisses -- the services Planned Parenthood provides that we do agree are crucial and important to the health of all women and children" (Hamady). Of course it is important to respect the fact that some people are uncomfortable with certain things that Planned Parenthood does. But at the same time, the issue of women's health is not black and white. The issue has its grey areas, and in these areas, hundreds (maybe thousands) of lives are at stake.

