The funding, and arguably even the existence, of Planned Parenthood has always been a controversial topic for American voters and politicians. The recent "leak" of video footage showing part of the harvesting of fetal tissue/organs has many Americans calling upon the federal government to stop funding the organization, claiming that Planned Parenthood's activities are immoral. Oftentimes these Americans are also the ones who identify as "pro-life" on the issue of abortion. Although the correlation between the public's opinions on Planned Parenthood funding and its opinion on abortion is quite strong, there is a case to be made for the notion that you do not need to be "pro-choice" in order to be "pro-Planned Parenthood."

This research question interests me particularly because I am of the belief that the sometimes rigid opinions of pro-life Americans prevents them from understanding that many of the services provided by Planned Parenthood serve as preventative measures to ensure that many women are not eventually faced with the decision of whether or not to have an abortion. Moreover, the media, even the liberal media, has generated in the minds of many Americans an inaccurate depiction of the organization. I believe that spending excessive amounts of time discussing the controversy behind Planned Parenthood perpetuates the image that the facilities' focus is on abortion; in reality its role in supplying STD/STI testing, contraceptives, and cancer services, is just as, if not more, important than its role in supplying abortions.

My connection to the topic of Planned Parenthood is arguably very weak. My only bias comes from my "pro-choice" abortion stance. As a gay man, I will never have to worry about getting a woman pregnant, using contraceptives, or being directly involved in a woman's decision to get an abortion. Considering the controversy surrounding the organization mostly stems from these personal experiences, my detachment from the controversy has led me to form a fairly valid opinion devoid of an emotional bias. Therefore, I believe I am qualified to write about this research topic.

The first article I plan on using in my research project is titled, "How Planned Parenthood Actually Uses its Federal Funding." The article demonstrates why the federal funding for Planned Parenthood is so important in ensuring that its facilities remain fully operational. Although $305.3 million of funding comes from non-governmental sources, $528.4 million comes from the government. Taking away this half a billion dollars in funding would most likely have a large effect on the organization's operations. Another key point presented in the article is that abortions, the most controversial operation, cannot (usually) be provided using federal funds, therefore removing said funds would not directly lead to a decrease in the number of abortions performed. The values at stake in this article center largely around how strongly the reader associates their opinion toward Planned Parenthood with their opinion on abortion. The points the author attempts to make might lead the readers to reflect upon whether or not their views on abortion are the only deciding factor for their views on Planned Parenthood. The author, Janell Ross, is a verified Washington Post reporter who focuses her time and studies on social issues, such as race and gender equality. She also graduated from both Vasser College and Columbia University. Therefore, she has experience and education that make her a credible source. However, her long-term dedication towards and involvement with liberal politics leads her to be somewhat biased.

Another article I will use, called "What does Planned Parenthood do?" focuses on outlining the services provided, using detailed statistics to show the reader exactly how Planned Parenthood operates. The author notes that the top three most frequently provided services: STD/STI testing, contraceptive services, and cancer screening/prevention made up 38%, 33.5% and 14.5% of the number of services provided, respectively, in 2010. The number of abortions given makes up only 3% of the total services. The values at stake mostly surround the level of importance the issue of abortion holds for each individual reader. By presenting data that shows how many other important services -- many of which are not controversial -- are performed, the readers may consider whether or not the issue of abortion is so important to them that they would support risking the availability of other services in exchange for less abortions. The author, Linda Lowen, is a credible source because she attended both Cornell University and Syracuse University, and she was the 2009 recipient of the Exceptional Merit in Media Award from the National Women's Political Caucus. However, Linda's reputation as a strong supporter of total gender equality and abortion make her a fairly biased source of information.

My final source is a newspaper article written as a response to the New Hampshire's Executive Council vote to sever the state's contracts that help fund Planned Parenthood. Some ideas presented in this article reflect ones in my other two articles, but this article does introduce a discussion worth noting: the legitimacy of fetal tissue donation. The author notes that these donations support research projects and medical advances, such as new understanding of Parkinson's disease. Considering this is something Planned Parenthood has recently come under fire for, the argument here is worth considering. The values at stake largely surround the opinion of whether or not fetal tissue donation is a legitimate medical practice that the organization should be criticized for participating in; the issue is one of morality. The author, Barry Smith, is a professor Emeritus and OB/GYN at Dartmouth Hitchock Medical Center, so he is an extremely credible source for women's issues. Smith mostly presents purely factual information, but he does occasionally use loaded language that reveals a bias.

The research question is arguable because there is a stark contrast in opinions among American voters and politicians on the issue of Planned Parenthood. Also, there is not a set right or wrong answer to the question, considering it is oftentimes an issue of morality, something that is highly complicated and stems from personal experience, religious beliefs, etc. Among the sources I have found, for the most part there is a consensus on the opinion that Planned Parenthood should receive funding; the differences presented are based on why it should receive funding. The perspectives of the sources do not have a significant effect on my own viewpoints, considering I had already developed a stance on the issue before researching. However, I did find some new details for the arguments supporting the issue. On the other hand, upon realizing that all three of my sources agree with one another, I have decided going forward in my project that I will use at least one or two sources that represent the opposing side of the argument.

