The topic that I decided to research for my argumentative essay was how and why the defunding of Planned Parenthood affects low-income citizens in the United States. The main reason that I decided to research this topic was because, as a college student, I know how it feels to not have money readily available. I was also interested in seeing how the defunding of Planned Parenthood has, and will continue to, affect people from low-income situations. Personally, I do not believe in abortions because I believe that God brought everyone into this world for a reason, and I also believe that abortion is murder. But, I also strongly believe in continuing the funding of Planned Parenthood only because they offer other services such as contraceptives, STD treatments, and counseling for low-income citizens. I have had many close friends who have used the different contraceptive services that Planned Parenthood provides because they could not afford to go to a doctor's office and get a prescription. Personally, when I stand up for Planned Parenthood, I see myself standing up for my friends and their families as well. This is important to me because I believe that everybody should be provided with fairly inexpensive health care if needed. I am beyond qualified to write about this topic because I know, and have dealt with, individual people who have taken advantage of the services that Planned Parenthood provides. Also, as a college student I know how it feels to not have money to pay for certain necessities, and I wouldn't want to ever be denied health care because of that.

Deborah Netburn wrote an article in the Los Angeles Times online newspaper that pertained to my argumentative essay topic, and provided me with evidence for my stance. Netburn is a science reporter for the LA times, and began her career as a journalist at the New York observer in 1999. She has also been working for the LA times since 2006. Netburn is a credible author because she has so much experience in the field of journalism and is a long-time writer for the LA times. Throughout her article, Netburn is writing about how the defunding of Planned Parenthood in Texas has specifically effected their low-income families. She uses evidence from different sociologists and news reports that provide information on how exactly the defunding of family clinics has negatively effected the low-income residence of Texas. This article is very important when it comes to building my research because it provides current information on the state of low-income families who are dealing with the defunding of Planned Parenthood. 

I also found an online website that shows the breakdown of the different percentages of patient care that is proved by Planned Parenthood and their affiliated health centers. This article was written by Lori Robertson who is a managing editor for FastCheck.org, which shows that she a credible because she is an elite worker for this organization. This article is an informational source, which means that it shows no bias because it is simply reporting the different percentages of what services are provided at Planned Parenthood. The central claim of this article is to disprove the idea that 90% of Planned Parenthood's services are geared towards abortion, and in order to disprove this idea, the article shows many different percentages that reveal the true breakdown of Planned Parenthood's services. This article is very important for my argumentative essay because it will help me back up the idea that not every person receives an abortion when they take advantage of the services Planned Parenthood provides. It will also help me convince others that clinics are a source of inexpensive contraceptives and STD treatments for low-income families everywhere. 

Elizabeth A. House and Sadja Goldsmith, who are both MD's, write in their article about the different services that Planned Parenthood provides, and how they help the young teenagers that take advantage of them. This article, and the authors, are credible because not only is it published by an institute, but it is also written by two MD's who have a lot of knowledge on this subject. This article is more of an informational than an argumentative source because it simply lays out the different services that Planned Parenthood provides, and does not attempt to convince their readers of anything in particular. Due to the fact that it is an informational source, there is no bias that is presented. House and Goldsmith provide more information on the whereabouts of Planned Parenthood and to allow the readers to understand the other services that they provide, specifically for young teenagers. This article is very helpful for my argumentative essay because it gives me the chance to add more information about what Planned Parenthood provides other than abortions, so that I can have a chance to convince my readers that the services provided are needed for low-income citizens.  

The research question that I have made is arguable, because on my side I am supporting the government funding of Planned Parenthood in order to help low-income families. The other stance on this argument is that if Planned Parenthood gets defunded, then different doctor's offices with start providing less expensive contraceptives in response to the demand for cheaper health care. Some agreements that I have found are that Planned Parenthood does provide services other than abortion that help the low-income people of America, and also that the percentages of abortion services that Planned Parenthood provides is a lot smaller than most people anticipate. Some disagreements that I have found are that even though there are different services that are provided, there is still the idea of abortion services that many people are extremely against. The different perspectives of this source allowed me to open up my mind a little more and realize how small of a percentage abortion services are compared to everything else. The only way that I could think of revising my research question is to possibly narrow it down even more to focus on low-income teenagers instead of just low-income American citizens. 
