Rural Scott County Indiana currently records one of the largest outbreaks of HIV in modern history, proportionately. In a short year, one hundred and ninety individuals were diagnosed with the potentially fatal disease, likely due to the commonality of opioid use in rural communities. When one contracts HIV, time is a crucial element; if not diagnosed and treated on time, the disease quickly progresses into AIDS. Scott County, Indiana only had one HIV testing center available, a Planned Parenthood clinic. During this time a national anti-abortion campaign was gaining heat, and putting Planned Parenthood under fire. In 2013, the County’s only clinic was shut down due to this anti-abortion ideology. Because of this campaign, the peoples of Scott County no longer have medical access to HIV testing and have to cross over counties in order to receive a medical diagnosis. Ironically, the Planned Parenthood center in question did not even perform abortion services. This is just one example of how the American peoples fear of abortion, a polarizing topic, has restricted public access to reproductive and sexual health services, most notably in rural areas such as Scott County. Although Planned Parenthood performs abortion services, something many Americans do not ethically support, the majority of its services are geared towards contraceptives, STI and STD prevention, testing, and treatment, and cancer screenings. They primarily serve underclass individuals whom do not have proper health care access due to their lack of financial ability.  No matter one’s personal philosophy regarding abortion, Planned Parenthood offers far too many services that benefit society to ethically justify its defunding. 

Abortion is arguably the most contentious issue in the United States; few other issues compare in their polarizing effect in a social and political sphere. Perhaps the reasoning behind this effect is the passion in which people harbor in their beliefs on the issue. No one is only “kind of” pro-life or pro-choice; people typically hold a very strong political opinion on the subject, leaving little room for compromise. An anti-abortion ideology has since emerged out of the pro-life movement, causing people and organizations that support abortion to be negatively stereotyped and shunned. Although abortions make up only a small percentage of Planned Parenthood’s services, their involvement has caused a negative stigma to surround the organization; thus, resulting in a political wave of opposition to federal funding of Planned Parenthood’s services. The American Public holds a distorted view of Planned Parenthood; with many believing that the organization exists merely as an “abortion factory,” despite the fact that abortions only make up a mere 3% of the establishment's services. Another common misconception of the organization is that they promote promiscuity in young teens by encouraging and enabling them to have sex. While Planned Parenthood does offer teen access to contraceptives and sexual education, it is in no way sexually suggestive. They do, however, provide teens with support regarding the natural curiosity surrounding sex in a way in which is meant to be informative but does not intentionally encourage or promote teen sexual activity. Delusions surrounding Planned Parenthood inhibit the organization from being able to provide health services in that they cause political opposition based off of fallacy; “The many misconceptions about Planned Parenthood empower the long assault against reproductive rights” (Evans para. 2). According to Muchmore (para. 4), a “firestorm” of opposition emerged after undercover videos were released showing staff members discussing fetal tissue donation, the sale of which is illegal. Planned Parenthood claims that the videos are heavily edited and do not support their organization; nevertheless, the falsified videos successfully swayed a large portion of the American public to believe that Planned Parenthood to be an unethical organization. The videos spurred a political movement to defund Planned Parenthood, painting it as a baby killing, promiscuous, corrupt institution. 

As a result of this movement, legislators have attempted to legally defund Planned Parenthood; however, case after case the courts have upheld Planned Parenthoods funding, dubbing potential defunding as a violation of federal law. Forty percent of Planned Parenthood funding comes from the federal, state, and local governments through Medicaid reimbursements. The aforementioned legislators have attempted to advocate that Medicaid cannot be used for the services provided by Planned Parenthood; however, this violates Medicaid law, which states that it’s enrollees have the legal right to select the qualified Medicaid provider of it’s choice (Shnecker, para. 11). The only circumstance in which the government could allow the blocking of Medicaid from being used at a qualified provider exists if the provider is participating in criminal activity. In an attempt to disqualify Planned Parenthood’s eligibility, several advocates for defunding have pointed to the previously mentioned edited videos of their employees discussing fetal tissue donation as evidence of criminal activity. This argument cannot legally be applied in court unless other, direct evidence of foul play is discovered; a potentially edited video does not constitute as appropriate evidence. Therefore, under the current legislation, Medicaid reimbursements cannot be barred from Planned Parenthood. A potential argument against the funding of Planned Parenthood is the hefty cost that the organization puts on the state. Each year, the United States government spends sixty million dollars on Planned Parenthood. Eliminating Planned Parenthood does not fully provide a solution to the gregarious spending, however. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating Planned Parenthood funding would cost the government $130 million from 2016 to 2025 (Bradley-Springer). Furthermore, if the government were to cut Planned Parenthood funding, Medicaid spending will increase and unintentional pregnancies will rise among lower class individuals, causing a more long-term financial burden on the American public. Since Planned Parenthood serves mostly underprivileged Americans, the offspring that would result from the lack of contraceptive access would increase the national well-fare dependence. According to Annas and Mariner, helping low-income women prevent pregnancies through programs like Planned Parenthood saves nearly $4 for every $1 spent (para. 6). Therefore, fiscal concerns about the organization do not constitute valid arguments. Forbes states, “A bill to defund Planned Parenthood doesn’t cross out a line in the federal budget—it stops people with Medicaid from being able to go to Planned Parenthood for basic reproductive health care (Forbes, para. 4). Economically speaking, Planned Parenthood represents somewhat of a Catch-22; it costs money to fund but it’s defunding could potentially be equally economically devastating.

Government funding of Planned Parenthood is essential to its existence; since 40% of it’s support comes the government, the organization could not feasibly exist, despite the common belief that it could stay afloat purely on private donations. Many republicans want to redirect funding towards federal community health centers; however, this would not benefit the American public, as Planned Parenthood is the largest provider of reproductive health service in the United States. Planned Parenthood only makes up 10% of publically funded family planning centers but provides care to 36% of individuals pursuing family planning services. The organization is so popular that one in five women will visit Planned Parenthood in their lifetime (Evans, para. 2). Therefore, defunding Planned Parenthood in an attempt to redirect federal funds would not be conducive to improving the national health. In fact, on some occasions, publically funded institutions rely on Planned Parenthood to perform services in which they cannot or will not provide. One in nine hospital beds are in Catholic-sponsored or affiliated hospitals, “many of which have tight restrictions on the reproductive health services they provide” (Muchmore, para. 30-31). Due to religious ethical conflicts, Planned Parenthood is often necessary to provide alternatives to traditional health care. 

A potential argument against the funding of Planned Parenthood is the hefty cost that the organization puts on the state. Each year, the United States government spends sixty million dollars on Planned Parenthood. Eliminating Planned Parenthood does not fully provide a solution to the gregarious spending, however. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating Planned Parenthood funding would cost the government $130 million from 2016 to 2025 (Bradley-Springer). Furthermore, if the government were to cut Planned Parenthood funding, Medicaid spending will increase and unintentional pregnancies will rise among lower class individuals, causing a more long-term financial burden on the American public. Since Planned Parenthood serves mostly underprivileged Americans, the offspring that would result from the lack of contraceptive access would increase the national well-fare dependence. According to Annas and Mariner, helping low-income women prevent pregnancies through programs like Planned Parenthood saves nearly $4 for every $1 spent (para. 6). Therefore, fiscal concerns about the organization do not constitute valid arguments. Forbes states, “A bill to defund Planned Parenthood doesn’t cross out a line in the federal budget—it stops people with Medicaid from being able to go to Planned Parenthood for basic reproductive health care (Forbes, para. 4). Economically speaking, Planned Parenthood represents somewhat of a Catch-22; it costs money to fund but the defunding could be potentially just as economically devastating.

Without the contraceptive services provided by Planned Parenthood, abortions from an unplanned pregnancy would increase by more than 800,000 a year (Bradley-Springer). These statistics alone prove that Planned Parenthood is providing a positive service for society. As previously mentioned, only three percent of Planned Parenthood’s time and funding go towards abortions; however, abortions are the focus of attention “because of the willingness of some social and political ‘leaders’ to emphasize ideology rather than science or service” (Bradley-Springer, para. 4). Adversaries to the organization attempt to argue that “Planned Parenthood’s business model is centered on abortion” (Anthony, para. 4); however, this assertion is non-justifiable in that the organization is a non-profit organization and therefore is not a business groveling for clientele. Furthermore, this implied abortionist ideology is simply not factually represented by the actions of the organization. If Planned Parenthood truly were to be centered on abortion, fewer efforts would be focused on prevention and abortion would be higher represented in the fiscal breakdown of their services. Therefore, the common argument and misconception of Planned Parenthood centering on abortion cannot be accepted as fact. Planned Parenthood performs several other beneficial services aside from abortion and it’s funding should not be removed because of ideological differences. 

Even if one does not ethically believe in abortions, one cannot justify stripping Planned Parenthood of federal funding simply because of the fact that they are performed. According to federal law, no federal funds can be used towards abortion except for in the case of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the pregnant woman. Instead, Planned Parenthood’s federal funding is funneled towards sexual education, pregnancy tests, prenatal care, sexually transmitted infections screening and treatment, cancer screening, and research. They also offer HIV prevention education, tests for HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases, along with primary health care. Defunding Planned Parenthood, or the denial of health care, based off of a disbelief in abortion, a non-publically funded procedure, would be committing an ethical injustice. Hospitals also perform abortions, receive federal funding, and accept Medicaid but no political campaign exists to defund hospitals. The stigma surrounding Planned Parenthood, based off of media-induced public fallacy, is unjust. 

Planned Parenthood provides more accessible healthcare options to poor individuals and people in rural areas. In rural states, such as Indiana and Kentucky, individuals do not have access to reliable transportation and therefore cannot travel to other, farther clinics that accept their Medicaid. Defunding Planned Parenthood in rural areas would further limit access to affordable reproductive health options (Muchmore, para. 12). This phenomenon is not limited to rural areas, however; “A 2012 Government Accountability Office report found that 38 states reported difficulty in finding providers that accepted Medicaid” (Muchmore, para. 22). Gynecologists in particular were particularly elusive, according to the study. Even if individuals do have access to other providers that accept their Medicaid, other family clinics typically have longer wait times and many do not offer contraceptive services. Planned Parenthood offers longer hours, same-day appointments, and weekend services, making it extremely accessible to the public. In addition to being more physically accessible, Planned Parenthood is also economically more accessible to the public than many alternatives. It operates on a graduated income scale; the lower one’s income, the lower the cost of treatment. This provides the lower class with easier access to health care; approximately 75% of Planned Parenthood’s services are to individuals in which have incomes at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. Without Planned Parenthood, the lower class may not have equal access to affordable reproductive and family planning health care. 

Perhaps one of the most beneficial social justices that Planned Parenthood performs for the community lies in their devotion to sexual health education. The state of sexual education in America is an immediate cause for concern; many schools do not have any curricula surrounding sexual heath and education, causing students to rely on outside sources for knowledge. Indiana legislature in particular has “restricted birth control access and blocked comprehensive sexual education in its schools” (Muchmore para. 10). Students are not receiving the education they need in order to lead responsible, healthy lifestyles. Furthermore, many of the schools that do provide formal sex education use a dated, unrealistic model of abstinence, which, ironically, promotes promiscuity. Planned Parenthood offers free sexual education that’s accessible to people of all ages; one could stop in at their local clinic, call the hotline, or even browse their website for information regarding sexual health and the proper preventative measures. The value of proper sex education cannot be overlooked; unless parents have active conversations with their children or they receive formal schooling, they will be unaware of the potential dangers of unprotected sex and the importance of sexual hygiene, such as the prevention of UTI’s. 

In addition to the plethora of services Planned Parenthood provides to patients on an individual basis, they also perform groundbreaking research that has the potential to save millions of lives. Their scientists are currently discovering ways to use fetal tissue, a legal and agreed-upon ethical practice, to “create breakthrough treatments and cures for many devastating chronic human conditions, including HIV and its sequelae” (Bradley-Springer, para. 7). HIV and AIDS are historically incurable; preventing research that could save the lives of millions of people would be a colossal loss for the general public as well as for the medical community as a whole.

Planned Parenthood is one of the countries largest providers of health care for women, especially those of lower class. Although women are the primary patients, Planned Parenthood provides male services as well, offering prostate, colon, and testicular screenings, vasectomies, and male infertility screenings (Evans para. 4). Therefore, it can be concluded that both genders would suffer from the defunding of the organization. Planned Parenthood’s influence does not only exist on a national scale, but on a global scale as well. The organization gives grants to local organizations in third-world countries where resources are limited and at-home abortions are common. These grants allow individuals in poverty access to condoms and other preventative sexual care while minimizing dangerous abortion procedures. The breadth of Planned Parenthood and its influence cannot be underestimated nor can it be compromised.

Many scholars hypothesize that the primary reason for political opposition to Planned Parenthood among legislators lies in the fact that the people with power are white males with no personal investments in the issues in which the organization focuses on. In American politics a stereotype exists in that legislators generally only listen when either it benefits them directly, such as promoting big business, or their vote on the issue affects their potential for re-election. If this stereotype proves to be true, the only path to secure Planned Parenthood’s funding is through public support demanding the “man” to either cooperate or get out of office. This may prove to be difficult, however, because the majority of Planned Parenthood’s patients are of lower class America and therefore have very little political influence. So, the mission to save Planned Parenthood lies in the hands of social advocates in positions of power and, most notably, access to the media. 

The community value of Planned Parenthood cannot be overestimated and it simply cannot exist without federal funding. The services in which they provide the American public, such as sexual education, STI prevention and treatment, and cancer screening, help promote a better, healthier living community, well worth the financial investment. Planned Parenthood enables millions of Americans to receive affordable healthcare treatment each year; as a country it would be unjust to take away this right. The opposition to Planned Parenthood has little merit; much of it is based off of public misconceptions about abortion, promiscuity, and illegal tissue donation, which have been proven to be baseless. In actuality, Planned Parenthood reduces abortions and unplanned pregnancies by offering affordable contraceptives and comprehensive sexual education. Withdrawing federal funding would be a disgrace to the nation and would only further oppress the poor and rural populations, such as that in Scott County, Indiana. 
