This issue brief examines the potential consequences of reducing or eliminating federal funding for Planned Parenthood, with a specific focus on poor and disadvantaged women. Drawing on peer-reviewed research and policy sources, the brief traces Planned Parenthood's history, outlines its range of low-cost reproductive health services, and analyzes four key areas of impact: contraceptive access, sexually transmitted disease detection, unwanted pregnancies, and preventative care and education. The brief concludes by proposing a compromise solution that preserves funding for essential services while acknowledging the political and economic pressures driving cuts, arguing that partial funding preservation is necessary to protect vulnerable populations.
Created in 1952, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) is a worldwide organization established as part of the family planning movement (Claeys, 2010). The Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) is one of IPPF's affiliates and originated in 1916 through the work of birth control advocate Margaret Sanger (Devins, 2009). The work of PPFA and IPPF aims to increase the use of family planning services and has expanded to address the reduction of child and maternal mortality, the prevention and treatment of sexually transmitted infections such as HIV, and the provision of information and education on reproductive and sexual health (Claeys, 2010).
Planned Parenthood has often been the center of political controversy because of strong opinions for and against certain services (Devins, 2009). For example, the introduction of oral contraceptives was not well received by Catholics (Claeys, 2010). In the United States, the Supreme Court has protected reproductive rights and freedoms, including access to abortion services such as those provided by Planned Parenthood (Devins, 2009). Despite the controversy surrounding many of the services offered by PPFA, the organization receives about a third of its funding — approximately $362 million — from federal sources (Tanne, 2011).
Over the past few years, there have been several moves to reduce or withdraw public funding for Planned Parenthood. In 2005, the federal Deficit Reduction Act was passed, scaling back various government programs and costing Planned Parenthood 20 percent of its revenues (Damewood, 2008). In New Hampshire in 2009, an unsuccessful attempt was made to cut nearly $1 million in funding from the New England branch of PPFA (Berry, 2009). More recently, Republicans in Congress sought to eliminate all of Planned Parenthood's funding by cutting Title X program funding, which was created to assist low-income Americans (Tanne, 2011).
The goals of Planned Parenthood cannot be fulfilled without sufficient funding for low-income women. Such funding cuts will adversely affect poor and disadvantaged women by decreasing their access to a range of health services. The analysis below details the impact of federal cuts across four key service areas and proposes a solution before concluding.
Planned Parenthood provides a number of reproductive and sexual health services to women, including free and low-cost services to those who cannot afford to pay for necessary care (Damewood, 2008). Funding cuts will affect poor and disadvantaged women because the cost of services will likely increase unless alternative funding is found. The impact will be visible in contraceptive use, sexually transmitted disease detection, unwanted pregnancy rates, and preventative care and education.
Cuts to funding have already caused some people to stop using contraception because services are no longer covered and they cannot afford to pay out-of-pocket (Damewood, 2008). The impact of a reduction in free and low-cost contraception is compounded by the recession's effect on individual incomes and financial resources. A 2009 survey of women aged 18 to 34 with household incomes of $75,000 or less found that nearly one-fourth had difficulty paying for contraception and had postponed visits for reproductive health care because of costs (Gold, 2010).
In addition to providing contraception at drastically reduced prices, Planned Parenthood also meets the birth control needs of teenagers (Damewood, 2008). A reduction in funding would disproportionately affect women who are disadvantaged because of their age and who have difficulty procuring needed contraception (Berry, 2009). While condoms purchased in stores remain an option, this method does not allow women full control over their reproductive choices and may be too costly for some (Harper et al., 2010). In sum, a reduction in funding for Planned Parenthood would decrease contraceptive use among young and low-income women.
Sexually transmitted diseases may be prevented through contraception and education. However, because abstinence is the only 100 percent effective means of preventing sexually transmitted infections, early detection is essential for treating STIs and STDs (Klerman et al., 2007). Planned Parenthood provides testing for HIV and other STDs free of charge or at a reduced price. A reduction in funding for Planned Parenthood could decrease the availability of such tests, placing poor and disadvantaged women at a higher risk for morbidity and mortality due to STIs and STDs (Harper et al., 2010).
This would also disproportionately affect younger, sexually active women because they have a greater likelihood of having multiple partners and of not being in a long-term relationship such as marriage or cohabitation (Sassler, Miller, and Favinger, 2009). Reduced access to affordable testing therefore represents a serious public health concern for the most vulnerable populations served by Planned Parenthood.
"Less birth control access leads to more unintended pregnancies"
"Cuts limit cancer screening and sexual health education"
"Compromise funding approach to protect essential services"
You’re 50% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.