Re: 2012 Elections in 3-D!
Nobody wants to shut them down. Just get them off the government dole, of course.
So, I am curious about what you would expect would happen if this were to come to pass? PP give excellent care mostly to those who are underserved. Given that about 99% of what PP does is prevention (or even leaving that out), most of their clientele are unlikely to be able to access GYN health care elsewhere d/t financial constraints, availability of providers or local facilities.
What is supposed to fill in the gap if they are no longer supported? Even if the actual exam was free it costs on average 70-100$ for a pap test, 65$ for a gonorrhea and Chlamydia screen (considered standard of care for all under 25, irregardless of their sexual activity). Too lazy to look for stats but anecdotally I am aware of many women who go there (or other similar clinics with gov't funding) because they literally have no where else they can afford or get transport to. This is not just single women but married women or unpartnered women. If we were to stop access to health care then we would be stopping access to GYN screening and GYN care in a population that is historically more at risk to have abnormalities.
If you deny access it is likely the pregnancy rate increases in those women. In our little microcosm when Romney was governor he cut funding for School Based Clinics and the teen preg rate skyrocketed (we had no PP, this was the only variable that changed). Who do you think paid for the OB care (Masshealth), the delivery in the hospital (Masshealth), to be fed (WIC), get their immunizations (Masshealth), the High School Daycare center (school budget), the tutoring depending on how much school was missed(school budget). Then we have Headstart (they have cut funding levels but did make a huge difference when it was up and running) to help them because the parents were high schoolers and not all of them 'got ' parenting, I know I am forgetting more of what is accessed for support but it adds up. The taxpayers took the hit. It was not small.
If the objection is moral- is it right for them to have sex? no. Will they do it? yes, some of them will. Some people are risk takers and some are just excellent at denial of risk. Should they be taught by their parents not to have sex or to use birth control if they do? yes. Are they always? no. Although we can make assumptions of what should happen it doesn't happen that way. I have my opinion of what is right but I am pragmatic that it won't always happen. Some parents aren't going to even attempt to take responsibility and don't care. If we assume that procreation is good and the children are born what responsibility as a society do we have to provide for these kids? Morally the parents should take care of it but the socisty as a whols suffers if they don't and we have no mechanism to help them or ourselves that is sufficient.
My favorite one is these bills going around (one in Arizona as we write) which would allow employers to deny coverage for birth control if they feel like it. I really, really have to wonder if anybody in the GOP has stopped to think about who their target audience is for this nonsense. You're now PO'ing the very married suburban mom who the party always tries to appeal to to please right wing nutjobs who are going to vote for you anyway. Makes sense to me.
Does it include the provision that they must not lay off, demote or marginalize the woman who gets pregnant? Does it provide for daycare? Just wondering. The businesses really struggle with what to do with these women who are in and out of the workplace.
