In a recent column appearing on this page, fellow opinion writer Brian Jutting II discusses the debate over funding for Planned Parenthood and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posing the question, “Seriously, was that worth it?”
His point was that these programs are not high enough on the proverbial program totem pole to cause a full-scale government shutdown and a potential withholding of the paychecks of “our military personnel overseas and a million federal workers.” (That would never happen. Ever.)
To answer Brian’s question: Yes, seriously, they are worth it. As he pointed out, the amount of federal funds allocated to Planned Parenthood is a very small portion of the budget. It is inconsequential as opposed to say, corporate loans and Wall Street bailouts from the feds amounting literally in the hundreds of billions of dollars.
The conservative right seems to be doing everything they can to prove their ignorance on the matter. Even my colleague Brian makes the nonsensical claim that “the federal government cannot simply afford these programs right now.”
In all actuality, the truth is, we simply cannot afford to cut these programs right now. The services provided by Planned Parenthood and the importance of the EPA is not a matter of opinion, it is a downright fact that the humanitarian and societal impact by both of these programs far outweighs any costs associated with either one.
Here are two statements; see if you can decide which one is actually true: “If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood and that’s well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.”
Or, “Planned Parenthood’s abortion care represents 3 percent of its medical services — 332,000 terminations out of a total of 11.4 million services provided in 2009.”
The first statement was made by Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl in a speech against the federal funding of Planned Parenthood. This was later described by his office and press liaison as “not intended to be a factual statement.”
The next statement was written by Clare Coleman in her article, “Five Myths About Planned Parenthood,” published in The Washington Post.
Oh yeah, Coleman “is the president and chief executive officer of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. She headed a Planned Parenthood network in upstate New York, and worked in the U.S. House and as a lobbyist for Planned Parenthood,” according to The Washington Post.
Do I even need to write some witty anecdote to point out who would be a more credible source on the matter?
A big point in Brian’s column that he tried to stress was “the EPA budget cuts would have made it so that the EPA would not be able to fully enforce regulations regarding climate change, an issue scientists continue to debate about the causes of.”
Is that all the EPA does, discuss a “theory” that is almost universally supported by the science community to be true? I think not. (Just so you know, bio-terrorism isn’t just a defense issue, it’s an environmental priority.)
The bottom line is, as outsiders, none of us really have the answers or the know-how to balance this budget.
In this volatile time for the economy, lawmakers must pick and choose as to which programs get funded and which ones get cut. Let’s hope that when making these decisions, they’re more informed on the issues than Kyl.
Reach Ben at bkarris@asu.edu
