February 26, 2009 - 7:01 PMIt should have come as a surprise to no one that on the very day that President Obama addressed the State of the Union, the Alan Guttmacher Institute released a new "study" which, lo and behold, calls for more funding for family planning programs.
As the Associated Press reported: Report co-author Rachel Benson Gold called the family planning program "smart government at its best," asserting that every dollar spent on it saves taxpayers $4 in costs associated with unintended births to mothers eligible for Medicaid-funded natal care ... The Guttmacher report provides ammunition for those who will advocate the funding increase.
Surveying data from the 2006 fiscal year, the report says the national family planning program prevented 1.94 million unintended pregnancies, including almost 400,000 teen pregnancies. Based on statistical analysis and projections, these pregnancies would have resulted in 860,000 unintended births, 810,000 abortions and 270,000 miscarriages, according to the report.
Without publicly funded family planning, it said, the U.S. abortion rate would be nearly two-thirds higher, and nearly twice as high among poor women.
But in essence, the report does not address the fundamental problem with the ongoing self-serving, subjective Planned Parenthood rhetoric, nor does it tell us how we save four dollars.
The very program that the Alan Guttmacher Institute claims prevents 810,000 abortions functions by providing the chemicals and devices, "family planning measures," that themselves cause abortion during the human being's first eight days of life. That is, they abort prior to implantation.
That is a fact that has been proven by one of the very organizations one would think would be aligned with Planned Parenthood. That organization is the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. ASRM makes it perfectly clear that contraception does abort.
In a summary of the development of contraception in the United States, the [ASRM] statement called oral contraceptives the "most widely used" reversible method. In the "wide variety" of oral contraceptives that are available, the "mechanisms of action" are the same, said the statement: "inhibition of ovulation, alteration in the cervical mucus, and/or modification of the endometrium, thus preventing implantation."
Further the term "unintended pregnancy" is a conveniently negative statement designed to alienate the couple who has engaged in sexual relations and did not "intend" to have a baby. The subconscious idea is that a preborn child is a problem that the mother needs to eliminate because she did not "intend" to have him.
Though PP points out that more of these "unintended" children are born than die, the fact is that not one of them should ever have to die based on parental intention. Let's face it, if a couple does not want to have a family, then abstain from the activity that makes having a family possible! That's common sense.
Not only that, but Stop Planned Parenthood International pointed out in its weekly Wednesday STOPP Report that PP is not effective at reducing the rate of unintended pregnancy anyway.
To prove their point, STOPP cites a Brookings Institution report that states: With premarital sex the rule, rather than the exception, an out-of-wedlock childbirth gradually ceased to be a sign that society's sexual taboos had been violated. The reduction in stigma also helps explain why women who would once have put their baby up for adoption chose to keep it instead.
It is of interest that as in the case with the ASRM, Brookings is no bastion of pro-life philosophy. In fact, they promote abortion as the proper response to "unintended pregnancy." But my point is quite simple: PP's Alan Guttmacher Institute is standing before Congress with hands extended, asking for more money for programs that frankly have not worked.
These "programs" have created a situation in which more young people are damaged for life because of sexually transmitted diseases and have a given those same young people a rather warped perspective on the value of saving sex until marriage.
But what about that four dollar savings? The proponents of this argument make the following claim:
Clinics receiving Title X funds not only provide quality health care services but also save the government money. Every dollar spent to provide services in the nationwide network of publicly funded family planning clinics saves $4.02 in pregnancy-related and newborn care costs to Medicaid.
This statement speaks volumes about how the culture of death views pregnancy, childbearing and parenthood.
What these anti-baby fanatics are really saying is that spending taxpayer dollars on helping the expectant mother through her nine month pregnancy and then helping her with the costs involved in giving birth is simply not worthy of taxpayer support, but recommending contraception and abortion is.
If that isn't a twisted way of focusing on how these vultures think they can save America money, I don't know what is.
The new Guttmacher study is designed to acquire more funding, pure and simple. There is no humanitarian concern for the poor or for the unwed mother. In fact, it isn't really about saving money for anyone or, for that matter saving lives.
This report also approves of congressional legislation that is currently pending. If passed it will increase funding for Title X family planning to an amount many hope will be $700 million a year.
Opponents of this legislation believe that this is a 'Planned Parenthood' bailout, since much of the funding will go to the organization. However, the money cannot be used to fund abortions.
Say what? Many hope the funding level will be $700,000,000 a year?
Yes, that's right. But in April , the annual report for Planned Parenthood Federation of America revealed that the abortion giant had a total income of $1.02 billion – with reported profits of nearly $115 million. Taxpayers kick in more than $336 million worth of government grants and contracts at both the state and federal levels. That's a third of Planned Parenthood's budget.
As we said in our media release yesterday: The opportunistic Guttmacher Institute is playing to the American people's fear of economic collapse in an effort to devalue the lives of America's poorest citizens. Put the poor on birth control, the study argues, then we don't have to deal with their children.
"It's not hyperbole to say that the advent of modern contraception changed American life," Guttmacher says.
We couldn't agree more. In fact, it's destroying American life.
Perhaps Planned Parenthood can donate some of their $114.8 million dollar (2006-2007) profit to programs that empower the poor instead of sterilizing them as undesirables.
Let's all agree that calling for an end to PP's sanctimonious swilling of our tax dollars is long, long overdue.