Your Life >> Browse Articles >> Politics + The Media
Your Life >> Browse Articles >> Sex + Relationships
Your Life >> Browse Articles >> Health + Wellness
Should the Government Control Your Reproductive Rights?
Anna Hennings | Excelle
February 05, 2009
Obama is helping women make large strides in a society where women are constantly struggling for voices and equality. Having overturned the Global Gag Rule and passing the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Obama certainly seems off to an effective female-friendly start in office.
Yet, he has fallen a bit short — at least for now — in another aspect of women’s rights and health issues: family planning for low-income women.
Originally included in Obama’s multi-billion-dollar stimulus package was the Medicaid Family Planning State Option — a provision that would be “a simple, cost-effective program allowing states to provide basic reproductive health care to poor women,” as Rep. Diana Degette noted in her recent Huffington Post article. “[And it] would save four dollars for every dollar spent.” But it was removed so that some GOP lawmakers would approve the package.
An Associated Press report clarifies that “under the provision, states no longer would be required to obtain federal permission to offer family planning services — including contraceptives — under Medicaid, the health program for the low-income.”
Planned Parenthood also broke down the arrangement as having two clear distinctions:
1. It would allow millions of women to obtain basic health care. It would extend safety-net health care coverage for millions of people, including many who are losing their jobs and health insurance in the economic downturn. Studies estimate that 2.3 million low-income women would receive coverage under this provision by 2014, and 500,000 women would be able to avoid unintended pregnancies.
2. In these difficult times, this provision would save states money. State budgets are being squeezed by the economic downturn, just as millions are losing their jobs and health insurance. The Medicaid Family Planning State Option not only would help states extend their coverage, it would generate savings for states and the federal government by expanding access to preventive care.
In a statement on January 27th, Planned Parenthood for America President Cecile Richards declared, “We are disappointed that the Medicaid Family Planning State Option, a common-sense provision to expand basic health care to millions of women, including many who have lost their jobs in the current economic downturn, was a victim of misleading attacks and partisan politics, and dropped from the economic stimulus bill.”
Despite what seems like clear evidence of positive action in expanding women’s reproductive freedom and expanding healthcare to women in America who need it most, the administration dropped the provision from the economic recovery plan after attacks from Republicans criticizing the option as wasteful spending in an economy itching for stimulation and job creation.
Elana Schor notes in her Talking Points Memo article that “the family-planning provision wasn’t genuinely stimulative, making its removal from the bill a minor decision. And I’m not accusing the Obama team of getting rolled by the Republicans on flaps like this one.
“But other aid provisions in the recovery bill, not directly targeted to women’s reproductive freedom, do not create jobs or boost GDP — yet are meeting with less agitation from Republicans and remaining intact.”
While the fight for women’s reproductive rights and freedom may not make it into this particular stimulus package, the fight isn’t over. It’s never over. But that leaves us women, yet again, on the holding block.
JaneLeigh
about 1 year ago
4 comments
I think this is debatable whether or not it was a stimulus related issue. I understand that it was suggested it would help women who have lost jobs, but is that stimulus related? I am not sure on that.
The question for this discussion following the article is posed in a confusing way to me. Should the question related to this article really be "Should the government control your reproductive rights?" Where in this article does that poll question even come close to being raised?
But, I'll play. No, I don't think government should control my reproductive rights. (How this fits in with the cut program, I'm just not getting.)
theinsurancegirl
over 1 year ago
6 comments
Like Sandy below, if you can afford them financially, then yes have all the babies you want. But, I have a hard time supporting myself none-the-less supporting other adult's kids.
sandycoleman1
over 1 year ago
4 comments
My take on this is that as long as you are of sound mind and are able financially, you don't need the government to tell you how many kids to have or not have. However I shudder when I think of that lady who just had the 8 babies and already had 6 children. How can you possibly take care of that many children and give them the time they each need? I also think that it is each persons responsibility to use some common sense BEFORE having sex to begin with! Most of what is wrong with this country is 1.no one wants to take responsibility for their actions and 2. corporate greed.
skyblu
over 1 year ago
2 comments
In China they have implemented the the granny police to insist people do not go over 2 children.....is that what we're going to have to do? I have know since I was very young that population control will eventually be a huge factor in our economy. It isn't the responsible people with average to decent incomes that are having all these babies! Doesn't anyone see this??!! I myself have been suffering economic hardship and have had to use the fringe medical clinics here in SanDiego (very depressing) Yesterday I was certain, as I sat waiting in one of these clinics that I was in Mexico, not the U.S. that my Dad fought so hard in W.W. ll for. At least 75 hispanic women between 14 and 45 years old all pregnant! And with all their children (at least 3-5 each unruly and screaming in the waiting room while another is on the way!! And you wonder why our economy is sucked dry! On one level there should be mandatory birthcontrol after these immigrants go past 2 kids, or even before! Of course the religions of the catholics, muslims and the evangelicals say no! Don't want to go to hell for practicing birthcontrol or if necessary having an abortion. Don't get me wrong I have no prejudice against any ethnicity. I voted Obama and am proud of this, abuat he's right to want this birthcontrol package as part of the stimulous plan.....Why? because we need to do something about the outofcontrol babymaking that the poor and welfare recipients continue to practice and get away with. We must look to 50 years from now!!!
LizbethAS
over 1 year ago
20 comments
i have to admit that i don't really think that it's that bad that this was taken out of the economic stimulus package. not that i am against woman's reproductive rights, but i feel like the stimulus should be about making jobs. the contraceptive issue should be part of a health care package. i get that it effects the economy in an indirect way, but i really think this package should have more to do with directly elevating everyone out of poverty. when that happens, we all will have more opportunity to protect ourselves from unwanted pregnancy and such, and feel better about taking care of ourselves rather than waiting for the government to give us more.
ggnaynay
over 1 year ago
2 comments
I can't beleive that people are more upset over the rights of terrorists who have been able to choose whether or not to kill innocent people and are now in prison in gitmo, then the rights of the unborn, innocent person. God have mercy on this nation. Productive rights?!?! it's murder of innocent life and it's wrong. Murder is illegal.
GloNav
over 1 year ago
4 comments
I agree with both of you women here. You stated good points of view. The way I see this is the goverment got tired of brushing this "problem" under the rug with people being irresponsible on there part before having intercourse. With that said sometimes the government have to step in to wake us up and make us realize this is a major hurdle for them to see what needs to be addressed and done if we people don't respect ourselves in that area. Why should the government pay for children out of wed lock because the girl thought if she had sex with her man he will not leave her? And then boom she is carrying child. The way I see the world here is no one cares and when that happens the gov't have to step in to "fix" the problem with no one care. It an expensive price to pay when no one cares. So instead of making it expensive they step in. Either way its a sad agenda here. Either we people be responsible even if its our underage kids doing it too. Or the gov't step in. We made our beds and now the gov't have to lay on it.
RoseEllen
over 1 year ago
10 comments
When I read this my first thought was that we are just talking about a woman's right to determine her own reproductive health care, in particular the right to terminate a pregnancy if a woman so chooses. I think that primarily male governmental bodies don't need to have any say what so ever in that - until they start developing legislation that will truly help parents get and keep jobs that will allow them to support to all the children out there who need someone to care for them appropriately. So I was surprised to read some of the comments that reproductive rights and freedom would also include the right to have children - even when it's not such a good idea. That wasn't what I perceived the argument to be about. No one has been stopping some of these people from reproducing, but maybe they should. I haven't been on here much since joining, but has anyone posted about the woman who gave birth to 8 babies at once, who, if the press is to be believed conceived them through in vitro reproductive services. Common sense would say that someone should have had the ability to prevent her from doing that. It should have been possible to ask her to complete some sort of assessment to determine whether she had the ability to care for that number of children, but even before that, consideration should have been given to the potential for those children to die immediately upon birth or before birth, which would indicate that she should not have been allowed to have them all implanted at once. Just because you can do something does not mean you should.
nfrgtblis
over 1 year ago
6 comments
Where does family planning, including abortions help the economy? At what point does this add any more money into our economy except for abortion clinics who would profit? Let's not put a nice face on murder or use other words like, "family planning". That means that someone is actually thinking about how many children they want and keeping their legs closed when it could mean getting pregnant. Contraceptives are available and to this I agree - however, not on my tax dollars. I pay for every bit of my medical even when my husband and I were out of jobs. We knew what was important. Now - to the rest of it -
Originally it was physicians that spoke out against abortion with their oath of "first do no harm" Roe V Wade was the government essentially getting involved in our rights to our bodies - RVW gave up our decisions. You can't have it both ways - either they are involved and you accept it or you go to your doctor (or not) and accept their decision. The only way you can control your body yourself is to give yourself an abortion or keep your legs together. I know I will have people disagree with my thoughts that's fine. What about rape, incest etc, etc? I agree - what about it? What right do we have to tell someone that a child - no matter how conceived should be aborted? Use logic to look at Obama's decision. It may have furthered his agenda to keep it in, but not our economy.
VanessaAWilliams
over 1 year ago
342 comments
"Yet, he has fallen a bit short — at least for now — in another aspect of women’s rights and health issues: family planning for low-income women."
We gave George Bush 8 years and you want Obama to do something in just 18 days in office??
Vanessa