By Sarah A. Stoesz
Lately I've been asked by more than one person if Planned Parenthood plans to "stand in the way" of health care reform. The implication seems to be that to defend our patients' rights to abortion care -- to defend what they already have -- is to stand in the way.
To set the record straight, Planned Parenthood has always advocated for increased access to health care for all Americans. Most of our patients are low income, and we are painfully aware of the suffering caused by disparities in access -- especially among minority groups, immigrant newcomers, the unemployed and the uninsured. Our job, since we were founded in 1928, has been to relieve that suffering by offering affordable care -- from family planning services to annual gynecological exams and cancer screenings.
On behalf of our patients, we have vigorously advocated for reforms that would increase funding for family planning and reproductive health services and keep intact the network of safety-net providers, such as Planned Parenthood, that serve underserved communities.
The Affordable Health Care for America Act, passed recently by the U.S. House, would force us to betray the women we serve. The 11th-hour Stupak/Pitts amendment to the bill, passed at the urging of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, forbids coverage of abortion care for any providers participating in the new "exchange." Because most insurance companies already cover abortion care, the effect of this amendment -- offered by Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., and Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa. -- would be to deny millions of women services they already have.
Fortunately, the Senate version of the health-care reform bill does not contain this language.
We have advocated mightily for our patients, and will continue to do so. That is not "standing in the way." It is standing up -- for our patients and for women's health.
We also will continue to advocate for increased access to health care for all Americans. I cannot speak for the bishops on that score. Nor can I speak for the House members who voted "yes" on the Stupak/Pitts amendment and "no" on health-care reform.
Sarah A. Stoesz is president and CEO of Planned Parenthood Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota.
Thank you for explaining this so clearly. Well done.
I find the title of your article misleading. The Stupak-Pitts amendment simply sought to preserve the status quo; that is, to keep Federal dollars from funding abortion.
To understand better the author's motivation, could we ask PP to share what percentage of its "income" is obtained from abortion related procedures (I cannot bring myself to call killing a baby a "service")?
Healthcare should be about helping the body do what it is designed to do, not frustrate it. Ergo, abortion is not healthcare.
Please be civil, brief and relevant.
E-mail addresses are never displayed but they are required to confirm your comments. All comments are moderated. MPR reserves the right to edit any comments on this site and to read them on the air with attribution. Please read the Comment Guidelines before posting.
You must be 13 or over to submit information to Minnesota Public Radio. The information entered into this form will not be used to send unsolicited e-mail and will not be sold to a third party. For more information see Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.