Terminating a Pregnancy

Abortion is, by definition, terminating a pregnancy by removing the fetus pre-maturely from the womb. It is a procedure that is becoming more and more common and can polarize a room in seconds. If there's so many people against government funds going to abortion clinics, such as Planned Parenthood, why is it still happening? A large portion of Planned Parenthood's funds come from the government, tax payer's money going to something they don't believe in. By simply stopping the flow of government funds going into these clinics, woman can do with their bodies as they please, but out of their own pockets, rather than the pockets of the tax-payers.

Currently, according to "Congressional health-care bill 'defunds' Planned Parenthood, about 43 percent of [Planned Parenthood's] budget -- close to $550 million -- comes from government grants and reimbursements, with Medicaid representing the vast majority of that money (par. 14). While Planned Parenthood provides more services than just abortion procedures, they are responsible for more than 300,000 abortions during the 2014-2015 fiscal year (par. 18). An abortion costs, at most, according to Emily at Planned Parenthood, $950 out of pocket. Theresa Fisher states, the procedure itself costs upwards of $3,000, leaving the other $2,050 to insurance or government assistance. (par. 1) Millions of dollars a year go to these clinics.

Money that comes out of tax-payer's pockets. The government also funds things such as our military, and schools. Things that, no matter who you are, benefit the country. Abortion clinics aren't beneficial to everybody. Some may say they are the exact opposite of beneficial and take away the unborn fetus' unalienable right to life, labeling abortion as unconstitutional. Though, as noted by R. Alta Charo, they do provide fetal tissue research that virtually every person in this country has benefited from, regardless of how this fetal tissue has been harvested. (1)

The main argument for abortion is that it's a factor of Woman's Health and Reproductive Rights, as pointed out by Curtis Mayfield (par. 1), and it falls under Title X protection (Ludlow 4). However, as argued by the National Right to Life News in 2015, abortion procedures easily violate Title V, as well Title XX, which both protect children and their health. (par. 6) In 2017, the National Right to Life News pointed out that there's thousands of unethical abortions preformed where they remove intact, born-alive fetuses “often late-term -- in order to harvest their organs, without the use of proper procedural chemicals instead using a chemical “Digoxin”which is a round-about method to be documented as killing the fetus, without fully killing it, leaving it's cardiac systems fully functional as to make them sellable (par. 1-8). R. Alta Charo explains the scientific benefits fetal tissue provides. He notes that the stem cells provide insight on the vacines for chickenpox, polio, and rubella (par. 5).

How necessary was it to use the stem cells of fetal tissue to reach these conclusions? Was/is there any other way to research these kinds of diseases? Perhaps victims of these diseases who consent their bodies to be donated to science could have done the same thing. Most vaccines are just a dead strain of the virus it's preventing so your body's immune system can recognize it and then learn to fight off the disease. Why was fetal stem cells necessary to do this research in the first place? The fetus cannot consent to this research like a fully developed human can, why should the mother consent to the fetus being removed from the womb prematurely, still alive for it's organs to be harvested for research? It seems very barbaric.

He does note that fetal tissue research has not persuaded woman to get abortions (par. 7), however the pure unethical procedure of how these fetuses were harvested can hardly be stomached. Selling fetal tissue on the underground market or to universities and research facilities, fetuses being removed from the womb prematurely”partially living”to do research and tests on, doesn't seem to be in the best interest of children's health rights. It seems almost selfish to put the life of a child second to Reproductive Rights. There are numerous ways to prevent unintentional pregnancies, which is plenty compliant with Reproductive Rights.

A baby is not a baby until it comes out (Ludlow 3). This is a common phrase among those who object to defunding Planned Parenthood, and it isn't until 24 weeks that even the Pro-Choicers start to feel unconfutable. A fetus has a heartbeat at 6 weeks. By 12 weeks it has limbs, fingers and little toes. At 16 weeks it has teeth, bones, and can make faces, you can even tell the sex of the fetus. Then at 24 weeks a baby can move by kicking, punching, stretching, etc. At what point can we really determine what is and isn't a living baby? In hospitals, if a human has a heartbeat and brain function, they're technically alive, regardless of the rest of their body's functionality. By this definition, a 6-week-old fetus is a living baby. Yet there's people who stretch out the argument up until the baby can move, or even born to finally determine its right to live.

Under current proposed bills to defund Planned Parenthood, according to the National Rights to Life News in 2015, the funds that would have gone to Planned Parenthood would then be directed to community health centers (par. 7), that need more funding to provide lower cost general healthcare. Millions of tax-payers dollars would go back into the community, the way tax was meant to be used. In 2013, according to URGENT- Paul Ryan: GOP will defund Planned Parenthood in 2017, Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan promised that Republicans will try to re-distribute all government funding from Planned Parenthood, and this caused a 16-day shutdown in DC as President Obama and his Democratic following pushed to remove the bill (par. 1). In May 2017, as noted by "Congressional health-care bill 'defunds' Planned Parenthood", There was a temporary bill that blocked funds to Planned Parenthood, but has had no progress to become a law due to The American Civil Liberties Union threatening to take legal action, due to other points the act included (par. 2-3). The solution is to propose a bill that purely focuses on abortion, and the defunding of Planned Parenthood, leaving out all other topics surrounding woman's rights.

Millions of tax-payers dollars not only go directly to Planned Parenthood, but is also used for government-issued insurance. It's taken out of nearly everyone's paychecks, and they cover abortions, according to Planned Parenthood (par. 7). The government shouldn't cover anything with tax-payer's money that, according to Party Affiliation, updated in 2018, 28-67% (Gallup Inc. 1) of the population doesn't agree with, regardless of the issue. Tax money should go towards things that benefit the whole country. The whole county pays taxes, yet their money is going towards things that the whole country doesn't benefit, nor agree with. It doesn't seem moral to borderline force someone pay for something they do not agree with.

In summary, it is unrealistic to outlaw abortion all together, and there are times where the procedure is used for the safety of the fetus and/or the mother, and not just for a rash form of birth control. A more realistic approach to limit the procedure is to limit or eliminate government funding from Planned Parenthood, make it a matter of private funding between the patient and the clinic. Medicare, Medicaid, Obamacare, and other public insurances should not cover the procedure. The funds that would normally cover abortions could be redistributed to general public healthcare.

Cite this page