This post is based off of several articles that made the rounds over the summer concerning the investigation on Planned Parenthood's Services by the House of Representatives over the last few months, and is meant to be a response in part to Kasia's presentation "Evaluating Restrictions on Access to Abortion".
In Rachael Larimore's ""The Most Meaningless Abortion Statistic Ever", the author argues against the idea that abortion makes up only about 3% of the services provided by Planned Parenthood, as Planned Parenthood does not "separate" their services provide, as well as the fact that abortions count for about 1/3 on PP's revenue. However, I would argue that in arguments against defunding PP, this number should not even matter.
By emphasizing the fact that abortion makes up such a small percentage of the services provided by PP, I think activists are sort of implying that the fewer abortions that occur, the better. Activists are very quick to discuss all of the women's health services provided by PP that they often ignore the central issue at hand: PP provides safe and inexpensive abortions. Republicans are not attempting to defund PP because it provides cheap pap smears or breast health exams, but because it is the easiest and safest way to get access to abortion, which they find morally reprehensible. By shifting the argument away from abortion, activists for PP essentially concede to the notion accepted by Republicans and other pro-life groups that abortion is morally reprehensible and should be either completely prevented or drastically reduced, which is not what these activists believe.
It is with this in mind that that I argue that advocates for Planned Parenthood should instead embrace the fact that PP provides a safe and accessible space to get an abortion, mainly because of the activists' central argument that abortion is morally permissible. If I thought that everyone had a moral right to play video games, I would not base my argument for keeping the local GameStop open at the mall around the statistical fact that only %20 of sales come from actual purchases of consoles, and abortion activists should not use this type of argument either. If PP advocates actually cared as little as they seemed to about access to abortion, they would be fine with the government continuing to fund PP provided that abortion services are no longer provided. However, I think that if this compromise was brought to the table, very few advocates would find it satisfactory. Advocates should not care either if PP performs 20 or 200,000 abortions a year, because to them, women have the right to an abortion. In summary, the emphasis on the statistics concerning abortion and PP removes the argument from moral debates, and therefore must be refocused.
So they're essentially employing one big red herring? That's a good point, but isn't their point in doing this that by cutting funds based off ONE SMALL service, they're cutting the funds for many more services that no one has agreements with?
ReplyDeleteWith your video game example, the analogy would be something like a group trying to shut down a GameStop because they're selling games like Call of Duty and Battlefield and other war games they think are morally wrong (they think these games promote violence). Well... Those are 2 games worth of sales from a store that sells a LARGE selection of other games and consoles and accessories. So, while it's not confronting the argument head-on, would I be wrong to say "Look if you shut this GameStop down we won't be able to get consoles that give us access to educational games or other games that improve our ability and critical thinking skills. Your focus on one small part is going to be harmful to a lot of other (really positive) parts."
It's not confronting the argument head-on, but is it a good point nonetheless? I guess I'm just wondering if people should abandon the argument they're currently making, or whether they should just ADD ON the argument you're recommending to their defense of PP. It seems like both arguments would be most likely to be effective.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteWOW. First paragraph: "... they're cutting funds for many more services no one has problems* with."
ReplyDeleteSecond paragraph at the end: "... or other games that improve our ability to form memories* and critical thinking skills."
I really need to proofread...
I agree with Steven that the main point of using that statistic in an argument against defunding Planned Parenthood is that it is supposed to highlight the fact that it would be ridiculous to defund an organization because of a tiny portion of their services. I agree that there are stronger arguments such as the fact that the abortions PP provides are safe and legal. Additionally, one of the most important points is that PP is not legally permitted to use any government funding towards providing any abortion services whatsoever (they are required to report how they use their funding- of course they could be indirectly using funding towards abortion services but "officially" they are not doing so). Following from this fact, it simply does not make sense for people to be arguing to defund PP to stop their abortion services since they do not even use funding for these procedures. It is evident that the push to defund PP is really just a step in a larger movement to closed clinics and prevent access to abortion. So, for these reasons I think it is crucial to point out that abortion is a small portion of PP services provided, but possibly more importantly that funding is not used towards these services.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Steven that the main point of using that statistic in an argument against defunding Planned Parenthood is that it is supposed to highlight the fact that it would be ridiculous to defund an organization because of a tiny portion of their services. I agree that there are stronger arguments such as the fact that the abortions PP provides are safe and legal. Additionally, one of the most important points is that PP is not legally permitted to use any government funding towards providing any abortion services whatsoever (they are required to report how they use their funding- of course they could be indirectly using funding towards abortion services but "officially" they are not doing so). Following from this fact, it simply does not make sense for people to be arguing to defund PP to stop their abortion services since they do not even use funding for these procedures. It is evident that the push to defund PP is really just a step in a larger movement to closed clinics and prevent access to abortion. So, for these reasons I think it is crucial to point out that abortion is a small portion of PP services provided, but possibly more importantly that funding is not used towards these services.
ReplyDelete