MINNESOTA- Legislators at the capitol proposed a bill on April 18th that would take away state family planning dollars. The GOP wants to curtail abortions rights in the state, and is targeting clinics like Planned Parenthood that provide or refer abortion services.
This is the 12th bill the Republicans have proposed that would put a large amount of restrictions on family planning services, especially Planned Parenthood. The bill demands that no state funding can be given to organizations that offer abortion services, advocate for abortion rights, or counsel pregnant women about abortion as an option. In addition, there will not be any funding for places that simply mention or refer women to abortion services, even if they are overtly seeking such services. While the House passed the bill in Washington, it was not passed by the Senate.
"I know that Minnesota needs to make severe budget cuts," says Nicole Kline, a senior at Eastview. "But Planned Parenthood helps so many people receive services they could not access or afford elsewhere".
Indeed, in Minnesota, most family planning funding actually goes to public health departments or smaller Planned Parenthoods that do not perform abortions. But with this bill, any organization that has “the same or a similar name” to one that provides, advocates, or refers abortion services would also be stripped of funding.
"No, it doesn't affect me. But I think Planned Parenthood is needed for [women] that can’t afford services that it provides. I don’t think it should be cut. But I do have issues with anything abortion-related funded by taxpayers." John Dorcy explains.
Even if Minnesotans are anti-abortion, the truth is this: in Planned Parenthood's annual report for 2009, 97% of services were those other than abortions. Thirty-five percent of them were contraception, 34% being STD testing and treatment, and 17% for cancer screenings and prevention. If the bill passes, many of these lifesaving benefits will no longer be state funded.
Emily Hegland, an 18 year-old Minnesotan says, "I’m very against the bill. Our government’s priority is to help citizens with health. People will use the services whether they’re funded or not, so it’s better to have the government than the back alley and a coat hanger."
(edits from Emily Hegland and Averi Haugesag will be posted)
No comments:
Post a Comment