Hillary Clinton's Statement on Scott Walker and Planned Parenthood is False.

I thank Con profusely for his acceptance, and I look forward to a great debate with a great opponent. What Makes a “False” Statement?: According to the Politifact rating system (as I noted in round 1), a statement is False when it is defined by the phrase “This statement is not accurate” [1]. But, a little more context is needed than that. Let’s look at another “False” rating by Politifact. http://www.politifact.com... When we look at the fact check above, we see that the rating is False. Why? Because of the word “irrefutable.” Reed said that the social science was beyond refutable that gay couples raise children worse than straight couples. The reason I use this fact-check to prove my point is that I actually e-mailed Politifact describing my issues with it. The e-mail can be read here [2]. The author of the article, Aaron Sharockman, described to me why he gave the statement a false rating: “In this case, Reed is guilty of failing to prove his statement correct. And in the absence of that, it's inaccurate. This is very much a different way of doing things than the American judicial system, but it's how PunditFact operates. Put simply, don't know does not equal Half True. Reed said the science was irrefutable, and it's clearly not.” So, while the subject of Reed’s statement has contestable information, Reed was false in saying that it was clear and “irrefutable.” He called something clear and evident that was nebulous, at best; his wording was far too overzealous. That takes us to the next part of my focus. The Scope of Clinton's Statement: A large part of this debate will most certainly hinge on the word “stranded.” As noted, being stranded implies that one is left without the means to move from somewhere, and can’t find the help they need anywhere. “Nowhere to turn,” is also an important phrase use by Clinton that is important to note. “Nowhere” is a rather strong word, implying that women in the state have nothing to support them, and have nothing and nowhere to to go. Basically, Clinton calls these women in the state helpless and unable to find care anywhere. The Defunding in Wisconsin: I just want to make a quick note to clarify how defunding Planned Parenthood (PP) worked out in Wisconsin. PP get’s it’s funding from three sources: a direct federal grant, Medicaid, and an annual grant from the state. Walker defunded the only thing he had control over, that being the state grant. Walker cut $1.7 million (down from his $1.9 million proposal) from family planning services from the state, $1 million of that belonging to 9 different PP clinics. The defunding measure also changed state law and made it so agencies that perform abortion services couldn’t receive that annual state grant [3]. Problems With the Statement: 1. A critical argument many people who defend this statement bring up is that the defunding by Walker closed down 5 out of 9 PP’s receiving state money, leaving women who relied on the care around that area effectively stranded, especially if they are poor. The largest problem I see with this form of reasoning is that PP’s still exist in Wisconsin, and so other health providers and Community Health Centers. As Politifact noted, there are currently still 22 PP's in the state of Wisconsin [3]. On top of that, there are numerous Community Health Centers (CHC’s), which provide the same type of care as PP (without abortions) [4] and are present in Wisconsin with 17 different CHC’s, encompassing 70 sites and serving 271,222 patients [5]. There is care all over Wisconsin for women (and men) who need it, and they are by no means stranded; they have plenty of places to turn. 2. Another big facet Politifact failed to factor in was the fact that the defunded $1.7 million went to other family planning services. As Politifact noted: “It’s important to note that the reduced amount of state funding for family planning services -- $1.7 million -- was still allocated for family planning and the other services Clinton cited. And Walker’s campaign pointed out that the state has continued to fund another program that pays for mammograms, Pap tests and other health screenings.” There are still family planning services being provided by the state in Wisconsin; those funds didn’t just disappear. It just went instead towards services that didn’t include abortion procedures. Women, as noted before, still have places to turn for all of the services Clinton mentioned. 3. The example Politifact turned to to show that women are stranded were women who went to the PP clinic in “...Shawano, which had been open for 34 years, were referred to a facility in Green Bay -- nearly 40 miles away. Most of the patients received discounted services because of their income.” With this example, I would hope that it is noted that the “facility in Green Bay” is another PP, not a CHC, which are present, as I previously noted, in over 70 locations all across the state. I checked, and there is a CHC in Shawano which offers “Women's Health Clinic Services” [6]. Politifact is simply glossing over how present these CHC’s are and how they also provide care. Even if the women still wanted to go to PP, in the grand scheme of things, 40 miles is not that far of a distance to travel. The average MPG of cars in the U.S. is 25.4 [7]. A trip to and from the PP clinic is 80 miles in total. Using that, and the knowledge that the average price of gas in Wisconsin is about $2.58 (this may change depending on when you read this) [8], we can figure out how much it would cost. (80/25.4)*2.58=8.13 On average, about $8.13 to drive there and back. Of course, there are other things I should factor in, but this is something women had time to adjust to as well. The closing of the 5 clinics happened over 3 years according to the article; they could work to adjust their lives to accommodate this. Again, even ignoring CHC’s, whose ubiquity I have constantly stressed, for a basic price of $8.13 in traveling costs, can women in the state really be called “stranded” with “nowhere to turn” for these services? I would think not. 4. Another way to look at the statement asking the following: was it Walker who caused these women to be stranded? Walker assigned the following ultimatum: choose to not receive your grant from the state, or stop performing abortion services. Walker, albeit while he gave the ultimatum, put a choice in PP clinics, which decided to close down and not simply stop performing services they already receive no federal funding or Medicaid funding for in the first place [9]. Also, as Politifact noted in the article, “On the other hand, most of the revenues generated for the services that those clinics provided came from sources other than the state.” This means that, even though the fund ran out, the PP still had a multitude of revenue coming in from other places than that state grant. So, with the failure to do something as basic as change their services for something they receive no money from the state for (thus costing the PP administration more from them, essentially saving money by not doing these services) and with the failure of the PP administrators and the PP financiers to manage the still multitude of revenue still coming in towards PP, is Walker to blame, or is an inept business model utilized by PP? 4 of the clinics seemed to managed decently without the grant from the state; why could the other 5? 5. A final problem with this is that no woman, or person in the state of Wisconsin, is ever really stranded. When I think of the word “stranded,” I most often consider a person stuck on a island in the middle of the ocean with no means to physically leave. Women in the state of Wisconsin are not stranded in a broad sense. Even if CHC’s don’t exist in ubiquitous quantities, and Walker made PP illegal in the entire state of Wisconsin, women can still leave the state. No one is forcing them to be there, and they aren’t trapped by anything physical, so how can they be called stranded? How can they have no where else to turn when 49 other states and 190(ish) countries exist? This isn’t my main point against Clinton’s statement, but I think it’s a valid one at least worth noting. In a broad sense, no woman, nor person, in Wisconsin is stranded by this defunding measure, as they can always turn and go elsewhere for health help. Conclusion: Clinton’s statement simply ignores too many things and thus goes too far. It ignores: -The ubiquitous presence of CHC’s and other health providers, which provide the same types of services to women. -The fact that there still are 22 PP’s in Wisconsin. -The grants and money not given to PP were allocated to other family planning services for women. -PP still received a multitude of revenue from other sources besides the state. -PP still receives federal grants and funding from Medicaid. -PP administrators are the ones who were unable to comply with the new laws, and were the one’s who continued to perform services they received no state, federal, or Medicaid funding from. -4 PP’s that received state funding and lost it did not close down, which leaves up to question why the 5 which closed down did. -The relatively low cost of traveling to a different PP. -How women had time (3 years) to adjust to the 5 PP’s closing down it’s doors. Clinton’s statement also just goes too far in it’s wording. “Stranded” is a physical impossibility with the action Walker did, considering no one is physically without the means to do something as a result, and both “Stranded” and “Nowhere to turn” are far too overly-dramatic and overzealous in their description. Just as Reed’s statement on gay parenting is false, Clinton’s statement is as well. Clinton said the women were stranded when they weren't and had nowhere to turn when they clearly did. I affirm the resolution, and rate Clinton’s statement False. Over to Con. Sources: http://www.debate.org...