Defund planned parenthood

I hope that we both find our conversation to be productive and enlightening. Per the rules, I'll be making my affirmative case for maintaining funding for Planned Parenthood in this round. I'll respond to my opponent's specific arguments (particularly, the "fungibility" argument and my response to the video) in my Round 3 rebuttals I'll start by defining the scope of this debate with greater precision. The resolution is "Defund Planned Parenthood. " My opponent, citing the Rand Paul bill and the Hyde Amendment, is specifically focused on defunding PP on a federal level. PP also receives state funding in many states - including for abortion specifically. [1] I presume my opponent opposes this state-level funding as well, but for the sake of keeping the topic manageable within space and time constraints, I will focus solely on federal funding for PP as well. Let me also note that this is not a debate about the morality of abortion, but simply from a public policy standpoint whether it is better policy to continue funding PP at existing federal level, or to remove that funding. PP receives federal funds in two ways. The first is through Title X spending, which provides contraceptive care, STD screening, cancer screenings, pelvic health exams, and related health services. [2] These funds may not be used to provide abortion services. [3] PP also receives federal funds through Medicaid, for low-income individuals. They provide similar services under Medicaid, though some of these funds can be used to cover an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or medical danger to the life of the mother. [1] This funding should be maintained for two reasons: 1) Preventative family planning services reduces the need for abortions. The root cause of abortion is simple: unintended pregnancy. Regardless of whether abortion is permitted or restricted by local laws, women worldwide will obtain abortions - legally or illegally - to terminate unplanned pregnancies. [4] Unplanned pregnancies account for 90% of abortions performed in the US, and about half of all unplanned pregnancies end in abortion. [5] The contraceptive and family planning services provided by Planned Parenthood under federal funding significantly reduces the number of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, especially among women with few financial resources. By preventing these pregnancies in the first place, this federal spending is one of the most effective policies in place for reducing the number of abortions in the United States. PP estimates that its contraceptive coverage prevents approximately 515,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and likewise prevents 216,000 abortions that would otherwise be sought to terminate those pregnancies. [6] Cut funding to PP's contraceptive coverage, and the number of unintended pregnancies - and proportionately, demand for abortion services - will increase. I'll also caution that one should not assume that women who currently obtain contraceptive care at PP could easily obtain it elsewhere. Already, access and cost barriers are the primary reason many women who do not use modern contraceptives consistently are unable to do so. [5] About three-quarters of PP clinics are in rural, medically-underserved areas. [7] We already have a good test case - Texas defunded PP significantly in 2011, and unintended pregnancy skyrocketed. In order to provide comparable levels of services, other clinics in the state would need to increase case loads by 2 to 5 times their existing cases. [8] This is an untenable strain on already over-burdened clinics that serve the poor. 2) Funding for PP saves taxpayer money Pregnancy costs money, and when a pregnant woman is on Medicaid, taxpayers shoulder her medical expenses. When a child is born into a family with few resources, taxpayers also subsidize food purchases, childhood medical care, and a host of other services. Thus, every tax dollar invested in contraceptive care which prevents unintended pregnancies saves taxpayer money down the line - the Brookings Institute conservatively estimates at least $5 in savings for every dollar spent. [9] Funding PP is therefore good fiscal government, and defunding PP would be a shortsighted move that would cost taxpayers at least 5 times what they purportedly saved down the road. Thank you, Pro - I await your rebuttal. [1] . http://www.guttmacher.org... [2] . http://www.hhs.gov... [3] . http://www.guttmacher.org... [4] . http://www.guttmacher.org... [5] . https://thenationalcampaign.org... [6] . http://plannedparenthood.org... [7] . http://www.huffingtonpost.com... [8] . http://www.motherjones.com... [9] . http://www.psmag.com...