Quote:
Originally Posted by genuinegirly
Wow... just... wow.
Congress wants to cut all funding to Planned Parenthood in a rush vote this weekned.
Will the rest of the medical community in low-income areas be prepared to tackle the needs of those who use Planned Parenthood for preventative medicine?
|
From the article cited in the original post:
Quote:
|
For every dollar spent on contraception for low-income women, the government saves four dollars in medical costs within the next year by averting unwanted pregnancies, said Ms. Cohen of the Guttmacher Institute.
|
over the weekend I watched a documentary based on the book Freakonmics. They did a segment on the drop in crime statistics starting in the 90's and correlated the drop, among other things, with the legalization of abortion in the 70's. If true the $1 to $4 savings may be underestimated. However, and I do plan on reading the book now, what was missing is the root cause of the increasing rime rates starting from the 60's - my guess is that there was an increase in unwed child births due to the war on poverty and the growth of the "welfare state".
I know to some the above appears to be some random bits of information, but to me it begs the question. Is continued investment in Planned Parenthood the best use of government dollars? My gut tells me it is not.
I find compelling, the argument that Planned Parenthood's approach of tolerance with no questions asked is actually more harmful to society than it is helpful. At the extreme, the thought that a 40 year old man can drop off a 14 year old girl to get an abortion no questions asked, bothers me a lot. If funding continues at the very least they need to change some of their rules.