Planned Parenthood Debate Analysis
According to Dreier and Atlas (2012), Planned Parenthood was at the forefront of the effort to protect “access to abortion coverage in the private health insurance market as part of the 2010 health care reform law” (p. 91). There are many stakeholders involved in this issue, who often feel passionately about one side of the argument. For example, male and female citizens, religious groups, policymakers, Planned Parenthood, and other special interest groups are all involved in discussion about abortion, and whether Federal Government funds should be allocated to groups that perform abortion services. Politicians on the conservative (typically republican) side tend to oppose the practice and legality of abortion, while liberal politicians (typically Democrats) tend to value women’s choice in terminating pregnancy. It is a topic that is discussed in public official elections unfailingly. American opinions fall all along the spectrum between extremes. Citizens with extremely liberal views may believe abortion should be a woman’s choice and that the Federal Government should fund organizations that provide this service. On the opposite end, extremely conservative citizens may feel that abortion should be completely illegal, and
…show more content…
if it is not, at least the Federal Government should not fund the action.
Group Theory In Relation to the Policy Area: According to Kraft and Furlong (2015), “group theory sees public policy as the product of a continuous struggle among organized interest groups” (p. 79). Pluralists, or also known as proponents of group theory, believe that the policymaking process is largely determined by the constant push and pull of opposing interest groups using any means possible to gain greater access (Kraft & Furlong, 2015). As touched on above, interest groups on both sides of the abortion debate, especially when it comes to legislation surrounding the issues, attempt to gain access to the policymaking process by showing support to candidates they hope to influence to vote a specific way. “Support” can range from creating advertisements to show preference for a candidate to donating much-needed funds to their chosen candidates’ campaigns. For example, Senator Roger Wicker sponsored the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 (Congress.gov) received great support from the group, National Right to Life. Consistent with what was discussed by Kraft and Furlong (2015) about groups with greater financial resources and access often having increased access to the policymaking process, it is clear that certain groups on both sides of the issue have power and consistently fight to dominate policy surrounding the issue. For example, the pro-choice group, NARAL displays the success it has had on influencing elections. On its webpage, it lists the candidates that it has endorse that have subsequently been elected into congress. Further, as a top-leading pro-choice group, as well as reproductive health provider, Planned Parenthood is consistently influential in the abortion policy area.
Pro-life
There are special interest groups on both sides of this polarizing issue, whom contribute time and money to support candidates who take the same position on the issue.
A few examples of pro-life special interest groups include the Campaign for Working Families, National Right to Life, and Center for Medical Progress of Los Angeles. These groups believe wholeheartedly that human life is created at the point of conception. These groups have made several efforts to “expose” Planned Parenthood for “wrongdoings” that could lead to the program being shut down or cut off from funding. For example, the Center for Medical Progress of Los Angeles released footage that allegedly “proved” that Planned Parenthood sold aborted remains for profit
(Friedman).
From visiting the websites of these groups, it is clear that they are highly outspoken about the candidates they support, and they proudly state that they contribute funds to the campaigns of individuals they back. Anti-abortion groups vehemently assert that other public, community health providers would be just as effective as Planned Parenthood in providing women’s health services (Devi, 2015), and fight to be heard. The National Right to Life’s website has an entire page dedicated to its legislative strategy, and gives advice to citizens on how to join their cause. The group uses its donations to educate the public on pro-life beliefs, to conduct research, and to support both pro-life legislation and candidates who hold pro-life beliefs (National Right to Life, n.d.).
Pro-Choice:
Planned Parenthood, the group at which this bill is targeted, report that abortions make up as little as 3% of the services they provide to women (Devi (2015)). While women of all ages and incomes seek services from the organization, both young and low-income individuals make up a large portion of Planned Parenthood’s patients (Devi, 2015). Additionally, Planned Parenthood’s most used services include STD testing and obtaining contraception (Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2014). Despite claims from defenders of the bill to drop Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood that women’s health could be easily distributed by other medical organizations, opponents feel strongly this is not the case. Discussing statements by Sara Rosenbaum, Devi (2015) explains that cutting off funding would be devastating to the millions of women who rely on services. Further, it is stated that making such a sudden, sweeping change in the receipt of women’s health services would highly affect access to new services (Devi, 2015). Another major pro-choice interest group includes NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to the group, it was named by Fortune as, “one of the top 10 advocacy groups in America” (NARAL Pro-Choice America, 2015b, p. 1). NARAL Pro-Choice America (2015) is a non-profit organization to which contributions are tax-deductible. According to the organization’s website, their aim is to educate Americans on the value of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, as well as provide information about which politicians will ensure abortion remains legal (NARAL Pro-Choice America, 2015). To demonstrate how strong the interest group has become, it has reach with both the political and corporate arenas. For example, NARAL has partnered with Amazon Smile, which donates 0.5% of customers’ purchases when they select the organization as their charity of choice (NARAL Pro-Choice America, 2015).
if it is not, at least the Federal Government should not fund the action.
Group Theory In Relation to the Policy Area: According to Kraft and Furlong (2015), “group theory sees public policy as the product of a continuous struggle among organized interest groups” (p. 79). Pluralists, or also known as proponents of group theory, believe that the policymaking process is largely determined by the constant push and pull of opposing interest groups using any means possible to gain greater access (Kraft & Furlong, 2015). As touched on above, interest groups on both sides of the abortion debate, especially when it comes to legislation surrounding the issues, attempt to gain access to the policymaking process by showing support to candidates they hope to influence to vote a specific way. “Support” can range from creating advertisements to show preference for a candidate to donating much-needed funds to their chosen candidates’ campaigns. For example, Senator Roger Wicker sponsored the Defund Planned Parenthood Act of 2015 (Congress.gov) received great support from the group, National Right to Life. Consistent with what was discussed by Kraft and Furlong (2015) about groups with greater financial resources and access often having increased access to the policymaking process, it is clear that certain groups on both sides of the issue have power and consistently fight to dominate policy surrounding the issue. For example, the pro-choice group, NARAL displays the success it has had on influencing elections. On its webpage, it lists the candidates that it has endorse that have subsequently been elected into congress. Further, as a top-leading pro-choice group, as well as reproductive health provider, Planned Parenthood is consistently influential in the abortion policy area.
Pro-life
There are special interest groups on both sides of this polarizing issue, whom contribute time and money to support candidates who take the same position on the issue.
A few examples of pro-life special interest groups include the Campaign for Working Families, National Right to Life, and Center for Medical Progress of Los Angeles. These groups believe wholeheartedly that human life is created at the point of conception. These groups have made several efforts to “expose” Planned Parenthood for “wrongdoings” that could lead to the program being shut down or cut off from funding. For example, the Center for Medical Progress of Los Angeles released footage that allegedly “proved” that Planned Parenthood sold aborted remains for profit
(Friedman).
From visiting the websites of these groups, it is clear that they are highly outspoken about the candidates they support, and they proudly state that they contribute funds to the campaigns of individuals they back. Anti-abortion groups vehemently assert that other public, community health providers would be just as effective as Planned Parenthood in providing women’s health services (Devi, 2015), and fight to be heard. The National Right to Life’s website has an entire page dedicated to its legislative strategy, and gives advice to citizens on how to join their cause. The group uses its donations to educate the public on pro-life beliefs, to conduct research, and to support both pro-life legislation and candidates who hold pro-life beliefs (National Right to Life, n.d.).
Pro-Choice:
Planned Parenthood, the group at which this bill is targeted, report that abortions make up as little as 3% of the services they provide to women (Devi (2015)). While women of all ages and incomes seek services from the organization, both young and low-income individuals make up a large portion of Planned Parenthood’s patients (Devi, 2015). Additionally, Planned Parenthood’s most used services include STD testing and obtaining contraception (Planned Parenthood Federation of America, 2014). Despite claims from defenders of the bill to drop Federal Funding for Planned Parenthood that women’s health could be easily distributed by other medical organizations, opponents feel strongly this is not the case. Discussing statements by Sara Rosenbaum, Devi (2015) explains that cutting off funding would be devastating to the millions of women who rely on services. Further, it is stated that making such a sudden, sweeping change in the receipt of women’s health services would highly affect access to new services (Devi, 2015). Another major pro-choice interest group includes NARAL Pro-Choice America. According to the group, it was named by Fortune as, “one of the top 10 advocacy groups in America” (NARAL Pro-Choice America, 2015b, p. 1). NARAL Pro-Choice America (2015) is a non-profit organization to which contributions are tax-deductible. According to the organization’s website, their aim is to educate Americans on the value of a woman’s right to choose what to do with her body, as well as provide information about which politicians will ensure abortion remains legal (NARAL Pro-Choice America, 2015). To demonstrate how strong the interest group has become, it has reach with both the political and corporate arenas. For example, NARAL has partnered with Amazon Smile, which donates 0.5% of customers’ purchases when they select the organization as their charity of choice (NARAL Pro-Choice America, 2015).