Skip to main content

Is Planned Parenthood too political?

The Washington Post published an article that suggests that all of the partisan wrangling over Planned Parenthood funding might have fatally damaged the public legitimacy of the organization. The article is informative. However, assuming its thesis is accurate, the author subtly seems to assign fault to Planned Parenthood itself for this current condition:
Planned Parenthood has become so embroiled in partisan politics that its mission to provide health care and family planning services to women is threatened.
I don't see how Planned Parenthood's quest to maintain government grants or to locate alternative forms of government funding by appealing to a political party that supports its mission is an improper foray into "partisan politics." Planned Parenthood only seems to be partisan because one political party has focused a lot of negative attention on them. If you ran an organization that became a bete noire of one political party, what would you do? Would you react defensively and look for love from the other major political party?  This is wrong?

Put another way, the Republican Party waged public war against Planned Parenthood and politicized it and then criticized the organization for defending itself against its public war and for being politicized. 

I do think that the head of Planned Parenthood, Cecile Richards, should not have temporarily joined the Obama campaign as an adviser. Beyond that, however, I don't blame an organization for aligning primarily with the political party that supports its efforts-- the National Rifle Association, or the AFL-CIO, for example.

An official with the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (the political action wing of the organization) put it well:
“We’re not on the side of a party,” she said. “We’re on the side of policy. And there’s just a clear, dramatic distinction between what President Obama has been committed to and delivered and what Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan have promised to destroy. So we don’t have a choice.”
A counterargument of sorts was made in the summer by Campbell Brown, who detailed in a New York Times op-ed what she saw as a pattern of self-destructive partisanship by Planned Parenthood even before the major Republican push to pull funding from the organization. I think Brown is persuasive in arguing that the political wing of Planned Parenthood has not always made the best tactical decisions and has overreacted to the behavior of potential allies. But these are not the actions that have caused Planned Parenthood to be publicly labeled as "politicized" and "controversial." Instead, primary blame lies with Republicans, who have themselves overreacted to the relatively small part of Planned Parenthood's work (3%) that focuses on abortion, to the detriment of many women who don't care as much about abortion as they do cancer screenings and family planning.

Links:

Article in the Washington Post (October 20, 2012): Planned Parenthood's funding is targeted in partisan debates

Op-ed in The New York Times by Campbell Brown that criticizes Planned Parenthood for being partisan (June 23, 2012): Planned Parenthood's Self-Destructive Behavior

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Spontaneous miscarriage and the morality of abortion

Hello, everyone! I have been away from the blog for a while, during a period of great activity regarding reproductive politics. So let's get back to discussing this always-interesting topic.  In reading an essay by Gary Gutting (subject of a separate post), I followed a link to this blog post by philosopher Peter Smith.  He wonders why intentional termination of an early pregnancy is more morally consequential than a spontaneous early miscarriage (which occurs in roughly 30% of conceptions). What he is really doing is calling attention to a perceived hypocrisy by pro-life advocates: If unborn are valuable humans from the moment of conception, why isn't there more of an outcry over the heavy loss of human life by natural miscarriage? If the value of the unborn is equal across all situations, Smith suggests, then this apparent lack of concern over natural miscarriage indicates that opposition to abortion, at least early in pregnancy, is about something else.  ...