Skip to main content

North Dakota State University, Planned Parenthood, and academic freedom

Apparently, having Planned Parenthood linked to your university research is not a good idea.

An article in Insidehighered.com indicates that North Dakota State University bowed to political pressure in killing a $1.2 million federal grant to scientifically study comprehensive sex education programs-- in other words, sex education programs that would include information about contraception. Two NDSU professors won the grant after state government officials declined to apply for it:
The professors, Brandy Randall and Molly Secor-Turner, planned to use the three-year grant for a sexual education program for at-risk teens in the Fargo area, programming developed in partnership with the region’s Planned Parenthood office.
North Dakota State's president froze the grant for legal review-- but telegraphed the eventual outcome, which would be to kill the grant-- after conservatives got wind of it and started complaining, arguing that it violated state law:
The state’s code forbids federal funds passing through a state agency to be used as “family planning funds” by an organization that performs abortion. But the grant clearly stated that it would not be used for family planning, and it falls under a part of federal law over which judges ruled the state law had no jurisdiction.
The grant also avoids violating a state law that requires abstinence-only sex education in public schools:
A state law requires North Dakota public schools to promote abstinence in sex education. The Planned Parenthood/North Dakota State program, which would have included information about contraception as well as abstinence, would have been based in the community, not in schools, and participants would have needed parental permission. 
The rhetoric used by one of the complaining state representatives is interesting:
Bette Grande, a Republican representative, criticized the university for going against the legislature’s wishes in allowing its faculty to apply for a grant that the state had turned down, and threatened to cut the university’s funding in retaliation. “When I see something that says this is Planned Parenthood -- they’re not even a part of the state of North Dakota, and they shouldn’t be a part of North Dakota,” Grande said. “They’re not a part of how we do business in this state."
Representative Grande denies the possibility that anyone in North Dakota could actually be pro-choice, let alone a Planned Parenthood supporter or member. Planned Parenthood is the Other.

I find this perspective particularly interesting given that North Dakota is currently experiencing a wave of migration to the state due to the oil and gas boom there. If many of those boom-time people end up staying, the definition of who is "a part" of North Dakota may change, and one may see a modification of the state's political culture as one has seen in Nevada, North Carolina, Virginia, and other "purpling" states.

This looks like a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment, so this is an academic freedom issue as much as it is a reproductive politics issue. Pro-lifers don't like sex education programs that include contraceptive education as a matter of principle, so the effectiveness of comprehensive sex education per se is besides the point for pro-lifers. That being noted, this is going to come off as another example of a conservative 'war on science': if we have ideological reasons for opposing X, we will fight any attempt to empirically study the problem if we think that a careful study might reveal something we don't like.

Links:

Article in Insidehighered.com (January 18, 2013): Planned Parenthood, Political Pressure

Article in LifeNews.com (January 16, 2013): North Dakota Ends Partnership With Planned Parenthood
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
North Dakota does NOT have an abstinence-only state law.
February 7, 2013 at 1:08 PM
JD Fisher said…
Do you have some kind of citation or link you could send me? I'll do a little research myself.
February 8, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Post a Comment

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...
3 comments
Read more

A Catholic EU health commissioner

The European Union Parliament approved a controversial choice for their top health official: The European Parliament backed a devout Catholic as EU health commissioner on Wednesday, brushing off critics who fear the Maltese politician could row back on EU policies on stem cell research, abortion and gay rights. Greens, Liberals and Socialists in the European Parliament had said they would vote against Tonio Borg, a former foreign and justice minister in Malta, saying his beliefs could influence EU policy. As commissioner, Borg's remit would include access to healthcare and contraception and the control of sexually transmitted diseases. Borg, who was in Malta on the day of the vote according to an EU Commission official, told EU lawmakers before the vote that his personal views wou...
Post a Comment
Read more

Four ways the presidential election could change reproductive politics

Setting aside all of the claims and counterclaims of the candidates and all related white noise, there are four concrete ways that the 2012 presidential election could cause policy changes on abortion, contraception, and family planning. If Barack Obama is reelected, little will change. If Mitt Romney is elected, I predict the following: The contraceptive mandate, issued by the Department of Health and Human Services, would be withdrawn.  Barriers to defunding Planned Parenthood could be removed. As it is now, federal courts are stopping the complete defunding of the organization (i.e., withdrawing all federal funding) due to their interpretation of federal legislative language. With Romney as president, that language could be modified (assuming the changes could get past a Democratic Senate). The composition of the federal judiciary, particularly the United States Supreme Court, would be modified through appointments. If, say, Stephen Breyer or Ruth Bader Goldberg retired, ...
Post a Comment
Read more