- The Washington Times - Monday, February 21, 2011

Planned Parenthood Federation of America is in its 95th year of existence, and like other well-seasoned entities, it seems to be in a fight for its life, at least as far as federal funding goes.

As always, I will refrain from expressing an opinion on abortion.

But as a public service, I would like to recap some highlights of the House of Representatives’ debate on an amendment to eliminate “any and all” federal funding to Planned Parenthood and its 102 affiliates.

The amendment passed Friday, with a bipartisan vote of 240-185, as part of the House Appropriations Committee’s bill to fund the government for the rest of fiscal 2011.

Arguments for passage:

• “Nobody is saying that Planned Parenthood can’t continue to be the largest abortion provider in America. But why do tens of millions of pro-life Americans have to pay for it?” — Rep. Mike Pence, Indiana Republican and sponsor of the amendment.

• “I want to reiterate that Planned Parenthood has received $363.2 million in taxpayer funding as of its 2009 annual report, one-third of their $1 billion income. During that same time period, Planned Parenthood-supported clinics performed over 324,000 abortions, and this is by their own accounting. Federal taxpayers should not be asked to subsidize these actions.” — Rep. Larry Bucshon, Indiana Republican.

• “Planned Parenthood has recently made plain the centrality of abortion to its mission, mandating that every affiliate have at least one clinic performing abortions within the next two years.” — Rep. Martha Roby, Alabama Republican.

• “Planned Parenthood isn’t about health. It’s about profit.” — Rep. Vicky Hartzler, Missouri Republican.

• “For the sake of abortion, Planned Parenthood holds itself above the law, ignoring mandatory reporting requirements, skirting parental consent, and aiding and abetting child sex trafficking.” — Rep. Jean Schmidt, Ohio Republican.

• “Plenty of family planning services outside of Planned Parenthood exist to help families seeking direction, care and counsel. These ethically sound places and services deserve a portion of funds to continue their much-needed and well-respected services.” — Rep. Todd Rokita, Indiana Republican.

• “I must admit I am certainly disappointed that our Supreme Court claims that there is a right to abortion. We do know there is no right to the public treasury; there is no right to the taxpayer dollar; there is no right to demand that Americans front this organization with their taxpayer money.” — Rep. Tim Huelskamp, Kansas Republican.

Arguments for defeat:

• “This amendment has nothing to do with the deficit. It is an attack by one congressman on one organization.” — Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Connecticut Democrat.

• “This amendment is not merely anti-choice. It is also anti-health, anti-woman and anti-poor and is a thinly veiled attack on birth control.” — Rep. Carolyn Maloney, New York Democrat.

Story Continues →