Quantcast
Connect with us

Trump and Pence are recycling a policy fragment from the Reagan administration to attack women’s rights

Published

on

- Commentary

Last month, the U.S. administration officially announced its intention to block federal family planning funds for organizations that provide abortion referrals. President Donald Trump and his anti-choice Vice-President Mike Pence first presented the idea last spring.

If successful, it would mean a dramatic drop in funding for Planned Parenthood and restricted access for individuals to health services at Planned Parenthood clinics. There is nothing original about this policy move: it is old and tired. It is also harmful to the citizens of the United States.

ADVERTISEMENT

Planned Parenthood is a century-old organization, based on the first contraception clinic in Brooklyn, N.Y. Founded by public health nurse Margaret Sanger, her sister Ethel Byrne and activist Fania Mindell in 1916, it was the inspiration for the Planned Parenthood Federation of America formed decades later.

Planned Parenthood occupies a central role in the provision of comprehensive sexuality education and reproductive services for American women.

Approximately 20 per cent of women in the U.S. will rely on a service performed by Planned Parenthood in her lifetime. Nearly half of its client base is related to sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment, with another 27 per cent for contraception.

This means about three-quarters of Planned Parenthood Federation’s caseload is related to sexual health. Only three per cent of its client base visits it for abortion-related services.

At least 60 per cent of Planned Parenthood clients use either Medicaid funding or Title X.

ADVERTISEMENT

Title X

Designed in 1970, and supported by both Democrats and Republicans (and Republican President Richard Nixon) to prioritize the needs of low-income families or uninsured people, Title X is the only federal grant program that provides individuals with comprehensive family planning and related preventive health services.

Title X “requires counsellors in federally funded family planning clinics to provide a woman facing an unintended pregnancy with non-directive counselling on all of her options and with referrals for services upon request.”

In the U.S., it has been the most comprehensive and effective source of public funds for reproductive rights care. Unlike the more restrictive Medicaid health-care program for those below the poverty line, Title X has no eligibility criteria.

ADVERTISEMENT

Almost half (42 per cent) of clients accessing Title X-funded clinics have no health insurance, 38 per cent are covered by Medicaid and 19 per cent have private health insurance, according to the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association. More than 50 per cent of Title X patients identify as Black or Latino.

Recycling old policies

Trump and Pence have recycled a policy fragment from the end days of the Reagan administration.

ADVERTISEMENT

In 1988, the secretary of health issued a new regulation that prohibited Title X projects from engaging in counselling, referrals or activities that advocated abortion as a method of family planning. That 1988 law required all Title X projects “to maintain an objective integrity and independence from the prohibited abortion activities by the use of separate facilities, personnel and accounting records.”

During the conservative Congresses of the 1980s and 1990s, Title X family planning funding suffered severe cuts. By 1999, taking inflation into account, the program’s funding level was 60 per cent lower than it was in 1979.

But even with the funding cuts, as of 2016, Title X funded 91 family-planning service grantees, of which 43 were non-profit clinics such as Planned Parenthood.

ADVERTISEMENT

In 1988, after the first iteration of the anti-Title X domestic “gag rule” was announced, a coalition of pro-choice groups, including Planned Parenthood, challenged it in court.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court’s 1991 Rust v. Sullivan decision granted deference to the secretary’s interpretation of Title X, citing “lack of Congressional intent in the legislative history.”

In affirming the District Court’s grant of summary judgment to the secretary, the Court of Appeals held that the regulations were a permissible construction of the statute and consistent with the First and Fifth Amendments.

After the Rust vs. Sullivan decision, both houses of Congress voted to overturn the domestic gag rule. However, President George H.W. Bush vetoed the vote.

ADVERTISEMENT

In January 1993, in his first week in office, President Bill Clinton repealed it and the restrictive interpretation never had a chance to become fully implemented. However, both Pence and Trump wish to reactivate it now.

Given the Supreme Court precedent and the current makeup of the Supreme Court, it is likely this iteration of the domestic gag rule will become policy.

While pro-choice groups have already announced challenges, the court’s history of interpretation on the gag rule doesn’t bode well for those supporting reproductive choices and access for all.The Conversation

By Melissa Haussman, Professor of Political Science, Carleton University

ADVERTISEMENT

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.


Report typos and corrections to: [email protected].
READ COMMENTS - JOIN THE DISCUSSION
Continue Reading

Breaking Banner

‘Naked, unapologetic and insidious’ corruption: Dems respond to Trump’s official statement on impeachment trial

Published

on

Impeachment managers House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., left, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and other mangers are seen arriving to the Senate before Schiff read the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on the Senate floor on Thursday, January 16, 2020. (Photo: Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

Responding to President Donald Trump's official answer to the impeachment charges against him now facing trial in the U.S. Senate, the Democratic House Managers assigned to prosecute the case rejected Sunday morning the president's claim his conduct was "perfect" by saying there is "a different word for it: impeachable."

Continue Reading

2020 Election

One-term presidents: Will Donald Trump end up on this ignominious list?

Published

on

Donald Trump has many hardcore fans and many, many detractors. It's certainly possible he will be re-elected, but also clearly plausible that he will be a one-term president. General election polls have generally found him trailing in a head-to-heat matchup with either former Vice President Joe Biden or Sen. Bernie Sanders, and roughly even with Mayor Pete Buttigieg, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Sen. Elizabeth Warren. It would be folly to say that he is definitely going to lose, to be sure, but it is equally foolish to act as if he has victory in the bag.

Continue Reading
 

Breaking Banner

All the president’s grifters

Published

on

Welcome to another edition of What Fresh Hell?, Raw Story’s roundup of news items that might have become controversies under another regime, but got buried – or were at least under-appreciated – due to the daily firehose of political pratfalls, unhinged tweet storms and other sundry embarrassments coming out of the current White House.

One of Donald Trump's great gifts is an instinct for surrounding himself with people who are so sleazy and lacking in credibility that when they're indicted for some scam or flip on him and reveal his abuses of power they're easy to discredit.

Continue Reading
 
 
Help Raw Story Uncover Injustice. Join Raw Story Investigates for $1 and go ad-free.
close-image