Home » Opinion » Letters to Editor » Letter to the Editor: Think economically before defunding Planned Parenthood

Letter to the Editor: Think economically before defunding Planned Parenthood

Planned Parenthood is located at 18 East 17th Ave, Columbus Ohio. Credit: Muyao Shen | Assistant Photo Editor

Planned Parenthood is located at 18 E. 17th Ave. in Columbus, Ohio. Credit: Muyao Shen | Assistant Photo Editor

Cancer screenings, STD testing, contraception, abortions and health services all are offered by doctors’ offices and hospitals.  However, they also are offered by Planned Parenthood — an organization people cannot stop talking about.

Recently, controversial videos of what Planned Parenthood has done with fetal tissue have sparked a debate about whether Planned Parenthood should continue to receive public funding. Without federal aid to Planned Parenthood, many middle- and lower-income individuals would not receive the medical care and contraception they need.

Although faced with many doubts and criticisms, family-planning organizations like Planned Parenthood improve our economy. Funding will continue to reduce poverty, increase income and overall boost the economy.  

The hardest and most controversial aspect of supporting Planned Parenthood lies in debunking the myth that the organization solely spends its funding on abortions. In the organization’s 2013-14 annual report, it states that 42 percent was used for STD/STI screenings, 34 percent for contraception, 11 percent for various health issues, 9 percent for cancer screenings and only 3 percent for abortions. The 3 percent of abortions is not funded by federal funding. The 34 percent used for contraception vastly assists the economy.

In a recent Guttmacher Institute study of women who receive contraception from Planned Parenthood, 63 percent reported that it allows them to take better care of their families. In the same study, 56 percent claimed that public contraception allowed them to take care of themselves financially. Issues like unplanned pregnancies and overcrowding in homes can lead to poverty when women are not financially stable. More women can enter the workforce when they are able to plan their families. In the 1970s when birth control became widely available, there was a 30 percent growth for women in skilled careers.

Family-planning organizations do not aid just women but also their children. Children born after the onset of Planned Parenthood were more likely to live in higher-income homes. They were 15 percent less likely to live in a home that received public assistance and were 4 percent less likely to live in a home with a single parent, according to a September 2015 article in The Atlantic.

What is the most important in this case is understanding federal costs versus federal benefits. In 2014, Planned Parenthood received $528.4 million in government funds. However, half of all births in the United States are paid for by public insurance. In 2010, the government expenditures on unplanned pregnancies including births, miscarriages and abortions totaled $21 billion, according to a March 2015 Guttmacher Institute news release. The cost of funding Planned Parenthood is substantially less than covering the costs of not having it as a resource.

In 2015, abortion rates have fallen. This is due to the contraception available that was mandated in President Barack Obama’s health-care law. Fewer abortions equal better family planning for women. Better family planning for women equals more women receiving higher education and entering high-income career fields.

The federal funding that Planned Parenthood receives allows women to plan their families, which increases income for women and boosts the market. The cost of unplanned pregnancies on the federal government is greater than what it gives to Planned Parenthood, which would only hurt the economy if it was entirely defunded. Protesting, contacting your local representative, and becoming more informed are all ways Planned Parenthood can receive funding. Defunding Planned Parenthood would be an economic mistake, thus funding must continue.  


Hannah Collins

Third-year in public affairs

John Glenn College Campus Ambassador


  1. So, Hanna, just how much is that baby’s murder (let’s call it what it actually is) worth to you? What value do you put on a human life?

    Your letter is so fraught with inconsistencies and non-sequitors I’m not sure where to start. Let’s try with just a few.

    You say that only 3% of PP’s annual budget is spent on The War on Babies (ie, abortion), and further that “The 3 percent of abortions is not funded by federal funding.” Can you actually believe that absolutely no co-mingling of funds takes place within the overall budget of PP? If you want to buy an item that you really want that costs $100 and you have $1,000 available with which to buy it, that is not a problem. However, of that $1,000 that you have, $5 came from your parents who said that the did not want you to spend it on that $100 item that you really want. You shrug your shoulders and say “Fine!” I still have $995 that is available with which to buy it, and I can simply use the $5 I got from Mom and Dad to pay my other bills. It’s called co-mingling of funds. Same shell game that PP is using.

    Next you state “In 2015, abortion rates have fallen. This is due to the contraception available that was mandated in President Barack Obama’s health-care law.” What is your evidence that the drop in abortion rates is due to Obamacare, and not due to the public’s increasing awareness of the catastrophic results of the left’s War on Babies and the disgust from realizing just what happens in an abortion? Sorry, lady, but your attempt to link your two statements just does not stand the smell test.

    I could go on and on, but I think (at least I hope) you are starting to get the point of the many fallacies in your letter and your logic. I leave you with just one lingering question that I asked at the beginning — what dollar amount do you place on your own life? Suppose your mother decided for economic reasons that she had to decide between allowing you to be born vs having some money to buy a nicer dress. How much money would YOU have been willing to offer her to allow you to be born rather than be aborted?

    • BobR,

      If you received a diploma from OSU, tear it up. You didn’t learn anything. You certainly don’t know the meaning of the words “inconsistencies and non-sequiturs,” let alone the spelling.

      You can call a ham sandwich a baby, that doesn’t make it one. I assume your religion informs your views on this subject. Good thing we aren’t a theocracy. Your bible says nothing against abortion and actually gives pretty specific instructions on how to have one.

      You also have no idea what laws or accounting are. Funds are attached to associated accounts. If there are no funds in that account, nothing can be bought from that account. Parents don’t have laws like that, the government does. And they check.

      Abortion rates have been falling for some time now. It seems reasonable that greater access to contraception would lead to lower rates of unwanted pregnancies and therefore fewer abortions. That should smell pretty good to anybody.

      You could go on, but you didn’t. Because you can’t. No one has an abortion to buy a nicer dress. The remarkable stupidity of that statement needs no amplification.

      My earliest memories are of kindergarten, so if I had been aborted I’d never know about it.

      Have fun storming the castle.

      • fond memories of childhood

        Really you cannot remember anything from your childhood before kindergarten? I find that hard to believe. You must have had a terrible childhood

  2. Hanna, have you considered that we now have ObamaCare to cover those things you mention such as cancer screenings, STD testing, contraception, and other health care items. Why do we need to fund Planned Parenthood if we are also funding ObamaCare? Seems to me we are paying for the same services twice…

  3. Excellently written.

  4. Hannah, look up the founder of Planned ParentHood, Margaret Sanger. She was not a nice person and advocated for eugenics which was a prelude to what Hitler wanted to do. She also spoke at KKK rallys. Is this what the left idolizes??

  5. Economically speaking, it would be more effective to shift the funds from Planned Parenthood clinics to the thousands of other non-abortion Women’s and Children’s Clinics found in every State. The ones that actually provide medical services to the poor and destitute instead of funding extravagant salaries and benefits to the PP management aka 1%ers!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.