Pros And Cons Of Planned Parenthood

On November 27, 2015, a man by the name of Robert Lewis Dear Jr. approached Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs, Colorado to kill everyone inside. Unable to enter the building, a five-hour standoff ensued which would ultimately lead to the death of a police officer, two civilians, and the injury of five police officers and four civilians (Benzel 2018). Dear’s motive? Anti-abortion. How ironic that a man who is against taking the life of an unborn fetus is perfectly okay with murdering innocent citizens in what he thinks is the equivalent to justice. This act of terrorism was fueled by hate and a deep Christian sentiment. Not only was this an attack on Planned Parenthood, but this was also an attack on women as a whole. This shooting was just one of the many instances where individuals (more so men), have this twisted conviction that they’re the guardian of women’s bodies–random women at that. Unfortunately, it doesn’t start nor end here.

Planned Parenthood has been plagued with condemnation since its creation in 1916 by Margaret Sanger. The political climate in which this organization was started was not amiable to the rights of women, nor markedly concerned with women’s individual health needs. Moreover, birth control was exceedingly restricted due to the Comstock laws which made contraception illegal (qt. in The Attack 173). Thus began the American mindset that a woman’s sole role and purpose in a marriage (or society as a whole) is to be that of a housewife or mother. The Comstock law criminalized any form of birth control or contraception, so essentially, women had no choice but to have children. Put into a broader standpoint, the contraceptive rights movement was propagated amongst a combative political backdrop.

Childbearing was an expected duty if you will. Regardless of any health complications, it may bring about, women’s bodies were seen as machines over which everybody but themselves had control. Even in the modern world, a woman who chooses not to have a child is looked upon as “wild” or “rebellious.” According to Dictionary.com, rebellion is defined as “showing a desire to resist authority, control, or convention” (Dictionary 2019). There is an issue right there. A woman not having a child is seen as unconventional or abnormal. Choosing not to have children is not rebellious, rather it is a simple decision that either suits your life or doesn’t. Piyasree Dasgupta from the Huffington Post said it best, “Not wanting to have a baby can't be changed by having one!” (Dasgupta 2016). The choice to be childless doesn't necessarily mean you dislike children. Rather it is most likely a rational understanding of what has a place in your life or what doesn't. Or even what you want to invest in and what you don't. So why not normalize not having a child?

The mid-nineteenth century welcomed the first birth control movement: initially coined “voluntary motherhood.” Endorsed by feminist suffragists Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Susan B. Anthony, they suggested that both husbands and wives stop having sex entirely to control the size of their families. However, this was quite obviously not practical and led to the movement being more focused on a woman’s right to reject sex with her partner. Although birth control and abortion were indeed utilized in the mid-nineteenth century, these procedures were, by all means, a social taboo. Unfortunately, the implementation of the Comstock Law in 1873 only intensified its negative image. As stated by Sarah Primrose in the article “The Attack on Planned Parenthood,” the Comstock Law made it a crime to “mail contraceptives, any information about contraceptives, or any information about how to find contraceptives” (qtd. in The Attack 173). Cited as “obscene,” the punishment for violators was one to ten years of hard labor with the possibility of a fine along with it. Interestingly, the law was highly favored by middle-class women who abided by conventional ideas of sexual morality. As stated by Hilary Hammell in the article, “Is the Right to Health a Necessary Precondition for Gender Equality?” 'Historically, childbearing was seen as a woman's duty, and the death and suffering that arose from that 'duty' were seen as 'destiny and divine will'” (Hammell 170).

In essence, demonstration of sexual restraint was associated with virtuous qualities for men and women. This is just another connotation from the past that somehow ended up in the present. To be virtuous is to be morally upright, or in simpler terms, a good person. It baffles me that we associate virtue with the number of sexual partners an individual has. It sounds absurd (because it is), but it is in fact true. For the same reasons, a woman who is known to have several sexual partners is more likely to be talked down upon or disrespected as opposed to a married woman. Or rather, a mother will tell her daughter not to hang out with a certain friend because she is “promiscuous” and her actions might “rub off'' on her. Am I a better person than my neighbor because I have only had one partner and she has had five? For all we know, she may have a bigger heart than me! This is just another reason why women have to fight for their own bodies. Imagine a world where women didn’t listen to men or even other women’s negative opinions. There would be relatively no slut-shaming because their words would not affect.

Lack of knowledge in women’s healthcare due to the anti-contraceptive climate proved to be disastrous in the late nineteenth century. “A 1917 survey of immigrants in New York's Lower East Side revealed that one third knew nothing about birth control methods other than abortion. This survey was augmented by a 1921 Stanford University study that calculated that one in every 1.7 to 2.3 pregnancies ended in abortion” (qtd. in The Attack 175). Mind you, abortion at the time was very much illegal and any abortion performed back then was undoubtedly self-induced through dangerous means. This includes: “Inserting knitting needles or coat hangers into the vagina and uterus, douching with solutions such as lye, or swallowing strong drugs or chemicals” (OBOS Abortion 2018).

As a nurse in New York's Lower East Side, Margaret Sanger was a witness to the peril of a society that forbids birth control. After witnessing an impoverished patient die from an infection due to self-induced abortion, Sanger vowed to change the destiny of future mothers. This inspired her journey to Europe in 1913 in which she studied birth control methods and met with druggists and midwives; this ultimately led to the term “birth control” being created as opposed to the mid-nineteenth century terminology “voluntary motherhood.” In 1916, the first contraceptive clinic was opened in the United States by Sanger. The clinic distributed contraceptives to immigrant women in a storefront in Brooklyn. The clinic was open for a mere ten days before being shut down by way of an undercover sting operation. Although the clinic was short-lived, within nine days 464 women were on file, making it an instant success. Meanwhile, Sanger was arrested numerous times and even spent a month in jail for mailing birth control products–a clear violation of the Comstock law. Not for nothing, by 1937, birth control was formally acknowledged as an essential part of medical care by the American Medical Association. Additionally, “A 1938 Ladies Home Journal survey reported that seventy-nine percent of women supported the use of birth control” (qt. in The Attack 182). Four years later, the American Birth Control League changed its name to Planned Parenthood, thus broadening the organization’s overall approach.

The late 1960s introduced a new beginning of contraception rights aimed at reproductive rights. With the help of Margaret Sanger, the FDA endorsed the first control birth control pill for contraceptive use in 1960. Years later, the U.S. witnessed the notorious Roe v. Wade case in 1973, in which the Supreme Court granted women the right to choose abortion. Although a significant victory for those in favor of abortion, it also served to ignite the pro-life vs. pro-choice sentiment. Critics of the decision lobbied and eventually achieved a notable triumph with the Hyde Amendment which banned the utilization of federal funds for abortion; This amendment is still in effect to this day (Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2019).

As I mentioned earlier, the attack on Planned Parenthood does not end here. Anti-abortion politicians have been relentless in their misogyny. Mike Pence, (not surprisingly, Donald Trump’s running mate), launched the first federal legislation to “defund” Planned Parenthood in 2007. When such politicians say “defunding,” they are really preventing patients who utilize public health care programs from obtaining preventive care at Planned Parenthood. Sadly, they view Planned Parenthood as solely an abortion clinic, not taking into account that it is a source for birth control, sexually transmitted infection (STI) testing and treatment, wellness exams, and cervical and breast cancer screenings. In 2015, anti-abortion fanatics released misleading edited videos that made false claims about Planned Parenthood health centers. Although the videos were proven to be untrue, pro-life members of Congress used the deceptive videos to further propagate their anti-Planned Parenthood scheme (Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2019). The chief argument for anti-abortionists is that the baby is alive when it is terminated. In reality, there is no explicit answer for whether it is alive or not. Answers will also vary depending on biology, politics, philosophy, religion, and even emotions. For example, “The 'Catechism of the Catholic Church' states that the embryo must be treated as a person from conception” (BBC UK 2014). Biology or another religion may beg to differ. So while we cannot give a definitive “No, the baby is not alive,” anti-abortionists also cannot give a definitive yes.

More recently, the Trump-Pence administration has attempted to dismantle Title X. Title X is a program that “provides affordable birth control and reproductive health care to people with low incomes, including those who couldn’t otherwise afford health care services on their own” (Planned Parenthood Federation of America 2019). This brings up the question of when women will ever be able to make decisions for themselves. Will we ever get to stop rallying? Or do we have to hold up picket signs for the rest of our life? To this day, Planned Parenthood is asking for donations to continue to fund abortions. It almost seems like a never-ending fight. Our fight for equality, against slut-shaming, domestic violence, rape, and overall just to be treated like humans. Over the years, we women have found strength in numbers, rallies, and within ourselves. Unfortunately, I don’t think the tirade against women will ever completely cease, but I do see a long fight ahead in which more and more individuals (both men and women) are willing to fight for their bodies and health.