Students weigh in on proposed Planned Parenthood cuts

Students who use Planned Parenthood services have a lot at stake when it comes to next year’s… Students who use Planned Parenthood services have a lot at stake when it comes to next year’s federal budget, which could include significant cuts in funding for government-subsidized sexual health services.

The Republican-controlled House of Representatives has already approved a budget bill for fiscal year 2012 that would reduce spending by more than $60 billion and cut funding for a number of Democrat-supported programs like Planned Parenthood and public broadcasting. President Barack Obama has threatened to veto the bill, and it is still unclear what success the dramatically reduced spending plan will have when it hits the Democrat-controlled Senate.

Officials from Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania expressed concern over the potential cuts — especially for the 18- to 24-year-olds who make up 50 percent of the health-services provider’s patients. Leaders from both Pitt’s College Republicans and College Democrats opposed the cuts, while a student from a pro-life group supported them.

With the proposed cuts, clinics in Allegheny County will be reduced and services will no longer be offered at their current prices, said Rebecca Cavanaugh, a spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Western Pennsylvania. The organization’s services include access to sexual education, birth control, STI testing and abortions.In addition to screenings and treatments, Planned Parenthood provides contraceptive at a discounted rate.

Under SelectHealth, an insurance company that works with Planned Parenthood and students, Pitt students who are insured or uninsured can apply for coverage that is completely confidential. With this coverage students can then receive the preferred type of birth control at a much discounted rate based on their income, or in some cases completely for free.

In comparison, many of the same pills can be purchased for $15 a month at Pitt Student Health for students who are uninsured.

In addition, Planned Parenthood provided free condoms, no questions asked, as well as over-the-counter emergency contraceptives at $25 which can cost up to $35 if purchased from a regular pharmacy.

The federal budget plan would eliminate Title X of the Public Health Service Act, which provides family planning for low income individuals. In 2010, the act dedicated $317,491 million in federal funds to family-planning activities — about a quarter of which went to Planned Parenthood, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services website. Under law, that money cannot be used to fund abortions.

“Students account for the vast majority of the common ages that we provide services for,” Cavanaugh said. “They will, without a doubt, be affected.”

Proposed by Republican Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana to reduce federal spending, the cuts have met Democratic opposition that argues that the Planned Parenthood reductions are a partisan, moral issue rather than a solution to the budget problem.

“The people who are campaigning for this cut claim it is for the economy, but it is most definitely an ideological attack,” Cavanaugh said.

Pence is widely known for his anti-abortion stance, which has made him a favorite among social conservatives. He has defended the suggested cuts by linking Planned Parenthood to abortion, suggesting government funding would be better spent on HIV testing and sexual education.

But the cuts didn’t divide Pitt students on ideological lines. The leaders of both the Pitt College Democrats and the Pitt College Republicans agreed that the cuts aren’t the right way to go.

Matt DiFiore, president of Pitt College Democrats, agreed that the cuts are likely based on partisan beliefs, rather than practical budget modification.

“It seems like a mass budget cut based on partisanship, and I would be very surprised if a member of our organization would support it,” DiFiore said.

Pitt College Republicans president Matthew Vermeire said the cuts are counterintuitive.

“Cutting funding for preventative measures will lead to the exact actions social conservatives say they are trying to prevent,” Vermeire said. “Although abstinence is the only way to prevent pregnancy, it is irresponsible for the government to make it harder for couples, especially college students, to prevent unwanted pregnancies.”

Other students find the cuts to be a positive step towards eliminating the use of abortions in the U.S. Senior Kristin Gottron, a member of campus pro-life student group Students for Life, is one.

“It is very good news that the House of Representatives has voted to stop using our tax dollars to support Planned Parenthood,” Gottron said.

Gottron said she believes the government’s support of Planned Parenthood is unjustified because the nonprofit supports the use of abortion and abortifacients — substances that induce abortions— and not just inarguably necessary medical care.

“The problem with equating abortion to other health care procedures like cancer and STD screening is that abortion is not health care,” Gottron said. “Whereas health care helps to prolong the life of a patient, abortion actually ends a life which is growing within a mother.”

Regardless of the nature of the proposed cuts, many students on Pitt’s campus expressed their belief that reducing funding to Planned Parenthood would be a mistake.

Pitt freshman Peter Webb said that the abortion argument should not be at the forefront of the budget process.

“If you are looking at the cuts in terms of pushing an idea through and not just as balancing the budget, I would not support the proposed cuts,” Webb said.