When the U.S. House of Representatives voted to cut all federal funding to Planned Parenthood last Friday, women across the country began to organize to create a coalition so tenacious God herself would sidestep.
I furiously searched the Internet for a breakdown of the federal budget, intent on finding a way to avoid cutting a third of the nonprofit’s annual income.
At stake are 800 clinics across the country offering low-cost sexually transmitted infection testing, cancer screening, contraceptives, emergency contraception, sex education, gynecologic exams and other health services to nearly 11 million women annually.
There is a question we currently are not hearing in the budget debate, “Should the U.S. budget be based on a preemptive strategy for protection of the citizenry or as damage control for existent and perpetual problems?”
The U.S.’ national defense and security budget is more than the next 15 largest countries’ military spending combined — that’s roughly 20 percent of the federal budget. It is preemptive, developing strategy based on “if’s” and “when’s.” And it works.
Yet the majority of funding to solve national social problems equals about 35 percent and is funneled into programs such as Medicaid and social safety net spending.
This money, like a Band-Aid, is based on temporarily controlling the risky effects of income inequality.
What if we treated poverty, a struggling education system and obstacles to women’s health the same way we suit up to deter an imminent nuclear threat?
Programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and unemployment benefits are damage control initiatives, aimed at temporarily addressing the needs of the most vulnerable citizens. But we never would address a national security threat with the response, “It’s fine … for now.”
The wealthiest country must take a second look at its responsibility to handle money effectively. That means anticipating problems and solving them before they start.
Those who attacked Planned Parenthood in the House did so on the basis of federal funding for abortions, which turns out to be only 3 percent of the services provided by the organization.
However, the Hyde Amendment has prohibited using federal tax dollars for funding abortions since 1976.
In other words, they weren’t attacking abortion on principle — they were going on the offensive against women’s ability to protect themselves.
Planned Parenthood is one of the few programs — and the only federally funded one — with an effective, preemptive strategy for protecting the well-being of low-income women.
Statistically, we know educated women are more likely to delay having children until they can provide a healthy and stable environment for them. Those children go on to contribute to society in a positive way, rather than getting lost in a broken system and requiring “damage control” programs.
Planned Parenthood also offers Pap smears and breast cancer screenings to women without insurance — a preemptive strategy for preventing larger and more costly future health problems.
Sex education provided to women without access to it helps prevent them from making decisions that could harm them in the future.
In 2009, the Guttmacher Institute found that for every federal dollar spent on contraception for low-income women saves $4 in medical costs over the next year by preventing unwanted pregnancies.
Planned Parenthood is the epitome of a preemptive strategy. Our expensive National Missile Defense program preemptively protects the country from intercontinental ballistic missiles — a weapon only five countries in the world (all of whom qualify as strategic allies) possess.
Yet Congress told women they are out of luck when it comes to protecting themselves from disease, unwanted pregnancies and access to reproductive health knowledge.
Support student media! Please consider donating to The State News and help fund the future of journalism.
It entirely is true that the federal budget needs to be altered significantly in order to live within our financial means.
However, it would be wise for policymakers to consider reinvesting in our society by funding programs that effectively and preemptively protect citizens, altering those that act as damage control to increase returns over time and reduce overall cost.
Let women take control of their bodies by choosing to protect themselves. The systemic inability to do so is comparable to an imminent security threat.
Monika Johnson is a State News guest columnist and an international relations senior. Reach her at john2727@msu.edu.
