Keep Your Hands off my Wallet (A response to Keep Your Hands off: Why Women Need Access to Reproductive Healthcare)
In her article, Keep Your Hands off: Why Women Need Access to Reproductive Healthcare, the author seems to make a quite simple and uncontroversial argument, that women who have access to reproductive healthcare lead better lives. That is an undisputable fact, especially if you use the author’s expansive definition of reproductive healthcare. The author argues that because those types of services are so vital to women they should not be taken away. In her own words, “please keep your hands off our reproductive healthcare.” The question that came into my mind after reading that statement, was where are the people trying to restrict access to STD treatments, ban cancer treatment, or abolish the birth control pill? That was when I realized that the article wasn’t about keeping our hands “off” of those reproductive services but putting hands “on” our wallets.
I agree that birth control is a helpful service to many women, but I don’t believe it should be a federally funded right. This belief does not just go one way. I don’t think the federal government should fund vasectomies, condoms, or abortions either. Sex is an interpersonal experience which should not be subsidized, and no one is entitled to risk-free and consequence-free sex. Additionally, birth control only costs $15 a month without insurance on certain online exchanges. When you ask the taxpayer to fund your sex life, they will have that power in shaping your reproductive health decisions that you don’t want them to have. They can decide how much you will get, what services you have access to, and what will be funded. Decisions that should be left to women and their doctors will be intruded on by the federal government. Asking the government to guarantee and fund unlimited access to reproductive healthcare is the exact opposite of keeping hands off it. If you really want my hands off your reproductive healthcare, don’t ask me to pay for it.
If the author’s definition of reproductive services only included cancer screenings, STD treatment, and birth control, then they would agree with me that Planned Parenthood needs to be defunded and that those funds need to be placed elsewhere. Most of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes through Medicaid, a service that helps lower income people and families have access to healthcare. For those people, expanding access to other health providers would provide them better services than Planned Parenthood can. People who need STD screening or treatment should see a licensed practitioner, however, if they lack insurance there are urgent care clinics, hospital STD clinics, and local county STD clinics that often provide cheaper access to testing and treatment than Planned Parenthood because their services are free or follow a sliding scale. Regarding cancer screening, it would be much better if that portion of the $528 million that is given to Planned Parenthood every year were given to health providers that actually have mammogram machines or treat cancer, neither of which are services that Planned Parenthood can perform. As I mentioned earlier, birth control is so cheap and easily accessible that millions do not need to be given to Planned Parenthood just for that purpose.
Even though she didn’t include into her definition of reproductive services, the only reason why the author would not agree with me that funds need to be diverted from Planned Parenthood is because money wouldn’t be going to fund abortions. It is an absolute myth that no federal funding given to Planned Parenthood goes to performing abortion procedures. While it is true that Title IX banned federal funding to be used for abortions, Medicaid, which provides over 75% of the money given to Planned Parenthood by the government, does allow federal funds to be used for abortion. While the Hyde Amendment, passed in 1977, may appear to limit those Medicaid funded abortions in cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother, states have the power and have used that power to greatly expand the definition of eligible cases.
The article ends with a plea that we need to keep our hands-off reproductive healthcare and I couldn’t agree more. The government should not be subsidizing the consequences of careless sex and aiding the elimination of millions of potential lives. The government should not give preferential treatment to Planned Parenthood. It should expand freedom and choice to Medicaid recipients by supporting other organizations whose core money making incentive is not to provide abortion. For the most part, the federal government needs to keep its hands-off reproductive healthcare. However, if a state’s citizens want their state to be the main controller and subsidizer of their sex lives, I am not against states funding it. If you really want our hands-off reproductive healthcare, don’t put me or the government in charge of your sex life.
Liz • Mar 22, 2019 at 2:44 pm
lol. No one asked for your opinion and *shocker* as a self-important white male of course you think that your tax money is funding abortions and peoples sexual escapades. guess what? it’s not. Women’s reproductive health care is woefully underfunded, and reproductive rights still have a long way to go. Also having access to reproductive health care is NOT the same thing as receiving care, and for that matter receiving timely care. I have access to buying a mansion but that doesn’t mean I can afford it, just like I have access to my PCP doesn’t mean I can go get a same day appointment scheduled. I called my PCP to test this situation and the earliest they could see me is May. That is months from now.
Planned parenthood and medical clinics like it who serve women are necessary and needed. They might not treat cancer, but they provide services and referrals to tests that detect cancer, and detection is obvi needed prior to starting treatment. For instance pap smears can detect cervical cancer, and women should be getting pap smears every 2 years which is a service that planned parenthood provides. They also DO have clinics which provide mammograms (x-rays of the breast to detect cancer) which you obvi didn’t care to look into. Also Birth control actually has been shown to lower the risk for various cancers later in life (sounds to me like a savings on tax payer $$$ down the road). BC is also used to treat a whole host of other conditions, take some time to read about it – maybe you’ll even realize that there is then one type birth control option out there. Planned parenthood services include diagnosing and treating infections (bacterial or yeast), providing pregnancy tests, condoms, STD/STI testing, prenatal education, and most importantly are a first point of care for many women. If you are grossed out then thats a personal problem. Grow the fuck up.
We obviously disagree on abortion funding (I think its a choice between a women and her Dr – if you don’t want one, then don’t get one). You on the other hand are upset because funding restrictions on abortions have exceptions in “cases of rape, incest, or danger to the mother”? and you’re more upset because some select states have “loosened” these strict exceptions? IT IS NEVER A CAKE WALK TO GET AN ABORTION IN ANY STATE REGARDLESS OF INSURANCE FORM/STATUS, and it is not an easy choice. No states have changed definitions to the point where anyone can just walk in and get an abortion. Do you see how flawed this specific argument is – would you want to carry the child of a man who raped you? or the relative who raped you? would you want to be forced to carry a fetus to full term that has such profound congenital abnormalities that it has no chance of survival? Could you afford to care for a medically complex infant? Would you want to force your sister to carry a child that is a threat to her health/life? Do you know how hard labor is or how long it takes to recover from a C-section? for that matter, do you recognize how high the maternal mortality rate is here in the US? Do you actually know how ineffective birth control is? FYI its def not 99.9% effective, its more like 93% effective and in women over 150 lbs its even less effective. Allowing women to have a say about when and how they have a kid isn’t a groundbreaking or revolutionary idea. Funding programs like planned parenthood, through programs like medicaid to provide all these services for women is critical to ensuring that women have political, social, educational, and economic equality. Are you against that? because it sounds like you are….
You have the privilege to never ever ever have to make that kind of a difficult choice about your body. You walk around uterus free – you have no menstrual cycle, no ability to carry a child, no risk of endometriosis, no elevated risk of breast cancers, or exposure to STDs that MEN TYPICALLY CARRY symptom free and share with women. Additionally, you didn’t acknowledge the number of states that have recently legalized “heartbeat bans” on abortion – FYI thats something that happens 6 weeks into a pregnancy. At 6 weeks, most women won’t know they are even pregnant, since menstrual cycles (that is when women get their periods) aren’t always 28 days long. So 6 weeks is actually taking away a women’s right to choose. THAT SUPER DOESN’T SOUND LIKE FREEDOM TO ME.
As a student of Dickinson you are a very sad example, you are failing to educate yourself about things you are so clearly politicizing. Women’s healthcare isn’t a democrat vs republican issue – its a human issue. SO GET OVER YOURSELF. If you are so confused about women’s healthcare and the purpose of these types of medical clinics – go take an anatomy course. Go talk to healthcare providers, or your female classmates (unless you have closed that door on yourself – which wouldn’t be shocking considering you had the audacity to write something like this). The idea of defunding women’s healthcare as a solution is literally not a solution, you are ignorant to what a multifaceted issue this is. I’m very sorry to see that men like you think they have the microphone on issues affecting women’s bodies, women’s healthcare, and women’s choices. I hope for you that you can open your eyes and ear holes, and I hope that you can change your opinion. One day you might love someone who is affected by these policy changes and I hope that you will be compassionate to the choices they make for themselves.
Sarah • Mar 22, 2019 at 2:08 pm
…Planned Parenthood has free services/ sliding scale services. It also has licensed practitioners. And can provide referrals for things like cancer screenings. Where is your source that there are no mammogram machines at any PP (also those aren’t necessary for every visit, not sure if you’re aware)? If I go to another doctor’s office that doesn’t provide all the services I may possibly ever need all at one office (even though it provides a service that I need right now) will you also criticize that doctor? And have you ever lived in a low income neighborhood? Planned Parenthood *is* the accessible free clinic in many areas. People can choose other free clinics of course, but the right now many of them are choosing Planned Parenthood. I’m all for upping access to more options and letting the free market decide, but that’s actually not your argument because that would leave open the possibility that someone may still choose Planned Parenthood.
You clearly are one of the reasons people are dismayed over people at Dickinson explaining about things they have no experience with.
Dana • Mar 21, 2019 at 7:36 pm
It’s so incredibly clear to me that you have no idea how reproductive health care works.
First of all, let’s talk about the idea that you can get birth control for as low as $15 a month without insurance online. That sounds like a perfect solution, but it quickly becomes apparent that it isn’t with even the tiniest bit of scrutiny. Not al birth control brands are created equal. Depending on many factors, like the length of the pack, the amount of pill, the type of pill, etc., that brand that costs $15 may not be usable by the person who needs it. The online market also requires someone to have a permanent address or pay for a P.o. box for shipping. Not to mention that $15 is still a lot of money for some people.
Secondly, you seem to completely gloss over the fact that birth control is a medical necessity for some people even beyond its use as contraception. Before I got on birth control I would regularly miss school during my period due to debilitating cramps or migraines. Adults cannot afford to miss work every month like that. It’s not just “helpful,” it’s necessary.
Thirdly, we come to the central argument of your article, which of course is defunding Planned Parenthood. I’m guessing you’ve never taken advantage of their services, but the fact is that they do provide care that can be sorely lacking. Sometimes they are they only provider who will give people neutral health care, that respects pronouns, that won’t try to talk someone out of an abortion like so-called “crisis pregnancy centers.” Suggesting that people go instead to urgent care or another provider is laughable when you consider the punishing costs of copays, and if you’re suggesting that those clinics through some agreement end up taking more money from Medicare, doesn’t that just go back to the same point you originally were arguing against, that the money will get in the way of making health care decisions?
The last paragraph is where you really go off the rails. To paint Planned Parenthood as greedy baby-killers who just want to make a quick buck is to absorb misinformation and hateful rhetoric that is a disgrace to the incredibly important care they provide. And to say that birth control is only used in cases of careless sex is flat-out wrong as well as wildly misogynistic.
The only part of your article that I agree with is that you should not be anywhere near reproductive health care in any capacity. This article is poorly conceived, poorly thought-out, not researched, and based on a lack of education and consideration of different sides of this issue. It’s one thing to not agree with the author of the original piece and quite another to write down sexist misconceptions and call it an article. Do your research about reproductive health care next time, and consider the thought that having an opinion doesn’t mean you know what you’re talking about.