U.S. House Votes to Reduce Planned Parenthood Funding for One Year Under Republican Healthcare Bill

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House of Representatives voted 217 to 213 on Thursday to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as Obamacare, reducing—but not completely eliminating—funding for the abortion and contraception giant Planned Parenthood for one year in the process.

The American Health Care Act (AHCA) will strip Planned Parenthood of $390 million of the more than $450 million it receives in federal funding each year. Speaker Paul Ryan said in January that the funding would be redirected to community health centers, which do not perform abortions.

“[W]e think it’s better to send these dollars to those clinics that do a very good job of giving women the services they need—the preventative services—without all the controversy surrounding Planned Parenthood,” he said.

The remaining $60 million will continue to be provided through the National Family Planning Program under Title X, reports state.

Planned Parenthood claimed on Thursday following the House vote that the move will make it more difficult for mothers to have healthy pregnancies and raise families.

“This is the worst bill for women’s health in a generation,” President Cecile Richards said in a statement. “It makes it harder to prevent unintended pregnancy, harder to have a healthy pregnancy, and harder to raise a family. … Women and men across the country will fight to protect access to Planned Parenthood and to defeat this bill.”

While AHCA does not mention Planned Parenthood by name, it defines “prohibited entities” as those who perform abortions other than in the cases of rape, incest and the life of the mother, and who receive more than $350,000,000 from Medicaid.

  • Connect with Christian News

Pro-life and religious liberty organizations cheered the news, stating that taxpayer funds should not be provided to controversial organizations that kill unborn children and are the subject of numerous legal probes.

“As a nation, we are without excuse in paying for abortion on demand in Obamacare and subsidizing Planned Parenthood’s gruesome trafficking of baby body parts and its inhumane treatment of mothers and their unborn children,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council.

“Congress’s well-founded concern that Planned Parenthood and its affiliates are engaged in a pattern of deceptive practices designed to maximize their bottom-line revenue should be enough reason to end the public largesse on their behalf, even apart from the fact that they destroy a third of a million human lives every year and have been involved in numerous other scandals,” also remarked Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Senior Counsel Kevin Theriot.

The bill now moves to the Senate, where it needs 51 votes to pass.

According to the organization’s latest annual report, Planned Parenthood performed 323,999 abortions nationwide during the 2014-2015 fiscal year. The figure accounts for at least one-third of all abortions nationwide, when compared to statistics released in November by the Centers for Disease Control.

Planned Parenthood’s largest focus in 2014-2015 was sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s), as it tested and/or treated over four million people for sexual ailments, with over 3.5 million tests and 32 thousand men and women being treated for ailments contracted through sexual activity.

Over 2.9 million people were provided with contraceptives or other forms of birth control in 2014—from temporary to permanent, including over 900 thousand emergency contraception kits. The figure is down from 3.5 million the year before, and 3.7 million in 2012.

Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms as it is not licensed to operate mammogram machines, and its annual report outlined that fewer than 700,000 women received services surrounding cervical cancer screenings (pap smears for women who have been sexually active), equating to just seven percent of its services.

Sex-related services, such as STD testing and contraceptives, accounted for 76 percent of its business, as opposed to women’s health or post and pre-natal services.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Oboehner

    And as planned it will die in the Senate.

    • Amos Moses

      would not surprise me ………..

    • Amos Moses

      BTW ….. did you add Trumps hair to your avatar ………

      • Oboehner

        Yup, sportin’ a new do.

  • Colin Rafferty

    And 24 million people will lose their health insurance. And you will now be denied insurance if you have a pre-existing condition.

    • 0pus

      What’s the youngest child you ever fcked?

    • Amos Moses

      so if a person has no car insurance ….. and they get into a bad accident …… everyones first call is to an insurance company …. so they can have the insurance company pay for an accident that has already happened ……. whats wrong with having that “pre-existing” condition covered ……….and of course all insurance companys do that ….. right …… because that is what makes the most business sense ………….

      • Colin Rafferty

        Thanks Amos, you are arguing for an individual mandate, just like in auto insurance.

        The issue with denial of pre-existing conditions is that even if you have health insurance, you may be forced to switch. For example, if you change jobs, you can’t keep your old employer’s insurance, and may need to buy you own. Or if you turn 26, you can no longer be on your parents’ policy.

        In those cases, where you actually have continuous coverage, you can still be denied because you were so foolish as to have Type I Diabetes, or a heart murmur, or have once had cancer, or an overactive thyroid, or a myriad of other diseases that people get.

        • Amos Moses

          those who have a pre-existing condition need to be taken care of under a different system …. as it is numerous states were losing any coverage whatsoever because of the cost of those person …… affordable care does no one any good …… if there is no one able to pay for it …….. or provide it …….. but the whole plan is to get everyone under a single payer …. it has been since the beginning …………. it also will be a disaster ……………

          • Colin Rafferty

            There is no “different system”, and this bill does not set one up. It simply says that if you have a pre-existing condition, an insurance company can refuse to insure you.

            Right now, if you have diabetes, you can switch health insurance plans. If this bill becomes a law, you won’t be able to.

          • Amos Moses

            so you follow the theory of evolution …. right ……. why is this a problem …………..

          • Colin Rafferty

            I also follow the theory of gravity. What does this have to do with health care? Or pre-existing conditions?

          • Amos Moses

            it is evolution that the weak do not survive ……….. so if there is no coverage for “pre-existing” conditions …… then that fits perfectly with an “evolution” world view …… so no complaints ………..

          • Colin Rafferty

            No, that’s not evolution, that’s sociopathy. Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.

            I do not follow your theory of evolution, I follow the actual theory of evolution.

          • Amos Moses

            no … that is YOU being INCONSISTENT in your world view …………. “change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations” ………. YUUUPPPPP …. and WHEN THE WEAK DIE ….. they do not pass it on ….. EVOLUTION ………….

        • Amos Moses

          again ….. “evolutionists” just cannot be consistent ………. all this whining and gnashing of teeth over evolution taking place ………. sorry ….. what the big deal ………. they want their worldview to be pressed on everyone else ………. then moan when the results are played out ………..

  • Darlene

    Anything will be an improvement. Talk about the most mislabeled piece of legislation in history – NOT affordable at all, just lots of virtue signaling from people who want to be judged by their good intentions instead of real-world results. Get rid of that monster and stop giving one penny to the abortion mills.

  • Lexical Cannibal

    Also we’re cutting services for special needs kids. Also we’re dropping coverage for preexisting conditions. Also we’re expanding what can even count as a preexisting condition. Also we’re pretty much guaranteeing that health care costs are going to skyrocket.

    But yeah, you guys stick it to Planned Parenthood! Pro Life!

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    Good, although too slow to deal with the Nazi entity… What is gained by killing the children on a drowning planet? Only God’s wrath. Revelation chapter 9.

  • Nedd Kareiva

    Good Lord, one year? That’s like saying the abortion industry did something wrong worthy of suspension for funding but not for outright termination (in the employment sense of the word). If abortion is immoral and involves the slaughter of the unborn, then why one year instead of a permanent ban on funding?

    The GOP should have gone for broke. There’s no compelling reason for serving half a sandwich, sorta speak. This is the equivalent of the Lord telling the Laodicean Church (and today’s church) to be hot or cold, not lukewarm. This was lukewarm. It’s yucky and totally unacceptable.

  • john

    Government should not be in the insurance business period. Only means high rates with poor service. Just look at Canada and England.

    • Lexical Cannibal

      I’m not sure where you’re getting your facts from, but pretty much all the data I have indicates that both the UK and Canada have drastically lower healthcare costs and significantly higher satisfaction ratings. If you have a source that contradicts this, please do share.

      • john

        i have friends in Canada that are on 3 month waiting lists to have surgery, so they have come to the U.S. to have surgery. The U.K. is very similar to this according to what I have read on various web sites. Healthcare may cost less but the other end of the spectrum is waiting as long as 3 months, no matter the seriousness of the illness. I would guess you get what you pay for.

        • Lexical Cannibal

          In general, I don’t really accept “Well my friend said…” arguments; friends aren’t very good data points and they don’t do a very good job of representing an entire country. I had some time, though, so I did some of the legwork for you on this, if only to get to my actual point.

          I dug a bit and, yes, wait times are a notable factor of a lot of single payer systems. Some countries, like Germany, have pretty excellent wait times that put the US to shame while others, like Canada, experience significantly more, which correlates to how well or badly organized the country in question is (e.g. wait times in Spain are terrible because Spain is just kind of a mess, as a country).

          However.

          This is a single facet of a large, complicated question, so there’s a few things that need to be added to your analysis. Firstly, a factual problem; in nearly every state-run healthcare system I’ve run across, there’s a pretty clear hierarchy of prioritization for seriousness of a given condition. In the UK for instance, NHS makes you wait no longer than two weeks for a cancer diagnosis because, you know, cancer. Does it always work out like that? No, people are stupid and imperfect and no system is even perfect to begin with, but it’s hardly the cold bureaucratic machine you may imagine.

          But let’s talk about the alternative to long, even dangerously long, wait times. My wife needed knee surgery last year, a procedure which her insurance would not have covered if they had been allowed to deny her for preexisting conditions, of which she has several. Without that coverage, this procedure would have easily crested $40,000 before we even got to inpatient costs, medications, and physical therapy. We do not have that money. Even with coverage, we were only able to afford what she got (which wasn’t everything she needed) with the help of generous family members.

          You know what’s even worse than waiting for three months to get your surgery? Never getting it at all. Before Obamacare there were thousands–approaching millions–of people just like my wife not getting the healthcare that they needed. Literally people dying for no other reason than they were too poor.

          Of course, this is all focusing on surgical procedures, there’s an entire wing of healthcare we haven’t even discussed; medication and routine medical care. See, one of the big–possibly the biggest–benefits of a system like what Canada has is that fewer people even need surgical procedures in the first place because they can visit their primary care doctor or even go to the ER and keep entirely preventable and containable injuries and illnesses from getting worse without ever making it to an operating room. Surgery has the big dollar signs so it gets talked about a lot, but the value in making routine medical expenses affordable to even the poorest of citizens has netted uniformly positive results in nearly every country that’s done it.

          Single payer or state-run healthcare isn’t a perfect solution, not by a stretch, but just about every reliable source of data we have says it’s doing a whole lot more good than bad and tons more than what we’ve got.