A Christian political group published a column this week making a case for taxpayer funding of the abortion business Planned Parenthood.
The Center for Public Justice, a Christian organization devoted to policy research and civic education, ran a column by Chelsea Langston, a lawyer from Michigan, that asks Christians to reconsider opposing taxpayer funding for the abortion giant.
In her piece, Langston admits that Planned Parenthood runs a business that destroys vulnerable unborn children’s lives. Langston also acknowledges the horrendous evidence indicating that Planned Parenthood sells aborted babies’ body parts.
But these things were not enough to convince her that Planned Parenthood should stop receiving hundreds of millions of our tax dollars every year.
“A case can certainly be made that excluding Planned Parenthood furthers vital pro-life goals in important ways,” Langston wrote. “Yet such an exclusion can have critical negative consequences for other important public justice goals, and even, potentially, for pro-life aims as well.”
Langston argues that the good health care services that Planned Parenthood provides may outweigh the bad parts of its business (abortion, baby body part sales). She claims that the abortion group offers a number of beneficial services to its patients that would go away without taxpayer funding, and latches on to the abortion giant’s argument that poorer patients would suffer as a result.
What Langston does not realize is that abortion is Planned Parenthood’s focus. Those other services that Langston says are so needed are dropping at Planned Parenthood, while its abortion numbers remain stable. Further, evidence suggests that community health centers could take the place of abortion clinics and provide the same health care services, minus abortion.
Micah Watson, writing for The Public Discourse, summarizes Langston’s concerns this way:
What are these critical negative consequences? The first is that excluding Planned Parenthood from the range of Medicaid providers reduces the number of options that citizens have to meet their medical needs. The second consequence is closely related to the first. It is this pluralistic agreement to have a diversity of providers that allows faith-based organizations also to be eligible for government funding. There are already forces at work to exclude faith-based organizations from a host of public service areas—Langston mentions LGBT groups and homeless ministries—and if Planned Parenthood is excluded, she fears that faith-based groups will be targeted by pro-choice advocates.
Given the prospect of losing out on eligibility for government funding, Langston concludes, pro-lifers should acknowledge all the good things that Planned Parenthood does, and instead look to increase pro-life options within the Medicaid system as currently constituted. Otherwise we would be faced with a “slippery slope” upon which more progressive states may retaliate by excluding pro-life and faith-based services.
Watson acknowledges that Lawson’s concern about funding for faith-based groups is valid, but he does not agree with her conclusion.
“Despite arguments to the contrary, pro-lifers simply cannot support federal funding for Planned Parenthood,” Watson says. “If the price for a seat at the public justice table is taxpayer funding for the nation’s leading abortion provider, it may be time to think about another table.”
Planned Parenthood destroys the lives of more than 320,000 unborn babies every year, more than any other group. It also receives approximately $500 million of our tax dollars every year. That is a lot of money, and there are myriad ways it could be put to better use. Health care for the poor and vulnerable is very important, and there are thousands of groups in the U.S. that could use that money to help people — without killing hundreds of thousands of unborn babies’ lives.