Suehs Signs Rule Banning Abortion Affiliates
If there was any hope that the state was seeking a compromise with the federal government over Texas’ Women’s Health Program, it’s fading fast. At the direction of lawmakers and Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, the Texas Health and Human Services commissioner signed a rule on Thursday that formally bans Planned Parenthood clinics and other "affiliates of abortion providers" from participating in the program — something the Obama administration has said is a deal-breaker for the nearly $40 million-per-year state-federal Medicaid program.
"The Obama administration is trying to force Texas to violate our own state laws or they will ...
Comments (71)
Lee Dunkelberg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
That'll show them uppity wimmen!
Tim Thomas via Texas Tribune on Facebook
And lower medicare costs. Birth control pills are SOOO much more expensive than delivering a baby.
Jamie Lewis via Texas Tribune on Facebook
hows about a change in leadership, folks?
Jan Fall via Texas Tribune on Facebook
OMG. Seriously? And the MEN respond?? Really?
Karen Hawkins via Texas Tribune on Facebook
those dicks. I hate my state. full of dipshits and illiterate rednecks.
Sharon Cooper Morgan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Unbelievable!
Blake Mitchell
I'm ashamed to live here. What a disgrace.
Jade Chang Sheppard via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Wow unbelievable. I don't even know where to start..
Ed Caffrey via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Everything is bigger in Texas, including the idiots...
Cheryl Roberts via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Why does Texas hate women?
Harmony Edwards via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Wow. Once again ideology trumps logic and reason. Way to go Texas. What a crock.
Joe Cooper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Women have the right to choose, but not taxpayers?
Debbie Spencer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
WTF! Moronic assholes. If this is how they want to play ball, time to take away the reason for birth control. Take funding for Viagra and all of the other ED drugs away and just say no to sex. In the meantime, women, wake up and vote these morons out and remove any and all of their appointees.
A. Bryant
Yes, lets have more babies that are not wanted with no education in Texas! We need more people on welfare. Lee, are you going to support them and let them live in your home Mr. Uppity Dunkel? Get rid of Perry and his appointees and vote for Ron Paul for Governor for a Real Change of improvement. We cannot afford Perry and his rich cronies any longer. The rest of the nation is laughing at us.
Tom Erickson via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Denying these services to patients may bring short-term political gains or fulfill a "mandate" (via straight-party ballots) from voters, but it will cost all of us in the long term. Care previously covered in the Women's Health Program will be a lot more expensive when administered in the emergency room.
Bologna Vest
Wow. Some people have no sarcasm detector.
Bologna Vest
And I'm pretty sure Gov. Ron Paul would seek to wipe this program out altogether.
Nancy Baughn via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Unbelievable!! This makes me sick!!
Audrey Fisher via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Winger's here care not about anyone who can't afford healthcare. These idiots don't care about WOMEN!
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I am so disgusted right now. This is absolute bullshit. Where do old white rich men get off on telling underpriveledged women that they can't get basic healthcare? Ugh...
Jo Ann Metz via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Well, Oklahoma has the Personhood Bill that's making it's way through the Legislature and I'm hearing all kinds of names being called like rednecks, backwoods hillbillies, Bible Thumpers and many more! So that really goes a long way to promote their cause, NOT! It makes them look like the ignorant idiots they call everybody that's FOR the bill. They claim it has all kinds of things added to it which it doesn't and that there's no stipulation for victims of rape and incest which it does allow for those women to seek help, then they get started on the IVF front. They just tend to be ignorant about what the bill DOES contain because they want to stir up MORE trouble!
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Joe Cooper: I'll be expecting my refund on our military involvement in the Middle East any day then, shall I? Because I'm absolutely morally opposed to that, and as a taxpayer I should get to pick and choose where my money goes to make sure it all lines up exactly with my personal moral beliefs, right?
Uppity Texas
We sane people need to organize and vote these people out before this state moves all the way into theocratic wasteland status. This kind of stuff is unacceptable. It makes me very worried for the futures of my daughters. I'm considering moving even though I've lived here my whole life.
Uppity Texas
@Caitlin, I'll also take a refund for each prisoner executed as well. I am vehemently opposed to the death penalty for moral and religious reasons.
Shanna Crawford via Texas Tribune on Facebook
what is happening to our state? this is just horrible.
Bert Chadwick
Since when Republicans care about poor, low-income people? They do give bull corn, specially if they are women. Then they do not have shame and have the basketballs to blame the feds.
jpt51
Tom, you must have missed HS Civics 101. States are subordinate to the Federal Govt..
Lee Dunkelberg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Joe Cooper - Good grief, sir! Yes, I would like to take my tax dollars out of those silly DPS gunboats we bought (could have supported more than a couple laid off teachers).
Lee Dunkelberg via Texas Tribune on Facebook
/:-| My initial comment was sarcasm, as apparently some need a translator.
This is a stupid, ridiculous, mean-spirited move that doesn't even come in under penny-wise-pound-foolish.
Susan Syler via Texas Tribune on Facebook
What a sad day for Texas.
Emily Elyse Vega via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Thanks, Texas. Your misogyny means that I just lost my birth control, which is imperative to my health because it jump-starts my menstruation, and my well-woman exams. I can't take this anymore.
Joe Cooper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Caitlin I agree, and it's appalling that we keep going to war without a declaration of war! The shocking thing is I absolutely agree with the tax principles you stated, but I can't tell if you're just being sarcastic.
This is not to say anyone has taken any rights from women, just that those who disapprove of the program should not be forced to pay for it. The principle being held here is you should not force someone to do something they do not wish to do, and I believe in needs to be applied equally across the board.
Local funding? Absolutely. Federal funding? No way.
Anya Khan
This was pp's decision. They would rather murder babies than receive state funds. Their choice, their consequences.
Sharon Cooper Morgan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Joe Cooper - I disapprove of some things but I have to pay for them anyway. How is this different?
Joe Cooper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Sharon - There may be religious implications in this case making it more severe for some people, but really it isn't different. You shouldn't have to pay for those things on a federal level.
I can respect and understand fighting legislation that would prevent women from getting help, but what you're essentially getting at here is a fight for funding - or in simple terms, other people's money. I don't know that you can justify taking someone's money and spending it on something of which they're morally opposed.
The thought that a person should be taxed, have money they've earned taken from them, but have no say in how that money is spent is an indication of just how lost we are in this country today.
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Joe: That was sarcasm. :) I get that it's not the best feeling in the world to have your money go to something you don't approve of (see my comment on funding war and another's on funding the death penalty), but the fact of the matter is that if we got to pick and choose where our taxes go - or whether or not we pay taxes at all - our country would be in shambles (well, more so than it already is). Taxes suck, but they're necessary to get things done and keep things working. My main problem with the "I shouldn't have to pay for something I don't agree with" argument is that I only ever see it in relation to abortion or women's reproductive health, when in fact it applies to tons of other things. So thanks for at least acknowledging that. :)
Joe Cooper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Caitlin - I agree, and its frustrating this type of debate only pops up during controversial subjects like abortion because there are so many emotions flowing from both sides it's hard to be fair either way.
If we don't ourselves get to pick and choose where our taxes go, then who should?
If you are in favor of democracy, what a better voice for the public than their own? If you favor a Republic, shouldn't the protection of individual liberties and possessions be at the highest priority?
Cassie Andrews via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The immediate consequences will seem unreasonable. But, this will hopefully give room for other providers to seek funding. This rule will not ban health care for women; it just sets a standard, for the clinic, in order to receive government support. Heaven forbid you have to do your research in order to find someone else that offers birth control at a reasonable cost. Please do not include your feelings of abortion into your comments because that service will still be available; it will just not be funded by tax payers.
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Joe: I think it should be based (and for the most part is) on what's best for society as a whole, not on what one individual person believes is best. Taxes go to benefit everyone, so saying individual beliefs should decide what is funded and what isn't doesn't work so well. Things like education, healthcare, transportation or social services- things all people have a right to and things the government regulates - should get funding regardless of whether or not one person believes in them because they serve to benefit the whole country. We tend to have this problem where we want all of these benefits but we don't want to have to pay for them, which just doesn't work.
@Cassie: You really think these women don't do their research? Healthcare in this country is costly, especially for low income and uninsured women (whom this law primarily targets). For many, Planned Parenthood is the only affordable provider in their area, meaning they will either have to take time off work to drive (sometimes several hours) to another clinic or simply forgo well woman check-ups and affordable prescriptions altogether. The "standard" this law sets is both unreasonable and illegal; it blocks access to a safe and legal medical procedure (along with dozens of other non-abortion procedures) without a valid reason. No taxpayer money goes to or has ever gone to abortion services. Clinics have already closed because of the drastic budget cuts passed last session and even more will close now. No, this rule does not "ban" healthcare for women, it just makes it nearly impossible for many women to access basic affordable care.
Joe Cooper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Caitlin While I disagree that government's most effective approach is to provide necessities to all individuals (I instead favor a government which will do no more than protect the endeavors of an individual so that they are free to provide necessities for themselves), I respect the fact your opinion holds logic with your principles.
Mary J. Foster via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Cassie - Abortion is already not funded by tax payers. This is not about funding for abortion. It is about funding for health care for women on Medicaid.
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Joe: Thanks. :) I have to admit it's really nice to have a calm, reasonable discussion online. Haven't had one of those in a while.
Alec Timmerman via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Of course you have the right to choose Joe Cooper. The taxpayers representatives in Texas made a stupid, costly, inhumane choice. No one took away their right to choose.
Cassie Andrews via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Caitlin- I understand that abortions are not supported, directly, by tax dollars. How much of the business is generated through abortions? If it is a small portion, then why not rid of the abortion service in your clinic. It would allow women to still obtain services at a low cost because they would then be eligible for funding. I do understand this is Texas finding a loop hole. Why could the businesses not do this, also? They could easily open clinics under a different name that do not provide abortion procedures and receive funding. Then, maintain the other facilities that do provide those services but know they will not receive money for those particular locations. Believe me, I understand the cost of healthcare and how difficult it is to be without insurance. But, I also know that both my grandmother and I have done well at finding clinics that provide the wellness exams and all other services needed for women, and I have never gone to a facility that provides abortion services. There is a website that provides maps and locations for women's services that accept Medicaid, and there were quite a few. My family lives in a town with less than 300 people, and they have to drive a little bit, but I am pretty certain that hours of driving has never been a factor. It is still fairly accessible. If you are hours away from a clinic, chances are Planned Parenthood is not in your area anyway. In fact, where is there an abortion clinic located that is not near an area with other options? I really do respect your opinion and like the points you bring to the table. I am sure there are many clinics that are not eligible for the medicaid funding and still provide abortions. Medicaid's purpose is to provide healthcare needs. Texas is just stating that abortion is not a healthcare NEED, so it will not support the administration of it.
Cassie Andrews via Texas Tribune on Facebook
So, after that rant, I realized I had not done enough research, so looked into The Texas Women's Health Program. Can someone clarify for me? It seems the article refers to Texas banning these clinics from participating in the program, but I don't think it bans funding completely. This program began in 2007.
Ann Marie Ivins via Texas Tribune on Facebook
PP already has the clinics on the ground - staffed, equipped and available. The plan was to take advantage of that infrastructure. Now, no go.
And Joe, although I think your opinions are profoundly wrong and based on delusional thinking, it is nice to see some civility. If your form of government ever comes to pass, I may not have to shoot you on sight. And that's nice, too. ;-)
Susan Syler via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@ Cassie - This is a quote from the article - "Unless some last-minute agreement is brokered, the program, which receives $9 in federal funds for every $1 in state funds, will be either phased out or cut off by the end of March. At least 130,000 poor Texas women will lose access to cancer screenings, well-woman exams and contraception." So, this law will effectively shut down the program.
Joe Cooper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Ann Marie Ivins - I think it's pretty important to remember that it would be near impossible and certainly unfair to surmise the character of a person based off a few lines of text. So far, all I know about you is you call strangers delusional and debate weather you should kill them - but I'll agree not to hold that against you if you'll extend the same courtesy and we assume the best of one another :)
The truth is, I base this opinion upon the Constitution, where above all other things are promised "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Taking from an unwilling person is wrong and infringes upon those rights; it's just the machine is so big and distant it's hard to notice. Put it on a smaller scale and you might have a problem when your neighbor takes your $200 so he can design a pipe bomb.
For me the issue isn't about women's health, it's the principle on how you go about getting funds.
I feel there should be a line drawn, and the truth is it already has been by the document used to establish this country. The problem is modern politicians have twisted this line - and once we approve of taking what is not ours, we are left with little moral defense when the government takes from us what is not theirs.
Already on this thread we see how accustomed people are to this process; fully aware and accepting the fact they personally fund the killing of strangers overseas.
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Cassie: The problem is that many of the PP clinics affected don't offer abortion in the first place. They're just affiliated with an abortion provider, and that is enough to get them shut down. And abortion *is* a vital part of healthcare for many women. Just because it's controversial doesn't make it any less necessary. I'll have to dig it up again, but I saw something the other day that I think said 45 counties in Texas are served exclusively by PP. If those clinics shut down, the women in those counties are going to have trouble getting the healthcare they need, just because the national PP organization provides abortion services at some of its clinics.
Lisa Dawn-Fisher via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Cristy Quigley Gallagher - I know just how you feel about living in a state that is so hostile toward women. It really can be embarrassing.
Kelli Brochon
The thing is, and my opinion is clearly a disenting one but an educated one, PP does not need federal funding. That accounts for very little of this billion dollar industry. First of all the gubmit should not be involved at all in this issue. Neither in support or in opposition. But PP is not interested in prevention of anything other than pregnancies. Here is why I say this. I had a tubaligation and tried to go to PP to get a papsmear at low cost. When they asked me what form of birth control I used I told them I've had a tubal. They told me I was not eligible for services. So they were not interested in helping to keep me healthy or cancer free so that I could be around to take care of my family. They are only interested in population control and since I already fit the bill they will not offer me any services. I went to the health dept. instead and paid $50 for this service. So before everyone gets their feathers all riled up you all should do your homework instead of beliveing the false media propaganda.
Cynthia Tannehill Faulk Ryland via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Rats! This is what happens when you let misogynists have control. #$%^***#.
Tracy Everbach
This is just sickening and I am shocked that more people have not raised hell about this assault on women's health care. As you pointed out in your story about the differences between the Virginia sonogram law and the Texas sonogram law, people have been strangely silent about what is going on here. Why are people standing for this kind of treatment? And don't our lawmakers realize that their actions are going to cause a great deal more illness such as cancer and other diseases, unwanted pregnancies and other consequences that are going to cost the state much more money than preventative health care would.
marianne paulsen
Anybody that disagrees with this is an idiot who thinks that planned parenthood is the only organization to provide women's health checkups. I don't want my tax money paying for your contraception/abortions. If you don't want a baby keep your legs closed.
Caitlin Gilchrist
@Marianne: Because the 58% or so of women who are on birth control for medical - not contraceptive - reasons are actually just using their endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome as excuses to have as much unprotected premarital sex as they can. You shouldn't have to pay for those sneaky sluts, right?
Joe Pojman via Texas Tribune on Facebook
The Obama Administration will be to blame for killing the Women's Health Program (WHP), if they do not renew the program because Planned Parenthood is excluded.
The Legislature and the Governor are more than willing to fully fund the WHP. The state's application for renewal of the program, which expires on March 31, makes it clear they want the program to continue and will have ample providers available when fewer than 100 Planned Parenthood sites no longer receive funds.
There are currently more than a thousand certified WHP providers in Texas who are not abortion providers or affiliates of abortion providers. These typically offer comprehensive primary and preventative care to low-income women in addition to family planning. That means women will likely see a doctor at her visit.
Planned Parenthood offers only a narrow range of services and is unwilling or incapable of offering comprehensive primary care. Planned Parenthood cannot treat breast cancer. They do not even have mammogram machines. The only time a woman will see a doctor at Planned Parenthood is if she is there for an abortion. Women deserve better.
Lee Crites
@Caitlin: When a woman is getting treatment for a medical condition, they are not called "birth control" but "hormone therapy." Insurance sees it differently, and it is paid differently. They might be the same pills, but the treatment codes are (or should be) different. Thus there is the potential that insurance companies might pay for the one case and not the other. Even at that, I'm not sure where you got your stat from. It does not mesh with my understanding of the industry.
Rebecca Ramsay via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Yes Cynthia, Obama is acting like a misogynist. Joe, thank you for standing up for women.
Anya Khan
Caitlyn,
I am not questioning your integrity, but where did you get your statistics
Rebecca Ramsay via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Caitlin, Obama isn't white. He's the one deciding to withhold funding.
Tina Collins
It will be too little, too late, said Rebecca Acuña, a spokeswoman for the Texas Democratic Party.
"Texas Republicans never miss an opportunity to throw the most vulnerable Texans under the bus so that they can pick a fight with the federal government," she said.
Ms. Acuna~
You are forgetting that are most vulnerable Texas are the UNBORN!!!!!!! They are the ones that are being thrown in the TRASH CAN!!! Their limbs are being dimembered and their bodies burned with chemicals!!! I sure aish all the so-called Catholics would wake up and stop voting for Democrats as long as they support the murder of unborn babies!!!
I APPLAUD our Attorney General for havung the guts to stand up for what is right!!!
Tina Collins
It is not a war on women~It has been a war against the unborn!! 53 MILLION LIVES LOST!!!
Ione McGinty via Texas Tribune on Facebook
it is about time for someone to stand up for the unborn!! It is not women being thrown under the bus but the unborn that are being thrown in the trash can.
karey cummins
I've lived in Texas for all of my 61 years and have seen a lot. Through the years, I've cheered our state government, and other times I've been disappointed. But this is the first time I have ever felt ashamed of how our once proud state is treating women. Women have long memories and are a major voting force. I think it will be interesting when the 2014 elections roll around. Can I help you pack?
Caitlin Gilchrist
@Lee: Do you have a source for that? Not questioning it, it's just that I haven't heard that before and I'm wondering how that's regulated. Some institutions still refuse to provide birth control even for medical reasons because apparently they can't be sure the sluts won't just run off and have premarital sex. :P
@Anya: Doctors for America released this infographic a little while ago. http://cdn.front.moveon.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/11.2-mil-women-FRONT.jpg
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Rebecca: His administration is withholding funding because the rich old white guys in our state can't wrap their heads around the idea that women's health is important and PP does so much more than abortion. The privileged white men are the ones who started this, and they're the ones who deserve the blame.
@Joe: PP offers a wide range of reproductive services, from STD testing to breast cancer screenings to pap smears to counseling and education. Nearly half of the women in the WHP go to PP. Where are they meant to go now? There aren't enough clinics to absorb all of these women. If the state really cared about preserving the WHP, they wouldn't have slashed it's funding by 2/3 last session.
Joan Hamann
Crowded under this bus!!
So the Texas Legislature has spoken, well citizens of Texas, it's time for a new legislature.
Joe Pojman via Texas Tribune on Facebook
CORRECTION: The Legislature fully funded the Women's Health Program.
Ione McGinty via Texas Tribune on Facebook
all services are available at clinics that do not do abortions~
Caitlin Gilchrist via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Joe: My bad. *Family planning* funding was slashed by 2/3. So now there's no WHP and very few family planning options. Good to know the GOP cares. http://www.texastribune.org/texas-legislature/82nd-legislative-session/day-15/
Jade Sanceri via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@joe really? I've been to Planned Parenthood many times, never once had an abortion. Many of my friends go there as well (even the pro-life ones). It is our primary source for birth control and well-woman exams. They are always caring, supportive and knowledgeable. How many times have they treated you? What, never? Quit spewing your false dogma. PP is and always has been a good source for reliable medical care.