Lawmakers Could Restore Family Planning Funds
When state lawmakers passed a two-year budget in 2011 that moved $73 million from family planning services to other programs, the goal was largely political: halt the flow of taxpayer dollars to Planned Parenthood clinics.
Now they are facing the policy implications — and, in some cases, reconsidering.
The latest Health and Human Services Commission projections being circulated among Texas lawmakers indicate that during the 2014-15 biennium poor women will deliver an estimated 23,760 more babies than they would have as a result of their reduced access to state-subsidized birth control. The additional cost to taxpayers is expected to be ...
Comments (25)
hans5162@ix.netcom.com hans
What a bunch of total morons. Just like the tea party whack jobs in Congress who refused to raise the debt ceiling over a desire to save more money and ended up costing us $18.9 billion dollars more in financing due to our credit downgrade. Way to go fiscal and social conservatives.
Vicki Rawlins McCuistion via Texas Tribune on Facebook
It doesn't make sense to protest the use of abortions, families having children they can't support and depending on social service assistance, and then eliminating funding for family planning.
Tiffany Sparks
Religious fanatics run our Texas government. God save us.
Sharon Cooper Morgan via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Too bad they didn't looked at the policy implications first.
JC DemocratofTejas
Purely political. Total stupidity messing with Planned Parenthood under the wrong assumption that it is pro-abortion and does the procedure, and/or recommends this for women. Repugs hate women. The END. Perhaps they are just totally pissed that Ann Richards' daughter, Celeste Richards, is the CEO of this wonderful group. Now, if you wanted to go after Nancy Komen, and the Komen Foundation, you'd see that this is purely a tax write off for the very wealthy. So...donations go way up with this B.S. for Planned Parenthood, and way down for Komen Foundation.
Time you realize women are completely smarter, that repugs aka short fat white men, that hated their mothers for dressing them like little girls. Ha!
Casey Bennett via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I don't think that my Tax dollars should be used for abortions. Abortions are killers of unborn children that have no way to protect themselves. No different than knocking a puppy in the head the moment it hits the ground because you didn't like the color of the hides. If its an under age child of either sex,,,then its up to the adult parents on what to do for sure. Press charges for under age sexual assaults. Our culture has become so accustomed to someone else being responsible for bad decisions its ridiculous. Why should I pay for someone else's BCP because they can't control their sexual urges?? I would be more than happy to fund mandatory vasectomy, and hysterectomies after the 1st or 2nd Welfare funded births. These procedures can be 'undone' if it can be proven that they are able to support a larger family without Government Assistance.
JC DemocratofTejas
Casey... are you a short fat white man, that hated your mother for dressing you like a little girl? There must be a reason you can't see this clearly. Do some research bro.
Adrian D. Riojas via Texas Tribune on Facebook
I'm for No taxpayer money for family planning, abortions etc. My wife and I take care of ours on our own dime. So should everyone else.
Paula Woolley via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@casey, since when did uterus transplants exist? How are you going to "undo" a hysterectomy? Also, vasectomy and tubal ligation reversals have rather low success rates, not to mention increased risk of ectopic pregnancies. So, you would rather fund an expensive, risky surgical procedure than help a woman get an IUD, which lasts 5 - 10 years and has a high success rate and is completely reversable? Wow, talk about supporting big government, not to mention a fascistic one.
Sonora Hartley via Texas Tribune on Facebook
It's not like we didn't know the TX leg is made up of nitwits. If it wouldn't be so cruel to the children I'd say make the ones that voted to cut family planning funds take these babies home and raise them.
Michelle James
Adrian-so you're saying if someone can't afford birth control (which many can't even though they are working, they're just not making a livable wage) - then they're on their own? Which translates to abstinence for couples - unrealistic, so it would really translate to an increase in unwanted pregnancies and increased enrollment in Medicaid - which is paid for with taxpayer funds. Are you and Casey really so close-minded and simple-minded? Well, obviously yes. What a bunch of holier-than-thou crap.
Christopher Aaron Baughman via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Adrian - Following ideology over facts is precisely why the situation backfired on the Republicans.
Jim Baxa
This program does not save healthcare dollars, it increases spending because more babies are born when birth control is used. The reason: people have sex when they think they wont get pregnant because they are fooled into thinking that it works better than it does. The only thing that cuts down on pregnancies is abstinence only education. This whole program should be eliminated.
Robin Scholer via Texas Tribune on Facebook
No taxpayer money for anybody's anything. And how does that work? Are you aware of the hazards of such greed?
Samdavis
Casey, you probably don't have too much worries about satisfying urges but there are many who aren't bigoted old white men who do. It's far cheaper to pay for birth control than babies. The type of eugenics you describe are criminal and inhumane in case you are too ignorant to know simple facts like these.
Michael Hull
Casey, as I understand the law, nobody's tax dollars are paying for abortions. Money for places like Planned Parenthood goes for contraception and other women's health services, without which there would be more unplanned pregnancies (thus more abortions) and a higher mortality rate for women.
Jim Baxa, studies have shown that states that teach abstinence only have higher teen pregnancy rates...states like Texas, for example.
Angie CafeWorld Lotto via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@ Casey Bennett Your tax dollars do NOT go to abortions of any kind unless there are exceptions for the life of the mother. There is a FEDERAL LAW and I'm sure you state has one too (most states DO) that GOVERNMENTAL funding CANNOT be used to pay for any abortion - maybe you've hear do the Hyde amendment? If not look it up. I hate when old white men who don't have a CLUE talk about things they think they've learned from Fox television... They report - you fall for it.
Steve Cook via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Angie its not just old white men . Its actually alot of mixed colors ,races.etc. No need to make racist slurs just because you do not agree with someone. The Race of the person is not the issue theres just as many blacks and whites who agree on these issues its the theology these people believe in that's the problem. Heres fact tax dollars have been paying for contraceptives for YEARS a IUD actually keeps a fertilized egg from attaching to the urterius wall. These have been paid for my medicaid for many years guess how many Religious people claiming to be pro life have these? They are actually having abortions in a different manner seeing life starts at conception and conception is when the egg gets fertilized in their eyes. So in hindsight yes if you look at it in that manner tax dollars DO pay for abortions as tax dollars pay for medicaid. The issue should be for the greater good. Planned parenthood actually does alot of the community. Imagine how many STDs , Unwanted Pregnancies,Health issues etc ones who cannot afford traditional Doctors we would have through out the years if we did not have it? The selfishness and bigotry of these people are amazing. If you look into their family history you would see in many instances they have family members who have used or are using all the Government Funding they want cut.. Will they be picking up the bill then or let their family parish?
Angel Ramírez via Texas Tribune on Facebook
dont want to get pregnant dont have sex, if you smart enough to have sex and get pregnant then you are smart enough to support the child, govt shouldn't have to pay for any of these things, and if the dad does not want to responsible make him pay child support, the only situation govt. should help is in the case of rape and child abuse/molestation and we know what happens to the men in this case... if you cant support a child don't have a child, talking to both men and women...
A'Ja Lyve via Texas Tribune on Facebook
If it's not your family, it's not your business. Women are going to abort whether there are safe and legal abortion providers or not.
Adrian D. Riojas via Texas Tribune on Facebook
@Christopher Lack of ideology is precisely why we have created a welfare nation. As a first generation American, I know the blood sweat and tears my parents endured to ensure that we were taken care of. Without a government handout. Intervention in my personal affairs, including healthcare is a mockery of a free democracy. I'm not Some ignorant redneck. I'm a Hispanic scholar and a proud Texan who wants people to take care of themselves, or seek assistance from churches, ministries, or non-government subsidized institutions.
Karen Brooks Harper via Texas Tribune on Facebook
Angel I'm betting your wife doesn't manufacture her own birth control pills. I'm going to call BS on that. Sorry. I don't believe you take care of it all yourself. Because if you're not using birth control then you're using rhythm. And we all know how well that works.
Tell the truth and try again.
Jim Golub
It is far past time to make people responsible for their actions! Just because some woman didn't use basic precautions or more far fetched yet, keep her legs crossed, why should we have to foot the bill! Right now, babies are a means to a meal ticket and money for nothing. Too often such funds don't go to caring for the child anyway. I have heard a woman say she 'worked hard for her welfare.' The way I was raised, a few minutes on your back wasn't considered work even though it is for some a profession. Well, I for one am sick and tired of footing the bill! Yes, people, children will suffer. BUT. If you start making people responsible for their actions, take away the profit in pregnancy, the birth rate will back off again.
Jim Golub
This doesn't relate to the article but I post it in response to the person who thinks refusing to raise the debt ceiling caused us to go deeper in debt, you might reconsider just who is a "whack job."
At least by the way they taught math & economics in the old days, you do not reduce debt by spending more money on credit and going deeper into debt. Their HAS to be a line drawn where the ONLY possible action is to reduce spending and increase revenue. Historically, that has only been accomplished by CUTTING taxes. Only a "whack job" believes you increase money to the government by reducing productivity and profit. If rich people make less money, they pay less taxes.
What public school apparently fails to do is teach basic economics. Of course rich people dodge paying personal taxes. But they pays bunches of it on the way. Profit comes in two forms, 1.-gross profit= how much money you take in, and 2.-Net profit, how much the business owner keeps AFTER EXPENSES. Taxes are among those expenses. Increase taxes and the business owner simply passes them on in increased cost for goods and services. That means you pay more for food, clothing, gas, Big Macs, anything and everything. But, there are limits to how much people will pay fr most things. When buying falls off as a result of higher prices, then cost of production has to be reduced. The business owner can be expected to have pared all productions costs as low as they can on things they have control over. When things they can't control go up, they have to find other things to cut. By far the greatest expense of business is labor. That means increase taxes beyond a certain point, and believe you me we are there, they cut jobs. If they can't reduce it enough that way, they close the factory and save money by paying somebody else to make their whatevers. That means they increase their profits while paying far less in taxes while the hundred or thousands they used to employ are in the unemployment lines sucking up MORE tax dollars the tax increasing government is getting less of. You just do NOT get more money by slaughtering the goose that lays the golden eggs. I am old enough to remember when automobiles USED to be made in Detroit. When American factories produced goods sold world wide and worked around the clock. Not all the blame can be laid at the feet of big government and bloated Unions, but they account for the greatest share of shipping American jobs over seas. Don't blame the wealthy for wanting to keep money they EARNED. That's the ONLY reason people start or go into business, to make money! Not provide a living for others. That is just a by product of PROFIT. So we come full cycle. Raise taxes and you cut tax revenue. You do NOT raise taxes in a recession. Even Jack Kennedy knew that. Since he was rich, he understood that poor people to not create jobs or pay so much in taxes!
Jim Golub
My last comment. I see a lot of Liberals comments. They are typically hateful, insulting, bigoted (repeated references to "ugly fat white men) and demand to face facts of which NONE are offered.
Also, typically they think socialism is the answer. They expect one group of people to take care of others who won't take responsibility for themselves. I am poor and have been homeless. By far, the vast majority of those sucking on the government teat are not the poor working class. They take responsibility for themselves. WHY should the government, via tax dollars, pay for family planning? Don't prattle to me about the high cost of birth control! That's a crock! Condoms aren't that danged expensive. You can get them any where including many public restrooms for a few quarters! As "birth control", they have been working for millenia! You will NOT convince me that "poor working families" cannot afford such basic levels of preventing unwanted pregnancies. Not 100% effective no. But near enough as to make no difference. It's the irresponsible leeches on society who count on being paid by the baby, and men who refuse responsibility for their actions that drain money from those who really DESERVE it. NOT the politicians who realize we MUST operate within a budget and that government is not year round SANTA CLAUSE.
One person suggested, in mealy mouth liberal fashion, that those who oppose giving away birth control measure take the kids home and raise them. THERE ARE WAITING LINES OF PEOPLE WILLING AND EAGER TO DO JUST THAT!
Mr/Ms/other liberal. Are you then suggesting that such children be TAKEN AWAY from those who cannot support them?! That was YOUR suggestion. NOT MINE!