Rochester Area Residents Rally in Support of Planned Parenthood

On Feb. 25, a cold snowy day, over 100 Rochester area residents rallied in response to the Republican lead US House voting to cut Title X funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides women health services including pap smears, family planning, education and STD testing. Without these funds, most of these services would no longer exist. <!--break--> Republicans claim they are cutting funding to Planned Parenthood because of needs to cut the budget and because Planned Parenthood provides abortions. However, the amount of money that funds to Planned Parenthood would save is negligible and as far as abortions are concerned, the Hyde amendment prevents federal funds to be used for abortion service except in case of rape, incest and the mother's life is at risk. So why did the House vote to cut funding? Many rally participants believe it is a war against women. Shameeka Mason, one of the rally organizer, said &quot;This is a class war, this is a war against poor women.&quot; Ron Linville went further calling the right wing &quot;misogynistic&quot; and saying they will do &quot;anything they can do to return women to a subservient role in all aspects of life.&quot; Others thought this is religious zealots trying to make their religious beliefs into US law, despite Republicans claiming belief in small government and government not infringing on people's rights. The other question that needs to be asked is are the Republican lawmakers bringing these bills up to distract the public conversation away from their inability to create promised jobs and turn the economy around. These are not outlandish claims. Several other extreme bills have been introduced into the House this session. H.R.3, authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), is before a Judiciary subcommittee today. Among many egregious provisions, this bill would effectively block private-insurance plans from covering abortion care in the new health-care system and impose tax penalties on individuals and small businesses that purchase plans that include abortion coverage. Currently, 87 percent of private plans include such coverage. H. R. 3 would also redefine rape. Under H.R 3, the only victims of &quot;forcible rape&quot; would qualify for federally funded abortions. This would exclude victims of statutory rape and other forms of rape that do not involve overt violence including cases where a women is drugged, coerced or who might have limited mental capacities. So for example, if a Congressman uses his position of power to coerce a woman to have intercourse and she becomes pregnant, she would not be able to get a abortion if she is on medicaid or works for the government because it was not &quot;forcible rape&quot;. Another Bill HR 358, which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care, even if the woman's life is at risk. Anti abortion hospitals, including most Catholic hospitals, would no longer have to terminate life threatening pregnancies and would not be required to facilitate a transfer to another hospital. These Republicans that claim to be so concerned about the life of the fetus, sure show a lack of concern when it comes to budget cuts aimed at pregnant women and children. These cuts include, $784 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), $210 million from Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, cutting a program that gives low income pregnant women, mothers and their children access to health care and $1.1 billion from community health centers, where about 1/3 of their patients are children to name only a few. This article does not attempt to answer the earlier questions, but to elicit conversations and alternatives to the Republican propaganda.

<p>On Feb. 25, a cold snowy day, over 100 Rochester area residents rallied in response to the Republican lead US House voting to cut Title X funding for Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood provides women health services including pap smears, family planning, education and STD testing. Without these funds, most of these services would no longer exist.</p> <!--break--><p>Republicans claim they are cutting funding to Planned Parenthood because of needs to cut the budget and because Planned Parenthood provides abortions. However, the amount of money that funds to Planned Parenthood would save is negligible and as far as abortions are concerned, the Hyde amendment prevents federal funds to be used for abortion service except in case of rape, incest and the mother's life is at risk. So why did the House vote to cut funding? Many rally participants believe it is a war against women. Shameeka Mason, one of the rally organizer, said "This is a class war, this is a war against poor women." Ron Linville went further calling the right wing "misogynistic" and saying they will do "anything they can do to return women to a subservient role in all aspects of life." Others thought this is religious zealots trying to make their religious beliefs into US law, despite Republicans claiming belief in small government and government not infringing on people's rights. The other question that needs to be asked is are the Republican lawmakers bringing these bills up to distract the public conversation away from their inability to create promised jobs and turn the economy around.</p> <p>These are not outlandish claims. Several other extreme bills have been introduced into the House this session. H.R.3, authored by Rep. Chris Smith (R-N.J.), is before a Judiciary subcommittee today. Among many egregious provisions, this bill would effectively block private-insurance plans from covering abortion care in the new health-care system and impose tax penalties on individuals and small businesses that purchase plans that include abortion coverage. Currently, 87 percent of private plans include such coverage. H. R. 3 would also redefine rape. Under H.R 3, the only victims of "forcible rape" would qualify for federally funded abortions. This would exclude victims of statutory rape and other forms of rape that do not involve overt violence including cases where a women is drugged, coerced or who might have limited mental capacities. So for example, if a Congressman uses his position of power to coerce a woman to have intercourse and she becomes pregnant, she would not be able to get a abortion if she is on medicaid or works for the government because it was not "forcible rape". Another Bill HR 358, which would allow hospitals to refuse to provide emergency abortion care, even if the woman's life is at risk. Anti abortion hospitals, including most Catholic hospitals, would no longer have to terminate life threatening pregnancies and would not be required to facilitate a transfer to another hospital. </p> <p>These Republicans that claim to be so concerned about the life of the fetus, sure show a lack of concern when it comes to budget cuts aimed at pregnant women and children. These cuts include, $784 million from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), $210 million from Maternal and Child Health Block Grants, cutting a program that gives low income pregnant women, mothers and their children access to health care and $1.1 billion from community health centers, where about 1/3 of their patients are children to name only a few.</p> <p>This article does not attempt to answer the earlier questions, but to elicit conversations and alternatives to the Republican propaganda.</p>