By: Max P. Domer

Since its spiritual founding in 1916, Planned Parenthood has had its share of controversy. When Margret Sanger, an early proponent of birth control and the original president of what would become the organization we have today, founded the first American birth control clinic in Brooklyn, N.Y., she was incarcerated. From then on, the organization went through a number of name changes and experienced its fair share of hard times. During the tenure of organizational president Alan Guttmacher, the federal government provided an endowment of funds for domestic and international family planning programs through PPFA. This would begin a tradition which has continued until 2011.

This year, the federal government plans to withdraw funding for PPFA, one of the country’s foremost charities. The planned discontinuation of funding is in response to governmental budgetary concerns, and to be fair, affects more than just one organization. However, this charity in particular has an extensive reach into the lives of many Americans. It provides medical care and family planning services to many who couldn’t otherwise afford it. Thus, the financial unease facing the organization has caused a firestorm of debate and protest in response to the announcement of cut funding. Among the things being debated are the perceived necessity of funding for an organization that has been, throughout its history, devoted to services that are polarizing. Birth control services divide Americans into groups based on personal and religious belief, and the question arises, “Should Planned Parenthood even be considered for governmental funding?”

In an open letter released to members of the GOP-controlled congress, the organization stated that, “Your [Congress’] vote against was not only against those who seek care at Planned Parenthood health centers, but against every one of us who has ever sought care there, and against every one of us who knows that when we are healthy, when we are in charge of our lives, we thrive.”

Liberal politocos are decrying the return of abortion politics, which was one of the reasons behind the GOP’s push to cut the budget for the organization. However, PPFA provides many more services than abortions (which the Hyde Amendment expressly forbids federal funding for). They provide heath care and other services for women and families primarily, and without funding, the popular opinion among supporters is that the organization will be unable to provide these basic services to their clientele.

While the debate has centered around the morality of abortion, the argument that PPFA supports this and should thus not be funded is specious. The Hyde Amendment prevents the federal funding of abortion, and thus organizations providing health care services such as PPFA simply can’t provide the specific service using federal funds. The debate nevertheless is reaching a boiling point, and has the potential to change federal spending habits permanently. It has the media coverage and polarizing effect that could feasibly propel public policy in a new direction. Should federal money even be used to support private charities? That and other questions over public policy, and not simply morality, arise from this debate. Whether PPFA should provide abortion services is one thing, but the policy behind it and the support of the federal government for private organizations is another, perhaps more important point.

The issue facing PPFA is not one that will simply be contained to one organization. Budget cuts to organizations have gone across the board, and this is just one controversial example. The question will quite possibly remain even after the Planned Parenthood debates have ended, “What should the federal government be allowed to fund?” PPFA is representative of health care organizations throughout the country, and its fate will likely decide the fate of other such organizations, even ones smaller in scope.

The morality of the abortion and the recent glut of controversy surrounding PPFA aside, the matter at hand is one of finance and policy, not of morality. Whether cooler heads will prevail remains to be seen, and the matter of abortion remains a large presence in American culture. Does the organization at heart provide simply birth control services or a larger amount of healthcare to its patients primarily, and does the government even have the right to fund a private organization regardless of services provided? Those remain major talking points in this debate.