US award grants to anti-abortion clinics

President Donald Trump’s administration announced that it would award family planning grant to a chain of crisis centres that oppose abortion and don’t offer contraceptives.

Background

Abortion is the termination of a human pregnancy accompanied by the death of the embryo or fetus. The anti-abortion movements are involved in the abortion debate advocating against the practice of abortion and its legality.

The United States anti-abortion movement was formed as a response to the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton Supreme Court decisions. Many anti-abortion organizations have emerged since then. The initial movement was led by physicians, but also included politicians and feminists. Advances in medical knowledge played a significant role in influencing anti-abortion opinion. The US Constitution believes in the philosophy of individual liberty.

During his 2016 campaign, Trump vowed to appoint Supreme Court Justices who he believed would overturn Roe case.

Analysis

The Trump administration took an important step in its push to restrict access to abortion and contraception, announcing that it would give as much as $5.1 million in family planning funds to a non-profit organization funded by allies of the Catholic Church.

Under President Trump, the Department of Health and Human Services has introduced changes to make it more difficult for clinics that offer abortions to qualify for the funds and, conversely, to make it easier to provide money to organizations that oppose abortion rights and certain forms of contraception.

It bars Planned Parenthood and other providers from offering abortions or referrals from obtaining funding under Title X, which allows access for free birth control for low-income earners. The administration has cut funds to some Planned Parenthood affiliates. Planned Parenthood in the states of Hawaii, North Carolina, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Virginia are among those affected by the cuts.

The grant from the Department of Health and Human Services went to the Obria Group, a Southern California-based non-profit. The grant which includes $1.7 million in the first year and the prospect of that amount in each of the next two years, represents a fraction of the total amount of family planning money awarded by the department. Obria runs 21 health clinics and 11 mobile clinics in five states and does not perform or promote abortions.

“With this grant, the administration has opened up a new avenue of health care choices for low income and underserved women and their families in California,” Kathleen Eaton Bravo, the founder and chief executive of Obria, said in the statement. “For decades, multiple Congresses and presidential administrations, the pro-life movement has fought to at least slow federal tax subsidies for abortion providers but has failed to do so — until now,” said Tim Head, the president of the conservative advocacy group Faith and Freedom Coalition.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected a bid by anti-abortion activists to narrow a Planned Parenthood lawsuit accusing them of illegally recording video of abortion providers to try to falsely show the illicit sale of aborted fetal tissue for profit.

Lawmakers in 41 states have introduced over 250 bills restricting access to abortion care in the first months of 2019 alone.  A total of six states has been left with only one abortion provider to serve the entire state.  The administration will also expand a rule that blocks US funding from any international nongovernmental organization that “provides or promotes abortion as a method of birth control.”

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said “As a result of the decision today we refuse to provide assistance to foreign NGOs that give financial support to other foreign groups in the global abortion industry,” he continued. “We will enforce a strict prohibition on backdoor funding schemes.”

Counterpoint

Planned Parenthood and states governed by Democrats filed lawsuits this month challenging them, and advocacy groups called for investigations into claims of favouritism toward faith-based organizations and warned that the shift could deprive thousands of at-risk women of critical health care.

Assessment

Our assessment is that politicians are likely imposing on personal medical decisions. We feel that it is an opportunistic stance which is likely to help with the elections. We feel that it is not possible to theoretically devise a policy that is coherent and consistent, which is politically and morally acceptable. We believe that advocating for anti-abortion while defaulting on human rights breeds inconsistency.

Image Courtesy - Warren K. Leffler [Public domain]

Read more:

• Argentine Senate defeats abortion bill