Defund planned parenthood
Debate Rounds (3)
Second round arguments
Third round rebuttals and closing statements.
For my second round I'll ask my opponent to watch one video by the center for medical progress. It's 11 minutes.
First off I would like to say that I do like some of what planned parenthood does. They do breast cancer screenings, testicular cancer screenings and other moral things. I have no problem with my tax dollars going to those things. I do however have a problem with my money going towards abortions because I personally believe that abortion is the murderer of an innocent baby. If pro choice women force me to pay for their abortions they are forcing their beliefs on me and infringing on my rights under the Hyde amendment. No one should be forced to take part in something they are against. Women should be independent and responsible and pay for their own elective medical procedures. If abortion is between a women and her doctor than why am I paying for it?. Abortion is no longer private, once I am forced to take part in it. Now, under the hyde amendment tax payer dollars are not allowed to go towards abortions so the money planned parenthood gets from tax payers doesn't go towards that. It does however free up other money they get to be used for abortions meaning that tax payer dollars do fund abortions.
Second. Planned parenthood is selling the organs of aborted babies (all four under cover videos by the center for medical progress), doing partial birth abortion (first under cover video from the center for medical progress) and changing the abortion procedure from a way that is safest for the mother to a way that makes it easier to harvest organs (first and second under cover videos from center for medical progress)
Center for medical progress has uncovered all of this. Go to their youtube page and watch the videos. My argument is in the fourth under undercover video. The video is called "planned parenthood vp says fetuses may come out intact, agrees to payments specific to specimen". https://m.youtube.com...
Rand Pauls new bill would defund planned parenthood and redistribute the money it gets from tax payers to local community health centers. People would have access to various medical tests and pro life people wouldn't be forced to pay for abortions. Planned parenthood has lots of supporters who would donate to it.
Per the rules, I'll be making my affirmative case for maintaining funding for Planned Parenthood in this round. I'll respond to my opponent's specific arguments (particularly, the "fungibility" argument and my response to the video) in my Round 3 rebuttals
I'll start by defining the scope of this debate with greater precision. The resolution is "Defund Planned Parenthood." My opponent, citing the Rand Paul bill and the Hyde Amendment, is specifically focused on defunding PP on a federal level. PP also receives state funding in many states - including for abortion specifically.  I presume my opponent opposes this state-level funding as well, but for the sake of keeping the topic manageable within space and time constraints, I will focus solely on federal funding for PP as well.
Let me also note that this is not a debate about the morality of abortion, but simply from a public policy standpoint whether it is better policy to continue funding PP at existing federal level, or to remove that funding.
PP receives federal funds in two ways. The first is through Title X spending, which provides contraceptive care, STD screening, cancer screenings, pelvic health exams, and related health services.  These funds may not be used to provide abortion services.  PP also receives federal funds through Medicaid, for low-income individuals. They provide similar services under Medicaid, though some of these funds can be used to cover an abortion in cases of rape, incest, or medical danger to the life of the mother. 
This funding should be maintained for two reasons:
1) Preventative family planning services reduces the need for abortions.
The root cause of abortion is simple: unintended pregnancy. Regardless of whether abortion is permitted or restricted by local laws, women worldwide will obtain abortions - legally or illegally - to terminate unplanned pregnancies.  Unplanned pregnancies account for 90% of abortions performed in the US, and about half of all unplanned pregnancies end in abortion.  The contraceptive and family planning services provided by Planned Parenthood under federal funding significantly reduces the number of unplanned, unwanted pregnancies, especially among women with few financial resources. By preventing these pregnancies in the first place, this federal spending is one of the most effective policies in place for reducing the number of abortions in the United States.
PP estimates that its contraceptive coverage prevents approximately 515,000 unintended pregnancies each year, and likewise prevents 216,000 abortions that would otherwise be sought to terminate those pregnancies.  Cut funding to PP's contraceptive coverage, and the number of unintended pregnancies - and proportionately, demand for abortion services - will increase.
I'll also caution that one should not assume that women who currently obtain contraceptive care at PP could easily obtain it elsewhere. Already, access and cost barriers are the primary reason many women who do not use modern contraceptives consistently are unable to do so.  About three-quarters of PP clinics are in rural, medically-underserved areas.  We already have a good test case - Texas defunded PP significantly in 2011, and unintended pregnancy skyrocketed. In order to provide comparable levels of services, other clinics in the state would need to increase case loads by 2 to 5 times their existing cases.  This is an untenable strain on already over-burdened clinics that serve the poor.
2) Funding for PP saves taxpayer money
Pregnancy costs money, and when a pregnant woman is on Medicaid, taxpayers shoulder her medical expenses. When a child is born into a family with few resources, taxpayers also subsidize food purchases, childhood medical care, and a host of other services.
Thus, every tax dollar invested in contraceptive care which prevents unintended pregnancies saves taxpayer money down the line - the Brookings Institute conservatively estimates at least $5 in savings for every dollar spent.  Funding PP is therefore good fiscal government, and defunding PP would be a shortsighted move that would cost taxpayers at least 5 times what they purportedly saved down the road.
Thank you, Pro - I await your rebuttal.
Under the bill all the money PP gets would go to federally qualified heath centers witch provide health services for people in medically undeserved areas, areas with lots of immigrants where language and culture act as barriers, health care for homeless people and public housing health care. People who would otherwise get care at PP would get their care somewhere else. stds, unwanted pregnancies and abortion would be prevented, all with out tax payers indirectly funding abortions.
PP has lots of supporters many of whom are very wealthy like bill gates. PP could easily spend 1 billion dollars a year on various services with out tax payers, but with donations from wealthy and middle class supporters. About 50% of the country lean towards a democratic stance on politics including abortion and many of those people would give donations to
CASmnl42 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 1 year ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Con ff a round. This is poor conduct.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.