Planned Parenthood is extraordinarily necessary for affordable women's (and men's) healthcare.
Debate Rounds (3)
I thank Pro for this debate.
I would first like to define some terms:
Planned Parenthood (abbreviated "PP"): a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health as well as maternal and child health services 
Extraordinarily: beyond what is usual, ordinary, regular, or established; exceptional in character, amount, extent, degree, etc.; noteworthy; remarkable 
Necessary: required to be done, achieved, or present; needed; essential 
Healthcare: the services rendered by members of the health professions for the benefit of a patient 
With these definitions, I accept and look forward towards debating this topic.
On to you, Pro.
3. Standard Google Definitions.
The reason that I use the phrase "extraordinarily necessary" is because it is. I would like to start out quoting an article from the Boston Globe:
"62 million Americans struggle to access a primary care physician. Nearly half of them are low income, one-third come from rural communities, and almost 40 percent are minorities. This lack of access permeates our entire health system, where 80 percent of adults who visit emergency rooms in a given year do so because they have no other way to seek primary care."
PP is an affordable healthcare establishment that provides a variety medical care for men, women, and children (this includes fetuses). This is not limited to reproductive care, either.
"People come to Planned Parenthood health centers every day for diagnostic tests, counseling referrals, family planning, and a range of preventative and acute care services" (Boston Globe)
The notion that people can simply find another healthcare establishment is not realistic whatsoever. Many require insurance, where PP does not, and are far more expensive. According to Associates in OBGYN Care, "Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization therefore patients need not pay for the services they"re availing. This is a big help for less-privileged patients, for people with no insurance and for teens who find themselves without any support from their parents."
In conclusion, it is not realistic to expect low-income members of society, and let's not forget PP's care is extended to all demographics, to "just find another place to go."
Thank you, Pro.
Pro has a responsibility to write a clear resolution:
The resolution Pro has offered is not the resolution for which he is arguing. Pro seems to be fixated on low-income men and women, rather than men and women as a whole. I'll address low-income men and women later on, but Pro, instead, must affirm that PP is, on balance, extraordinarily necessary, or extremely essential, for all members of society, not just those low-income families. His arguments for simply low-income families is not sufficient to fulfil his BOP, as the resolution does not specifically pertain to them.
90% of Americans are insured:
According to a CNN Money article, "Nearly nine out of 10 Americans now have health insurance, a sharp improvement from two years ago before Obamacare was put in place." When 9/10's of Americans, how can Planned Parenthood be extraordinarily necessary? A majority of men and women can travel elsewhere and find other healthcare providers. Planned Parenthood is not necessary for about 90% of Americans, defeating the resolution.
Existence and Ubiquity of CHC's:
There are 13,540 Community Health Centers, which provide comprehensive care to men and women regardless of insurance, in the United States, contrasted with the 665 PP's in the country . CHCs provide the same type of care as PP (excluding abortions). A full list of what they cover can be found here: http://www.aachc.org...
Needless to say, CHC's can do much more than PP can, and for the uninsured as well. On top of that, their ubiquity ensures that low-income people who use PP can find a CHC much quicker and easier. PP is unnecessary.
Texas, in 2012, cut all funding to PP and directed that cash towards a 2013 program called the "...Women’s Health Program, which provides low-income women with family planning services, health screenings and birth control" . When they did this, Texas was able to manage to create a benefit for women. According to the same source (), the pregnancy rate remained about the same, "...falling from 82.2 pregnancies per 1,000 women ages 15-44, to 81.1 in 2013. Abortions dropped during the same period, from 65,547 in 2012 compared to 61,513 in 2013." Even though funding to PP was cut, women in Texas, thanks to this program were able to find healthcare and family planning services still, rendering PP all the more irrelevant.
Little more needs to be said. Pro has completely failed to uphold his BOP, arguing for the wrong resolution and being largely irrelevant. Nonetheless, I have still refuted his claims he has raised and argued for the correct resolution. PP is simply not necessary at all really for men and women's health care.
The resolution is negated.
cduffy05 forfeited this round.
Pro has forfeited and has completely failed to fulfill his BOP. I have not done either of these things, and have completely filled my BOP.
The resolution of negated.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by NothingSpecial99 12 months 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:||0||4|
Reasons for voting decision: Pro forfeited rounds and Con's rebuttal proved that PP isn't the only possible source of women's health care that is affordable. Pro hasn't disputed these claims therefore Con had the more convincing arguments.
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.