The Instigator
Con (against)
4 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
0 Points

Resolved: Planned Parenthood should be abolished in the US

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 1 vote the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/5/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 613 times Debate No: 90771
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (0)
Votes (1)





  1. 1. No trolling

  2. 2. Keep some type of format when responding

  3. 3. BOP is shared

  4. 4. Remember, you are going PRO which means you want Planned Parenthood to be abolished

Contention 1: Provides needed services for women

Planned Parenthood is not simply an abortion factory as many critics say. In reality, it is actually a provider of healthcare for many women. In fact, according to NPR in 2015, we can see the following:

“The overwhelming majority of Planned Parenthood's services involve screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections, as well as providing contraception.”

We can also see from the graph on the site that Contraception and STD care take up the majority of spending. While my opponent may claim that abortion is a large part of Planned Parenthood as well, let us look toward Politifact, we can see that an accurate measure of how much abortion plays a role in the program which is 12% of its organization. That means only 12% of the work in Planned Parenthood involves abortion. The majority, also backed by Politifact, goes to research into STDs and how to prevent them. Planned Parenthood also plays a role into the fight against breast cancer as cited from Politifact:

“Different types of cancer screening and prevention, including breast exams, account for 935,573 services.”

These contributions to society are important given the scale of the problems discussed. In fact, approximately 12% of women will have some sort of breast cancer in the future. With this startling fact, researching it now to come up with an answer is the best answer we have to counter the problem.

We also need to observe the lasting decision to target the STD epidemic that has swept across the nation. If we look toward the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, we can see that STDs are on the rise and more prevalent than ever. Chlamydia, syphilis, and gonorrhea have all gone up by at least 2% since 2013. This prevalent problem in society needs to be addressed as well, and since the Planned Parenthood organization directly targets these problems, we need to negate the resolution.

As clearly shown, one must negate the resolution to protect the everyday person against the dangers of STDs and cancer that is present in today’s society.

Contention 2: We would increase illegal abortions

There seems to be a mutual misunderstanding when debating this topic that abolishing Planned Parenthood would entirely get rid of abortions. This is untrue. This is because Planned Parenthood offers educational and contraceptive services which decrease the likeliness of unplanned pregnancies which lead to abortions. According to the Guttmacher Institute, we can see that in 2013, without family planning services, (often given by Planned Parenthood) there would have been 345,000 more abortions.

We can see the effects of this when we look toward the Washington Post in 2016 where we see that the birth rate of teens are at an all-time low with a citation from the Center for Disease Control and Prevention center in the form of a graph. This shows the effect of Planned Parenthood’s educational services as well as the usefulness of keeping them around.

So what happens when we get rid of Planned Parenthood? We would see an increase of illegal abortions on the black market. According to International Business Times in 2015, with the closing of multiple abortion clinics in Texas, many women either travel outside the country when they need an abortion, or use many of the drugs in the black market to induce abortion including Misprostol, a medicine for stomach ulcers that does, in fact, induce abortions. However, due to inflation because of women using it for abortions, the drug is now valued at 130 British pounds, which is over one hundred dollars in the United States.

It should also be mentioned that illegal abortions not regulated by any government organization could very well result in death. If we turn toward the World Health Organization, we can see this:

“Increasing legal access to abortion is associated with improvement in sexual and reproductive health. Conversely, unsafe abortion and related mortality are both highest in countries with narrow grounds for legal abortion.”

The same report also mentions that women who use Misprostol for abortions are more likely to end up in a hospital. These are dangerous ways to have an abortion, and keeping a legal, safe option open is the best way to keep abortion at a minimum while also not jeopardizing women’s health. With this, I urge a negative vote to protect women nationwide.

Contention 3: Legal Precedent

If we look into the past we can reap knowledge to help us in the present. This basic notion can also help us with the abortion issue. There was, at one time in 1973, a Supreme Court case that decided this issue. That case was called Roe v. Wade which established that it is unconstitutional to deny one an abortion. Because the Supreme Court’s duty is to judge the laws of the land with due process, we can see that this is an open and shut case. The American government does not have the ability to simply claim women cannot have abortions as it is against the very fabric of democracy. After all, the decision was based on the fourteenth amendment of the Bill of Rights. Also, the ruling was upheld with the Casey v. Planned Parenthood case as well, with a slight limitation on when one can have an abortion. These landmark cases need to be upheld today out of legal precedent.

My opponent has to prove why this court case is not sufficient evidence or why it is flawed, because otherwise, the legality of this resolution is ultimately challenged which results in it not being able to be passed under American law.

Contention 4: Economic benefits

While it may not be entirely necessary to point out, there would be substantial economic benefits to keep Planned Parenthood. For instance, if we were to look at an Atlantic article in 2015, where they cite the National Women’s Law Center, we can observe the following:

The National Women’s Law Center highlights research that shows the initial availability of birth-control pills in the early 1970s accounted for 30 percent of the growth in the proportion of women in skilled careers between 1970 and 1990, and contributed to an increase in the number of women in fields that are dominated by men, such as medicine and law.

Not only this, but we must realize that due to Planned Parenthood, teenage pregnancy is at an all-time low resulting in more participation in school for many teenagers. More education may not directly translate to more people in our labor market, but it does have an indirect effect of getting rid of one of the major reasons why women do not attend college. This is supported by Teen Pregnancy Statistics when it states that less than 2% of teenage mothers will actually receive a college degree and that many will be dependent on welfare for the rest of their life, which sucks up government funds. Luckily, since teen pregnancy is at an all-time low according to the statistics I used previously, we can see that we have a net saving of money.

What we need to observe is the obvious reasons why economically, we need to keep funding and supporting Planned Parenthood for the women in the country.

As clearly shown, we need to negate the resolution for the protection of women, cost of the government, legal precedents, and the fact that we would not end abortion anyway. For these reasons, I see nothing but a negative ballot.



On, contention 1

My first answer is planned parenthood is not the only way women can get care

The warrant is my opponent claims that planned parenthood is the only way for women to get access to health services

This is a ludicrous argument and a reason to vote the NEG down - They lie to you as the judge therefore women's healthcare will survive without planned parenthood

My second answer is that planned parenthood hurts women's healthcare which turns contention 1

One reviewer said the clinic she visited was "all sorts of nasty." Another said Planned Parenthood had given her the wrong prescription. Another reviewer went in for an IUD, received five price quotes ranging from $200 to $785, and wasn"t told her appointment was only an "initial consultation" until she was hit with a hidden fee of $85.

It gets worse. The Federalist recently published a young woman"s account of her experiences with Planned Parenthood. During one particular visit, Planned Parenthood employees bullied the young woman for not indicating she would consider abortion while she was waiting for the results of a pregnancy test, to the point where she left in tears.

this means that planned parenthood not only steals but abuses its customers

On contention 2

My first answer is black genocide

We would not be increasing abortions but rather exposing the black genocide caused by planned parenthood.

Planned Parenthood silences any opposition

"No doubt the authors of the legislation think that anything that hurts Planned Parenthood, the leading provider of abortions, would further the pro-life cause. - This means that this argument is basically trying to silence the opposition by saying that we cannot argue for pro-life - that is abusive and an independent voter for the affirmative

Planned parenthood was started to control black populations

Planned Parenthood puts most of its clinics in black neighborhoods to "control the population" and that its founder, Margaret Sanger, "was not particularly enamored with black people."

Planned Parenthood has been a target on the campaign trail after a series of sting videos was released alleging the organization illegally profits from selling aborted fetal tissue.

The baby"s death is not executed in any gentle or humane way. Babies are crushed. Torn apart while alive. Cut into pieces in ways to save whole organs for sale and profit. Abortionists cannot use feticides such as digoxin to kill the baby first. That would make the salable (profitable) organs then unusable. That means the baby is crushed for organ retrieval while still alive.

This means that they literally tear apart an infant while still ALIVE to steal their organs and are trying to wipe out black communities

On Contention 3

First off, I do not have to prove how that court case is specifically wrong, I just have to prove that my case is right.

First of all this not sufficient evidence because allowing planned parenthood sets a bad legal precedent on the contrary to what they claim

They ignore the H.R.1997 - Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004

Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 or Laci and Conner's Law - Provides that persons who commit certain Federal violent crimes (conduct that violates specified provisions of the Federal criminal code, the Controlled Substances Act of 1970, or the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, or specified articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) ) and thereby cause the death of, or bodily injury to, a child who is in utero shall be guilty of a separate offense. Requires the punishment for that separate offense to be the same as provided under Federal law for that conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother (or in the case of a UCMJ violation, to be such punishment as a court-martial may direct, which shall be consistent with the punishments prescribed by the President for such conduct had that injury or death occurred to the unborn child's mother).

Declares that such a separate offense does not require proof that: (1) the person who committed the offense knew or should have known that the victim of the underlying offense was pregnant; or (2) the defendant (or accused) intended to harm the unborn child. Prohibits imposition of the death penalty for such an offense.

This is 2003-2004 meaning that that legal precedent is outdated and even if it is not they are violating a federal and the baby's first amendment rights

On Contention 4

My first answer is turn- Planned parenthood makes the economy worse by adding a millions to the national debt

In purely economic terms, the nation is $18 trillion in debt " why are we spending half a billion per year

Read more at:

This is why you vote affirmative
Debate Round No. 1


Rebuttal 1: Opponent claims

My opponent claims that I stated that the only way that women can get health care is through Planned Parenthood. I never claimed this. I only stated that they are an important factor when it comes to women’s health care.

Rebuttal 2: Abuses customers

I will concede that at some clinics, Planned Parenthood does sometimes abuse its clients. But that only tells us that we need better people in the clinics. My opponent also forgets the fact that without Planned Parenthood, we have black market abortions and women looking toward dangerous alternatives which could be life threatening, such as the drug I have mentioned before. Also, Planned Parenthood may have some criminal activity inherent in these clinics. Those people need to be charged for theft, but today we are looking at a much broader spectrum where we see that as a whole, Planned Parenthood does try to help women get the medical treatment they need. Look toward my contention discussing the horrors of looking toward other ways for an abortion. Keeping this in mind, what we have to realize is this, we either provide a safe way to get an abortion or suffer the effects of having women depend on other ways to get an abortion.

Rebuttal 2: Black genocide

I will concede that the original intent of the creator of Planned Parenthood wanted to control the black population. However, the organization is not run by the original intent. The organization’s entire purpose is to give support to women who need help. Also, there are people who use these services who are not black. In fact according to NPR citing the Guttmacher Institute in 2014, this is actually a pretty common misunderstanding.

“In 2014, the Guttmacher Institute, a reproductive health research center, surveyed all known abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood clinics, in the U.S. (nearly 2,000) and found that 60 percent are in majority-white neighborhoods.”

Not only this, but let us look at the other claim my opponent offers about inhuman indecencies happening to these fetuses.

According to the actual producer of the video, Davis Daleiden, the entire video was made entirely false, including edits and other such changes. According to PoliticusUSA, the video contained 43 edits and multiple quotes used out of context and falsely attributed to Planned Parenthood. There was actually an interview on CNN on the following link.

Still don’t believe me? Here is a different source as well that may be considered more concrete for you.

Rebuttal 3: Legal precedent

Let us realize that, unlike the Supreme Court, Congress does not interpret the constitution, the Supreme Court does, meaning that the legal precedent from Roe v. Wade is simply superior. The legislative branch simply makes the laws, and does not interpret them until it is due time for the Supreme Court to do just that. Thus, despite the valiant effort made, we can’t take the bill into account when dealing with this issue. Also, remember, the 1st amendment does not apply either as the Supreme Court has determined that the mother ultimately has the final say, and since the Supreme Court interprets the constitution, that argument falls on its head. After all, Marbury v. Madison is the decision that determined judicial review in the power of the Supreme Court.

Rebuttal 4: Economy

My opponent claims that his article shows how Planned Parenthood wastes money without regard to the amount of people it brings into jobs due to not having teen pregnancies which decreases the chance of succeeding in school or in college. Also, due to the educational services provided, teen pregnancy has fallen, which means less people on welfare due to not being able to attend school. If we turn toward the Center for Disease Control and Prevention we can also see the following:

  • In 2010, teen pregnancy and childbirth accounted for at least $9.4 billion in costs to U.S. taxpayers for increased health care and foster care, increased incarceration rates among children of teen parents, and lost tax revenue because of lower educational attainment and income among teen mothers.”

There is such of a thing as necessary expenditures as well. Look toward my final contention’s sources if you remain unconvinced.

Good luck.



benjacannada56 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 2


Extend my points. Also, I will not refute any more points until my opponent has posted another argument.


benjacannada56 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3


I will yet again extend my arguments. Vote Con.


benjacannada56 forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 4
No comments have been posted on this debate.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by missbailey8 2 years ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:Vote Checkmark--1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:40 
Reasons for voting decision: Firstly, Pro concedes to the debate by forfeiting two rounds. Secondly, because of this forfeit, Con was left unable to refute any of Pro's arguments, while Pro did refute Con's arguments. 4 points to Con.