Real Policy or Mere Rhetoric: Republicans Try to End Planned Parenthood Funding

On January 7, Mike Pence, an eleventh-year Republican representative from Indiana, introduced H.R. 217, a bill " To amend title X of the Public Health Service Act to prohibit family planning grants from being awarded to any entity that performs abortions, and for other purposes." [1] Pence himself has stated that the bill's most prominent target for prohibition of funds is Planned Parenthood, a major abortion-provider in the United States. [2] According to Planned Parenthood's official numbers, "it received more than $363 million in revenue from government grants and contracts. During that same time frame, it did 324,008 abortions." [3]

With 127 cosponsors backing Pence's bill as it goes before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the chances of its eventual passage in the House are much more likely under the new Republican leadership. Using their influence as constituents, "pro-life groups are already on board pledging to pull out all the stops to get the bill through the House and give pro-life senators a chance to try to get a vote or attach it to other legislation." [4] Admittedly, passage in the Senate will remain difficult for a bill like this because of the conservative values which it embraces. However, at the very least, the popularity of H.R. 217 in the House at this early stage in its development is a further reminder of the conservative swing in the 2010 congressional elections.

That said, even if passed through Congress and signed by the president, there is question as to whether this bill would actually represent a significant change in the law. In the end, H.R. 217 might be more effective as a tool for House and Senate members to gain credence with conservative voters instead of effectively removing federal funds from Planned Parenthood and similar abortion providers. The language of the bill provides exceptions to organizations that provide abortions when "the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape, or an act of incest against a minor," [5] and when a physician certifies that the woman suffers from a physical disorder, physical injury, or physical illness that would place the woman in danger of death unless an abortion is performed." [6] By hiring competent lawyers, it is very possible that Planned Parenthood could easily try to prove that the abortions they provide fall under these exceptions. Furthermore, Title X funding already is not allowed to be used by recipient organizations for the funding of abortions. [7]

Ultimately, this bill potentially highlights the best and worst of the conservative swing in November 2010. On the one hand, it represents the trend back toward conservative principles in Congress. However, it also is reminiscent of previous Republican efforts during the last decade-efforts which emphasized symbolic conservatism over consistent conservatism. It is still early enough in this new Republican-dominated House that conservatives may continue to hope for actual reform in the policies and principles of Congress. However, a bill such as this holds little promise toward that end.

Bibliography

[1]. Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act, HR 217, 112^th Cong., 1^st sess., 2011, http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.217: .

[2]. Medical News Today, "House Bill Would Deny Title X Grants To Groups That Offer Abortion," January 11, 2011, http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/213329.php (Accessed January 16, 2011), para. 3.

[3]. Steven Ertelt, "Pence Files Bill to De-Fund Planned Parenthood Abortion Biz," January 7, 2011, http://www.lifenews.com/2011/01/07/pence-drops-bill-to-de-fund-planned-parenthood-abortion-biz/ (Accessed January 16, 2011), para. 3.

[4]. Ibid.

[5]. Title X Abortion Provider Prohibition Act

[6]. Ibid.

[7]. Medical News Today, para. 1.