Without Planned Parenthood, What’s Left for Texas Women? Not Much.


VIDEO: Without Planned Parenthood, What’s Left for Texas Women? Not Much.

RH Reality Check Texas reporter Andrea Grimes searches, in vain, for a pap smear among the providers the state of Texas says should be available to provide one. Watch and listen and read the rest of our reporting on the Texas Women’s Health Program here.

People in favor of a Texas-funded Women’s Health Program that excludes Planned Parenthood as a provider frequently claim that there are plenty of other places that Texas women enrolled in the WHP can get the same or better reproductive health care that they get at Planned Parenthood. The Department of Health and Human Services even provides a searchable database on their website. So I searched for WHP providers within thirty miles of the zip code 78702, which contains a busy Austin Planned Parenthood clinic that would not be able to see WHP patients if the new rules are adopted and enforced. That search returned 181 results. Does that mean it returned 181 gynecologists ready to see Medicaid patients? Not at all. It returned results like the Austin Endoscopy Center.

Operator: Uh, do you realize you’re calling the Austin Endoscopy Center?
RHRC: You guys are listed on their list of Medicaid Women’s Health Providers, so this is incorrect?

Operator: So you are wanting to schedule a screening colonoscopy?

RHRC: No, I’m trying to get a well-woman exam. Obviously I’ve called the wrong place.
Operator: Okay, we are an endoscopy center. [laughs] If you want a colonoscopy, call us back.

RHRC: Sure, thanks.

Operator: Bye-bye.

Nearly six hours of those kinds of conversations later, I found 13 clinics or doctors that take the Medicaid Women’s Health Program. Thirteen. Not 181. Why? Because 92 of the state’s listings are duplicates. Others are radiology associates and labs and pediatricians and even closed clinics. Others just plain don’t take Medicaid. At all. Here’s a sampling of what my afternoon sounded like.

Balcones OBGYN Operator: Balcones OBGYN?

RHRC: Hi, I was calling to find out if you guys take the Medicaid Women’s Health Program.

Balcones OBGYN Operator: No ma’am, we don’t.

Austin Radiological Association Operator: What kind of exam were you trying to schedule?

RHRC: A pap smear.

Austin Radiological Association Operator: Oh, we don’t do pap smears here.

RHRC: I was calling to find out if you guys take the Medicaid Women’s Health Program?
Martha Schmitz, MD Operator: We actually do not.

RHRC: You don’t take it. You guys are on their list of providers that they have.
Martha Schmitz, MD Operator: We do, but at this time we’re not accepting. We have too many to handle.

Austin Women’s Clinic Operator: Hello? How can I help you?

RHRC: I was calling to find out if you guys take the Medicaid Women’s Health Program?

Austin Women’s Clinic Operator: I’m sorry, we don’t take Women’s Health.

RHRC: Okay. You guys are listed as a provider on their website. Austin Women’s Clinic Operator: Yeah, I’ve been told we are and I don’t know why, but we really need to fix that. I really do apologize.

RHRC: Okay, thanks anyway.

RHRC: Do you guys take that [WHP]?

Harold D. Lewis Family Practice Operator: He actually does not, he is not contracted with that program.

Community Care in Manor, TX Operator: I don’t think we do. We don’t take the Title X or the Women’s Health.

Oakwood Surgery Center Operator: Well, we’re an ambulatory surgical center? So if you had to have surgery that was prescribed by the doctor, then that could be done here because we do accept Medicaid.

RHRC: But you don’t do pap smears or anything like that?

Oakwood Surgery Center Operator: No ma’am, we do not. That’s something you would want to address with an OB-GYN.

Of the 13 providers that could actually see a Medicaid Women’s Health Program patient, the thirteenth is a forty minute drive from East Austin. And that’s with no traffic. And if you live in Austin, you know there’s no such thing as no traffic. By public transportation it would take over two hours to get to that clinic. And that’s with a half mile walk at the end. Excluding Planned Parenthood from the Women’s Health Program absolutely reduces access to quality care. Full stop. Already, the state has demonstrated that the systems it says it has in place to support women without Planned Parenthood don’t work. Trying to get low-income, quality reproductive health care in Texas, in a major metropolitan area like Austin, without Planned Parenthood is like trying to get a pap smear at a colonoscopy clinic. And I know because I actually tried.

Like this story? Your $10 tax-deductible contribution helps support our research, reporting, and analysis.

To schedule an interview with contact director of communications Rachel Perrone at rachel@rhrealitycheck.org.

Follow Andrea Grimes on twitter: @andreagrimes

  • z3ncat

    Andrea, as a fellow Texan – a transplant from NJ now living in the DFW area – I think there’s a key detail you left out.

     

    The thirteenth provider is over two hours away by public transit, with a half-mile walk at the end IN TEXAN HEAT.  In temperatures that regularly go into the 100s.  In my opinion at least, that makes that provider completely inaccessable for a significant portion of the year. 

  • andrea-grimes

    Oh, totally. You right.

  • texasalien

    Andrea, describe the other 12 locations please.  Why did you skip any of those?  Was the 13th the closest?
    -Don-

  • andrea-grimes

    I realize in the video this is unclear–by “13th clinic” I mean the one that was the very last viable option, in terms of being the farthest away. About half of the 13 clinics are reasonably accessible by public transport and/or less than, say, a $30 taxi ride or half-hour drive. Of those accessible ones, I don’t think any of them are individually capable of handling the volume of patients PP sees–which is hundreds of women, in the case of the Austin clinic I refer to–as they are either FQHC’s that aren’t women’s health specialists or, private practice doctors, etc. The People’s Clinic of Austin, which does very similar work, is not accepting new patients who aren’t teenagers, for example, because they’re already overbooked. The rest of the clinics were similar in distance to the 13th one I described–far out in the suburbs, not accessible by public transport.

  • lisac

    I don’t think any of them are individually capable of handling the volume of patients PP sees.

     

    I’m sure you’re right.  If you want hard numbers to back it up, you can check how many WHP patients they have seen in past years.  The information is appended in Planned Parenthood’s lawsuit against Texas.

  • thewiseserpent

    What bothers me most about the abortion debate is that so many anti-choicers are so completely unaware that their goals will likely create more of a demand for abortion, not less.  Women are way less likely to need an abortion if they have access to contraceptives and reproductive healthcare.

    http://viola28.hubpages.com/hub/Banning-Abortion-What-are-the-Results-of-Anti-Abortion-Laws

  • jill-stanek

    Andrea’s dramatic “investigation” of the Texas Women’s Health Program actually makes the case for the State of Texas defunding Planned Parenthood. Andrea found 13 healthcare providers in the vicinity of the Austin PP available to fill the gap. Explain again how PP’s absence from the program will be missed?

    As for that 13th provider so far away from the Austin PP, Andrea is assuming all low-income women  within the 30 mile radius of her zip code search live by that PP. But the same argument could be made for those living near that 13th provider who would be forced to get to the PP.

  • psycmeistr

    Why are we even having this debate?  Do you “pro-choicers” know just how much on the wrong side of history that you are??

     

    “The only crime I committed was being born to Jewish parents.  According to the Nazis, I had no right to live. “

     

    -Israel Arbeiter, Holocaust survivor

    WAKE UP ALREADY!  Abortion is just another crime against humanity! 

  • jkerekes

    Andrea’s search also reveals that the state run website needs to be updated and checked for accuracy.  A private place of business wouldn’t last very long if the website was such a mess.

  • prochoiceferret

    Andrea’s dramatic “investigation” of the Texas Women’s Health Program actually makes the case for the State of Texas defunding Planned Parenthood.

     

    It certainly does if your goal is to have women not get the reproductive health care they need. (And as far as I can tell, that does seem to be your goal.)

     

    Andrea found 13 healthcare providers in the vicinity of the Austin PP available to fill the gap. Explain again how PP’s absence from the program will be missed?

     

    Andrea already did that, actually. Perhaps you may want to pay attention to that part of her report?

     

    As for that 13th provider so far away from the Austin PP, Andrea is assuming all low-income women  within the 30 mile radius of her zip code search live by that PP. But the same argument could be made for those living near that 13th provider who would be forced to get to the PP.

     

    So you want to shut down that 13th provider, too?

  • jennifer-starr

    And, as if on cue, along comes a Godwin.

  • prochoiceferret

    Why are we even having this debate?

     

    Because misogynistic anti-choicers exist.

     

    Do you “pro-choicers” know just how much on the wrong side of history that you are??

     

    About as much as you are on the side of respecting womens’ agency, bodily autonomy, and basic human rights.

     

    “The only crime I committed was being born to Jewish parents.  According to the Nazis, I had no right to live. “

     

    “The only crime I committed was being born female. According to Psycmeistr, I had no right to control my own fertility.


    -Random woman living in an anti-choice U.S.A.


    WAKE UP ALREADY!  Abortion is just another crime against humanity!

     

    I’m sure Hitler and Pol Pot would be proud.

  • tms

    Several of the facilities were not taking new patients because they did not have the recources correct?  So would it not follow that de-funding PP and diverting the funds to another facility would enable them to provide that care filing the gap?  I do not understand why it is SO important that the care be recieved at PP.  If the money allows PP to service those women then why would the same money not allow a similar facility to service the same women instead?   If there is (just for example, I have no idea of the actual numbers) 1 milliion dollars alloted to PP allowing them to see 500 Austin area women each year.  Then that 1million dollars is taken away could it not then be given to The People’s Clinic of Austin, or used to open a new facility to service those women?  If the money allows PP to service those women then why would the same money not allow a similar facility to service the same women instead?  Am I to understand that the money is being taken away from PP and not used elswhere?

  • psycmeistr

    I’m not the NATALIST who thinks that my life is superior, simply because I’m more developed than is the child growing in the womb. Numerically, half of the developing human beings aborted are FEMALE.  

    And I’M the misogynist?  

    Placing the value of life based on functionality vs. its mere existence puts YOU in the same camp as Hitler and Goebbels, not me.

    You DON’T have an absolute right to do as you wish with your body.  The right to do with as I please with my fist ENDS with YOUR face.

    The fact that there is another heartbeat involved changes the game.  Sorry. You have no moral leg to stand on.

    And don’t go giving me that moral relativistic bullsh*t.   

    Killing a child is wrong.  And you KNOW it, even through your reticence to admit it. 

     

    When there is another life involved, that person’s right to LIFE is paramount.  It’s in the Declaration of Independence.  Check it out.  

  • crowepps

    MedSpring clinics are “urgent care”, not “well woman care”.  They are also for profit:

    “MedSpring has a three-tiered payment structure ranging from $134 for a standard visit to $235 for a comprehensive visit for individuals who pay up front. It accepts most major insurance carriers and Medicare”

    http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/print-edition/2012/02/03/medspring-expanding-fast.html?page=all

    $134 to $235 for a visit to get a PAP, breast check and birth control pills seems pretty expensive to me.

  • jill-stanek

    You’ve apparently never dealt with private insurance companies.

  • jennifer-starr

    I’m not the NATALIST who thinks that my life is superior, simply because I’m more developed than is the child growing in the womb.

    You use that word, but it doesn’t mean what you seem to think it means. Natalist, as the definition goes (Thank you Merriam-Webster) would be a person who supports a policy favoring or encouraging population growth and birth–the philosophy of Natalism–generally to the point of banning Abortion/Contraception and giving incentives for birth. An anti-choice view which would fit more into your worldview, not ours. Hitler, by the way, was also anti-choice, not pro-choice.  


    When there is another life involved, that person’s right to LIFE is paramount.  It’s in the Declaration of Independence.  Check it out. 

    When the Declaration of Independence becomes a legally enforceable document rather than an historical document declaring our independence from Great Britain in the eighteenth century, please let me know. Additionally, the Declaration makes no mention of women, pregnancy or birth. Check it out. 

  • lady-lei

    That is actually typical for health insurance lists.  I have gone through some lists where absolutely none of the places on the list are able to accept the insurance.  It was easier to go through the phonebook and call all the doctors and healthcare providers one by one to find a provider that accepts the insurance.  Keep in mind Andrea did a search in a urban area and was only able to find 13 providers in a 30 mile radius whereas women in rural areas often wouldn’t have any providers available.

  • lady-lei

    So of the list provided by Texas of 181 approved facilities to get well women services in a 30 mile radius of Austin, only 13 actually do provide the services and accept Medicaid.  So 7% of facilities listed in the Austin area provide well women services and accept Medicaid.  So the 500 women who rely on the State paid well women services in the Austin area have 13 facilities that are all extremely difficult to get to with public transportation, or other reasonably affordable transportation means available to low income women.  Now the time to get to and from these facilities are at least 2 hours in sweltering heat by public transportation one way.  So low income women would have to schedule at least 4 hours just to get to and from the facilities and that doesn’t count the time spent for filling out forms, waiting to be seen, the time it takes for the services to be rendered, and hopefully not having to wait for public transportation.

     

    I can’t see how anyone could think that cutting out Planned Parenthood hasn’t deeply affected low income women who rely on Medicaid funds to pay for their necessary well women health care services.

  • george-doyle

    The baby in the womb is a living person, and if  people can’t prove otherwise then they have to admit that they *might* be killing an innocent human being. But since it can’t be proved that the baby in the womb isn’t a living person then it’s only reasonable to presume on the side of life and protect that baby as any other human being would be protected.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Are you the notorious professional would-be mother killer with Munchausen by Proxy psychosis who parrots pedophile priests’ scary junk science so they’ll have unlimited fresh victims?  It looks like you and your pedophile priest posse have been troll voting up for your garbage disinfo and down for all the regular truth tellers here.  How can you live with yourself being a womb trafficker for pedophile misogynists?  Of course, Munchausen by Proxy psychos get holy orgasms by inflicting medical mayhem on others.  Your target is sexually active women.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Mother killer, your favorite Catholic anti-abortionist, Adolf Hitler, was never excommunicated, made executing abortion patients his campaign pledge, was funded by future Pius XII, and got the Vatican to order German Catholics to vote for him.  His excuse for arresting Jews was their liberal policy on family planning that deprived pedophile priests of unlimited victims.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    “I’m sure Hitler and Pol Pot would be proud.”

    Exactly!  They both went to Catholic schools and look how well they learned misogyny!

  • give-em-hell-mary

    No woman deserves the gruesome shredding of her lady parts just so pedophile priests will have enough victims.  If a water melon-sized fetus violently jerked itself around inside your penis for several days, not only would you have no penis left, you’d make abortion God’s holiest sacrament.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    This comment was removed for violation of RH Reality Check‘s commenting policy.

  • sheila0405

    I agree that a woman has the right to do with her body as she pleases.  The problem for me is that there is another body when a woman is pregnant.  She isn’t expecting puppies or kittens, she is expecting a human.  And what is done to the body of that human is terrible.  Either ripped apart by vacuum, or dismembered piece by piece.  There is no easy way to take another person’s life.  I am also against the death penalty, by the way.  I am a nurse who studied pre-natal development, so I believe that the life in the womb is truly human.  I just think there should be some consideration of that life before an abortion is done.  There are instance in which the mother’s life is threatened, which makes abortion self defense, as it were.  But taking the life of another human because of the circumstances of its conception, lifestyle or financial situation of the mother, or because the child is disabled, just makes me very sad.  I understand  the reasoning behind those who are pro-choice, I really do.  We just disagree on the humanity of the life in the womb.  I hope we can reach out to one another instead of referring to those who disagree with us as Nazis, or having babies for pedophile priests.  Those kinds of acrimonious comments don’t serve any purpose.  We should communicate, not hate.

  • sheila0405

    Jill, both you and Andrea are making supposittions about how far women have to go to get reproductive health services.  It is really a terrible thing that only 13 out of over 180 providers are actually in the program.  And, Andrea pointed out that some of those providers are booked so heavily that they can’t accept new patients. I am a nurse, and I worked for various doctors.  I can tell you that doctors either have to see incredible numbers of Medicaid patients, or else not accept them at all, in order to stay open.  Both of you are discussing a problem that has nothing to do with PP in the first place.  If poor women were able to see doctors in their areas, their overall health would be better.  As for PP, can’t the State of TX just refuse to pay for abortions?  That way poor women could get their pap smears and breast exams at a PP, and the taxpayers won’t have to pay for abortions.  I am personally anti-choice myself, but Andrea’s whole article was a red herring and you got sucked into it.  I gave you three stars.

  • lady-lei

    Planned Parenthood has been providing those services for a long time, and are already set up to handle the number of patients as well as help as many people as possible with the funds.  The bid system always has Planned Parenthood offering to serve the most amount of patients at the lowest costs which is why they traditionally have gotten the funds from the government.  When other health providers have closed up especially in low income areas Planned Parenthood has made being in those areas and providing services a priority.

     

    It’s naive to think after decades of major healthcare providers, federal and state government reliance on the affordable and well placed Planned Parenthood centers that other providers are able to suddenly and seamlessly step in to that role.  To do that the providers need to already have the infrastructure and policies in place, and those take time especially to set up and open up new facilities.  Medical facilities can’t just take money for health services and use them instead to open up a new facility, because that is not what the money is for.  The women who need those services are having their health put on the back burner while these new providers scramble to get ready for the influx of patients, by hiring the extra staff needed, doing the appropriate training, etc.  In the meantime, you have low income women dying from preventable or at least treatable ailments.  In healthcare every second counts, and patients can’t suspend their health care needs while waiting for other providers to be ready.  It makes very little sense to make a sudden change to fit with political ideals to medical providers that aren’t set up nor ready to handle the large change of caring for so many low income women.

     

    Using the above facts for the Austin area, even if all 13 providers were accepting new patients they would each need to take on 38-39 new patients.   It may not seem like much but that means each facility has to have the space, staff, time, and money to accomodate adding that many patients to each place.  The funds offered only cover for the services to be provided to those low income patients, so each facility has to come up with those extra funds on its own.  So the funds may be available to other providers but unless those providers are set up to take on such a increase it leaves too many low income women without the care they need.

  • lisac

    Several of the facilities were not taking new patients because they did not have the recources correct?   

     

    Not in the way that you understand it.  WHP is not a grant program: it reimburses providers per service at a rate fixed by the state.  If a for-profit clinic or private practice is not taking WHP patients, it is because they are not going to make any money off of doing so.  If a non-profit clinic is not taking WHP patients, it is because the WHP reimbursements will not bring in enough money to hire the additional personnel needed to serve those patients.  Removing PP from the list of WHP providers will not give other facilities an additional penny.  It will give them more potential patients, but if they wanted to take those patients, they would be doing it already.

     

    I know that many in the pro-life community fervently believe that PP is in it for the money, but the truth is that if there were money to be made from serving low-income patients, then other people would already be doing it.  That’s how capitalism works.

  • lady-lei

    It’s already federal law that no taxpayer funds go for abortion except in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.  The funds are held separate.  They are meticulously documented at PP to make sure that abortions aren’t paid using money meant for pap smears and breast exams.  However Texas decided that was not good enough and declared ANY provider of the health services have to adhere to a very strict guidelines of who they associate with and the information provided regarding women’s choices during pregnancy couldn’t even mention abortion or refer to places that do abortions.  It’s rather insane rules that leave low income women’s health in danger.

  • crowepps

    It sounds so neutral to say “circumstances of its conception” when actually what you’re communicating is your desire to have the rape prolonged so the woman’s ordeal lasts for 9 months and in addition to the physical and emotional trauma of the sexual assault itself, inflict further physical and emotional damage including labor, childbirth and wresting the child from her and giving to ‘a real family with a father present in the home’.

    Whenever people protest that it isn’t possible for women to be prejudiced against and despise their own sex, I think of this kind of comment. In your view, short of an actual threat of immediate death, a woman has no human rights, deserves no consideration, and can be reduced by force to livestock, because “that’s what women are for”. I’m old enough to remember the days when your attitude was widespread.   I also remember that when abortion became legal, the suicide rate for women of reproductive age was reduced by one-third.

  • prochoiceferret

    The baby in the womb is a living person, and if  people can’t prove otherwise then they have to admit that they *might* be killing an innocent human being.

     

    Sorry, but no human fetus/person/being has the right to life support from another person’s body. If you doubt this, try getting a tissue/organ transplant from someone who doesn’t want to give it up.

     

    But since it can’t be proved that the baby in the womb isn’t a living person then it’s only reasonable to presume on the side of life and protect that baby as any other human being would be protected.

     

    “Any other human being” wouldn’t be allowed to stay inside a woman’s body against her will, either. Even if their life depended on it.

  • colleen

    Let’s Wait to “communicate” after you folks stop killing Doctors, electing Republicans and blowing up/burning down other peoples property.

     

  • colleen

    Yes. You’re welcome to treat yourself as if you are a brood mare but you have absolutely no business forcing other women to conform to your demeaning  beliefs. 

  • prochoiceferret

    I’m not the NATALIST who thinks that my life is superior, simply because I’m more developed than is the child growing in the womb.

     

    No, you’re the NATALIST (is your name Natalie?) who thinks that it’s perfectly fine to force women to give life support to a fetus/person/being whether they want to or not, even though you would cry bloody murder if someone did the same thing to you (like if one of your kidneys would save another person’s life).

     

    Numerically, half of the developing human beings aborted are FEMALE.

     

    It doesn’t matter if 100% were female, or if 0% were female. Women are still the owners of their own bodies, not you!

     

    And I’M the misogynist?

     

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but… DING DING DING DING!! We have a winner!!

     

    Placing the value of life based on functionality vs. its mere existence puts YOU in the same camp as Hitler and Goebbels, not me.

     

    It’s too bad that most of the Holocaust survivors who are still alive to testify to what happened in WWII no longer have the bodily strength to give you the whack upside the head you deserve for making their suffering into a cheap rhetorical flourish.

     

    You DON’T have an absolute right to do as you wish with your body.  The right to do with as I please with my fist ENDS with YOUR face.

     

    And the right to connect your umbilical cord to a woman’s body ENDS at HER fly. (Though I wouldn’t go too near that even, unless you really want a visit from her knee.) You see? The fetus doesn’t have an absolute right to do as it wants with its body, either!

     

    The fact that there is another heartbeat involved changes the game.

     

    Actually, no, it doesn’t. Whether it is a heartbeat, or a full percussion orchestra, the rules of the fundamental human rights game are the same. (For extra credit: What do you call a person with a heartbeat and no brain activity?)

     

    Sorry. You have no moral leg to stand on.

     

    Nope, both my moral legs are in fine shape, thank you. Those would be “Bodily Autonomy” on the left, and “Self-Defense” on the right.

     

    And don’t go giving me that moral relativistic bullsh*t.

     

    Oh, not to worry: Your sense of morality isn’t relatively bad, it’s absolutely bad.

     

    Killing a child is wrong.  And you KNOW it, even through your reticence to admit it.

     

    Why wouldn’t I admit that killing a child (e.g. infanticide) is wrong? Of course it’s wrong! Did I or anyone else here ever say it wasn’t wrong? Could you link to the/a place where this was said?

     

    Terminating a pregnancy, however, is a different matter, because it’s her body. A woman’s reasons for having an abortion (or marrying, or having kids, or going to school, etc. etc.) may be moral or immoral, but that’s a matter for her conscience and her God. Denying her the right to do this, however, is about as moral as raping her.

     

    When there is another life involved, that person’s right to LIFE is paramount.  It’s in the Declaration of Independence.  Check it out.

     

    You might want to do some checking out of your own, given that the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document. Perhaps you were thinking of the Constitution?

     

    Oh, speaking of which, out of curiosity: When you say “paramount,” do you mean, “more important than the right to keep and bear arms?”

  • crowepps

    So patients who would have received care – including birth control – at Planned Parenthood didn’t get that care when the money went instead to Christ Community. Maybe they went somewhere else, paying more for needed care and sacrificing elsewhere if possible. Maybe, due to costs, delays, or simply not wanting religion pushed on them when trying to get adequate healthcare, they didn’t go anywhere. Whatever happened, it’s clear that a safety net in providing preventive health services didn’t catch as many people, and political games played a role.

    http://womenshealthnews.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/what-happens-when-title-x-funds-are-stripped-from-planned-parenthood-a-memphis-case-study/

  • george-doyle

    Sorry, but no human fetus/person/being has the right to life support from another person’s body. If you doubt this, try getting a tissue/organ transplant from someone who doesn’t want to give it up.

    A person in need of an organ transplant is in danger of death because of a diseased organ that cannot be otherwise healed.  A baby in the womb is not diseased or dying, but has come into being as a living and growing person. The baby’s need for its mother is not the same as a person who needs an organ transplant.

    A person receiving an organ transplant does not have the same relationship to the donor as a baby does with its mother. Organ transplantation is a mehtod developed by man as a way to prolong the life of the dying, and no one has an intrinsic “right” to expect someone else to donate any of their organs or tissue so that they can survive.

    A baby in the womb however is 1) a living person conceived in the mother’s womb and therefore does have a natural right to life which depends  on the mother carrying that baby to term.

    “Any other human being” wouldn’t be allowed to stay inside a woman’s body against her will, either. Even if their life depended on it.

    We’re not talking about “any other human being”, we’re talking about the baby who has been conceived in the mother’s womb and who therefore has a right to be carried and protected by the mother, and the baby’s life certainly does depend on that.

     

  • george-doyle

    Let’s Wait to “communicate” after you folks stop killing Doctors, electing Republicans and blowing up/burning down other peoples property.

     

    Us folks by and large do not engage in those activities and do not approve of them. How many pro-lifers have killed doctors?  I would say even one such incident is too many, but you imply that it happens so frequently that we need to make sure no crazy person acting on their own ever does it again beforer we can communicate. But you know that no one can guarantee that just as you cannot guarantee that  no abortion doctors will ever perforate a woman’s uterus or pull her intestines out through her birth canal and then further putt her life as risk by sending her .. not to the neasrest hospital that could help her… but to one further away where there is someone they’ve made a deal with to keep such things hush hush (this has happened BTW and other terrible things too), or the numerous incidents of planned parenthood “clinics” aiding and abetting sex trafficking of minor girls and other criminal indescretions that continue to be ignored by the Democrats and Obama himself as they continue to support that anti-woman, anti-child organization.

    Be careful trying to take the moral high ground here. You should really take a good look at who really cares about women and who is exploitign women. It is the liberal Democrats who are exploiting women. Yes even the women in that party have sold themselves and women in general out for the sake of an agenda that has done great harm to women overall.

  • george-doyle

    Terminating a pregnancy, however, is a different matter, because it’s her body.

     

    When a woman has an abortion, who is being killed? Is it the woman haivng the abortion being killed or is is the baby?  It is the baby’s body being destroyed, not the woman’s. It seems that acknowledging the life of the baby is arbitrary for some, which is perhaps why some states will convict a person of double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, while at the same time a woman in that same state can get an abortion. See the disconnect ?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    This comment was removed for violation of RH Reality Check‘s commenting policy.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    This comment was removed for violation of RH Reality Check‘s commenting policy.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Do you see your misogynist disconnect between your high-fiving legalized mother killing by pedophile priests and adulterers like Eric Prince of Blackwater who use fetuses instead of fists to murder unwanted brood mares?  I’d love to see priests, politicians and dads jailed everytime their interference and/or siring results in injuries and deaths of mothers.  Are you willing to do jail for life for the next woman murdered by childbirth?  I’ll bet if I googled your name or hired a detective that embarassing sex scandals would fall out of your closet, mother killer!

  • prochoiceferret

    A person in need of an organ transplant is in danger of death because of a diseased organ that cannot be otherwise healed.  A baby in the womb is not diseased or dying, but has come into being as a living and growing person. The baby’s need for its mother is not the same as a person who needs an organ transplant.


    Why is the need not the same? The person in need of an organ transplant has also come into being as a living and growing person. If the “danger of death because of a diseased organ that cannot otherwise be healed” makes a difference, does that then mean that this person does not have the same right to life as the fetus?

     

    A person receiving an organ transplant does not have the same relationship to the donor as a baby does with its mother. Organ transplantation is a mehtod developed by man as a way to prolong the life of the dying, and no one has an intrinsic “right” to expect someone else to donate any of their organs or tissue so that they can survive.

     

    No one has an intrinsic “right” to expect someone else (i.e. a woman) to donate any of their organs (e.g. uterus, placenta) or tissue (e.g. blood via umbilical cord) so that they can survive, either. And yes, a person receiving an organ transplant does not have the same relationship to the donor as an unwanted fetus does with the woman surrounding it. The unwanted fetus is more akin to a parasite inside a host’s body—so if anything, it has even less of that intrinsic “right” that the organ recipient doesn’t have.

     

    A baby in the womb however is 1) a living person conceived in the mother’s womb and therefore does have a natural right to life which depends  on the mother carrying that baby to term.

     

    So if the living person was born, and later needed an organ/tissue, and the person’s mother was a suitable match… does that mean the person would have an intrinsic “right” to organ/tissue from their mother?

     

    We’re not talking about “any other human being”, we’re talking about the baby who has been conceived in the mother’s womb and who therefore has a right to be carried and protected by the mother, and the baby’s life certainly does depend on that.

     

    Why does being conceived inside a woman’s womb give a fetus a right to life support/tissue from the woman? When does this supposed “right” to the woman’s body end? If a person can be entitled to another person’s organs/tissue in this circumstance, might there be other circumstances? Are there any cases where a similar entitlement to a male’s body might exist?

  • give-em-hell-mary

    “Are there any cases where a similar entitlement to a male’s body might exist?”

    Great point!  What if fathers were required by law to donate needed organs to their children, even if such donations resulted in the fathers’ impairment or deaths?  What if those children were still unborn and paternal kidney transplants could save them?

  • rebellious-grrl

    Yep, it’s the same one. Somehow she gets her mindless drone cronies to post bat guano crazy lying crap here. You’re right, the target of her venom is sexually active women. 

  • rebellious-grrl

    Excuse me? Wrong side of history. Abortion and birth control have been around for more than 4,000 years-  http://www.4000yearsforchoice.com/pages/timeline. Bodily autonomy is the right choice – forced birth is not.

  • prochoiceferret

    Us folks by and large do not engage in those activities and do not approve of them.

     

    You might want to be a bit more vocal about that.

     

    I would say even one such incident is too many, but you imply that it happens so frequently that we need to make sure no crazy person acting on their own ever does it again beforer we can communicate.

     

    No, what you need to do is stop the rhetoric that gives these crazy people a premise for killing doctors. Because the people who have killed doctors did not do it “acting on their own”; they were affiliated with anti-abortion organizations and acted on the “baby killer” rhetoric that these organizations have and continue to spout.

     

    But you know that no one can guarantee that

     

    Which is why no one is asking you to do so.

     

    just as you cannot guarantee that  no abortion doctors will ever perforate a woman’s uterus or pull her intestines out through her birth canal and then further putt her life as risk by sending her .. not to the neasrest hospital that could help her… but to one further away where there is someone they’ve made a deal with to keep such things hush hush (this has happened BTW and other terrible things too)

     

    We can’t guarantee that no abortion doctors will ever become mad scientists and try to take over the world, either. But that’s because we already have enforcement mechanisms in place (medical licensing, police and military forces) in place to guard against that. Doctors who needlessly put a patient’s life at risk tend not to stay doctors for long.

     

    or the numerous incidents of planned parenthood “clinics” aiding and abetting sex trafficking of minor girls and other criminal indescretions that continue to be ignored by the Democrats and Obama himself as they continue to support that anti-woman, anti-child organization.

     

    Curiously enough, reputable organizations that are dedicated to combating sex trafficking of minors and other such criminal indiscretions have also continued to ignore these allegations. Why do you suppose that is?

     

    Be careful trying to take the moral high ground here. You should really take a good look at who really cares about women and who is exploitign women. It is the liberal Democrats who are exploiting women.

     

    Actually, you might want to have that really good look yourself. (Which is not to say that you’re good-looking, unfortunately.)

     

    Yes even the women in that party have sold themselves and women in general out for the sake of an agenda that has done great harm to women overall.

     

    You know, it’s funny… they once said the same thing about female suffragists, too.

  • prochoiceferret

    When a woman has an abortion, who is being killed? Is it the woman haivng the abortion being killed or is is the baby?  It is the baby’s body being destroyed, not the woman’s. It seems that acknowledging the life of the baby is arbitrary for some,

     

    Abortion is about terminating a pregnancy, i.e. removing a fetus from a woman’s body. There is no baby (i.e. a born human infant) involved. Killing a baby is infanticide, which is not what people here are talking about whet they talk about abortion.

     

    which is perhaps why some states will convict a person of double homicide for killing a pregnant woman, while at the same time a woman in that same state can get an abortion. See the disconnect?

     

    What is the disconnect? Are you saying that because it is (in legal terms) worse to kill a pregnant woman than a non-pregnant woman, that same pregnant woman should therefore not have a right to terminate her pregnancy? That doesn’t make any sense.

  • jill-stanek

    Not that your red herring matters, but I’m Protestant, for the record. Note my comment had nothing to do with religion. Only a discussion of the facts.

     

  • give-em-hell-mary

    But your junk science claims come from the RCC.  I grew up in an abusive extremist Catholic family and recognize the same poisonous nonsense that many non-Catholics are now parrotting.

  • rebellious-grrl

    Jill – It’s funny how you talk down to Andrea by saying “dramatic ‘investigation’ of the…” I know you have linked to “investigative” videos by Lila Rose and her posse on your website. Yes, I use the term “investigative” very loosely to describe Lila’s non-journalism. Lila’s “investigative” videos have been debunked and proven untrue. While Andrea’s investigation actually looks at the reality of trying to find an alternative to getting a well woman exam at Planned Parenthood.

    Andrea found 13 providers when the state of Texas is touting there are 181 possible providers for well woman exams. I find this alarming. If someone where to say to me, “Hey don’t worry if you don’t have access to Planned Parenthood there are 181 other providers to choose from.” But when it comes down to reality there are only 13. As many other commenters have asked, are these providers equipped to handle the caseload of new clients? What is dramatic is how defunding Planned Parenthood will DRAMATICALLY reduces women’s access to well-woman care. It’s mean-spirited to defund Planned Parenthood when this may be the only viable option for women to get cancer screenings.

    As someone who relied on Planned Parenthood when I didn’t have health insurance and needed affordable healthcare and cancer screenings I think defunding Planned Parenthood is very wrong. I heart Planned Parenthood.

  • rebellious-grrl

    As a recovering Catholic I hear you.

  • give-em-hell-mary

    Thanks!  And you may have noticed that some of my comments here have been removed by the moderators?  Yikes! — I really appreciate this site and don’t want to cause problems for RH journalists, but I don’t have their benefit of journalism or legal training to self-censor when needed.  Also, I barely survived the brutal bashing by my Catholic family, so now I sometimes overcompensate with the verbal bat swinging.  But I keep hoping that verbal bat swinging will wake them up.  I used to believe the same medical and social lies, and finding the info to debunk those lies isn’t easy when even liberals gingerly skirt around nitty gritty details.

  • ljean8080

    most pregnant women want the baby.

  • crowepps

    And how long will the 13 continue to accept these patients when they discover doing so results in hordes of vulgar, obnoxious ProLife ‘clinic counselors’ jamming the sidewalk and scaring their staff?  How long will they be willing to prescribe birth control when the people who work for them, and the people who work in the neighboring offices, get called ‘slut’ and ‘baby killer’ on the way to work?

    I’d guess a few physicians, and landlords, won’t be thrilled to find out that someone putting together their new fundraising video is using their building/ sign as a backdrop for a rant about The Pill Kills.

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/biodork/2012/09/10/clinic-escorting-encounters/

  • maiac

    Are you under the idiot impression that 13 providers can provide reproductive health care for all low-income women in the Austin area? Are you obtuse? Or just not familiar with how numbers work?

  • maiac

    “Several of the facilities were not taking new patients because they did not have the recources correct?  So would it not follow that de-funding PP and diverting the funds to another facility would enable them to provide that care filing the gap?”

    Yah, no; that’s not how it works. Actually the opposite. They aren’t taking new patients because they lack the capacity to do so. It’s not like they wouldn’t get reimbursed for taking WHP patients.


    I do not understand why it is SO important that the care be recieved at PP.”

    It’s not. It’s SO important that the care be available, and PP has more capacity to provide care than anyone else.

     

    “If the money allows PP to service those women then why would the same money not allow a similar facility to service the same women instead?”

    It certianly would, IF SUCH A FACILITIES EXISTED. But they don’t in numbers significant enough to serve PP’s patients. Savvy?

     

    “If there is (just for example, I have no idea of the actual numbers) 1 milliion dollars alloted to PP allowing them to see 500 Austin area women each year.  Then that 1million dollars is taken away could it not then be given to The People’s Clinic of Austin, or used to open a new facility to service those women?  If the money allows PP to service those women then why would the same money not allow a similar facility to service the same women instead?  Am I to understand that the money is being taken away from PP and not used elswhere?”

    Seriously, you just don’t understand how this works. Care reimbursements are not even close to what it takes to make a massive capital expenditure like building new facilities.

  • maiac

    Let’s assume that your logic isn’t horribly flawed. Let’s assume that you are correct that fetus = baby and  has rights “as any other human being would be protected”.

    How come it has extra rights other people don’t have? No one else would have the right to use my body to sustain their life – even if the withdrawl of my body meant their death, even if they were my child, and even if I had initially agreed to the use of my body & then changed my mind. So how come a fetus would???