Women’s clinics need federal funds

A woman’s first efforts to seek health care on her own is often a visit to an OB-GYN specialist or other provider who is prepared with guidance on birth control and other sexual health matters. For those of limited means, that provider is frequently someone at a federally subsidized clinic.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party’s longstanding and misdirected fury aimed at Planned Parenthood may have just made it harder for many of these young women to get the medical help they need — and not only help with their reproductive health.

It now rests with Hawaii, and as many states as possible, to make sure federal dollars continue to flow to clinics, and that services remain available to its citizens, regardless of their socioeconomic status. In terms of health services provided for the investment of government support, Planned Parenthood has delivered a bargain, one worth keeping for state residents.

On Thursday, the U.S. Senate passed a bill allowing states to withhold federal family planning money from any providers who offer abortion services. This is not limited to the nonprofit women’s health service, but Planned Parenthood clearly was targeted. The GOP critique of this organization has been a key talking point among party leaders for years.

The reason: Planned Parenthood is a leading provider of abortions. Republican opposition to abortion has been a central plank in its social platform.

Although abortions comprise legal services, federal law prohibits the use of federal funds for the purpose; instead it is directed to other health services.

Even so, opponents have argued that money is fungible, meaning that if federal dollars support non-abortion services, that frees other funds for spending on abortion. According to this theory, any money given ultimately enables abortion.

By that line of reasoning, though, any money given to any number of medical facilities could be construed as a pro-abortion gift. The fact is that government-supported clinics provide a wide array of services.

These should have taxpayer support because they promote preventive health that averts much more costly medical conditions — and that’s a wise public-policy investment.

According to its 2014-2015 report, the most recent posted online, Planned Parenthood nationally gets 43 percent of its funding from government grants and reimbursements.

On the expense side of the ledger, abortions represent 3 percent of its medical services; 31 percent is contraception, 45 percent is for sexually transmitted disease testing and treatment; the balance goes to cancer screening and prevention and other health services.

The bill that passed, which reversed regulations of the Obama administration, barely got through. All of the Senate Democrats, plus two Republicans, voted against the measure. The GOP had to bring to the floor a Georgia senator still recovering from surgery, and have Vice President Mike Pence cast his permitted tie-breaker vote.

Why was this so hard to pass? It’s instructive to hear the reasons the Republicans, Sens. Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, voted “no.” They have long opposed their party’s assault on Planned Parenthood because, they said, the agency is a primary provider of health services for women in many rural areas.

In its failed campaign against the Affordable Care Act, a central argument of the GOP was that “Obamacare” discouraged insurance providers from entering the marketplaces, which led to a restriction of health-care choices. It makes no sense to curb those options further by striking out at a major provider of women’s health services nationwide.

With any luck, more states with wide expanses of remote, rural areas will think twice before taking this cue — a misdirection — from Capitol Hill.