ghoti_mhic_uait (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ghoti_mhic_uait) wrote2006-01-29 08:09 am
ghoti_mhic_uait) wrote2006-01-29 08:09 am
Entry tags:
Defund Planned Parenthood</
Now, I'm sure it's a very worthy aim. I'm sure that the US tax dollar would be better spent on education or healthcare. However, I have to wonder about this article.
Firstly, it's overly reactive. It's playing to an audience, sure, but it's also invoking Godwin's law, which seems a stupid thing to do if you've right on your side. It's unconvicning, whereas I'm sure it could be convincing.
Secondly, do Planned Parenthood really hand out bad condoms deliberately, or do they just give out mediocre ones because they're cheaper? I know that Family Planning CLinic condoms break a lot, but noone claims they do it deliberately. I'm sure that this is a case of incompetence rather than maliciousness.
Thirdly, surely the problem with Planned Parenthood is exactly the problem with other similar organisations - they don't give out enough information? I don't really know, I just know that it's something people froth at the mouth over, but that's the impression I got. They don't say 'this has this percentage failure rate and this has these, and here are the pros and cons'. Is that not the case?
(I'm writing this here so as to get a balanced view, so please don't jump down my throat saying 'PP aren't evil! Look, they do these good works'. I'm becoming aware of that. I genuinely want to know.)
Firstly, it's overly reactive. It's playing to an audience, sure, but it's also invoking Godwin's law, which seems a stupid thing to do if you've right on your side. It's unconvicning, whereas I'm sure it could be convincing.
Secondly, do Planned Parenthood really hand out bad condoms deliberately, or do they just give out mediocre ones because they're cheaper? I know that Family Planning CLinic condoms break a lot, but noone claims they do it deliberately. I'm sure that this is a case of incompetence rather than maliciousness.
Thirdly, surely the problem with Planned Parenthood is exactly the problem with other similar organisations - they don't give out enough information? I don't really know, I just know that it's something people froth at the mouth over, but that's the impression I got. They don't say 'this has this percentage failure rate and this has these, and here are the pros and cons'. Is that not the case?
(I'm writing this here so as to get a balanced view, so please don't jump down my throat saying 'PP aren't evil! Look, they do these good works'. I'm becoming aware of that. I genuinely want to know.)
no subject
Medical experiments currently inconclusive.
counselling is unnecessary
Depends rather on who you are (the person who wants the abortion). Me, I wouldn't need (or want, interfering busybodies) counselling. Many women are more conflicted, less sure of what they want, less informed about all possible options and all possible complications... counselling ought be *offered* but not mandated.
PP *do* offer counselling, including referals to non-PP counsellors.
PP are also not simply in the abortion buisness (they do all sorts of contraceptive and other gynocological things). They are however, in many areas of the US the *sole* providers of abortion services, and for some women the *sole* providers of effective, affordable contraception or even affordable gynocogical services such as smear testing.
They offer what allmost no-one else in the US offers - a sliding scale of payment such that the poorest women can afford the services she wants/needs. In the UK this is a non-issue; I can get all these services and more for nothing on the NHS. In the US it is a huge issue, medicare doesn't reliably cover any of it, insurance companies don't adequately cover it...
This knowledge all comes from reading women's health comms on LJ, not any official source.