Prohibiting Federal Funding of Planned Parenthood Federation of America

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KING. Madam President, I rise to speak in opposition to S. 1881, the bill that will be coming before us this afternoon, and I have several quick points that I think need to be made.

The first is that this bill has nothing to do with abortion. Ninety-seven percent of the activities of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America and its associated facilities have nothing to do with abortion. They have to do with women's health, they have to do with cancer screening, and they have to do with contraception and early detection. The 3 percent that do involve abortion have no involvement whatsoever with Federal funds. This is not a case where Federal funds are going to support abortion or any of the related activities.

The net effect of this bill is simply to deny basic health care, including contraception, to millions of women, particularly low-income women. And the irony is that it will undoubtedly increase abortions in this country.

I have never understood why people who are opposed to abortion also seem to be opposed to the provision of family planning and contraceptive information which can prevent unwanted pregnancies and, indeed, prevent abortions. The Guttmacher Institute, a respected, nonpartisan institution, estimates that without family planning information supplied by organizations such as Planned Parenthood, abortions would increase in this country by 345,000 a year. That is not a result anybody wants. It is certainly not one I want. That would mean an increase in abortions--345,000 a year.

I understand the bill does make funds generally available to a whole host of different organizations, some of which may or may not provide the kinds of family planning services that have been provided for over 70 years by Planned Parenthood. It is a narrower network. It eliminates clinics that have been available to women and doctors who have been available to women for many years.

Ironically, amidst all the discussion about the Affordable Care Act, a criticism which was ``Maybe you can't keep your own doctor,'' this is a bill designed to keep you away from your doctor, the doctor you have been seeing and have confidence in at a clinic run by Planned Parenthood.

The issue, which my colleague from Indiana noted, is not about abortion. It is not about Planned Parenthood. It is not about contraception. It is about fetal tissue and the uses of fetal tissue and how fetal tissue should be controlled and whether it should be allowed to be used for medical research. But that is a debate we should have on that issue. There is no reason we should be defunding Planned Parenthood because of a debate we may or may not want to have in the future about the use of fetal tissue. We are denying medical services to women--particularly low-income women--because of an issue that has nothing to do with the 97 percent of services this organization provides. To me, this bill is like attacking Brazil after Pearl Harbor--it is a vigorous response, but it is the wrong target.

If the concern is Planned Parenthood or any other organization having access to fetal tissue and then using that tissue in medical research--by the way, designed to save lives and ameliorate the effects of diseases such as Parkinson's or Alzheimer's--then let's focus on that. Let's talk about whether it should be legal, how it should be controlled, what the limitations should be. But we should not eliminate an organization which for many years--almost 100 years--has been providing health care for women, particularly low-income women, basic female health care such as cancer screenings and contraception and family planning.

This is a straightforward attack on women's health, in my view, particularly the health of low-income women.

``No American woman should be denied access to family planning assistance because of her economic condition.'' That radical statement wasn't made by me. It wasn't made by Jimmy Carter. It wasn't made by John F. Kennedy. It was made by that known radical Richard M. Nixon in 1970. So access to family planning information goes back almost 50 years. If people in this body don't think that is appropriate, then let's debate that, but let's not use this collateral issue of fetal tissue, which we can debate, to defund an organization that serves the needs of many women in my State and in States across the country, particularly low-income women. Two-thirds of Planned Parenthood's patients are low-income women. They serve the needs of those women in a responsible, legal, and thoughtful way.

This is targeting an organization for the wrong reason. If we want to discuss fetal tissue and how to deal with it and what the pros and cons are, then let's do so, but I don't believe it is appropriate to do it in the context of legislation that will basically crush an organization that has been enormously helpful in maintaining women's health throughout this country and will not, in fact, end whatever concerns people have about the use of fetal tissue.

Again, Madam President, this bill has nothing to do with abortion. It has everything to do with women's health. I hope my colleagues will move on, debate the real issues, and oppose this ill-founded and I believe unsupported piece of legislation.

Madam President, I yield the floor.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source