NPR has a great story up that explains the social and historical context of funding—or de-funding, as the case may be—Planned Parenthood, which has relied on federal money to provide subsidized contraceptives, cancer screenings, STI tests, and family planning services to millions of low-income women and men for the last 40 years.

“This is not about the federal budget — the money involved is a pittance,” says Gene Burns, a Michigan State University professor and expert on the intersection of the politics of religion and sexuality.

In the 1970s, liberals and conservatives had different but overlapping reasons for supporting Title X, he says. Liberals saw the availability of contraception as helping families have control over their lives. And conservatives, while agreeing to a point, also saw the effort as crucial to helping keep poor people off welfare.

But the developing politics of unmarried parenthood and the maturation of the Christian right as an organized force have changed the conversation in many ways to one of values instead of economics, Burns says.

The entire thing is worth a read if you weren’t having sex in the 70’s (or, uh, weren’t even born yet). Conservatives have made de-funding Planned Parenthood one of their top legislative priorities, which means even if it doesn’t happen this year, this fight isn’t going away any time soon.

Former Stranger news writer Cienna Madrid has been a writer in residence for Richard Hugo House, a local literary nonprofit. There, she taught fiction classes and wrote 4/5 of a book about a death-row...

12 replies on “How Funding Planned Parenthood Went from Bi-Partisan Agreement to Contentious Fight in 40 Years”

  2. It’s the fucking popes. They went from reasonable in the 70’s to fanatical in the eitghties and beyond. It’s no longer enough for them to dictate the lives of their “faithful” because their faithful can do what they want. So the popes decided they had to involve the church in our politics so they could dictate everyone’s life. Pigs. Tell the American people the costs of unwanted pregnancies in money and stunted lives because they will pay a far greater price for this stupidity.

  3. I just love the lack of logic here. Step 1 – Take away abortion. Step 2 – Restrict or abolish contraception. Step 3 – Watch our society crumble under the poverty caused by the weight of unwanted children that we can’t afford, who turn into adults who don’t pull their own weight.

  4. The Right is gunning for the domestic axis of evil-
    NPR, Planned Parenthood, public “service” unions-

    remember Acorn?

    we will not fail this time either….

  5. eventually 4 will die

    and everyone like him will meet their grave

    it will be a good day

    and we will dance upon your graves

    your legacy will be failure and you will be forgotten

  6. If you take all the poor off the welfare roles, conservatives would just have to find another class of people to scapegoat – oh, wait. Nevermind. No shortage of scapegoats, apparently…

  7. I’m not against abortion. I’m not even necessarily against planned parenthood, and certainly for cheap, safe contraception. But let’s not forget this organization’s roots stem directly form the fad pseudo-science of eugenics.
    Planned Parenthood’s pre-WWII name was the American Birth Control League. It was founded by Margaret Sanger, who’s own ideology was arguably racist, and radical.
    Here’s a short list of her bat-shit crazy quotes: http://www.gateway.org/content/pdf/quote…
    Like…”More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.”
    or…”The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”
    ect.

  9. @7: “But let’s not forget this organization’s roots stem directly form the fad pseudo-science of eugenics.”

    So did many portions of the United States government, you red-herringy dingbat.

  12. @7 – So I assume you dismiss all of democracy because the founding fathers had slaves. Do you not support what PP is doing now because of statements she made back then?

    The page you linked to is hosted by nutty Catholics, in case you are wondering why anyone would get that idea about you, and is careful to leave out any context. The context for most of those quotes is here, some of which is, granted, overly apologist, but at least it gives historical context, backed up with quotes that your Catholic friends left out.

    Still, opposing them now for what she said then is pretty narrow. It makes it look like you are just looking for an excuse to oppose PP.

Comments are closed.