Try the political quiz
@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 11yrs agoActive 3hrs ago1 here now

Should the government continue to fund Planned Parenthood?

Planned Parenthood is a non-profit organization that provides reproductive health services in the United States and internationally. Each year federal and state governments provide the organization with $528 million in funding (40% of its annual budget). The majority of this funding comes from Medicaid which subsidizes reproductive healthcare for low-income women. In 2014, abortions accounted for 3% of the services they provided. The majority of the other services include screening for and treating sexually transmitted diseases and infections and providing contraception. Proponents of fundi…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings

Filter by type

Narrow down which types of responses you would like to see.

Filter by author

Narrow down the conversation to these participants:

:

:

:

:

State:

Congressional District (2014-2024):

DMA:

State Senate District:

County:

Assembly District:

City:

Zipcode:

Informed Voters

These active users have achieved an understanding of common concepts and the history regarding the topic of Planned Parenthood Funding

@BBL3GFF
#1 Informed Voter

Engaged Voters

These active users have achieved a basic understanding of terms and definitions related to the topic of Planned Parenthood Funding

@BBRFS4R
#1 Engaged Voter
@9ZKP8HQ
#2 Engaged Voter
Test Your Knowledge

22.6k Replies

 @9HVG4RD from Georgia  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes as long as it’s not to fund abortions that happened through planned intercourse. Abortions should only be allowed for rape victims or people facing health problems impregnated.

 @9F9N5PC from Kentucky  answered…3yrs3Y

Government doesn't fund planned parenthood - they bill public insurance (medicaid and medicare) for services and apply for grants like any other medical institution.

 @84ZWD6LLibertarian  from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, Medicare and Medicaid should continue to reimburse payments for non-abortion procedures.

 @Mike-H-Hutchins.Progressive  from Connecticut  answered…2yrs2Y

Yes. Their services reach far beyond abortions and can save many Lives, Through cancer screening, prenatal services, and adoption referrals.

Planned parenthood has done much more than Abortions, Children can go there for confidential issues, they don't feel comfortable talking to parents about. They can also do screening for cancers, and other purposes besides Abortion.

 @9BCNNP3 from Colorado  answered…3yrs3Y

I believe sex ed for young kids may cause some problems, so maybe an age difference but I believe other stuff good fully

 @96GWT6B from Massachusetts  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, and it should withdraw funding from any organization that challenges the validity of Roe v. Wade or advocates an anti-abortion stance.

 @94VNFXQ from Virginia  answered…4yrs4Y

If the government is funding abortion clinics, they should create a government agency to put the money into.

 @93FB9PF from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, because ALL of their services, including abortions, can save lives, make bad situations a little better.

 @8YJ2X4LSocialist from West Virginia  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but only if we establish single payer healthcare

 @8X6RGPBIndependent from Iowa  answered…5yrs5Y

No, but let states decide

 @8X6RGPBIndependent from Iowa  answered…5yrs5Y

No, let states decide

 @3CYDXFMConstitutionfrom Missouri  answered…5yrs5Y

No, and the government should shut down any business providing it.

 @8WLRRPP from Wisconsin  answered…5yrs5Y

yes, but it should also fund for abortions

 @8W8QZZS from North Carolina  answered…5yrs5Y

If the parents are struggling then yes however I don´t think the government should be funding planned parenthood.

 @8W2HYWY from California  answered…5yrs5Y

Only if Planned parenthood isn’t mainly offering abortions as the main solution

 @8VG3G3FPeace and Freedom from Kansas  answered…5yrs5Y

They promote abortion heavily which is fine as I am pro choice but they.. literally tell a bunch on POC to not have their babies mainly and they use babies in vaccines so-

 @8TP4SFN from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

No, because the history of the institution cannot be redeemed and women's health needs to be more integrated into health care everywhere.

 @8TKFRVT from Alabama  answered…5yrs5Y

No, the government should stay out of private organizations who work with body choice

 @8RSFFVH from Michigan  answered…5yrs5Y

Yes if people want planned parenthood.

 @8RM62MVIndependent from California  answered…5yrs5Y

No, it should be a non-profit org funded by private donors.

 @8RJPWLJIndependent from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

Fund other organizations that preform abortions.

 @8RFSWSP from Kentucky  answered…5yrs5Y

They should fund everyone who is going through a pregnancy no matter if it’s gonna be aborted.

 @8QL3MSP from Washington D.C.  answered…5yrs5Y

No, but should go towards other organizations that provide health screenings, prenatal services, adoption referrals, etc.

 @8QG57R4 from Georgia  answered…5yrs5Y

If they give funds to abortion clinics, they should give funds for birth, tampons, and other health needs for women.

 @8QDPQBT from New York  answered…5yrs5Y

Only to people who meet certain requirements for to receive Parenthood support and it's documented.

 @8PTKHWX from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

doesn’t mater

 @8P675VKGreen from California  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, as long as funding is used for abortion cases dealing with rape or incest.

 @8P2QWP5 from Illinois  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, because planned parenthood helps people who can't afford it get other necessary things, like cancer screening and prevention, hormone therapy, and general healthcare.

 @8NSQMB5Peace and Freedom from Florida  answered…6yrs6Y

Limited allowance per individual.

 @8LQVCT6 from Connecticut  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, they should continue to fund Planned Parenthood as well as Unplanned Parenthood.

 @8KTYLPGAmerican from California  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, as long as the abortions are for the good of the child or woman other than that pro-life

 @8KNWH2X from Georgia  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, all services will be covered except for abortion only if that person has had one previously.

 @8JYKZHN from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, but only if they pay for abortions and women needs.

 @8GSLBH9 from Arizona  answered…6yrs6Y

Yes, for all procedures

 @8DBT73F from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

No but they should fund other organizations that save lives through healthy pregancies

 @8C4R5RT from Pennsylvania  answered…6yrs6Y

I think if you can afford to have a child, you can afford to get rid of one...use a condom lol

 @84ZWD6LLibertarian from Pennsylvania  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, but medicare and medicaid should not cover abortion procedures.

 @4V4VGHMConstitutionanswered…3yrs3Y

No, and not only should the government not give funds to any organizations that support abortion, any such organizations should be shut down.

 @98YFFGCIndependence from West Virginia  answered…3yrs3Y

Yes, abortion’s are needed and so is female reproductive health.

 @8HF7ZMS from North Dakota  answered…3yrs3Y

No, states should fund planned parent hood

 @ABell92 from Arizona  answered…4yrs4Y

No, the government should have its own program to help people gain access to abortions and other forms of healthcare. Planned Parenthood should remain as an option for others to use however.

 @96XP6B6 from North Carolina  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes, so long as roe v wade is overturned.

 @3CYDXFMConstitutionfrom Missouri  answered…4yrs4Y

No, and shut down all abortion facilities.

 @8SKZRRD from Washington  answered…5yrs5Y

planned parenthood began as a form of eugenics, the founder was anti-black and sought to perform abortions on black women, by making planned parenthood affordable and primarily in low-income, POC neighborhoods. abortion is important, but the current organization should be replaced.

 @8NTBY9R from North Carolina  answered…6yrs6Y

No, but contraceptives and std testing should be very fairly priced or free

 @Jm345Independent from Texas  answered…6yrs6Y

Regardless, the government should not give funds to any organizations.

Demographics

Loading the political themes of users that engaged with this discussion

Loading data...

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

Israeli Bombings Kill 2,300 In Lebanon in 3 weeks

Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.The Israeli military has ordered people living in more than a quarter of Lebanon to flee, according to a UN calculation, as its fight with the Iran-backed Shia militant group Hizbollah threatens to engulf the Mediterranean country.Lebanese authorities say Israeli bombing has killed more than 2,300 people and injured almost 11,000, mostly in the past three weeks, with Israeli attacks reaching areas far beyond Hizbollah’s traditional bastions of support in the south.More than 1mn people have fled their homes in Lebanon in under a month, according to its government, a dramatic forced movement of the population in a country of only about 5mn inhabitants with a land mass smaller than the US state of Connecticut. Israeli forces began a ground offensive in south Lebanon two weeks ago, in their fourth invasion of the country in under five decades. They had already destroyed large parts of the densely populated southern Beirut suburb where Hizbollah had its headquarters, and killed many top militant commanders in air strikes, including former leader Hassan Nasrallah.Rema Jamous Imseis, Middle East director of UNHCR, told journalists in Geneva that “over 25 per cent of [Lebanon is] under a direct Israeli military evacuation order”. “People are heeding these calls to evacuate and they’re fleeing with almost nothing,” she added, saying that 80 per cent of the shelters opened by the Lebanese government — mostly in schools — were now full.

▲  1012 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies