DANIELS DALLIES OVER DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD

Over the past seven years, Mitch Daniels has attempted to paint his Indiana reign as one of an orderly haven of wondrous progress in our Midwest sea of woes.  But Daniels has failed on numerous occasions.  Who can forget his magical disappearing act when the Indiana House of Representatives flipped to a majority and he found himself unable to pass many of his legislative initiatives.

And, who can forget his privatization mess with IBM – a situation that is still in litigation.   And, to top it off,  just as the new legislative session was underway this year and his presidential star appeared to be in quasi-rising mode, the uppity Democrats walked out of the legislature.  Like a laser beam, the national spotlight shifted to Indiana with questions about Daniels’ struggle to govern given a missing delegation – not the type of publicity the Guv wanted as he continued to mull over a presidential run.

And, now, Daniels finds himself hoisted “on the horns of  a dilemma” – the Indiana legislature has given him a gift-wrapped opportunity to take a stand on abortion by defunding Planned Parenthood.   But, if he signs the legislation, he puts the state at risk to lose an additional $4,000,000 in federal grants for family planning services – a loss that will hurt an already somewhat precarious financial situation.

On the other hand, if he vetoes it, Daniels could antagonize ardent social conservatives already wary of his public statements about the importance of focusing on economic issues by calling a “truce” on social issues.  Although he is not expected to make a decision for a few days, Daniels will, more than likely sign the bill, taking away millions in funding that is marked to help low income women obtain health care services.

As Daniels mulls over his dilemma, the horns he finds himself riding are nothing compared to those of the women who will be deprived of much needed health care that has been available for decades through Planned Parenthood.  But, when it comes to a potential presidential bid, why let the health of thousands of low income Hoosier women get in the way?

Indiana Governor, Mitch Daniels, is faced with a dilemma.

Advertisements

About Charlotte A. Weybright

I own a home in the historical West Central Neighborhood of Fort Wayne, Indiana. I have four grown sons and nine grandchildren - four grandsons and five granddaughters. I love to work on my home, and I enjoy crafts of all types. But, most of all, I enjoy being involved in political and community issues.
This entry was posted in Indiana, Indiana General Assembly, Mitch Daniels, Politics, Republicans, Women's Interests and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

28 Responses to DANIELS DALLIES OVER DEFUNDING PLANNED PARENTHOOD

  1. john b. kalb says:

    Charlotte – So you are wrong again! Daniels will sign it and points out the there are 800 (!!!!) places in Indiana that will continue to be funded THAT DO NOT DO ABORTIONS, but do offer ALL the womens health services. So just what were you trying to pull over the eyes of Indiana’s female population???

    And if the feds do cut off the funds for family planning – thank goodness our State of Indiana will become one of the few that are telling DC to stick the funds where the sun doesn’t shine! We don’t need to “launder” our tax money through Washington’s bankrupt Treasury Department!!

  2. John – not sure how you think I am “wrong again” since you were just raked over the coals on the birther issue. Since you do not have the capacity to acknowledge you were wrong, your judgment of me has no credibility.

    Has Daniels provided a list of the places? In his statement, all he said were there are 800 locations. What are their names? He gave county identifications, but he simply threw out a number. What was his method of calculating the locations and what did he include in the services? Surely his careful study brought forth the names of the health care clinics that provide services to women.

    Did he forget to mention that he runs the risk of losing $4,000,000 in Medicaid funds, which, oddly enough, he touts as the way the services will be funded?

    You aren’t the only one who can ask questions and seek answers from “the one.” And I am talking about Daniels; the Little Napoleon of Indiana. I want a list of the health care centers that will provide the services to women in Indiana. Daniels should be forced to provide it.

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Charlotte,

      You can search Medicaid providers by county using this link.

      http://www.indianamedicaid.com/ihcp/ProviderServices/ProviderSearch.aspx

      I did a basic search of OB/GYN medicaid providers in Allen County. The search returned a list of names of all doctors meeting this criteria with this message: “More than 100 providers matched this search. You may want to add criteria to your search in order to narrow the matching providers.” Sure there appear to be multiple listings for each doctor if they have more than one office. But unlike Planned Parenthood which offers only basic services, these are full-service, well-respected medical facilities, fully capable of actually delivering a baby if the woman chooses to keep her child. Which organization is in a better position to truly offer women a choice?

      • I am asking for clinics. When you search for clinics, the list is much shorter. Generally women who go for care go to a clinic or a facility. There could be hundreds and hundreds of doctors but there won’t be a clinic for each doctor. Several doctors may be associated with a clinic.

      • Dave MacDonald says:

        Oh please. Seriously?

        Because you think “generally women who go for care go to a clinic” and they will go to a doctor’s office instead, they will not have access to healthcare? They will go where they need to go because the service is free or reduced.

        We’re talking about the closing of 34 PP clinics. That’s fewer than one per county. In Allen County alone, there is only one PP clinic. There are over 100 OBGYN health providers in Allen County in several locations (I haven’t broken down the number of different clinics but I would guess at least 10-15.) In any case that’s substantially more than the ONE PP clinic! And, I don’t believe the Allen County PP clinic performs abortions. Will this office even be closed?

      • So, you just don’t think closing clinics is an issue? As I asked, how far are the righties willing to go to punish women for having the right to choose abortion? Because that is exactly what is happening. You completely ignore the fact that federal tax payer money is not going to fund abortions. You flippantly state, “oh it is only 34 clinics.” SO, if it were 100 clinics, would that change your perspective?

        What happens when legislators decide that no funding can even go to a clinic who has a doctor visit and provide services when that doctor may provide abortion services somewhere else? Absolutely nothing prevents this runaway legislature from going even further.

        Legislatures are male dominated – 75% so. These laws, while sometimes supported by women, are being offered and pushed by males. I wonder just how upset the males in this country would be if 75% of the legislatures were female, and we attempted to step into their private choices? The attitude of these legislatures is so blatantly patriarchal it is pathetic.

        When you talk about providers, are you talking about clinics or physicians, nurse practitioners – just who do you include in “providers?”

        You have also conveniently overlooked the C.F.R. and its prohibition against restricting freedom of choice for family planning services.

  3. Dave MacDonald says:

    Thousands of low income women who will be deprived of much needed health care that has been available for decades through Planned Parenthood?

    A total of 34 locations will no longer be available. However, there are 800 Medicaid providers waiting to provide health care to them. AND, they provide substantially more care than the services provided by Planned Parenthood.

    From Governor Daniels Media Release

    “This law will affect 7 entities in Indiana which have a total of 34 locations in 21 counties throughout the state.
    In the 21 counties where these 7 entities currently operate, there are approximately 800 Medicaid providers which are eligible to provide Medicaid clients with health and family planning services.
    County Medicaid Providers
    ALLEN 63
    BARTHOLOMEW 10
    DELAWARE 23
    ELKHART 37
    FLOYD 7
    HENDRICKS 25
    JACKSON 5
    JEFFERSON 6
    KOSCIUSKO 29
    LAKE 118
    LAPORTE 17
    LAWRENCE 14
    MARION 192
    MONROE 21
    PORTER 22
    ST. JOSEPH 71
    SCOTT 11
    TIPPECANOE 26
    VANDERBURGH 38
    VIGO 54
    WAYNE 11
    Total 800”

  4. Dave:

    I saw the article. I want the list of clinics. I mean, why not? All Daniels did was say there were 800 locations – no proof. If he has a list, then he should be more than willing to release it.

    You also don’t address the fact that by defunding Planned Parenthood, Daniels may also lose $4,000,000 in Medicaid funds. Would those be some of the same funds that he thinks will be used to provide services in place of Planned Parenthood?

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      I included a link to the list above. Now may I assume you will back up your claim that thousands of low income women will be deprived of much needed health care? I would greatly appreciate your citing the locations/counties that will not be served and the true number of women who will go without now that 34 locations have been crossed off the list, without access to one of the 800 other locations. Thank you.

  5. And straight from the mouth of an anti-abortion, anti-Planned Parenthood governor.

  6. Dave:

    Here is the real issue. Let’s say 10,000 women a year make use of Planned Parenthood and its services. If those women no longer have access to Planned Parenthood and have to access other clinics, who is paying for it?

    Seems to me it is pretty easy to see that the cost shifts to other clinics. From where will those clinics get the extra funding to pick up the slack? And, to make matters worse, Daniels may lose $4,000,000 in Medicaid funds because of the Republicans and their irrational and unfounded fear that the funds are being used for abortions.

    If that occurs, then the state has lost a total of $7,000,000. Just where is that amount of money going to made up? Or, is it just not a concern? You know, who cares, the women can just do without care?

    If funding is removed from Planned Parenthood, then those women will need to go somewhere else. Good luck on Daniels and his efforts to maintain his budget.

  7. Dave MacDonald says:

    From the NewYorkTimes:

    “Abortion rights supporters condemned the decision, saying it would leave 22,000 poor residents of Indiana, who use Planned Parenthood’s 28 health facilities in the state, with nowhere to go for a range of women’s services, from breast cancer screening to birth control. Planned Parenthood of Indiana said it would file an injunction to block the measure from taking effect. But abortion opponents said the move merely guarded against sending tax dollars to facilities that perform abortions, and said women on Medicaid still had plenty of health facilities available to them all over Indiana. ” (source: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/30/us/30indiana.html )

    And from where did the NYT get the 22,000 figure? Straight from Planned Parenthood of Indiana. In PPIN’s 2010 Annual Report they state:

    “If PPIN were not here for the more than 23,000 currently served through the funding, the outcomes would be tragic – more
    unintended pregnancies (and most assuredly more abortions) and more disease.” (source: http://www.ppin.org/aboutus/documents/ppin_2010_annual_report.pdf )

    Since Daniels cites 34 locations (vs. 28), it’s probably safe to assume that PPIN serves an additional 1000 women since the report was written.

    In other words, very few women, if any currently using 1 of 34 Planned Parenthood offices would be able to find their way to 1 of over 800 other full service medical facilities? Charlotte, do you REALLY think this is credible?

    http://www.ppin.org/aboutus/documents/ppin_2010_annual_report.pdf

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Medicaid financing that was going to PPIN will now go to other Medicaid providers. What am I missing?

      • From what I have been reading and, sorry my figure was incorrect, Daniels is looking at losing $4,000,000 in Medicaid Funding.

        http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/29/breaking-mitch-daniels-to-sign-bill-defunding-indiana-planned-parenthood/

        Rejecting the targeted Medicaid funding jeopardizes the entire program because states are not allowed to allocate as they please and pick and choose. The penalty can be the entire withdrawal of funding for Medicaid.

        I continue to be amazed that the righties refuse to acknowledge that the abortion portion of PP services is separate from the furnishing of other healthcare services. No federal money goes to provide abortions, and the twisting and turning of the situation by convoluted notions such as “well, if they receive federal funds for legitimate healthcare programs, that frees up money for abortions” is absolutely vindictive thinking.

        What next? How about the situation where a doctor performs abortions at one location (outpatient clinic), yet also provides non-abortion services at another clinic? Will the right now argue that because he or she performs abortions somewhere that any clinic who uses the doctor for non-abortion services jeopardizes its funding?

        The zealotry of the right is absolutely frightening. To go after services of low income women, no matter if it is one clinic or 300, shows a true disdain for women. In this situation, the right is truly cutting off its nose to spite its face.

      • Dave MacDonald says:

        All references I have seen use the words “may” or “could” lose funding. Nothing definitive and subject to interpretation.

        You write, “The zealotry of the right is absolutely frightening. To go after services of low income women, no matter if it is one clinic or 300, shows a true disdain for women.”

        We simply disagree on the best way to provide health care for these women. So you now accuse me, and those like me who disagree with you, of disdaining women? Clearly there is no point in having a respectful dialog with you. I’m pursuing the truth here, whereever it takes me. Having a different opinion doesn’t make me a misogynist. This is truly unfortunate as it becomes nearly impossible to find common ground.

        I consider myself a member of the “right” that frightens you so. Am I passionate? Definitely. But I believe I’ve shown you only respect in our debates on the issues. I’ll be going now. I wish you well, Charlotte.

  8. john b. kalb says:

    Charlotte – In what possible way was I “raked over the coals” by the release of “the ones’ birth information? All I ever said was that, without the release of this info, I and many others suspected that there was something wrong – or why else would he have withheld the release? In what way does this make me “wrong” on this subject? You, Jim and Judy seem to have somehow coverted my very real concerns about “the one’s” method of governing into a racial put-down of him. Don’t understand what led you to come to this conclusion.
    And, in regard to your comment about the cutoff of four million – I addressed that in my first comment!

    As far as the available “Family Planning Services” within the Medicaid System in Allen County, IN (go to http://www.indianamedicaid.co/ihcp/Provider Services/Provider Search.aspx)
    under provider click on “clinic” – under specialty click on “family planning”- under county click on “Allen” then hit search at the bottom of the page. – You will get two listings -Lafayette Street Family Health Clinic and Planned Parenthood
    now return to Provider at the top of the page. Click on “Advanced Practical Nurse”, under “specialty” hold down “Ctrl” key and click on “Care Co-ordinator for Pregnent Women”, “Certfied Nurse Midwife” and “Family Nurse Practitioner” – You will get over 100 listings – note that some are the same person at different addresses. If you sort out the duplicate addresses, you still end up with over 60 persons, all of which are approved to furnish Medicaid – covered healthcare to females in Allen County.
    So, Mr. Daniels, through the Indiana State Health Care Program info. has already furnished the information you desire for all counties in Indiana – that’s ALL 92, not just the 21 which have a Planned Parenthood office!!

  9. John:

    What has led us to that conclusion is your unyielding refusal to acknowledge that Obama is president and your irrational focus bordering on delusion of his lack of proof for his status as a natural born citizen. You still pander to your prejudice by referring to him as “the one.”

    I realize that within the deep, dark recesses of the human mind acknowledging racism or prejudice is antithetical to American values, but it exists, and, you can stomp and cry all you want that you can’t possibly be racist, but let me see you refer to Barack Obama as “the President” or “President Obama” from this point forward. Your continued refusal to acknowledge him as president is ridiculous. Does it make you feel better?

    I have been to the website. Does the funding follow the person? Or the location where the services are provided?

  10. And, by the way, all sources of information are subject to interpretation based on their perspective.

    You note that my information comes from Planned Parenthood; therefore, it must be defective and inaccurate. I look at your anti-abortion sources and say the same thing.

    You are unwilling to lend credibility to Planned Parenthood statistics just as I am unwilling to accept your parroting of anti-abortion sources.

  11. Here is the framework for Medicaid. Note that it “guarantees free choice of provider.” This is where Daniels jeopardizes the entire funding program. Daniels and his Republican sycophants do not care whether or not the entire program is jeopardized or not. Of course, I imagine ending Medicaid in Indiana would please those who see the program as an intrusion and unnecessary.

    _________________________________________________________________________________________

    The federal framework for Medicaid requires statewide coverage, mandates comparable services for all eligible people, guarantees free choice of provider, covers only medically necessary services, requires that Medicaid serve as the payer of last resort, and mandates that each state designate a single state agency to administer the program. Within guidelines established by federal statutes, regulations and policies, each state establishes its own financial and categorical eligibility standards; determines the type, amount, duration and scope of services; sets the rate of payment for services; and administers its own program. States convey these decisions through a Medicaid state plan and state plan amendments that are submitted to the federal government for approval. States also exercise their policy options through various waiver authorities that are available under federal law.

  12. And here is the section of the the C.F.R. that prohibits restrictions on “family planning services:

    http://law.justia.com/cfr/title42/42-3.0.1.1.2.2.10.3.html

    And here is the applicable section:
    ______________________________________________________________
    § 431.51 Free choice of providers.

    (a) Statutory basis. This section is based on sections 1902(a)(23), 1902(e)(2), and 1915(a) and (b) and 1932(a)(3) of the Act.

    (1) Section 1902(a)(23) of the Act provides that recipients may obtain services from any qualified Medicaid provider that undertakes to provide the services to them.

    (2) Section 1915(a) of the Act provides that a State shall not be found out of compliance with section 1902(a)(23) solely because it imposes certain specified allowable restrictions on freedom of choice.

    (3) Section 1915(b) of the Act authorizes waiver of the section 1902(a)(23) freedom of choice of providers requirement in certain specified circumstances, but not with respect to providers of family planning services.

    (4) Section 1902(a)(23) of the Act provides that a recipient enrolled in a primary care case management system or Medicaid managed care organization (MCO) may not be denied freedom of choice of qualified providers of family planning services.

    (5) Section 1902(e)(2) of the Act provides that an enrollee who, while completing a minimum enrollment period, is deemed eligible only for services furnished by or through the MCO or PCCM, may, as an exception to the deemed limitation, seek family planning services from any qualified provider.

    (6) Section 1932(a) of the Act permits a State to restrict the freedom of choice required by section 1902(a)(23), under specified circumstances, for all services except family planning services.

    _____________________________________________________________________________________________

    The regs allow the state to restrict freedom of choice “except in the area of family planning services.”

    PP will file for an injunction and will probably use this criteria. It will be interesting to see how the court rules. Looks to me like the restriction provisions are pretty clear.

  13. Dave:

    You are certainly entitled to your opinion. You know as well as I do that if abortion wasn’t included in Planned Parenthood services, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion.

    Exactly why do you want Planned Parenthood defunded? Abortion services, right? Even though no tax payer money is used. If this isn’t disdain for women, I don’t know what is. Thousands of women – yes, that is right, thousands – use the services of Planned Parenthood for any number of other reasons other than seeking abortions. But the fanaticism – yes, fanaticism – of the right when it comes to abortion is frightening.

    If you believe this is simply a disagreement about how to provide services, then you have so thoroughly blinded yourself to the truth that you actually believe that statement.

    And, I ask you again to ask yourself, if abortion wasn’t the issue, would we even be discussing this. The dialogue is not possible because you refuse to admit the reason behind defunding PP.

    As to respect, I seem to recall some pretty hostile statements made by you in the past. I guess respect is in the eye of the beholder – just like our difference about how “to provide services” to women.

    • Dave MacDonald says:

      Charlotte,

      Do women who disagree with you and want to defund Planned Parenthood also have a “disdain for women”? How about women who have had two abortions? Or women who used to direct Planned Parenthood offices?

      Former Planned Parenthood director Abby Johnson disagrees with your position and agrees with Governor Daniels on this decision. Mrs. Johnson regrets her two abortions and the personal role she played in the abortions of others. She recently said, “Planned Parenthood’s mission, on paper, is to give women quality and affordable health care and to protect women’s rights. In reality, their mission is to increase their abortion numbers and in turn increase their revenue…Planned Parenthood is an organization that does not provide quality health care. Our tax money should go to organizations that provide comprehensive care to women, men, and children. There are better uses of our money. Planned Parenthood provides shabby, limited health care. Why would we want women to get some health care when they can go to a different clinic, other than Planned Parenthood, and receive total health care? […] The common goal of both the pro-choice and pro-life movements is to help women in crisis. Both have employees and volunteers who desire to help women, men, and their families and provide the best care for them in their time of need. The difference is the ways that they provide care for these women, men, and families.” (source: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/259954/deadly-domino-effect-kathryn-jean-lopez )

      Please tell me what “hostile statements” I have have made directly to you that were less than respectful. I would like to know what I said so I may publicly apologize to you. Thank you.

      • David:

        I understand there will be women who disagree, and, yes, women who will regret their decisions to have abortions and change their positions. Many times women and men make decisions – not just in the area of abortion – and later regret them. And, many live their lives thinking “If only I hadn’t done this or if only I had done that.” This is a futile mindset. If; however, the realization that a mistake has been made and one regrets it as Abby Johnson does, then it is her right to try to work toward what she feels is an issue dear to her heart.

        I don’t begrudge anyone that right. I would not choose to have an abortion. I lost a son at birth – he lived an hour. In 1970, we only had x-rays to determine if something was not right with a baby in the womb. The day I went into labor at nine months pregnant, I had no inkling that my son would die shortly after his birth.

        During a lengthy labor, x-rays were taken, and it was discovered that he did not have a skull or a brain – what is called microcephalic. I was not told but the doctor and nurses knew. Abortion was not legal in 1970, but, had it been, I would not have opted to end the pregnancy through a partial birth abortion. That experience has formed my own personal view that I would not choose to have an abortion, but I realize my view is not the only one in the world. And, I do not mean to make you uncomfortable by talking my own experience.

        I believe women should be treated with respect and treated as adults. I further believe that every effort should be made to educate women and men in the area of birth control so that unplanned, unwanted, or unexpected pregnancies do not occur. A goal which I realize is not entirely realistic.

        As to the statements, I will go back through my posts. I believe they occurred a while ago, and, if I am wrong, I will certainly acknowledge it.

      • Dave MacDonald says:

        Charlotte,

        Thank you sincerely for sharing your truly personal story. I know how such experiences shape our worldview and affect our positions on such issues.

        In 1967 when abortion was illegal, my wife’s mother attempted to abort her. Back then women were given a shot that was supposed to start pre-term labor. The ‘procedure’ didn’t work and she was supposed to return the next week to try again. She got the guilts and didn’t return. But for God’s grace, my wife would have been thrown out with the trash. Had the pregnancy happened after Roe v. Wade, the abortion would have been immediate with no option for a second chance.

        The injection given at the time was known to cause sterility in abortion-survivors when they reached child bearing age. When we married, my wife and I believed we would never have children. Through God’s grace, we’ve been blessed with five.

        My wife often tells others, “Overall, mine wasn’t a happy childhood. But I was blessed with a faithful Catholic grandmother who loved me and prayed for me. Some might say that my early life circumstances were a textbook case for abortion. Thankfully, God had other plans. Despite those many painful years, life is worth living. My adult life is filled with joy and meaning. My five children are alive today because God’s grace spared their mother.”

        We openly shared and discuss this with our children. When she was 11 years old, our daughter Emma wrote the music and lyrics to a song called You Are There, telling our story from her perspective.

        The movie, It’s a Wonderful Life, holds special significance for our family. In one scene, the angel Clarence remarks to George Bailey, “Each man’s life touches so many other lives. When he isn’t around he leaves an awful hole, doesn’t he?” This certainly this applies well to our family. Abortion doesn’t affect simply the lives of a mother and her unborn child, but future generations to come.

  14. john b. kalb says:

    Charlotte – Can’t you see that those like Dave and I are against therapeutic abortions by ANY providers – And since we have not been able to directly vote on not allowing these murders of the defenceless, we have been left with electing those politicians who believe the same. And it is happening nationwide – watch and see, Charlotte – who knows, you may be enlightened!

  15. John:

    It is happening nationwide by legislatures that are controlled by males. The legislatures in all 50 states are predominantly male. Women have very little to say about the laws that are being passed – in any state. State legislatures are still composed of 75% males.

    And, as you mentioned, you have not been able to vote directly, how do you thing women feel when issues that impact women are decided by males who believe they have the right to control based on patriarchal attitudes? If women are only 25% nationwide in legislative makeup, it sure gives the males in this country an awful lot of power.

    You have the right to be against therapeutic abortions just as I have the right to believe the woman should have the right to choose. I would like to see the men in this country stop imposing their will on women through laws that impact reproduction. I remember the days when women had to have four children before they could even think about having a sterilization. What were we, brood animals?

    And, while this is personal to me so forgive me for relaying this, I was forced to get my husband’s approval to have a tubal ligation after having five children, one of who died an hour after his birth. I took birth control pills but the older forms were harmful, and I suffered from migraines that lasted days. When I discontinued the pills to get them out of my system, I was pregnant within a few weeks.

    Why did I have to get permission to have a tubal ligation? Because the men in this society decided that I wasn’t adult enough to make a rational decision after five children. And, my husband? Sterilization for him was out the question – you know that old macho male thing.

    And while this was in the 1970s, I still see the same attitudes toward women. You bet I get upset by these patriarchal attitudes and decisions.

Comments are closed.