New Jersey Rep. Leonard Lance, a Republican representing the 7th Congressional District, got a lot of flak at his 70-minute town hall gathering Wednesday. Although he was challenged on a number of issues by many in the audience of about 300, Lance caught the most boos when he answered a constituent’s question about reimbursing Planned Parenthood for clients it treats who are enrolled in Medicaid. He suggested, as he has in the past, that splitting Planned Parenthood might be a good idea. That sparked an outcry:
"What I have suggested to Planned Parenthood is that it have two completely separate organizations — one organization that deals with the services regarding women’s health and another organization that performs the abortion procedure. [...] I would hope that Planned Parenthood might look at that. [...]
"In the district that I serve, there’s a Planned Parenthood facility, and there are several federally qualified health care facilities." He added that "some deal with a whole panoply of service, and some are dental facilities, but —" before someone interrupted him to yell, "If I’m pregnant, I don’t need a dental plan."
The questioner actually had asked whether Lance would continue to support “defunding” Planned Parenthood. That’s right-wing code for ending Medicaid reimbursements. “Defunding” is pure polemic since the women’s health organization isn’t funded by the federal government. Lance backs the de-funders and voted last year with his Republican buddies to redirect money from Planned Parenthood to community health centers, many of which, like the one the woman at the town hall pointed out with her “dental plan” remark, don’t provide the non-abortion services that Planned Parenthood does.
Problems with splitting Planned Parenthood are many. First, and most important, trying to put up a wall between abortion and women's health services reflects Rep. Lance’s failure to understand that abortion procedures are an integral part of women's health services. They are often medically necessary. If Planned Parenthood split into two organizations in the way he proposes, it would indicate that its leadership agrees with critics who think abortion is wrong and vilify it and its practitioners. It would be Planned Parenthood giving everyone the impression that the availability of abortion is not essential for women's well-being.
Splitting into two organizations would also make things harder for Planned Parenthood to operate, including twice as many offices and a larger staff. For poor women, the organization’s target clientele, it would mean having to go to one place and then another, adding to problems, including delays, that hard-nosed forced birthers have created by getting state legislatures to pass ever-more abortion restrictions.
Unfortunately, federal law has already split Planned Parenthood with its annual renewal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits reimbursement for abortions except for pregnancies caused by rape or incest or when the woman’s life is at risk. That amendment, which Democrats ought to oppose every time it comes up, has done enough damage as an element of class war. Affluent women can get an abortion regardless. But those dependent on Medicaid are out of luck, except those few states that cover abortions for poor women with their own revenue. If Planned Parenthood leaders were to take Lance’s suggestion seriously, which they clearly are not going to do, it would only add to women’s health problems.