Breaking News
March 19, 2019 - Scientists reverse alcohol-seeking behavior in rats with flip of a switch
March 19, 2019 - Researchers hope blood test that accurately diagnoses fibromyalgia could be available within five years
March 19, 2019 - New Planmeca ProScanner 2.0 offers fast and dependable intraoral imaging
March 19, 2019 - A new option for reducing LDL cholesterol in patients at high risk for heart attack, stroke
March 19, 2019 - Common medications to treat heartburn linked to increased risks for kidney failure
March 19, 2019 - Current HBV genome sequences help deduce ancient human population movements into Australia
March 19, 2019 - Pure omega-3 prescription drug significantly reduces the occurrence of ischemic events
March 19, 2019 - Researchers use big data to gain better understanding of hepatitis E virus
March 19, 2019 - Use of synthetic psychedelic linked to improvements in depression and anxiety
March 19, 2019 - Knee Pain Not Tied to Activity Levels in Knee Osteoarthritis
March 19, 2019 - Study shows benefits of delayed cord clamping in healthy babies
March 19, 2019 - Pharmacists can undertake overall clinical responsibility for patients, shows study
March 19, 2019 - A cell’s “self-destruct” function could yield new therapies
March 19, 2019 - Latest advances and perspectives of all AI types used in pharmaceutical R&D
March 19, 2019 - Prophylactic cranial irradiation used as standard approach for patients with NSCLC
March 19, 2019 - Sugar-sweetened beverages may be linked with increased risk of cardiovascular mortality
March 19, 2019 - AHA News: Black Woman in Their 50s Face Especially High Stroke Risk
March 19, 2019 - Secrets of early life revealed from less than half a teaspoon of blood
March 19, 2019 - Immune cells engineered to tattle on suspicious cells in the body
March 19, 2019 - Heart attack patients who are taken to heart care centres directly survive longer
March 19, 2019 - IVF babies have increased in birthweight over the past 25 years, study reveals
March 19, 2019 - Study highlights the need for psychiatric care to be integrated into cancer treatment
March 19, 2019 - Testosterone treatment lowers recurrence rates in low-risk prostate cancer patients
March 19, 2019 - Caterpillars could hold the secret to new treatment for Osteoarthritis
March 19, 2019 - Parkinson’s treatment delivers a power-up to brain cell ‘batteries’
March 19, 2019 - Stanford launches new Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence
March 19, 2019 - Wireless earphones may cause cancer
March 18, 2019 - ACC/AHA guideline for prevention of cardiovascular disease released
March 18, 2019 - UTA nursing professor receives $6.575 million to attack musculoskeletal diseases
March 18, 2019 - Gene medication shows promise to treat spinal cord injuries
March 18, 2019 - First Human Study of “Robotic” RaniPill™ Capsule to Replace Injections Announced by Rani Therapeutics
March 18, 2019 - Food Allergy Testing: MedlinePlus Lab Test Information
March 18, 2019 - Altered brain activity patterns of Parkinson’s captured in mice
March 18, 2019 - Apple Heart Study demonstrates ability of wearable technology to detect atrial fibrillation | News Center
March 18, 2019 - Cardiovascular benefits of diabetes drug extend across a wide spectrum of patients, shows study
March 18, 2019 - Novel cardiac pump shows superior outcomes in patients with advanced heart failure
March 18, 2019 - U.S. FDA Grants Priority Review for Fedratinib New Drug Application in Myelofibrosis
March 18, 2019 - Living like a caveman won’t make you thin—but it might make you healthy
March 18, 2019 - Modified immune cells issue alert when detecting cancer in mice | News Center
March 18, 2019 - Dementia caregivers design robots for alleviating stress and increasing joyful moments
March 18, 2019 - VR technology could help improve balance in humans
March 18, 2019 - Study demonstrates effective way to slow progression of cerebrovascular disease in older adults
March 18, 2019 - Premature babies also have protective anti-viral antibodies
March 18, 2019 - Painkillers taken by pregnant mothers unlikely to cause asthma in the child
March 18, 2019 - Fibromyalgia can be reliably detected in blood samples
March 18, 2019 - Marijuana use has dropped among most teens after legalization
March 18, 2019 - Legacy Pharmaceutical Packaging, LLC Issues Voluntary Nationwide Recall of Losartan Potassium Tablets, USP, 25mg, 50mg, And 100mg Due to The Detection of Trace Amounts Of N-Nitroso N-Methyl 4-Amino Butyric Acid (NMBA) Impurity Found in The Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API)
March 18, 2019 - Researchers identify early home and family factors that contribute to obesity
March 18, 2019 - Fate and festivity: Match Day 2019
March 18, 2019 - Study finds TAVR to be as good as open-heart surgery for patients at low surgical risk
March 18, 2019 - EU-funded project is developing new tools for diagnosing cancer
March 18, 2019 - Gluten, lactose, food dyes in pills could be causing side effects finds study
March 18, 2019 - Taking painkillers during pregnancy is not responsible for asthma risk in children, study shows
March 18, 2019 - Prediagnosis Psychiatric Care Linked to Worse Cancer Mortality
March 18, 2019 - Paris hospital halts stool study after donor deluge
March 18, 2019 - Partial oral antibiotic therapy shows efficacy and safety in patients with infectious endocarditis
March 18, 2019 - Olympus improves access to science education through BioBus collaboration
March 18, 2019 - Depression screening does not improve quality of life in heart attack patients
March 18, 2019 - Echocardiography may aid in patient selection for TMVR
March 18, 2019 - Are ‘Inactive’ Ingredients in Your Drugs Really So Harmless?
March 18, 2019 - Wearable technology can safely identify atrial fibrillation
March 18, 2019 - Scientists tackle rare retinal disease in unique research project
March 18, 2019 - Death By A Thousand Clicks
March 18, 2019 - Absorbable, antibiotic-eluting envelope can reduce rate of cardiac device infections
March 18, 2019 - Hormonal treatment associated with depression in men with prostate cancer
March 18, 2019 - Porvair Sciences launches reinforced 96-well deep round microplate
March 18, 2019 - Simplified catheter ablation could slash waiting lists for atrial fibrillation patients
March 18, 2019 - BFR therapy as part of rehabilitation following ACL surgery may slow bone loss
March 18, 2019 - A human model to test implants for cataract surgery
March 18, 2019 - New risk adjustment model could reduce financial penalty for safety net hospitals
March 18, 2019 - NHS cancer patients’ wait to start treatment worrying
March 18, 2019 - Inventiva Announces Results from Phase IIb Clinical Trial with Lanifibranor in Systemic Sclerosis
March 18, 2019 - Cologuard
March 18, 2019 - Researchers find evidence of prenatal environment tuning genomic imprinting
March 18, 2019 - Dolomite Bio launches novel Nadia product family for single-cell research
March 18, 2019 - Intellipharmaceutics Announces Resubmission of New Drug Application to the U.S. FDA for its Oxycodone ER
March 18, 2019 - Excessive gestational weight gain tied to maternal morbidity
March 18, 2019 - RCEM issues position statement on metrics to supplement four-hour standard target
March 17, 2019 - Noncontrast Brain MRI Effective for Monitoring Multiple Sclerosis
March 17, 2019 - Brain region plays key role in regulation of parenting behavior, study finds
Trump proposes cutting planned parenthood funds. What does that mean?

Trump proposes cutting planned parenthood funds. What does that mean?

image_pdfDownload PDFimage_print

The planned revival of a policy dating to Ronald Reagan’s presidency may finally present a way for President Donald Trump to fulfill his campaign promise to “defund” Planned Parenthood. Or at least to evict it from the federal family planning program, where it provides care to more than 40 percent of that program’s 4 million patients.

Congress last year failed to wipe out funding for Planned Parenthood, because the bill faced overwhelming Democratic objections and would not have received the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate.

But the imposition of a slightly retooled version of a regulation, which was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1991 after a five-year fight, could potentially accomplish what Congress could not.

The rules now under review, according to Trump administration officials, would require facilities receiving federal family planning funds to be physically separate from those that perform abortion; would eliminate the requirement that women with unintended pregnancies be counseled on their full range of reproductive options; and would ban abortion referrals.

All those changes would particularly affect Planned Parenthood.

Planned Parenthood, which provides a broad array of reproductive health services to women and men, also provides abortion services using non-federal funds. Cutting off funding has been the top priority for anti-abortion groups, which supported candidate Trump.

“A win like this would immediately disentangle taxpayers from the abortion business and energize the grassroots as we head into the critical midterm elections,” Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, said in a statement.

In a conference call with reporters, Planned Parenthood officials said they would fight the new rules.

“We’ve been very clear, Planned Parenthood has an unwavering commitment to ensuring everyone has access to the full range of reproductive health care, and that includes abortion,” said Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

Here is a guide to what the proposal could do and what it could mean for Planned Parenthood and the family planning program:

What Is Title X?

The federal family planning program, known as “Title Ten,” is named for its section in the federal Public Health Service Act. It became law in 1970, three years before the Supreme Court legalized abortion in Roe v Wade.

The original bill was sponsored by then Rep. George H.W. Bush (R-Texas) and signed into law by President Richard Nixon.

The program provides wellness exams and comprehensive contraceptive services, as well as screenings for cancer and sexually transmitted diseases for both women and men.

In 2016, the most recent year for which statistics have been published, Title X served 4 million patients at just under 4,000 sites.

Title X patients are overwhelmingly young, female and low-income. An estimated 11 percent of Title X patients in 2016 were male; two-thirds of patients were under age 30; and nearly two-thirds had income below the federal poverty line.

What Is Planned Parenthood’s Relationship To Title X And Medicaid?

Planned Parenthood affiliates account for about 13 percent of total Title X sites but serve an estimated 40 percent of its patients. Only about half of Planned Parenthood affiliates perform abortions, although the organization in its entirety is the nation’s leading abortion provider.

Planned Parenthood also gets much more federal funding for services provided to patients on the Medicaid program (although not for abortion) than it does through Title X.

Eliminating Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood has proven more difficult for lawmakers opposed to the organization because the federal Medicaid law includes the right for patients to select their providers. Changing that also would require a 60-vote majority in the Senate. So that particular line of funding is likely not at risk.

While opponents of federal funding for Planned Parenthood have said that other safety-net clinics could make up the difference if Planned Parenthood no longer participates in Title X, several studies have suggested that in many remote areas Planned Parenthood is the only provider of family planning services and the only provider that regularly stocks all methods of birth control.

Texas, Iowa and Missouri in recent years have stopped offering family planning services through a special Medicaid program to keep from funding Planned Parenthood. Texas is seeking a waiver from the Trump administration so that its program banning abortion providers could still receive federal funding. No decision has been made yet, federal officials said.

Why Is Planned Parenthood’s Involvement With Title X Controversial?

Even though Planned Parenthood cannot use federal funding for abortions, anti-abortion groups claim that federal funding is “fungible” and there is no way to ensure that some of the funding provided for other services does not cross-subsidize abortion services.

Planned Parenthood has also been a longtime public target for anti-abortion forces because it is such a visible provider and vocal proponent of legal abortion services.

In the early 1980s, the Reagan administration tried to separate the program from its federal funding by requiring parental permission for teens to obtain birth control. That was followed by efforts to eliminate abortion counseling.

Starting in 2011, undercover groups accused the organization of ignoring sex traffickers and selling fetal body parts in an effort to get the organization defunded. Planned Parenthood denies the allegations.

What Happened The Last Time An Administration Tried To Move Planned Parenthood Out Of Title X?

In 1987, the Reagan administration proposed what came to be known as the “gag rule.” Though the administration’s new proposal is not yet public, because the details are still under review by the Office of Management and Budget, the White House released a summary, saying the new rule will be similar although not identical to the Reagan-era proposal.

The original gag rule would have forbidden Title X providers from abortion counseling or referring patients for abortions, required physical separation of Title X and abortion-providing facilities and forbidden recipients from using nonfederal funds for lobbying, distributing information or in any way advocating or encouraging abortion. (The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the umbrella group for local affiliates, has a separate political and advocacy arm, the Planned Parenthood Action Fund.)

Those rules were the subject of heated congressional debate through most of the George H.W. Bush administration and were upheld in a 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in 1991, Rust v. Sullivan.

Even then, the gag rule did not go into effect because subsequent efforts to relax the rules somewhat to allow doctors (but not other health professionals) to counsel patients on the availability of abortion created another round of legal fights.

Eventually the rule was in effect for only about a month before it was again blocked by a U.S. appeals court. President Bill Clinton canceled the rules by executive order on his second day in office, and no other president tried to revive them until now.

How Is The Trump Administration’s Proposal Different From Earlier Rules?

According to the summary of the new proposal, released Friday, it will require physical separation of family planning and abortion facilities, repeal current counseling requirements, and ban abortion referrals.

One of the biggest differences, however, is that the new rules will not explicitly forbid abortion counseling by Title X providers.

But Planned Parenthood officials say that allowing counseling while banning referrals is a distinction without a difference.

Kashif Syed, a senior policy analyst for the organization said: “Blocking doctors from telling a patient where they can get safe and legal care in this country is the definition of a gag rule.”

What Happens Next?

All proposed rules are reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. Sometimes they emerge and are published in a few days; sometimes they are rewritten, and it takes months.

Meanwhile, Planned Parenthood officials said they will not know if they will take legal action until they see the final language of the rule. But they say they do plan to use the regulatory process to fight the changes that have been made public so far.

KHN’s coverage of women’s health care issues is supported in part by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation.

Kaiser Health NewsThis article was reprinted from khn.org with permission from the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent news service, is a program of the Kaiser Family Foundation, a nonpartisan health care policy research organization unaffiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Tagged with:

About author

Related Articles