Glenn Thrush, of Politico, attempts to explain the debate over family planning funding in the Stimulus Package:
Drudge, along with CNN and others, is trumpeting a House GOP talking point — ridiculing Pelosi’s support of a Medicaid waiver in the stimulus package to reimburse states for contraceptives. Republicans think they have a winner, a classic gays-in-the-military, honeymoon-killing wedge issue.
While Thrush’s reporting is technically accurate, the waiver is for family planning programs. Twenty-seven states have successfully applied for a federal waiver that allows them to supply family planning as part of their Medicaid program. Contraceptives are obviously a critical part of any family planning program, but they are far from the only factor in family planning.
Family planning is people planning when to have children,[1] and the use of birth control[2][3] and other techniques to implement such plans. Other techniques commonly used include sexuality education[4][3], prevention and management of sexually transmitted infections[3], preconceptional counseling[3] and management, and infertility management[2].
Family planning is sometimes used as a synonym for the use of birth control, though it often includes more.
It’s insulting and inaccurate to use ‘contraceptives’ and ‘family planning’ as synonyms. There is no reason for Thrush to concede this construction in his reporting. Family planning involves preparation to have a family just as often as it involves education and tools to avoid or put-off having a family. A major component of family planning is education about reproduction (including contraception and fertility), parenting, and sexually transmitted disease.
The Republicans are making hay about contraceptives, but it is a distorted and dishonest talking point. Reporters should set the record straight on the facts before they analyze the effectiveness of the talking point. They shouldn’t reinforce the talking point before analyzing it.
Having said that, even if the Republicans were using the term ‘family planning’ it is difficult to defend the economically stimulative effects of family planning funding. Most people see family planning funding as a program for helping (mostly) poor women, and not as a way to create jobs or jump start the economy. Even Nancy Pelosi was inclined to argue the waiver was a cost-reducing measure rather than a strictly stimulative one. Good family planning programs will reduce the cost of providing health care (CBO estimates it will save $200 million over five years).
Of course, eliminating the waiver would save some jobs, and perhaps create a few. Over the Bush years, the federal government has dramatically reduced its subsidization of contraceptives under Title X of the Public Health Service Act. This forces family planning organizations to use more of their limited budgets on providing contraceptives and can result in loss of staff.
Removing the waiver requirement would allow all 50 states to get Medicaid reimbursement for family planning programs without going through any bureaucratic hoops. It is, without any question, good policy, and it shouldn’t be controversial. However, it is not easy to explain why this policy change belongs in the Stimulus Package. It could be added to some other must-pass bill, or the federal government could just approve all waivers on an expedited basis.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Having said that, the most effective policy is to eliminate the waiver. It’s the right thing to do. If this piece is dropped from the Stimulus Package to avoid offending Republicans, it will send an unfortunate message to women and it will require a later remedy or work-around.
