Rebecca Davidson: A threat to our health

Planned Parenthood: This is the largest, most powerful, most

effective pro-abortion, anti-life, anti-family, anti-Christian force in the U.S. and internationally."

So reads the pro-life Web site Abortionfacts.com.

No doubt, Brother Steven disciples everywhere shiver at the mere mention of Planned Parenthood. The rest of us, however, shiver at the combative tactics pro-lifers use in an attempt to subjugate women -- keeping us from believing we have a right to exercise control over our own bodies.

Many pro-life organizations would have us believe that Planned Parenthood exists for the sole purpose of performing abortions.ÿBut the truth is that Planned Parenthood provides a variety of services, including gynecological care, mammograms, adoption referrals, HIV testing and counseling and infertility screening.

The fees for these services are based on income, meaning that women who otherwise could not obtain the aforementioned kinds of care are able to receive it at affordable costs.

But in what way is the provision of affordable or free health care in opposition to family values?

A pro-life friend of mine, Michelle, supports Planned Parenthood and its efforts -- not because she supports abortion, but because she appreciates the quality care she receives at her local clinic.ÿOnce, as she and her husband walked past a throng of protesters, she turned to them.

"What alternative can you offer me?" she implored. "Where else am I going to get a free exam?ÿCan you get me the pill for free?"

These protesters were frustrating Michelle's attempts to obtain health care on a purely local and very personal level.

Since assuming office, the Bush administration has also frustrated the attempts of many women to stay healthy, and, if they so choose, childless.

Bush has consistently refused to allow states to expand family planning services for poor women, and has proposed eliminating mandatory contraceptive coverage for federal employees.

But infringing on the basic rights of American women was not enough for Bush. He had to go a step further and make sure that women dependent on foreign non-governmental organizations that receive American NGO family planning funds would receive neither abortions nor abortion counseling.

Family planning clinics in Malawi, a tiny East African nation, provide a variety of services to local inhabitants, including HIV testing and treatmentÿ-- vital services in a country where close to 400 people are infected with or die of HIV/AIDS every single day.

By threateningÿto withhold funding from clinics in Malawi and other developing nations struggling with such epidemics, Bush not only assured that millions of women worldwide will be unable to make decisions regarding when and how often to reproduce; he also ensured that the AIDS crisis will not be assuaged any time soon.

For years, Planned Parenthood and other family planning organizations have worked tirelessly to provide reproductive well-being to women the world over.

President Bush and his cohorts would undermine everything for which these important organizations have worked so hard.

On the off chance that Bush succeeds in banning abortion in the United States, women with the means to travel will always have access to abortion; Canada has no special laws pertaining to abortions, which are treated as any other medical procedure -- as they should be.ÿWomen without the means to travel abroad will be left without options, preventative or otherwise.

Whether or not the Bush administration realizes it -- and I believe it does -- by restricting women's access to family planning, it not only infringes on the choice to terminate a pregnancy, but also on the choice to avoid one altogether.

To allay fears that allowingÿ and providing access to abortion and contraception will result in an unprecedented rise in the number of abortions, simply look east, to the Netherlands.

The Dutch national health insurance plan provides contraception free of charge, and allows easy access to abortion. Compare that with U.S. health insurance plans, many of which refuse to cover contraception, and the Netherlands seems like a reproductive choice utopia.

Now consider that the Netherlands also has the lowest abortion rate in the world, about six per 1000 women every year, and the Dutch teen pregnancy rate is nine times lower than that of the U.S.

If the United States were to be less restrictive toward its family planning centers, allowing women greater access to them, perhaps our teen pregnancy rate would decline as well.ÿPerhaps women would be better-educated regarding effective methods of contraception, and fewer unwanted pregnancies would occur altogether.

But we'll never know.ÿNot as long as the government continues to address the demands of the anti-choice voting bloc.

Perhaps Dutch policy makers have done something that the authors of abortionfacts.com have not considered -- the Planned Parenthood motto:

"Every woman safe and healthy. Every child wanted and loved." Rebecca Davidson is a senior English major from Glen Rock, NJ.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.