At The Root, Lenny McAllister writes that defunding Planned Parenthood, as the House did two weeks ago, is a good thing. Why? Because the organization is bad for black women (his argument is based on, he says, the historical racism of the nonprofit and the fact that black women get abortions at higher rates), and because, in these tough budget times, education funds are also cut, which is worse. When we have to make hard choices, we should increase funding for programs like Pell grants first, he writes.
Admittedly, the funding levels for Planned Parenthood and the Pell Grant program are hardly equal. But at a time when money for Pell Grants and other much needed educational resources are being curtailed or completely cut, those who argue for the resumption of federal funding for Planned Parenthood must ask themselves: In the face of severe budget cuts, should we be fighting to fund life-advancing opportunities for at-risk students or giving more support to an organization with a long and well-documented history of disseminating the propaganda of death to our communities? If the choice is about federal financial support -- not whether or not Planned Parenthood continues to exist (as it will, even without federal funding) -- then where should we direct the money coming into our communities?
It's clear from this that McAllister is simply against abortion. But I want to point out something else: The sorts of family-planning services Planned Parenthood uses federal aid to provide -- and the fact that it does so is most important to lower-income women in poor communities, disproportionately women of color -- is not at odds with education. In fact, we know from studies in countries with more dramatic levels of poverty that the single-most cost-effective way to increase education levels and reduce poverty is to empower women by giving them control over childbirth and reducing fertility overall.
It's also not entirely true that Obama is cutting Pell grants. In the long view, he's increased funding for education at all levels, from Head Start to providing financial support to community colleges and historically black colleges and universities. But he did cut the summer Pell grant program, a new extension that was providing mixed results and hadn't increased summer enrollment. The theory was that that providing aid in the summer would increase graduation rates. In my world, Obama's budget would not cut any programs for the poor, but it's false to think that the effects of spending money on Pell grants displace the effects that cutting Planned Parenthood's funding would have. The programs through which the federal government works to fight poverty reinforce each other, and we need to spend more money on the poor overall. I don't mind that Obama's University of Chicago-influenced thought inspires him try to weigh the cost-effectiveness of programs by trying to measure actual results; I just disagree that that's the most important thing.
If McAllister really cared about children, then he would want to expand Planned Parenthood, make birth control free, and provide as many sex education sessions as Pell grants. But I doubt his argument is really about children, poor or otherwise, because these arguments never are.