The US government has focused on women's rights and provided funds for family planning methods in response to the cries of all women. However, there have been disagreements between the federal government and Texas regarding support for parenthood and the rights of women. Texas has been forced to reduce its funding for cases involving women, such as maternity, abortion, and family planning-related charges, since 2011 due to changes in the global economy (Zoppo 495).
Prior to the passage of Senate Bill 747, procedures for paying Planned Parenthood through the Medicaid Women's Health Program (WHP) had been agreed upon by the federal government and Texas (White et al. 852). Texas stand on abortion was contrary to the one of the federal government since. Therefore, with a repulsive support to women and being insensitive to the demands of family planning, the conflict between the two policies affected the low-income females as they were unable to sufficiently meet the demand of their rights.
The Significance of the Study
The present study in this research paper aims at examining the relationship between the US government (federal) and the Texas policies on the rights of women and financing of family planning. Also, an in-depth analysis of the reforms and issues for initiating the changes in the policies between the two conflicting arms is the key concern. The significance of the study is that it triggers a debate on the crucial issues faced by women, which demands a reform in the medical fraternity to ensure the policies of the federal and the state governments work out for the benefit of women.
Analysis of Women’s Right and Funding for Planning in the US
(Federal Vs. Texas Policies)
Considering the quest of women for proper funding to cater for their medical bills in family planning spheres, a number of concerns are worth discussing. The federal government and the Texas State have a number of issues that affect their function in a bid to deliver as per the medical bills and policies passed in favor of the women. In regard to this, the rift created between the two forms of government is a burden to the progress of females.
According to the federal government, women are entitled to full support and right to secure an abortion or be funded by the government of the US. Also, the Women's Health Program renewal is the core objective of the federal government in doing this the rights of women are protected. This includes the right of choice of doctors, the family planning, method to use, and the proper medical funding without limitations (White et al. 855).
On the other hand, the Texas government has its own policies to adhere to about the rights, funding for the family planning, and the choice of medical facilities and doctors. According to policies of the state, the funding should not be pegged on the federal government and thus, it dictates on the nature of funds or services to be given to women. Due to the staunch stand of Texas on abortion, the anti-abortion policies that restrict spending of funds on abortion have been upheld for the beauty of the state. In this regard, the stipulation that banned the funding to the Planned Parenthood was effected on April 30, 2012 (Hopkins et al. 14). The ban affected the low-income women in that their right to access proper family planning and the medical doctors of their choice was rendered limited. Consequently, this was a violation of the rights of women on making their legal choices on matters of their medical health. This compelled the women to seek a court aid on the stand of Texas. However, the court did not rule in their favor since it considered a waste of money to support the WHP and instead the Clinics offering selective abortion were ordered to be closed indefinitely (Zoppo 495).
Reasons for Initiating Changes in Policy
The reasons given for initiating the changes in the policy were based on the financial constraints and the dynamics of the world economy. According to the government of Texas, spending $40M on Women Health Program would be a waste of money. In addition to that, Texas demanded an independent control of the funds since it belonged to the government and it could determine who demands what type of help. Therefore, the changes in the policy were for the best and smooth running of the State government, though it caused havoc to the WHP. The federal authority, on the other hand, initiated the changes especially to ensure the rights of the women are respected and not violated on the basis of regulation of the money provided by the government to support WHP without strings attached (White et al. 857).
Options for Handling Conflicts between the Federal Government and Texas
The options to be considered in dealing with the conflicts between the federal government and the Texas stand on the WHP are worth noting (King, Leslie, and Madonna 19). For instance, other than cutting down the allocations by about two-thirds would be expensive for the low-income women. Therefore, the two conflicting governments should strike a balance and ensure funds are sought from other means so that the rights of women and fund allocation for family planning remain constant or rather increased. This involves having policies that govern the charges by the medical doctors and clinics, increasing the number of clinics and medical personnel, and ensuring all the finances allocated to the WHP are entirely utilized for the intended purpose. This will eliminate the conflicts and changes in policies to favor the demands of Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC) instead of the initial objective of the allocation of the funds (Zoppo 495).
Considering each of the reforms, a number of pros and cons can be examined. Cutting down the allocations by Texas Health and Human Services Commission (THHSC) helps in mitigating wastage of money on WHP that can be tamed by the women using other cheap means of family planning like the use of cheap contraceptives other than expensive methods like procuring an abortion (Hopkins et al. 15). Also, this will help regulate the state budget to fit and ascertain those who are genuinely in need of medical help. However, the cons are; violation of the rights of women to acquire proper medication in the hands of the medical personnel of their choice, diversion of the funds from the federal government to other programs that were not initially planned for, and it breeds poor coordination between the federal government and Texas. On the contrary, the presence of clinics allows a majority of women especially from the low-income class to access the WHP with much ease since the government subscribes to about 90% of the money. This ensures that most of the women are able to access the family planning methods and the doctors of their choice, thus the rights of the women are not violated at all. Though, this method gives the women freedom to abort unnecessarily (Appleton 723).
In this regard, the best method is women to be allowed to access the medical doctors, clinics, and obscure and abortion through the support of the funds from the federal government.
Summary and Conclusion
The US is on the forefront on supporting women by providing funds and empowering them regardless of the financial position they fall. Therefore, women should be given the right to control their fertility and determine their medical decisions. In this regard, it is imperative that Texas State allows obeys the demand of the law and respects the rights of women on funding fully as per the federal government the WHP. Women are in dire need of the funds to help prevent unwanted pregnancies and control the birth rate. Therefore, trying to reverse back what has been built in decades would be a big mistake and disfavor to the Women Health Program.
Works Cited
Appleton, Susan Frelich. “Beyond the Limits of Reproductive Choice: The Contributions of the Abortion-Funding Cases to Fundamental-Rights Analysis and to the Welfare- Rights Thesis.” Columbia law review 81.4 (1981): 721-758.
Hopkins, Kristine, et al. “Women’s Experiences Seeking Publicly Funded Family Planning Services in Texas.” Perspectives on Sexual & Reproductive Health, vol. 47, no. 2, June 2015, pp. 63-70. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1363/47e2815.
King, Leslie, and Madonna Harrington Meyer. “The politics of reproductive benefits: US insurance coverage of contraceptive and infertility treatments.” Gender & Society 11.1 (1997): 8-30.
White, Kari, et al. “GOVERNMENT, LAW, and PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE. The Impact of Reproductive Health Legislation on Family Planning Clinic Services in Texas.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 105, no. 5, May 2015, pp. 851-858. EBSCOhost, doi:10.2105/AJPH.2014.302515.
Zoppo, David. “The War on Women: Federal Remedies to Fight Back against States That “De-Fund Planned Parenthood.” Vermont Law Review, vol. 37, no. 2, Winter2012, pp. 495 525.EBSCOhost,dcccd.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx ?direct =true&db=a9h&AN=85832255&site=ehost-live.
