• Amy Laskowski

    Senior Writer Twitter Profile

    Photo of Amy Laskowski. A white woman with long brown hair pulled into a half up, half down style and wearing a burgundy top, smiles and poses in front of a dark grey backdrop.

    Amy Laskowski is a senior writer at Boston University. She is always hunting for interesting, quirky stories around BU and helps manage and edit the work of BU Today’s interns. She did her undergrad at Syracuse University and earned a master’s in journalism at the College of Communication in 2015. Profile

Comments & Discussion

Boston University moderates comments to facilitate an informed, substantive, civil conversation. Abusive, profane, self-promotional, misleading, incoherent or off-topic comments will be rejected. Moderators are staffed during regular business hours (EST) and can only accept comments written in English. Statistics or facts must include a citation or a link to the citation.

There are 18 comments on Planned Parenthood’s Uncertain Future

  1. I agree whole-heartedly with David McBride. This IS an assault on women’s “reproductive rights.” Frankly, I don’t understand why I can’t an abortion on campus. Can someone explain to me why BU SHS is violating my rights? How can David McBride be a party to this?

  2. What accepts me about this article is a lack of articulating the other side of the coin; money needs to be cut from somewhere, and people would be upset no matter where these cuts came from. Republicans aren’t doing this because they are evil people. We’ve just been living beyond our means for too long, and our chickens have come home to roost. This goes just beyond social issues and is a fact that most things should be cut. And they can’t afford to just stop here.

  3. Your post feels like punchlines from the Glen Beck show. Sure, republicans aren’t evil… but they don’t seem to care that they are cutting the only resources regarding contraception and education for low income families. If no cuts can be made without sparing these two, raise taxes!

  4. The republicans in the house have planned to waste the next two years of national politics “energixing” their base by promoting the agenda of the religious fundamentalists. Most of the representatives don’t expect anything to change, but they know if they make th motions, their base will give them money. . . . . . this is merely a political shell game. Yes it could turn ugly, but they do it for the money. Not the issues.

  5. In response to “What accepts me about this”: It may be true that money needs to be cut from somewhere, but it does not justify elimating 100% of federal funding to both Planned Parenthood and Title X. Many women and families rely on the array of services provided by Planned Parenthood and Title X – it is not fair to eliminate them completely.

  6. While I completely agree that this is an assault on women’s “reproductive rights”, this decision is so short sighted it amazes me that any informed elected official could make it. I am not so nieve to think that there is really a separation or church and state in America, but decisions that effect fiscal policy should not be made based on someone’s religious beliefs (or a groups populations beliefs) esspecially when the act that is under question (abortion) is legal. What will happen when Planned Parenthood cannot provide services to the population that so obviously has no other alternatives? I would guess there will be many more unwanted pregnancies, unsafe abortions, increases in STDs, etc. This may not be a factor today, but in 5-10 years when there are accross the board increases in disease transmission and even more people needing assistance from aid agencies (e.g. wellfare) the costs will be even higher than what they are trying to ‘save’. Decisions like this make me fear for our future.

  7. I don’t understand how BU can post such a blatantly partisan article. Despite the one quote from the president of Boston University Right to Life, the article is clearly taking sides. If instead the article supported the cuts, people would be up in arms. This university has no ties to any political party or organization, and that should be reflected in the articles it publishes.

    Also, despite what people say, this isn’t about “pissing on the poor and women,” it is about giving a child a chance to live. In the words of Mother Teresa (who I think we can all agree is good people) “It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you can live as you wish.”

    Anyway… I felt that that needed to be said. Have a wonderful day ya’ll.

  8. What a blatantly biased article. Except from a tiny segment from Elise Kulik, president of the BU pro-life group Right to Life, the entire article comes from the perspective that this is somehow an attack on women’s reproductive rights. Have people totally missed how in the news certain Planned Parenthood workers have been assisting underage prostitutes get abortions? I would surely hope that the Republicans would at least investigate further why our money is going to this organization. (It’s also not so clear cut how this federal money is being used at Planned Parenthood. It is impossible to avoid it being at the very least, complimentary to the abortion process.)

    Also, how is it the federal government’s responsibility to provide such services to low income families? How is that nearly close to any of the powers we delegate to our government in the constitution? I want none of my money going to any organization tied this closely to abortion. Additionally, I do not agree with many of its “sexual health” premises either. Let those who agree with Planned Parenthood donate themselves to this organization. I’d rather take my tax savings and donate money to provide good schools / better living conditions in low-income areas here and abroad.

    The federal government resisting funds tied to an abortion clinic is in no way an attack on women’s reproductive rights. The entire premise totally ignores the millions of women in this country who are pro-life and who encourage responsible sexual behavior.

  9. All journalism is somewhat biased so I’m not completely surprised by this article. However, it concerns me that there seems to be an overall misunderstanding of the views of not just pro-choice and pro-life advocates, but in this specific instance both PP supporters and PP opponents. From what I’ve gathered, people who support PP feel it’s an attack on affordable woman’s health care. PP offers a lot of services to women and families, and I completely agree that they deserve affordable health care. However, what many people do not realize is that many pregnancy centers, often found across or down the street from a PP clinic, offer many of the same service, with the exception of contraception and abortions, as well as baby items, counseling, and connections to practitioners and other aid. PP opponents know that PP isn’t allowed to use federal funds for abortions. However, we want to defund the organization, regardless of what specific program their tax dollars are being rationed toward, because we simply do not want to unwillingly support the largest abortion business in the nation. For this reason, PP opponents believe no amount of good justifies their practice of abortion. A few questions to consider are: Is health care really provided for women at PP? From what I’ve read, women often do not get proper counseling before and after abortions at PP and the full list of options available to them (including adoption). Do PP employees really care about women if they’re willing to cover up rapes and prostitution? What exactly does “reproductive rights” mean? I personally believe that contraception and abortion, since it prevents reproduction and discourages family planning, should not be included in the “reproductive health care” category. Therefore, the concept of “reproductive rights” does not make sense to me. Do women not have a right to reproduce? If they have a right to have a baby when they choose, should education in abstinence, chastity, and natural family planning be more of a focus than providing the “quick fix” of using contraception (which often proves faulty, leading to unwanted pregnancies and abortion…and keep in mind that PP founder Margaret Sanger actually opposed abortion)? Do babies not have a right to be born; are they not included in family health care? If PP’s goal is to make abortion rare, why haven’t the numbers gone down? There are countless more questions to consider, and I feel that PP and its supporters do a poor job of answering them.

  10. “This IS an assault on women’s “reproductive rights.” Frankly, I don’t understand why I can’t an abortion on campus. Can someone explain to me why BU SHS is violating my rights?”

    All I have to say is…are you serious? How is the university violating your rights by making you go off campus to get an abortion? It wouldn’t look good to many people, conservative or liberal, if the university tuition went toward funding abortions at Student Health Services.

  11. The abortion procedure is not always an elective one. If the child terminates, resulting in a miscarriage, the fetus may still need to be removed through mechanical means. A woman who needs this procedure done is certainly not doing it because she wants an abortion – it’s because it’s a health issue.

    If federal funding is cut off from her getting a safe and cost-effective medical procedure, then shame on us.

    I have not even raised the issue of children who are conceived due to rape or incest.

  12. “The bottom line is, if this bill is passed, only women who can afford not to be on Medicaid will have the opportunity to choose what happens to their bodies.” Baloney! People have the CHOICE of what to do with their bodies prior to conception.

  13. It’s absolutely ridiculous what they’re proposing, and quite frankly, the reasons for supporting the bill don’t even make sense. The primary reason for supporting the bill seems to be that people feel that federal funds should not go towards funding abortions.

    They don’t go towards that anyway. Federal funds go towards STD testing, contraception, and family advising. NOT abortion. The argument the Republicans are using doesn’t hold water.

    You can’t tell a woman she does not have the right to use contraception, or be tested for STD’s. While many people feel that others should be as sexually active as they are, the fact is, they can’t run others’ lives, and it’s not up to them to make others’ decisions. While someone may feel that they should practice abstinence- and that is an admirable and perfectly okay decision -they can’t force that opinion on others. In the same way, you can’t force people to be totally against abortions or contraception. You’re invading a person’s rights by doing so.

    Contraception (in the form of condoms and birth control) is, quite frankly, the lesser of the two evils. Contraception allows those who chose to be sexually active to practice safe sex while ensuring that they do not end the lives of babies. It allows babies to be brought in the world at the right time, and in loving homes, with more opportunities open to them.

    Also, “natural family planning” has far less of a success rate than contraception. Take my grandparents for example. They practiced natural family planning, intending not to have children for several years until they had put themselves on stable financial footing.

    The result was four children in as many years- all of whom were not planned at that time. Admittedly, my grandparents love all of them dearly, but natural family planning did not work.

    It is completely unrealistic to expect the majority of young men and women to remain chaste until marriage. It’s unfortunate, but unrealistic. Therefore, it’s best to propose both options in sexual education- a path of abstinence and also a path of safety. A person can then make their own decisions.

  14. The fed gov is funding way too many aspects of our lives, and they do a very sub par job in every case. Private practive and supply and demand will always be available, unless the Fed becomes the one and only ‘Man’, then what are peceived as women’s/men’s/and human rights will be eliminated, and there won’t be a need for arguing for them. People need to ‘man up’ and take responsibility for themselves and keep the government out of if.

  15. “…and that all women should have the freedom to choose to make their own reproductive decisions and not be limited by how much money they have…”

    And yet, apparently “Reproductive Decisions” don’t seem to include “making certain you do not become pregnant,” and if one DOES, the taxpayer is required (at least in part) to pay for it?

Post a comment.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *