As the fight for life over death continues, the battlefield has shifted to the states, where legislatures realigned politically as a result of the November 2010 mid-term elections are doing yeoman’s work in the defense of innocents. This work consists in defunding the mammoth tax-payer funded abortion provider, Planned Parenthood.
Three states prominently highlighted in this cause are Kansas, North Carolina, and Indiana—all of which have taken serious steps toward curbing the flow of funds into Planned Parenthood’s coffers.
On May 12, 2011, the Kansas Legislature "passed a budget...that [stripped] state funding for Planned Parenthood.” An amendment attached to the budget – the “so-called Huelskamp Amendment,” named after former state Senator, and now U.S. Congressman, Tim Huelskamp – could have kept up to $250,000 in state funds from going to Planned Parenthood, had the budget not been vetoed weeks later by Kansas Gov. Mark Parkinson.
Similarly, in North Carolina, a bill to defund Planned Parenthood made its way through the legislature only to be vetoed by Gov. Beverly Perdue. Fortunately, lawmakers in North Carolina had numbers sufficient to override the governor’s veto. And with the veto overridden, Planned Parenthood stands to lose approximately $434,000 in annual funding from the Tar Heel State. Not surprisingly, throughout the often contentious debates that have taken place in Kansas and North Carolina, representatives from Planned Parenthood have fed the media a plethora of examples of what women will lose if funding to the abortion provider is cut off.
In Kansas, Peter Brownlie, president and CEO of Planned Parenthood of Kansas City and Mid-Missouri, talked about how “outrageous” it was that “thousands of Kansans [were] at risk of losing access to basic, preventive health care." And Paige Johnson, vice president of Public Policy with Planned Parenthood of Central North Carolina, decried “the continued misleading attacks on Planned Parenthood [which] expose a cynical and coldhearted willingness to further a divisive political agenda [denying]…women access to lifesaving preventive healthcare.”