Planned Parenthood in Indiana and Illinois are putting a new spin on a familiar Christmas gift concept that uncertain last-minute shoppers have relied upon for years: gift cards/certificates. Planned Parenthood is promoting the event as giving "health" to women for Christmas; it sells various contraceptives and birth control supplies, in addition to certain female health tests (e.g., Pap tests and breast exams), and, of course, abortion services.
I do understand that some people are psychologically suitable to be parents, and others face difficult circumstances for (e.g., limited income); these people will in all likelihood engage in sexual behaviors. There are legally available means for long-term or permanent means of birth control for one or both partners (e.g., vasectomies and tubal ligations), and people who engage in sex should be fully knowledgeable of its risks, including pregnancy and STD's, and effective technologies and procedures for controlling those risks.
Generally speaking, I do not favor government intrusion into personal health (e.g., sterilization) or family planning (e.g., whether and how many children to have) decisions, which I view in the context of the Jefferson-specified unalienable right, the pursuit of happiness. At the same time, I do recognize an implicit societal goal of self-preservation, and I am concerned about the effects of irresponsible sex decisions, especially on the traditional family structure and public health (e.g., spread of STD's).
In most cases resulting in pregnancy, both partners engaged in consensual sex and were aware of the pregnancy risk and, at least on the conceptual level, of the financial obligation and time and effort required in raising a child. The woman always has the right to say no if her male partner refuses to use effective protection, but as a prudent matter may wish to rely on her own protection as well.
I make a qualitative difference between preventive or proactive family planning and what happens after conception. I believe on scientific, not religious, grounds that human life begins at conception: the human embryo's DNA is distinct from his or her parents'. Whereas I do not in general favor government intrusion on parental activities and decisions, I do believe society has an interest in protecting the well-being of the child, whether 6 months in the womb or 6 months outside the womb. I can understand the rationale for exceptions when the mother's life is at risk or when there is no implicit consent (i.e., rape).
A chief issue I have with Planned Parenthood supporters (and even some of the general public) is a presumptuous attitude against large families. As the oldest of seven, I've heard some of the snide comments: the parents must be Catholic or Mormon; they are mindless sheep whom cannot control themselves and refuse to use modern birth control technologies because of arbitrary prohibitions by celibate geriatric prelates. [Actually, my mom's biggest concern about my looking at the airbrushed photos of naked women featured in Playboy was that I might develop unrealistic expectations.] Growing up with 6 wonderful little brothers and sisters is a blessing, not a deprivation, and I have two amazing parents whom really love each other and somehow stretched an enlisted careerman's pay to make ends meet.
Another issue I have with relevant sympathizers is how people deal with the unexpected or spontaneous, e.g., despite using protection, a child is conceived. I would like to see more of a constructive vs. a "Chicken Little" attitude. Governor Sarah Palin is a case in point; what is particularly compelling about Gov. Palin's story, getting pregnant in her mid-40's, is what Todd and she decided when finding out Trig had Down syndrome. Unlike 90% of the women faced with that issue during their pregnancy, Sarah refused eugenic abortion, seeing Trig not as a burden, but God's gift of love.
I have broad issues with Planned Parenthood offering gift certificates, good towards any of its "health" services, including elective abortion. It's basically saying, I'm forcing you to purchase products and services from Planned Parenthood, even if you can find more lower-price vendors or if you do not wish to support the organization. Recipients could also infer a paternalistic motive--I don't trust you to obtain health services using your own resources, and you need these particular health services. I also think we have to be very careful from an ethical standpoint in the marketing of health services in general; for example, we don't want an implicit incentive for doctors to market unnecessary tests, procedures, or expensive prescription drugs (when generics are available).
However, I find it particularly offensive on a holiday based on the long-awaited birth of Our Savior, Jesus Christ, whose birth symbolizes the hope and potential of any newborn child--perhaps a statesman to bring peace to the world, a medical researcher whom discovers a cure for cancer, the composer of a magnificent symphony, etc.--that an organization whose principal purpose is to limit the potential of an accidental child seeks to use the occasion to market its services.
