Can Planned Parenthood be both good and bad?

Source: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

Easy to tell from my mostly sarcastic tone of Republican’s Planned Parenthood views, I am mostly biased, seeing mostly the good side of Planned Parenthood. Yet, I’ve thought: it can’t be all good, right? The EPA, FDA, CIA, L&O SVU aren’t all good either, yet I trust them (for the most part). What has interested me the most is how a person could be against PP, aside from their abortion procedures. After a bit of research, I found some validity in the conservative view, and accessibility is a large one. In all, Planned Parenthood, just like the EPA, FDA, etc., is good in some way, and bad in others.

Widely, Planned Parenthood “has a stigma for being known only for abortions,” according to the article “Defunding Planned Parenthood: Good or Bad?” from the Odyssey, a commonly used online newspaper with college students as writers. Yes, we understand abortion is a touchy topic, and I’ve touched on this in prior posts. 

Another interesting argument I haven’t given much thought on is provided in this article, actually in the comments section, and that issue is the availability of PP facilities. Outlawed or made very hard to come by in some states, would it not be easier to simply go to a privatized doctor or facility instead of the counterpart, PP? If a person’s insurance/healthcare already covers other private services, such as the Pap tests, HPV tests, STD testing, and more that Planned Parenthood also provide, why not go there for money-saving purposes?

This idea makes very much sense, but to the well-off Americans that have the proper health care to provide for themselves and the testing they and their family requires. A low-income mother cannot afford the better health care services the wealthy American has, so she must utilize PP’s affordable women’s health care they provide.

FUTURE RESEARCH QUESTION: How would the defunding of Planned Parenthood affect first the economy, and secondly low income American women?