Planned Parenthood Announces Service Change – Calls on Leaders to Prioritize Women’s Health and End Dangerous Rhetoric and Policies
“We all have a responsibility to enhance women’s health”
Statement from Teri Huyck, CEO Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin (PPWI):
“At Planned Parenthood, our compassionate staff works every day to meet our commitment to safe, high quality health care, no matter what. Sometimes, tragic circumstances interfere with this resolve. Last November, the Planned Parenthood health center in Colorado Springs was the target of a violent attack. This unfortunate tragedy took place a month following what was intended to be a temporary suspension of services at the Appleton North Planned Parenthood facility located at 3800 N. Gillett Street to address a staffing shortage.
“In the months following the Colorado Springs tragedy, we have conducted a thorough security review that included staff trainings to re-enforce our strong security measures. Planned Parenthood facilities have strong security measures and highly trained staff to ensure a safe, supportive, welcoming environment for all people to get the high-quality health care they need.
“Following our extensive review, however, we concluded that our Appleton North facility cannot meet the stringent security standards we have in a post-Colorado Springs environment. As a result, we made the difficult decision not to reopen the Appleton North facility as originally planned.
“Since the beginning of the service interruption at Appleton North, PPWI worked to minimize the impact on our patients. Patients who would have sought abortion services at our Appleton location will be scheduled at one of our two remaining health centers that provide abortion in Milwaukee and Madison for high quality, compassionate care.
“With only three health care facilities remaining in the state of Wisconsin that provide abortion services, prominent leaders in the health care community including Dr. Kathy Hartke, Chair of the Wisconsin Section of American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (WI-ACOG) agree that all of us have a responsibility to work collaboratively to enhance women’s access to this essential health care. During a call with the media to discuss this service change, Dr. Hartke said, ‘Enhancing women’s access to safe, essential reproductive care needs to be a priority and is critical to maximizing women’s health and safety. The recent political rhetoric has created a dangerous environment for women’s health. If we truly value women’s health and wellbeing, elected leaders would work to improve health care access and leave personal health care decisions to a woman, her doctor and her faith.’
“For 80 years, Planned Parenthood has been trusted by women and families during the most intimate moments of their lives, and today is no different. Through our health centers across the state we look forward to building on this tradition of trusted, high quality service to our patients to keep them safe, healthy and strong.”
Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin is a nonprofit health care provider caring for 60,000 patients annually at 21 health centers. 97 percent of Planned Parenthood’s care is preventive health services including well woman exams, breast and cervical cancer screenings, birth control, HIV screening, and STD treatment.
NOTE: This press release was submitted to Urban Milwaukee and was not written by an Urban Milwaukee writer. It has not been verified for its accuracy or completeness.
Mentioned in This Press Release
Recent Press Releases by Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
April is Get Yourself Tested Month
Apr 4th, 2024 by Planned Parenthood of WisconsinPPWI to provide free STD testing
PPWI Attends and Reacts to 2024 State of the Union
Mar 7th, 2024 by Planned Parenthood of WisconsinPPWI President & CEO Tanya Atkinson guest of Congresswoman Gwen Moore
Stop calling abortions “healthcare” or “women’s health” because unless the mother’s health is in danger, it is nothing of the sort and the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with the mothers health.
AG, if women don’t have access to safe abortions in clinics, they may choose to have unsafe abortions performed by non-professionals, which would endanger their health.
Also–have you ever heard of a man having an abortion?
So yeah, it IS a woman’s health issue.
If it’s health related, it can be done at a hospital.
“AG, if women don’t have access to safe abortions in clinics, they may choose to have unsafe abortions performed by non-professionals, which would endanger their health.”
Which is exactly what’s happened in Texas. At Least 100,000 Women Have Attempted Self-Induced Abortions in Texas. http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2015/11/17/at_least_100_000_women_have_attempted_self_induced_abortions_in_texas.html
But of course AG knows better than women what is best for their reproductive health care choices.
Vincent, not only was their survey study highly flawed and had obvious signs of over estimation… a lot of their information was pre-HB2 law and they showed little connection between the law and the occurance of attempted self induced abortions. Without trying, they actually gave more evidence that the higher rate has to do with their proximity to Mexico and little to do with access to abortion clinics.
Btw, that 100,000 number is for all women 18-49…. and not within the last 3 years the law has been in effect.
AG, I know that we’ve had this discussion before. I wish you would understand that Planned Parenthood is not an entirely evil organization, and abortion is as black and white as you seem to think. Abortion really is part of the continuum of care that may need to be provided to pregnant women.
Also, many practices and hospitals don’t actually provide abortions themselves because of the stigma. Most OB-GYNs and some hosptials will not perform an abortion and will instead refer their patients to another clinic (perhaps a Planned Parenthood clinic) even if a medically-necessary abortion is needed. It’s possible that now Fox Valley women who are coping with the trauma of having to terminate wanted (but non-viable) pregnancies will now have to drive farther away to get a medically necessary procedure.
I recommend that you listen to this podcast and read the comments on the podcast here: http://longestshortesttime.com/episode-74-the-scarlet-a/
Begonia, you’re over stating the issue. Not only are “medically necessary” abortions extremely rare but most hospitals will perform them. The number of those performed at the Appleton PP was virtually none…
And indeed, PP offers other services and those can still be met at the Appleton location that is remaining open or any of a number of other healthcare clinics (in fact they’d be better off at another clinic or doctors office where they actually have… doctors).
So again, this is about abortion. Just abortion. Not healthcare.
Even if 100,000 is inflated, it’s horrifying to think that 20,000 or 50,000 women resorted to self-induced abortion attempts. It’s horrifying that you don’t feel the same and continue to insist you, a man, know better than women what’s best for them when it comes to reproductive health care.
Vincent, I wasn’t saying that wasn’t an issue… I would hope that there are zero abortions, ever. I find self performed abortions to be only slightly more horrifying than an elective abortion carried out in a clinic. And it’s horrifying that you, a living being, insist you know better than another living whether it should live or die. But hey, it’s great to know my reproductive organs decide what causes and who’s life I can fight for.
The issue is simple. If you oppose abortion, don’t have one.
Men are likewise free to discuss this issue with women they impregnate. You can also share your views with other women in our life. Other than that, you are wasting your breath.
The Supreme Court has ruled abortion is legal and you can’t pretend to “protect” women by restricting access to it—thus endangering women or causing them to spend more money and time to exercise their rights.
By the age of 40, one third of women have had an abortion. Rants by abortion opponents and even various impediments will not stop a woman from doing what she thinks is best for her life and health. Those decisions are often made jointly with her partner and with input from a health provider.
If anyone wants to help care for children in need, there are plenty of ways to do so.
Marie, that’s great that some women discuss with the father… but who consults with the child?
You said, “will not stop a woman from doing what she thinks is best for her life and health.” Of course there are women who put their own lifestyle above the actual life of another human being. There are some cases that can be understandable like a non viable pregnancy, rape or a few other reasons… but we both know those are a very small percentage. Call it women’s health all you want… but really in most cases it’s women’s convenience. Lets agree on that, then we can discuss the fraction of abortions that don’t fall into that category.
I hate this topic. People never change their minds. They just dig in and make the same arguments and we go in circles. But AG, I’m wondering how you define fraction here? On an annual basis, how many pregnancies are non-viable, the result of rape or incest, or put the mother’s health at risk? Is it even possible to really know that? I’ve read that with the average age of pregnancy rising, more and more women are experiencing non viable pregnancies or pregnancies that put their health at serious risk.
AG, first, a woman’s (or man’s) life is indeed an “actual human being.” It is not merely a “lifestyle.” If you want the state to value the “life” of a fetus over the actual life of the mother you are essentially advocating forced breeding. Or “punishment” of women if they do not comply.
Bearing a child is not just a matter of convenience or inconvenience. Other major issues are the ability to support (on every level) that child, for 18 years legally and lifetime emotionally; OR to be ability to give up that child to adoption after nine months–and the uncertainty of whether one could actually go through with that.
There is the health of the mother (on all levels), the health of the fetus, the mother’s relationship/family; number of other children, economic, job/career, housing and other life-changing issues. There may be rape/abuse issues in how the child was conceived or how the mother and child might be treated.
I will assume you seek to be a compassionate person. If you have spent energy trying to convince women you know to give birth (especially if they were conflicted), I hope you have taken on even a small fraction of responsibility for the well-being and financial support of those children over a lifetime. There are also unlimited opportunities to spend time and money helping nurture society’s countless needy children.
Vincent, it’s small. Even if it was 50/50 (which is it no where close, I just don’t have more than a few min to respond) it would still be a large number that didn’t fall into those categories.
Marie, it’s clear that you see an unborn child as just a “fetus” and thus place other life and lifestyles ahead of the life of that child. Thus, unless your perspective changes, we’ll never agree. And yes, a lot of those reasons you gave are lifestyles. Putting your job/career, family relationships, not wanting to be pregnant for 9 mo’s and then giving the child up, housing, and more are indeed life style choices and none of those should be an excuse to kill a child. Life ain’t easy, but as soon as you’ve given yourself the responsibility of another life then priorities should change and for those who can’t/don’t want to raise a child there are many options and families who would desperately love to have the opportunity.
And come on, “forced breeding?” The breeding was already done, it’s the ending of the life that the breeding created that we’re talking about.
If you have no idea what the number is, how do you know it’s small? What do you consider small? I sure don’t consider 50/50 small.
Fine Vincent… since you made me… This is real fast so haven’t had much time to look it over, but this says the health of mother or unborn child as reasons is from 12-25 percent and rape is 1 percent… incest was less than .5%
Does it actually matter? Whether rape, incest, health of mother/child makes up the 87% or if they made up 90%… the rest are not morally justifiable. (I don’t think many of the 13-26% are either… but we can leave that alone for now)
Sorry, here’s the link https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/journals/3711005.pdf
AG if I only knew you from your comments on this topic, I would think you are a complete lunatic and repugnant human being. You act morally superior. You act like an OB/GYN. You act like you have firsthand knowledge of being pregnant. None of those things is true. I find your sanctimony on this just repulsive and awful.
Vincent, people most likely to change their minds about abortion are ones faced with a real, rather than theoretical, situation in which abortion is one option.
AG, breeding is defined as “the activity of controlling the mating AND production of offspring,” but perhaps “forced child-bearing” is a better word choice.
It sounds like you’ve got your “elevator speech” worked out if you want to lobby women at abortion clinics or “pregnancy help centers.” Maybe you already do.
Do they really change their minds though, or are they just hypocrites? I have anti-choice family members who have had abortions, and they (and their anti-choice parents) continue to be anti-choice. Of course they are all extremely wealthy too and basically live a “do as I say, not as I do” lifestyle.
Vincent, I am not trying to come across as morally superior or sanctimonious but I do draw a firm line on the taking of another human being’s life. I find few reasons that it can be justified. I’m honestly confused how that makes someone a lunatic or repugnant. I’d much sooner use those words for anyone who fails to see the unborn child as a living being worthy of a chance to live.
Marie, I wasn’t not really arguing the technicalities of the definition of breeding but more commenting on when the choice was originally made to “breed.” But for as much as you proclaim others should try to understand a woman’s position, you sure do seem to lack an ability to do that for those who disagree with you.
It’s exactly how you come across. You make sweeping judgments about women you will never know or understand, people whose experiences you, as a man, will never go through, and declare what is right and wrong for them to do.
Being a man doesn’t make this a morally relative situation in any way and it’s not my opinion, it just is. Just because I’m not a bird, doesn’t mean I have no place to say the sky is blue. It just is. Even if I was colorblind I could make the same statement. To channel my inner HappyJack, you’re committing a fallacy of accident by ignoring the actual elements of what we’re talking about and instead implying that because I’m a man I must be wrong.
One’s opinion on abortion comes down to one thing: whether you believe an unborn child is a living human being or not. If it is, then there’s no argument that can really justify taking their life because abortion is not a victim-less action.
Vincent, regarding your family or friends who you think of as hypocrites, you would probably be better off as thinking of them as flawed… as all people are. There seems to be this assumption that just because someone tries to be a good person, to do the right thing, and to try to push others to do the right thing as well, that somehow if they do the wrong thing or make a bad decision that suddenly they’re a hypocrite. That’s not what being human is about. Being perfect is impossible.
Similarly, Marie and others assume that just because a person is pro-life that they don’t understand how difficult a pregnancy situation can be or that they won’t make the wrong decisions when put in that situation themselves. Both of those assumptions are false.
AG, I completely respect any decisions people make regarding their pregnancies and support them if I know them personally. I have long been familiar with beliefs you describe. I understand and accept your views.
I only have a problem with people trying to interfere with rights guaranteed by law (and I am not assuming you do that). I also get annoyed by people trying to shame people, especially women, about making decisions they are allowed by law to make. People who are two-faced about exercising their right to an abortion and then trying to deny that right to others deserve to be called out. But I respect their right to privacy nonetheless, so mostly we never know about that hypocrisy.
No one said anything about perfection. I don’t expect anyone to be perfect, whatever that even means (and of course you are prone to defending those who share your anti-choice views). It’s about constantly claiming to hold a certain set of beliefs but privately doing the exact opposite. Like the Tennessee family values conservative who made women he impregnated get abortions. But I’m sure he’s a complex and unique snowflake so we should refrain from calling him a hypocrite.
Hypocritical, rights-denying politicians deserve no sympathy, no matter how psychologically complex. They are often driven by shameless & opportunistic courting of votes and donor cash.
Alberta Darling is someone who had a sudden change of mind about abortion. After serving for years on the board of Planned Parenthood she suddenly became rabidly “pro-life’ when she thought it would get her more votes and cash.