Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, wrote a letter announcing that the organization was turning “95 years young” this week. In it, she wrote:

When we say Planned Parenthood is 95 years young, we aren’t kidding. And we had better stay young – because even as millions of people count on Planned Parenthood, there are some politicians working to turn the clock back when it comes to women’s health. They are working to take away women’s access to birth control, cancer screenings and other essential health care.

But we are here to stay.

Last year we provided birth control services to more than 2.3 million people. We provided more than 4 million tests and treatments for sexually transmitted infections. We served young women and young men. And when the going got tough, young women and men stood up for the health care provider they depend on.

Planned Parenthood was founded to make sure women could plan their pregnancies. Ninety-five years later, we are still committed to a world where all people are empowered to live healthy lives, without fear of unintended pregnancy or sexually transmitted infections, a world where young people can delay pregnancy until they are ready to support a family.

In short, a world with Planned Parenthood.

Ninety-five years ago, life really began to change for American women and we haven’t looked back. Together, stronger-and younger – than ever, we have the power to shape a healthier future.

The organization is currently facing political pushback from all angles. The group is preparing for a congressional investigation launched by Rep. Cliff Stearns, R-FL, at the request of Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group that wants to see Planned Parenthood defunded as part of its strategy to end abortion in the United States.

Planned Parenthood clinics provide low-cost services such as birth control, which is embraced by most of the population — including religious women. However, the organization is frequently under attack by anti-abortion groups because some of the clinics provide legal abortions.

Coupled with persistent economic troubles in the country, anti-abortion groups are using the fact Planned Parenthood offers abortions to gather support for defunding the chains on a federal level. The House GOP recently unveiled a spending bill that would “eliminate the Title X family-planning program, ban federal funding to Planned Parenthood Federation of America (unless the organization ends its abortion services), redirect teen-pregnancy-prevention programming funds to abstinence-only sex-education programs and ban private insurance companies from covering abortion,” according to our sister site, The American Independent.

The GOP-led House attempted to do the same this past spring, but failed because of significant opposition from Democrats in the Senate and the White House.

Richards wrote in her letter that “when Planned Parenthood’s ability to provide health care was under grave attack from congressional leaders this past spring, more than 1 million people stood up to defend the essential health care provided by nonprofit Planned Parenthood health centers in communities throughout this country.”

“Their motivation was clear,” she wrote. “One in five women in the United States has relied on a Planned Parenthood center for quality health care.”

“There are some days in this congress where I feel like I’m in Alice in Wonderland, where logic has been turned on its head and we’ve all fallen down the rabbit hole,” she said. “Today is certainly one of those days. Here we stand on the 282nd day of the congress and the majority has not yet passed a jobs plan. We have spent all day long once again attacking women’s health with a bill that will never become law…”

The president has vowed to veto the bill and it is not likely to pass the Democratic-controlled Senate, which voted down a similar bill earlier this session.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor in a release celebrated the bill and tied it to main street pocket books. He implied it was a sort of insurance policy against tax-funded abortion. He also said it served as a signal to the public, bolstering the Republican brand as solidly anti-abortion.

“At a time when American families are facing enormous economic challenges, this bill ensures that their hard-earned dollars are not used to fund abortion coverage…. This bill demonstrates once again that our Republican Majority will always stand on the side of life.”

DeGette called on Republicans like Cantor to be more candid.

“There is no federal funding for abortion,” she said repeatedly, citing the Hyde Amendement, which effectively banned federal funding for abortion in the wake of Roe v Wade. The amendment was passed as an appropriations rider in 1976 and has been renewed every year since.

“When I listen to this debate, it’s really clear to me that the proponents of this bill, their main concern is not federal funding of abortion,” said DeGette. “Their main concern is they want abortion to be illegal, and so here’s my view– having debated this now for fifteen years in this body, here’s my view: If the majority wants to pass a bill banning abortion, pass a bill banning abortion and we’ll fight it out in the courts. Don’t make claims that there is somehow federal funding for abortion when in fact there is none in order to confuse the issues and to try to confuse the American public.”

The bill passed the Republican-controlled House 251 votes to 172. Fifteen Democrats crossed over to vote for the bill and three Republicans voted against it.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Stearns told our sister site, The Florida Independent, back in July that such an investigation was possible, after the release a report arguing that lawmakers should defund Planned Parenthood. The report was written by Americans United for Life, an anti-abortion group. As The Independent reported, Americans United called upon Congress to hold an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s finances and practices. While Planned Parenthood called the report false and “ideologically driven,” Stearns did not rule out launching an investigation.

Sarah Kliff of Politico reports that Stearns has already asked the president of Planned Parenthood to provide the committee with a range of documents.

According to the letter sent to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, Stearn’s “committee has questions about the policies in place and actions undertaken by the [Planned Parenthood Federation of America] and its affiliates related to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion.”

According to a recent statement from Planned Parenthood:

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) expressed disappointment that Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has put politics before lifesaving health care by launching what appears to be a politically motivated investigation and demanding an onerous amount of records from PPFA and its 83 affiliates, some going as far back as 13 years. …

“At a time when the American people need jobs, some members of Congress are instead misusing their political power to go after health care access for the most vulnerable women in the country,” said Richards. “We are certain that the millions of women and men who count on Planned Parenthood will make their voices heard and speak out, just as they did during the budget battle in the spring.” …

Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA), the ranking member of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, and Congresswoman Diana DeGette (D-CO), the ranking member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations in a letter to Congressman Stearns, wrote, “We are aware of no predicate that would justify this sweeping and invasive request to Planned Parenthood. The HHS Inspector General and state Medicaid programs regularly audit Planned Parenthood and report publicly on their findings. These audits have not identified any pattern of misuse of federal funds, illegal activity, or other abuse that would justify a broad and invasive congressional investigation.”

Stearns has asked Planned Parenthood for a host of documents, including auditing records and written policies.

Stearns has disapproved of Planned Parenthood for some time. This year he introduced the Informed Choice Act, which The Independent reported “would authorize grants ‘to nonprofit tax-exempt organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to pregnant women needing such services, and for other purposes.’” In essence, his bill would have given money to crisis pregnancy centers, which aim to discourage women from having abortions, so they could buy ultrasound equipment.

In their letter to Stearns, DeGette and Waxman note that they believe this investigation to be one more cog in an ongoing smear campaign against Planned Parenthood. They wrote, “This year, House Republicans have voted twice to strip Planned Parenthood of federal funding. You strongly supported these efforts, stating that ‘defunding Planned Parenthood should be a fiscal and moral priority for Congress.’ You also unfairly smeared the organization when you claimed that Planned Parenthood is ‘willing to use public funds to commit a federal crime’ and is ‘willing to ignore the law in promoting its service.’ … It would be an abuse of the oversight process if you are now using the Committee’s investigative powers to harass Planned Parenthood again. Your fervent ideological opposition to Planned Parenthood does not justify launching this intrusive investigation.”

“The pro-choice community came together for a night of dancing, singing, duets and solos– all for a good cause,” Cathy Alderman, vice president of public affairs, told the Colorado Independent. “Just like the song selections, attendees represented numerous generations and demonstrated the commitment among Coloradans to protecting women’s health and ensuring women always have the right to make personal private decisions about their own bodies.”

Blur star Sen Guzman on karaoke (and in the hat).

Planned Parenthood Votes supports local pro-choice and pro-family-planning policies as well as candidates and officeholders who promote those policies.

The organization also works to advance local comprehensive sex education. This week the group will be hosting online and campus activities that will dovetail with Planned Parenthood’s national “Sex Ed Week of Action.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, only 10 states and the District of Columbia require that sex education programs in middle school or high school include information about about birth control and only 21 states and the District of Columbia require any type of sex education at all.

House Bill 1292 passed in 2007 sets the standard in Colorado. Schools here don’t have to teach sex ed but schools that elect to teach it have to teach it in a comprehensive fashion, which includes instruction on abstinence as well as birth control. The instruction must be built on a foundation of medically accurate science-based research.

Planned Parenthood of the Rocky Mountains Communications Director Monica McCafferty told the Independent that the organization this year will seek to educate the public on where school board candidates stand on issues like sex education. She said Planned Parenthood Votes has sent surveys to candidates and will disseminate their responses. She also said the organization fully expects another anti-abortion “personhood” initiative to appear on the 2012 ballot in the state and that her organization will work to defeat this one as it did the last two versions.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

Orton struggled in the home opener against the rival Raiders, prompting fans to chant Tebow’s name and then start raising money for billboards calling for his ascension. The “Tebow thing,” as one Denver Post columnist called it, won’t go away, even if Orton salvages a win against the Cincinnati Bengals on Sunday. That’s because no one sees Orton as a Super Bowl quarterback, and that’s the only goal worth chasing in Bronco Nation.

Tim Tebow

Elway, the vice president of football operations who led the Broncos to back-to-back Super Bowl wins in the 1990s, someday (possibly soon) will have to decide between Orton, picked up in a trade for then-franchise QB Jay Cutler, and first-round draft pick Tebow, who led the University of Florida to back-to-back national championships and is considered one of the greatest college players of all time.

The question, for some fans, is the degree to which politics and religion will play into that decision, or whether both players will simply be judged on their performance in games and practice. Already some ardent Tebow fans say he keeps moving down the depth chart because he wears his religion on his sleeve, asks God to bless reporters and last year participated in a controversial pro-life ad aired during the Super Bowl and paid for by Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family.

Orton, by contrast, has a slow pulse that some fans have labeled apathy. That mellow persona hasn’t inspired his teammates, critics argue, although it may be a perfect fit in Colorado, where his green leanings and low-key mentality is likely in line with a majority of residents.

Kyle Orton

Elway made big bucks selling hybrid Toyota Priuses like the one Orton drove when he first came to town, but Elway also cashed in on plenty of V-8, gas-guzzling Tundras and Sequoias. After selling his car dealerships, however, the Broncos boss was considered a serious candidate for U.S. Senate as far back as 2006.

Elway has supported numerous Republicans in Colorado, including Scott McInnis, Pete Coors, Bob Beauprez, Tom Tancredo and George W. Bush, tossing campaign dollars their way like screen passes and lending his famous face and voice to GOP get-out-the-vote efforts with fundraisers, campaign appearances and robo-calls.

In 2008, Elway’s name came up again in connection to the 2010 U.S. Senate race, and in 2009 he starred in a controversial FBI anti-terrorism TV ad partially paid for by the Department of Homeland Security.

Still, nothing Elway does in the political and public policy spotlight will stir anything close to the controversy the Tebow-Orton saga is generating.

“Not only would this proposed language undermine the self-governing rights of the people of the District of Columbia, it would deny low-income women access to basic, constitutionally protected, medical services,” DeGette, co-chair of the Pro-Choice Caucus, said in a release. “Congress should not violate the District’s right to use its own tax dollars as it sees fit in order to simply advance congressional Republicans’ extreme assault on women’s access to quality reproductive healthcare.”

The political right has long championed local government over federal government as best to represent constituent interests. The Tea Party has leaned on states rights arguments, for example, in its aggressive opposition to the federal health care reform law passed two years ago.

The debate over the abortion restriction references the long struggle to grant the District of Columbia statehood. DC residents have no true representatives in Congress yet Republicans have long opposed statehood for the fact that the District’s largely liberal population would add Democratic votes on Capitol Hill.

The language opposed by DeGette appears in the Fiscal Year 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill and is one of several attempts on the part of Republican lawmakers this year to limit access to abortion.

“This intrusive initiative sadly sends a clear signal that this Congress does not believe vulnerable women are worthy of the same access to quality health as their middle-class and wealthy counterparts.”

One of the clear effects of the law would be to price out abortions for any government employee unable to foot the bill out of pocket.

DeGette made her case to the committees staffers in a letter signed by 59 members of the House, including Colorado Rep Jared Polis, and co-authored with New York Rep Louise Slaughter.

“Washington D.C. is not Congress’ petri dish,” Slaughter said. “We should not be using federal power to experiment with the rights of women, which is why I encourage every member of the Appropriations Committees to reject any effort to limit the District’s control of local funds. “Congress should not be in the business of punishing low-income women and stripping them of their constitutionally-afforded rights. I believe we’d all do well to remember that.”

On Wednesday the Senate is scheduled to mark-up or consider again the various provisions of the appropriations bill.

The DeGette-Slaughter letter:

Dear Democratic members of the House and Senate appropriations committees:

As you consider Fiscal Year 2012 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations legislation, we urge you to protect the District of Columbia’s right to self-government as well as the health and reproductive rights of low-income women in the District of Columbia.  We respectfully request that you ensure that language that undermines self-government is not included in subsequent legislation as it was in the House Appropriations committee-approved bill.  Specifically, we urge you to not adopt Section 810 of the House bill, which prohibits local tax dollars from being used for abortions for women whose insurance is provided by the District government.

The autonomy of the District is necessary for democratic self-governance, and Congress should be mindful not to violate District residents’ rights to control their own tax dollars.  The Home Rule Act of 1973 was a result of decades of efforts to protect the rights of District residents.  Republicans have spent much of the 112th Congress interfering in local District matters.  Each time Democrats accede to violations of the District’s home rule, we embolden Republicans to continue their attacks.

By failing to permit the District of Columbia to spend local government funds on abortion, we are sending the message that low-income women should not have access to the same medical services that middle- and upper-income women can access.  Ultimately, this prohibition may threaten the health of medically vulnerable women and deny patients the right to access constitutionally protected medical services.  We must strive to expand health care services for Americans throughout the nation – not place barriers in the road of a woman seeking medical care simply because of the state, city, or district that she lives in.

The District does not have a vote in the House or Senate.  But other Democrats do.  We urge you to stand strong and to protect the democratic self-government of the District of Columbia.

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The personhood proposal would criminalize abortion without exception and outlaw some methods of birth control. The rights of pregnant women would be curtailed. The bill would shut down much of fertility and stem-cell research industries in the state, a fact which weighed strongly against the proposal in Colorado, where the biotech sector thrives.

Most of Colorado’s major Republican candidates for office in 2008 rejected the proposal as overreaching. In the tea party election of 2010, however, all of the major Republican candidates endorsed it. Fourth District freshman Representative Cory Gardner at a tea party candidate forum said he had circulated copies of the initiative at his church.

The Republican and the Democratic candidate for governor in Mississippi have endorsed the proposal, as did the state legislature, which has to approve initiatives before they land on the ballot.

Indeed, Colorado has a much looser initiative system than does Mississippi. In the roughly 30 years that the initiative system has been in place there, only two initiatives have ever made it to the ballot, according to Stateline.

The personhood measure crossed Mississippi’s high procedural hurdles this week, another product of the Republican wave-election of 2010.

Stateline:

The ballot measure comes after a historic legislative year in which states enacted more than 80 new restrictions on abortion, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. This year’s flurry of laws is more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005, the institute says. But none are like the measure that Mississippi voters are expected to consider November 8.

Backers of the Mississippi measure are clear: If approved, they say, the initiative would ultimately outlaw abortion and human cloning, embryo stem cell research, and “other forms of medical cannibalism. would be effectively stopped.” Opponents say the measure could make in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of birth control illegal “and miscarriages could become suspect.”

The hard line drawn by the initiatve pleases its backers but it also raises alarm bells for pro-life strategists looking to successfully challenge Roe. They say the bill is sure to be struck down as violating federal law and that such a decision would create even stronger precedent in support of the legalized abortion status quo.

In its report today on the Mississippi proposal, Stateline echoes much of the commentary around the bill that emerged during the last two elections in Colorado. The organization quotes University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket.

“[Personhood] was widely seen as a radical proposal that would require massive changes in state law.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

The personhood proposal would criminalize abortion without exception and outlaw some methods of birth control. The rights of pregnant women would be curtailed. The bill would shut down much of fertility and stem-cell research industries in the state, a fact which weighed strongly against the proposal in Colorado, where the biotech sector thrives.

Most of Colorado’s major Republican candidates for office in 2008 rejected the proposal as overreaching. In the tea party election of 2010, however, all of the major Republican candidates endorsed it. Fourth District freshman Representative Cory Gardner at a tea party candidate forum said he had circulated copies of the initiative at his church.

The Republican and the Democratic candidate for governor in Mississippi have endorsed the proposal, as did the state legislature, which has to approve initiatives before they land on the ballot.

Indeed, Colorado has a much looser initiative system than does Mississippi. In the roughly 30 years that the initiative system has been in place there, only two initiatives have ever made it to the ballot, according to Stateline.

The personhood measure crossed Mississippi’s high procedural hurdles this week, another product of the Republican wave-election of 2010.

Stateline:

The ballot measure comes after a historic legislative year in which states enacted more than 80 new restrictions on abortion, according to a report from the Guttmacher Institute, which supports abortion rights. This year’s flurry of laws is more than double the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions enacted in 2005, the institute says. But none are like the measure that Mississippi voters are expected to consider November 8.

Backers of the Mississippi measure are clear: If approved, they say, the initiative would ultimately outlaw abortion and human cloning, embryo stem cell research, and “other forms of medical cannibalism. would be effectively stopped.” Opponents say the measure could make in-vitro fertilization and certain forms of birth control illegal “and miscarriages could become suspect.”

The hard line drawn by the initiatve pleases its backers but it also raises alarm bells for pro-life strategists looking to successfully challenge Roe. They say the bill is sure to be struck down as violating federal law and that such a decision would create even stronger precedent in support of the legalized abortion status quo.

In its report today on the Mississippi proposal, Stateline echoes much of the commentary around the bill that emerged during the last two elections in Colorado. The organization quotes University of Denver political scientist Seth Masket.

“[Personhood] was widely seen as a radical proposal that would require massive changes in state law.”

Got a tip? Story pitch? Send us an e-mail. Follow The Colorado Independent on Twitter.

But a new report released Thursday by the Guttmacher Institute suggests that these measures will likely increase how much taxpayers spend on unintended pregnancies, which are largely experienced by the uninsured and thus funded on the taxpayer’s dime.

Guttmacher, a social-science research organization widely cited by stakeholders on both sides of the abortion debate, has highlighted studies showing that unintended pregnancies –- the cause of most abortions in this country -– cost American taxpayers roughly $11.1 billion each year.

According to data revealed in these studies, two-thirds of births, or 1 million, each year are publicly funded either through Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).

Two studies –- on the public costs of births resulting from unintended pregnancies (PDF) and on unintended pregnancy and taxpayer spending (PDF) –- relied on different methodological approaches but ultimately arrived at similar figures and the same conclusion: that “huge” public savings could be seen from reducing unintended pregnancy in this country.

The public-costs study (PDF), authored by the Guttmacher’s Adam Sonfield and colleagues, used state-level data from 2006 (largely culled from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Pregnancy Assessment Monitoring System and other state surveys), to find that 64 percent of births resulting from unintended pregnancies were funded by Medicaid, compared with 48 percent of all births and 35 percent of births resulting from intended pregnancies.

Additional findings:

• Rates of unintended pregnancy are “far higher” among low-income women (those with an income at 100–199 percent of the federal poverty level) and those living in poverty.
• About 44 percent of women aged 15 to 44 who have had an unintended pregnancy have had two or more unintended pregnancies.
• About 36 percent of women who have had an unintended pregnancy and given birth have had two or more such births.

“In the absence of the services provided at publicly funded family planning centers, the costs of unintended pregnancy would be 60% higher than they are today,” Sonfield writes in an accompanying statement.

The taxpayer study (PDF), authored by the Brookings Institution’s Emily Monea and Adam Thomas, involved counting 2001 national estimates of publicly-funded births, abortions, miscarriages and infant medical care and then multiplying those figures by the average cost per outcome. The analysts came up with a range between $9.6 billion and $12.6 billion per year in taxpayer money covering unintended pregnancies, with an average of $11.3 billion. They estimated public savings that would occur if these unintended pregnancies were prevented would be between $4.7 billion and $6.2 billion.

Guttmacher notes that both estimates are limited to public insurance costs for pregnancy and first-year infant care and are thus considered to be conservative estimates, as they do not account for additional public and private costs associated with unintended pregnancies. The researchers note, for instance, that women who get pregnant unintentionally tend to have lower levels of labor-force participation, and their children are more likely than others to live in poverty, claim public assistance and engage in delinquent and criminal behavior later in life.

“Even taking our results at face value,” the Brookings Institute analysts write, “one can conclude that the prevention of unintended pregnancy would produce substantial public savings. For example, our mean estimate of annual savings ($5.6 billion) is more than three-quarters the level of federal funding for either the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children ($7.25 billion) or the Head Start and Early Head Start programs ($7.23 billion).”

A third study (PDF) with an accompanying map, reports first-ever state estimates of unintended pregnancy, as well as a benchmark for evaluating how state policies impact pregnancy rates. It found that unintended pregnancy rates were highest in Mississippi and generally in the South and Southwest.

The billboard shows a man looking down at an outline of a baby and says, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!”

The billboard is the work of Alamogordo’s Greg A. Fultz, who is featured in the billboard:

Fultz told the Alamogordo Daily News that the billboard is “merely a statement about anti-abortion and pro-life.” He says RTLNM originally agreed to endorse the billboard and have the organization’s name featured on it.

Betty Eichenseer, the president of RTLNM, said the group initially agreed to endorse the billboard, “but as the situation and time went on we received additional information from others that it no longer seemed in the best interest of Right to Life to participate in the billboard.”

Fultz also posted a YouTube video of the billboard being erected.

The billboard, installed on White Sands Boulevard, also bears the name of a group Fultz created called the National Association of Needed Information, although he tells the Daily News that it isn’t yet “an official organization.” It also bears the name of Fultz’s company, GEFNET.

Fultz told the Daily News he started the organization because of an incident that happened to him with a woman where “there was a pregnancy, then there wasn’t.”

“It’s my belief that fathers should have a say regarding pregnancy,” Fultz told the paper. “Women have all the power when it comes to pregnancy. The men get no say when a woman wants to go and have an abortion without the say of the father.”