State cuts to Planned Parenthood effects on Texas Panhandle

The State of Texas will cut off its funding to Planned Parenthood because of the argument the agency provides abortions. That's the decision handed down by a judge Monday. But that decision has caused confusion about whether that will leave Texas Panhandle women who are under-insured or uninsured out in the cold for preventative health care.

It's been a back and fourth issues since last year, when the Texas Legislature passed a law banning clinics affiliated with Planned Parenthood from participating in state-funded programs for poor women.

"What I've noticed about organizations like Planned Parenthood is rather than making it about an abortion argument they're saying, Oh, because we're gone, all these people are not going to get their preventative services which is simply not true. They're getting them at a lot of other places just not Planned Parenthood," said Doctor Brian Eades, OB/GYN.

Texas Panhandle women will not be effected. That's because there's no Planned Parenthood locations in our area. In fact, Dr. Eades says thanks to Medicaid, the Women's Health Program, and the Affordable Health Care Act women will not be left out in the cold.

"I think there have been very misleading arguments set up here that because the State of Texas will not pay for Planned Parenthood who's an abortion provider that all these women's health care needs are not being met, well they are being met, they're just being met by providers that are not also providing abortions," said Dr. Eades

In Amarillo alone we have the Haven Health Clinic, J.O. Wyatt Community Health Center, and Public Health Department that are designed to help those under or uninsured.

"That will not effect the services we provide to the people of Amarillo or surrounding communities," said Carolean Cogdill, Haven Health Clinic.

But the state now must come up with a way to fund the Women's Health Program, which was once federally funded. The government stopped doing that because it says the state's decision violates the Social Security Act.