Why the Future of Gillette Health Clinic Funding Shouldn’t Be Linked to Abortion Misinformation

A crucial decision is looming for Gillette Reproductive Health, a beloved low-cost health clinic. Some religious and political leaders are spreading false claims that city funds are used for abortion services. This has sparked fresh fears of the clinic losing its funding for the second time in five years.

Supporters are rallying, firmly stating that the clinic neither provides nor recommends abortions. The real question for the Gillette City Council is whether this clinic, funded for 15 years, has effectively helped those who can’t afford healthcare.

Many residents rely on this clinic. During recent city council hearings, users highlighted its vital services—STD testing, pregnancy tests, pap smears, breast cancer screenings, and birth control. In today’s climate, where women are struggling to access healthcare, the clinic plays a pivotal role. A recent poll from Ipsos found that **42% of women** are skipping routine healthcare like check-ups and vaccinations, often due to barriers like cost and lack of access to providers. This problem is pronounced in Wyoming, where there are few OB-GYNs.

At Gillette Reproductive Health, services are subsidized, making care affordable. For example, a woman’s wellness exam costs just $25 here, compared to ten times that at other facilities. Executive Director Julie Price Carroll pointed out to the council that cutting funding could push women back into poverty, creating a vicious cycle.

At a recent hearing, I was struck by a quote from philosopher Henry David Thoreau: “It takes two to speak the truth — one to speak and another to hear.” Unfortunately, council members seem distracted by claims from a group of pastors advocating against the clinic, ignoring the voices of those who rely on its services.

Despite a petition gathering **over 1,000 signatures** in support of continued funding, four council members voted to cut the clinic’s budget. Representative John Bear, part of the far-right Freedom Caucus, has also weighed in, suggesting that people who need reproductive services should simply donate to the clinic instead of using taxpayer dollars.

Concerns about funding and morality are at the forefront of this debate. Rev. Zachary Viggers, leading the clergy push against the clinic, argued that taxpayer money shouldn’t support an organization, like Gillette Reproductive Health, he claims promotes abortion services. Yet, Dr. David Beck, the clinic’s voluntary medical director, firmly stated that they do not perform abortions or distribute any related medications. He emphasized the clinic’s mission of caring for the vulnerable, reminding the council of its role in the community.

Councilwoman Heidi Gross strongly defended the clinic, arguing against the non-factual claims circulating in the community. She believes that religious leaders should not dictate how city funds are spent, echoing a principle of separation between church and state.

It’s essential for the council to reconsider its decision based on accurate information and the genuine needs of the community. As more voices in the community advocate for continued support, it’s clear that healthcare access is a pressing issue in Gillette. The council’s decision could either reinforce a safety net for those in need or cut them off from essential services.

Source link

alliance for women\u2019s health and prevention,david beck,ed sisti,freedom caucus,gillette city council,gillette reproductive health,heidi gross,john bear,wyoming,zachary viggers