GOP to Planned Parenthood: Hand over records

[mhaze]

This is exactly concerned with what Congress worries about. Getting re-elected.

It's a fishing expedition and they are bound to get something if allowed to continue. In an organization the size of PP, there are bound to be one off mistakes that were made. If Republicans can find a single abortion that was funded incorrectly (even if it was subsequently corrected) they will use that as an excuse to defund PP and make their anti-abortion core happy.

Nonsense. Let them look into it and see what they find. A single problem would not have brought down Acorn, rather it was an endemic set of problems that caused bipartisian consensus votes against Acorn.

You seem to think that something that's controversial can't stand examination under the light of day. I strongly disagree with that.

None of those far right arguments are about PP being an organization that does abortions and receives federal money. They are all about PP getting federal money and doing abortions with it. That should be an open and shut issue when the books are opened.

Of course I suspect what they've done is comingled facilities, staff and procedures to obfuscate understanding. But that doesn't fly. No more than in an engineering lab with some commmercial, and some government work on cost reimbursement basis (Fixed fee is different). The audit establishes what amount of building cost, salaries, overhead was for the government work.

Seriously. There are all kinds of ways PP could be subverting (breaking) the law and if they are not, the religious right doesn't have a leg to stand on in this issue.

I know in this area it's extremely easy for a girl to walk into PP and get an abortion. I have no clue how one would figure out whether that was partly subsidized by federal money from the consumer point of view.

 

[sarge]

IMHO, it's because PP has regular audits and, while occasional discrepancies have been found and dealt with, there hasn't been anything to suggest what Congressional Republicans claiming. Now, perhaps this is just the OP article's poor choice of wording, but it sounds like this was all initiated on a collective gut feeling. I interpret that as "We're going to dig until we either find something wrong or find something we can spin as wrong."

I could, of course, be wrong. Maybe there is a valid reason to be concerned that this one chunk of federal funding is not being used in accordance to the law. It seems more likely to me that this is politically motivated based on how the organization spends it's non-federal funds.

Even Zig would appear to agree with me on that.

It seems that you are in the same situation I am. I believe that this is an attempt by Republicans to find something with which to hang PP, but I have noting but my opinion to back me up.

Where we probably differ is whether or not it is inappropriate for Republicans to do so. I do not. The Republican party has a well-known position in opposition to abortion, and every person that votes Republican is providing support to that position. Republicans are simply legally persuing the goals of their constitutants - hardly something to find fault with. That I oppose their goals and hope they fail doesn't change the equation.

 

[Upchurch]

First, there are many varieties of "audit", and the previous historical ones may not have got to the root of this issue. For example, funds may be commingled. Then the use of federal funds for an illegal use couldn't be proved from an audit that accepted that accounting convention without simply apportioning on a percentage basis.

Do you really believe this is the first time Republicans have considered this tact?

1981: PLANNED PARENTHOOD GROUPS INVESTIGATED ON USE OF U.S. FUNDS

Both reviews started, in part at least, as a result of complaints from members of Congress. The General Accounting Office began its audits at the request of two Republican Senators, Orrin G. Hatch of Utah and Jeremiah Denton of Alabama, both outspoken opponents of abortion.

So far, the agencies have reported no violations. Robert A.@H. Wilson, a spokesman for the Inspector General, said that ''by and large'' auditors had found compliance with the law, although ''there were several minor accounting erros not germane to the basic issues of the audit.'' 'A Harassment Technique'

1983: New Rules May Virtually End Planned Parenthood

Although the investigation turned up a completely clean slate on the part of family planning clinics, the concern of the DHHS is that certain practices of those clinics "give the impression" federal monies are funding abortions.

1992: FEDERAL AUDITS EXONERATED PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF FUNDS MISUSE

BRIAN Bertholomey's letter, "Title X subsidizes abortion with taxes" (Oct. 15), contains slanderous remarks about Planned Parenthood. Bertholomey says Planned Parenthood has misused federal money through the Title X family-planning program to promote and perform abortions. He claims Planned Parenthood "knowingly violated these guidelines for the last two decades." Presumably, since 1970.In 1970, Congress and the Nixon...

The rest of the article is cut off and requires purchase, but it is clearly referring to the issue at hand.

2010: Olson slams U.S. funds for family planning organizations

“Obviously there is no direct link between the taxpayers’ money and women getting abortions because that would violate federal law,” a congressional staffer said. “But this report helps track the offsets that we know are taking place at these organizations.”

{snip}

“None of the federal dollars received are used for abortion care,” Tafolla said. Planned Parenthood affiliates in Texas that provide abortion services “are required to be separately incorporated from the entity that provides family planning services,” she said.

Right, there has never been audits to investigate this in the past.

Chaos is right. This is becoming just like the Birther crap. If you don't like the evidence, keep asking for more evidence.


eta: There were more articles across the years, but most of them were for-purchase and the snippet they gave did not clearly indicate if it was relevant to this discussion, although I believe many of them probably were.

 

[mhaze]

But the question is not abortion, but use of taxpayer money for abortions in opposition to established federal law.

I assume from the drift of the comments here, that the liberal view would be either to allow this, or look the other way on it?

Just curious, not trying to make any particular point.

 

[Upchurch]

Nonsense. Let them look into it again and see what they find.

ftfy.

How many times is enough, mhaze? I have no objection to regular audits, which PP apparently already has. How many special investigations are necessary for this to go from being reasonable to being a witch hunt?

 

[Spindrift]

Nonsense. Let them look into it and see what they find. A single problem would not have brought down Acorn, rather it was an endemic set of problems that caused bipartisian consensus votes against Acorn.

And it was brought down despite being eventually vindicated.

You seem to think that something that's controversial can't stand examination under the light of day. I strongly disagree with that.

Not when those wanting the investigation are going in with a pre-determined agenda and pretty much vowed to find wrongdoing.

None of those far right arguments are about PP being an organization that does abortions and receives federal money. They are all about PP getting federal money and doing abortions with it. That should be an open and shut issue when the books are opened.

It's all about abortion and destroying access to it. Period. Abortion which is legal.

Of course I suspect what they've done is comingled facilities, staff and procedures to obfuscate understanding. But that doesn't fly. No more than in an engineering lab with some commmercial, and some government work on cost reimbursement basis (Fixed fee is different). The audit establishes what amount of building cost, salaries, overhead was for the government work.

Seriously. There are all kinds of ways PP could be subverting (breaking) the law and if they are not, the religious right doesn't have a leg to stand on in this issue.

So the supposition that an organization could possibly be doing wrong without any probable cause that they are doing wrong is sufficient for a sweeping investigation?

I know in this area it's extremely easy for a girl to walk into PP and get an abortion. I have no clue how one would figure out whether that was partly subsidized by federal money from the consumer point of view.

Apparently PP does. As they've shown in the audits that are currently performed. But that's not good enough, because PP can't be nailed to the wall with that.

 

[Upchurch]

But the question is not abortion, but use of taxpayer money for abortions in opposition to established federal law.

Of course, it is about abortion. The "improper use of taxpayer money" is just a means to that end.

 

[Spindrift]

But the question is not abortion, but use of taxpayer money for abortions in opposition to established federal law.

I assume from the drift of the comments here, that the liberal view would be either to allow this, or look the other way on it?

Just curious, not trying to make any particular point.

Allow what? Taxpayer money is not used for abortions as numerous previous investigations have shown.

 

[mhaze]

Do you really believe this is the first time Republicans have considered this tact?

1981: PLANNED PARENTHOOD GROUPS INVESTIGATED ON USE OF U.S. FUNDS


1983: New Rules May Virtually End Planned Parenthood


1992: FEDERAL AUDITS EXONERATED PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF FUNDS MISUSE

The rest of the article is cut off and requires purchase, but it is clearly referring to the issue at hand.

2010: Olson slams U.S. funds for family planning organizations


Right, there has never been audits to investigate this in the past.

Chaos is right. This is becoming just like the Birther crap. If you don't like the evidence, keep asking for more evidence.


eta: There were more articles across the years, but most of them were for-purchase and the snippet they gave did not clearly indicate if it was relevant to this discussion, although I believe many of them probably were.

Huh? Accounting audits are 99% of the time done on a periodic basis. Granted, there might be one-off circumstances which called for an audit.

But routine is the nature of audits. Generally the period of time is back to the ending date of the last audit.

So what are you trying to say?

 

[Upchurch]

Huh? Accounting audits are 99% of the time done on a periodic basis. Granted, there might be one-off circumstances which called for an audit.

But routine is the nature of audits. Generally the period of time is back to the ending date of the last audit.

So what are you trying to say?

I'm saying that these special congressional audits have happened before. Many times. Except for once instance in Colorado, they haven't found anything related to a misuse of federal funds spent on abortion.

You said:

First, there are many varieties of "audit", and the previous historical ones may not have got to the root of this issue.

This is incorrect. Previous historical audits did get to the root of this issue and found nothing systemically wrong. There is no reason to expect that an additional audit will find something this time.

 

[BenBurch]

...
Sounds to me like they shouldn't have anything to worry about.

Except have you any idea how much a records search like that is going to cost?

 

[Upchurch]

So, mhaze,

At issue is whether American taxpayers are unwittingly underwriting elective abortions, in violation of federal law. Absolutely not, says Planned Parenthood. But congressional Republicans are not so sure.

That bolded statement has long been in dispute. I have no problem with establishing the facts.

Which facts have not been established, at this point?

 

[mhaze]

I'm saying that these special congressional audits have happened before. Many times. Except for once instance in Colorado, they haven't found anything related to a misuse of federal funds spent on abortion.

You said:

This is incorrect. Previous historical audits did get to the root of this issue and found nothing systemically wrong. There is no reason to expect that an additional audit will find something this time.

Great!

I was audited by the IRS in 2002. They found NOTHING WRONG!

There is no reason for them to audit me again, that would be a foolish and irresponsible waste. There is no reason to expect that an additional audit would find something this time.

I feel so much better now.

 

[casebro]

Thje most obvious (to me) potential violation is the overhead costs. Phones, rent, etc. How does PP settle those columns? Apportioned by guesstimateing X total abortions, Y are convenience abortions?

Or, are all abortions "by doctor's order, to preserve the mental health of the woman", because we all know that children can drive a mom nuts.

 

[Random]

Great!

I was audited by the IRS in 2002. They found NOTHING WRONG!

There is no reason for them to audit me again, that would be a foolish and irresponsible waste. There is no reason to expect that an additional audit would find something this time.

I feel so much better now.

Of course, if the IRS audited you every other year and found nothing wrong each time, you would probably have a few choice words to say on the matter.

 

[BenBurch]

Of course, if the IRS audited you every other year and found nothing wrong each time, you would probably have a few choice words to say on the matter.

What are the chances that they would find nothing wrong, I wonder?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

IMO, the real solution to this nonsense is to stop passing the Hyde Amendment each year. It's merely catering to the position of a religious minority (albeit a large one), and it was expressly created because Congress can't override Roe v. Wade (which is exactly what Hyde said he'd prefer).

ETA: A nice summary of the history of this bit of legislation: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/10/hyde_history.html

 

[Vorticity]

Thje most obvious (to me) potential violation is the overhead costs. Phones, rent, etc. How does PP settle those columns? Apportioned by guesstimateing X total abortions, Y are convenience abortions?

Or, are all abortions "by doctor's order, to preserve the mental health of the woman", because we all know that children can drive a mom nuts.

Well, if they're really poring over ten years of detailed records, it seems inconceivable to me that they wouldn't find something, somewhere.

All it would take is for someone to grab a tissue from the wrong (government-funded) box before, during, or after an abortion procedure.

What I don't get is why Pro-Life people are against PP at all. Yes, they perform abortions, but it's not as if they love abortions. It's not their goal. Their primary work is providing birth control and pre-natal services. Surely their existence results in fewer abortions overall?

 

[Darat]

Well, if they're really poring over ten years of detailed records, it seems inconceivable to me that they wouldn't find something, somewhere.

All it would take is for someone to grab a tissue from the wrong (government-funded) box before, during, or after an abortion procedure.

What I don't get is why Pro-Life people are against PP at all. Yes, they perform abortions, but it's not as if they love abortions. It's not their goal. Their primary work is providing birth control and pre-natal services. Surely their existence results in fewer abortions overall?

Don't you go using that black-magic devil worshipping logic on me!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What I don't get is why Pro-Life people are against PP at all.

I understand why they're opposed to PP (because they do abortions).

What I don't understand is why mainstream lawmakers feel obliged to cater to the "Pro-Life" minority. Abortion is not a crime (much less "murder"). There's no other reason for the Hyde Amendment. Providing taxpayer-funded abortions to the needy would certainly be more fiscally sound than the alternative.

I also don't understand why people can be so "penny-wise and pound-foolish" as to audit the use of federal funds by PP but not to do the same for missing billions in Iraq or even call for tighter regulations on the use of federal funds by Faith Based Initiative organizations--except that they're catering to a large religious minority position.