GOP to Planned Parenthood: Hand over records

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure there are no mixed use facilities in PP. At least here in St. Louis, all abortions are done at one dedicated facility, and no abortions are done at any other PP facility. I think this even applies to paperwork and so on.

But again, I think the Hyde Amendment is a bunch of rubbish anyway. Abortion is legal, and there's no good reason to prohibit federal funds paying for abortions.

 

[BenBurch]

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?

What you fail to get is the hidden agenda here.

The Christian Right sees birth control as a FORM of Abortion, and certainly as a sin, and they mean to see it prohibited. And if you search around, you can sometimes find them actually saying that.

 

[Spindrift]

What you fail to get is the hidden agenda here.

The Christian Right sees birth control as a FORM of Abortion, and certainly as a sin, and they mean to see it prohibited. And if you search around, you can sometimes find them actually saying that.

I think they also misconstrue providing birth control with promoting sexual promiscuity.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Oh I am sure it will find something, the question is if that something can be taken as a factual statement.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Other materials may have been shielded on the basis of patient confidentiality or other ruses.

patient confidentiality is NOT a ruse.

I would be very concerned that patient confidentiality be properly and vigourously maintained.

Otherwise, this IS a witch hunt.

I can just see where this is going. There is no doubt that the anti-abortion crowd is made up of many over-zealous types who continually blur the lines between moral behavior themselves.

I shudder to think what would happen if those types were able to get their hands on the personal identifying information of patients who had recieved abortions.

 

[Ziggurat]

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.

Your conclusion simply does not follow from your premise. There are lots of things which people do not like but which they don't want to outlaw. And there is a vast gulf between outlawing something and not paying for it. You would object to the federal government paying for a church mass, wouldn't you? I certainly would. And yet, you don't want to outlaw such religious events, do you? So there is absolutely no inconsistency between an activity being legal and a prohibition on federal funding for that activity.

 

[Ziggurat]

I shudder to think what would happen if those types were able to get their hands on the personal identifying information of patients who had recieved abortions.

You know, there's a very effective method that PP could use to ensure such confidentiality against the federal government:

Stop accepting federal funding.

When you accept money from the government, you lose freedom. When government is populated by those you like, the chains may weigh lightly. But governments change. And the chains which once were light can become heavy very quickly. Is that simply the fault of government, or do those who accept the chains have some responsibility for their own servitude?

 

[johnny karate]

You know, there's a very effective method that PP could use to ensure such confidentiality against the federal government:

Stop accepting federal funding.

When you accept money from the government, you lose freedom. When government is populated by those you like, the chains may weigh lightly. But governments change. And the chains which once were light can become heavy very quickly. Is that simply the fault of government, or do those who accept the chains have some responsibility for their own servitude?

What a chilling worldview.

But hey, I'm just happy to see the Republicans doing what the American people elected them to do, which is of course focusing on jobs and the economy putting a stop to reproductive health services for poor women.

 

[FattyCatty]

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

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.

What you fail to get is the hidden agenda here.

The Christian Right sees birth control as a FORM of Abortion, and certainly as a sin, and they mean to see it prohibited. And if you search around, you can sometimes find them actually saying that.

Can someone please explain in words of one syllable what happened to separation of Church and State? I thought that this kind of thing (i.e., minority religion calling the shots -- hell, any religion calling the shots) wasn't supposed to happen in the United States.

 

[Newtons Bit]

What a chilling worldview.

On a note unrelated to Planned Parenthood: do you think the government has an obligation to ensure that those receiving federal funds are legitimately spending that money? Or should it adopt a stance of trust and don't verify?

 

[johnny karate]

On a note unrelated to Planned Parenthood: do you think the government has an obligation to ensure that those receiving federal funds are legitimately spending that money? Or should it adopt a stance of trust and don't verify?

I think the government has an obligation to do a lot of things, but in a particular order based on priority.

In the current economic crisis, where do you think a probe into Planned Parenthood should rank on that list?

 

[DavidJames]

Can someone please explain in words of one syllable what happened to separation of Church and State? I thought that this kind of thing (i.e., minority religion calling the shots -- hell, any religion calling the shots) wasn't supposed to happen in the United States.

Sorry it's not one syllable, but the answer to your question is The Republican Party".

 

[DavidJames]

What a chilling worldview.

I'm not sure it's so much a world view, as a highly partisan view.

 

[Ziggurat]

What a chilling worldview.

Chilling? No. Perhaps pessimistic, but can you honestly claim that this pessimism is unfounded?

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not sure it's so much a world view, as a highly partisan view.

Uh, no. You have that completely wrong. It's a very NON-partisan view. It's a view that holds BOTH parties in contempt.

 

[mhaze]

I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure there are no mixed use facilities in PP. At least here in St. Louis, all abortions are done at one dedicated facility, and no abortions are done at any other PP facility. I think this even applies to paperwork and so on.

But again, I think the Hyde Amendment is a bunch of rubbish anyway. Abortion is legal, and there's no good reason to prohibit federal funds paying for abortions.

If that separate of facilities is uniform and accounted for I can't see why they would have problems.

Wait...actually I can...It's the existence of a radical minority of people, many of whom work at PP, who have opinions such as that bolded above.



That certainly COULD create a situation where you'd want periodic audits for compliance with government law and regulation, because various people have explicitly stated they didn't believe in said law and regulation.

 

[tyr_13]

On a note unrelated to Planned Parenthood: do you think the government has an obligation to ensure that those receiving federal funds are legitimately spending that money? Or should it adopt a stance of trust and don't verify?

I do. Which is why I want every group that receives money as a faith-based initiative to undergo special Congressional audits every year.

What?

 

[johnny karate]

Chilling? No. Perhaps pessimistic, but can you honestly claim that this pessimism is unfounded?

Are you asking me if I think that people who accept government money (read: poor people) should lose the same expectation of privacy the rest of us have?

Because the answer is: No.

For some reason, I have this wacky notion that all Americans should receive equal treatment under the law.

 

[tyr_13]

If that separate of facilities is uniform and accounted for I can't see why they would have problems.

Wait...actually I can...It's the existence of a radical minority of people, many of whom work at PP, who have opinions such as that bolded above.

'If you have nothing to hide, why don't you let me search your medical records.'

'If you have nothing to hide, why can't I search your car?'

'If you have nothing to hide, why can't I view your chat log?'

'If you have nothing to hide, why can't I search all the records of your church?'

How many times does one need to be audited and searched before it becomes harassment?

 

[Upchurch]

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.

^ this ^

A better comparison, mhaze, would be if you were audited every year and the IRS conducted occasional unplanned special audits on top of the regular audits. After 30 years of having found almost nothing wrong, wouldn't you start to question the motives of the IRS and why they are wasting so much time and money with this harassment-like behavior?

Oh I am sure it will find something, the question is if that something can be taken as a factual statement.

Sorry, yes, I'm sure they have found many, many discrepancies. How could they not?

In all cases in this thread, I'm referring specifically to the illegal activity of using federal funding for abortion. That, they have only found once in the 30 years or so of audits, in a regional facility that has since been corrected. (I haven't checked if the Boulder facility was shut down completely or their practices have changed.)