GOP to Planned Parenthood: Hand over records

[johnny karate]

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

Sounds good to me.

Anybody defending the Planned Parenthood investigation disagree?

 

[BenBurch]

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?

There are reporting requirements NOW that fill that need.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

But I am not deducing that the Hyde Amendment is a stand-in for outlawing abortion. Hyde explicitly said that's what he's after, and this is the best he can do.

From the same site I linked above:

Exposing his true motives, Rep. Hyde said during the floor debate, “I would certainly like to prevent, if I could legally, anybody having an abortion, a rich woman, a middle class woman, or a poor woman. Unfortunately, the only vehicle available is the HEW Medicaid bill [the first version of the Hyde Amendment].”

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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.

Pro-choice is the majority position.

As I've shown, the Hyde Amendment originated specifically as an anti-choice fall back position since Congress was prohibited by the SCOTUS from passing laws that would overtly outlaw abortion.

 

[mhaze]

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?

Sure...

There's no reason to check on doctors' use of procedure codes and reimbursement, nursing homes' bills to the government.

Just trust, don't verify.

Ahhh....that ISN'T and shouldn't be government policy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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?

So don't you think that organizations that receive Faith Based Initiative money should have to adhere to federal regulations wrt discrimination in hiring employees?

At any rate, this audit is obviously ideologically motivated. The amount of money that might even potentially be spent in violation of the Hyde Amendment pales in comparison to accounting gaps, for example, in money spent in Iraq.

And if their motive really were purely about fiscal responsibility, the logical position would be to favor spending public funds (esp. Medicaid) for abortion. It is undoubtedly a lower cost to us in the long run.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

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 don't believe any one here holds the position that the government doesn't have the authority to audit PP*. I think we're questioning the motivation to do so. I contend that it is not about fiscal responsibility. Rather it is catering to the ideology of a large religious minority.

That's why I think the real debate should be over the Hyde Amendment itself and not this audit.

*ETA: And I note the difference between "authority" and "obligation". Surely you're not claiming that the government's "obligation to insure that those receiving federal funds are legitimately spending that money" translates to an obligation to audit Planned Parenthood?

 

[mhaze]

^ 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?


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.)

Two things. First if I was being harassed it'd be unfair, but likely nothing I could do. Nonetheless, my reporting 100% accurately for years 2002-2010 does not and should not mean that 2011-2012 should not be scrutinized.

Second, if in fact PP was yet again found to be doing nothing wrong on yet another audit, then here's a situation for you.

Defund them just because some people don't want "an abortion mill" getting federal money for doing non-abortion stuff and doing everything proper?

Yes you certainly can do that, it just takes a vote of the House, the Senate confirming, and no veto. Not complicated, does not require a House investigatory committee. Really simple.

 

[Spindrift]

Two things. First if I was being harassed it'd be unfair, but likely nothing I could do. Nonetheless, my reporting 100% accurately for years 2002-2010 does not and should not mean that 2011-2012 should not be scrutinized.

Second, if in fact PP was yet again found to be doing nothing wrong on yet another audit, then here's a situation for you.

Defund them just because some people don't want "an abortion mill" getting federal money for doing non-abortion stuff and doing everything proper?

Yes you certainly can do that, it just takes a vote of the House, the Senate confirming, and no veto. Not complicated, does not require a House investigatory committee. Really simple.

PP is audited regularly and passes all the time.

What is the justification for the charade of yet another special audit? Why aren't the regular audits good enough? (Please don't guess, but give concrete reasons.)

 

[mumblethrax]

Isn't the whole idea that we can direct how federal dollars are spent for any group with a significant mix of income sources and a wide variety of services provided kind of nonsensical? If Congress found any discrepancy, it would only prove that Planned Parenthood's bookkeepers suck.

Creating elaborate accounting games and then hoping for a misstep seems rather Byzantine to me.

 

[Spindrift]

Isn't the whole idea that we can direct how federal dollars are spent for any group with a significant mix of income sources and a wide variety of services provided kind of nonsensical? If Congress found any discrepancy, it would only prove that Planned Parenthood's bookkeepers suck.

Creating elaborate accounting games and then hoping for a misstep seems rather Byzantine Republican to me.

ftfy, you had a misspelling.

 

[Ziggurat]

So don't you think that organizations that receive Faith Based Initiative money should have to adhere to federal regulations wrt discrimination in hiring employees?

Of course. They face exactly the same problem: by accepting federal money, they can be forced to do things that they don't want to do. They are no more immune than PP is, and conversely PP is no more immune than they are..

At any rate, this audit is obviously ideologically motivated.

Well, yes. That's the nature of the beast, and it's naive to think it could be otherwise. The more the federal government is involved in non-government activities, the more the ideology of whoever is running the federal government gets to determine the course of those activities. If you're only complaining when that ideology doesn't match your own, then all you're really doing is complaining that you lost the elections.

 

[Ziggurat]

But I am not deducing that the Hyde Amendment is a stand-in for outlawing abortion. Hyde explicitly said that's what he's after, and this is the best he can do.

But Hyde doesn't get it enacted into law on his own, does he? His individual motives aren't really what matter.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But Hyde doesn't get it enacted into law on his own, does he? His individual motives aren't really what matter.

Since that is the motivation behind the legislation as it was written, that is what matters unless or until you can provide any other reason for that legislation.

As I said, it is certainly not a matter of fiscal responsibility, since it costs us more to effectively prohibit Medicaid recipients from getting abortions.

The only reason is either a sincere belief that abortion is wrong and ought not be legal (and this is just one way of nibbling away at women's right to choose abortion) or catering to those with that belief.

 

[Ziggurat]

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?

Should? I said nothing about should happen. What I said pertains to what does happen, and what likely will happen. Wishing the world were a better place than it is will not make it so.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Of course. They face exactly the same problem: by accepting federal money, they can be forced to do things that they don't want to do. They are no more immune than PP is, and conversely PP is no more immune than they are..

Under executive orders issued by Bush, organizations that receive Faith Based Initiative money are exempt from federal rules prohibiting discrimination in hiring. (One of Obama's broken campaign promises was an explicit promise to change this order.)

So in fact they are immune in a way that PP is not.

 

[Ziggurat]

Since that is the motivation behind the legislation as it was written, that is what matters unless or until you can provide any other reason for that legislation.

No. What matters is the motivation of those who actually vote to enact the legislation, but even more importantly, the actual effects of the legislation.

As I said, it is certainly not a matter of fiscal responsibility

I never said it was, only that there's no conflict between not outlawing something and refusing to fund it.

The only reason is either a sincere belief that abortion is wrong and ought not be legal

No. One can quite easily think something is wrong without thinking it should be illegal. Surely you can think of plenty of such things yourself, can you not?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

At any rate, this audit is obviously ideologically motivated.

Well, yes. That's the nature of the beast, and it's naive to think it could be otherwise. The more the federal government is involved in non-government activities, the more the ideology of whoever is running the federal government gets to determine the course of those activities. If you're only complaining when that ideology doesn't match your own, then all you're really doing is complaining that you lost the elections.

You don't think that's a cop out when we're debating the rightness or wrongness of a policy?

Again, I'm certainly not claiming that the federal government lacks the authority to pass the Hyde Amendment or to call for an audit of PP. I'm arguing that it's bad policy.

 

[Ziggurat]

Under executive orders issued by Bush, organizations that receive Faith Based Initiative money are exempt from federal rules prohibiting discrimination in hiring. (One of Obama's broken campaign promises was an explicit promise to change this order.)

So in fact they are immune in a way that PP is not.

I haven't been tracking this issue closely, but hasn't that already changed? If not, it certainly could. And that's rather my whole point: PP may have thought there were no puppet strings as long as nobody pulled on them, but they were there, just like they are there for those faith based initiatives. Bush may not have pulled those particular strings, but sooner or later, strings get pulled, and the puppet will dance. Accepting a string under the belief that it won't get pulled is naive.

 

[Ziggurat]

You don't think that's a cop out when we're debating the rightness or wrongness of a policy?

But we're not just talking about whether or not a policy is wrong. We're also discussing specific criticisms of that policy. In my case in particular, I've been talking about the OP's assertion that there's some inherent conflict between this policy and small government ideology. I don't think there is. That doesn't mean that the policy is good, it just means that particular criticism isn't valid.

Again, I'm certainly not claiming that the federal government lacks the authority to pass the Hyde Amendment or to call for an audit of PP. I'm arguing that it's bad policy.

But as far as I can tell, you're not actually arguing that it's bad policy on the same grounds that the OP argued against it. Which makes your argument sort of orthogonal to mine, which is fine, but that doesn't mean I've copped out of anything.