GOP to Planned Parenthood: Hand over records

[Ziggurat]

Where is your proof of that?

Way to miss the sarcasm, lefty. But then, I really shouldn't be surprised.

Sounds more like another republicon rant to divide the Democratic Party against itself.

Since you don't seem to be able to figure this stuff out on your own, I'll hold your hand and walk you through it.

That's exactly what it's supposed to sound like. It's supposed to sound lunatic. But it's a pretty direct parallel to Ben's claim that Republicans "want the Union destroyed." It's funny that the former jumps out at you, but the latter so escapes your notice that it didn't even occur to you that I was being sarcastic. After all, why would I be sarcastic about a claim that you take so seriously? And therein is your problem: you really, honestly believe what Ben said, and you also think that everyone else thinks the same way.

Your information filters need some adjustment there, lefty.

 

[Ziggurat]

So in essence you want to take away the rights of the people who use PP simply because that organisation uses government money?

And this doesn't bother you at all?

It doesn't bother me because I don't actually think anyone's rights are being taken away. People have mentioned privacy, but nobody seems to be able to explain how exactly anyone's privacy is being violated here.

 

[Ziggurat]

He has claimed that, in the absence of proof that it is not a fishing expedition, we should assume that this request for documents proceeds from some reasonable beliefe that PP has improperly used tax dollars to fund abortions. Considering the overt Republican desire to defund PP, that claim is moronic. This is clearly a fishing expedition.

No, this is not what I've claimed. I think it is a fishing expedition. I just don't see why it's a big deal that they're on a fishing expedition, or why anyone should be shocked or upset about it. If one does not want to be at the tender mercies of Congress, one shouldn't feed at the federal trough.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, this is not what I've claimed. I think it is a fishing expedition.

And I note you also agree with me that it is ideologically motivated (and not motivated by genuine fiscal concerns). You and mhaze are quite far apart on this. [ETA: That comment is more directed to anyone who wants to lump the positions of the two of you.]

I just don't see why it's a big deal that they're on a fishing expedition, or why anyone should be shocked or upset about it. If one does not want to be at the tender mercies of Congress, one shouldn't feed at the federal trough.

I think it's a problem* because PP provides much needed services and singling them out for a fishing expedition like this is not proper use of government oversight. (I think you're intellectually honest on this subject up to the point where you're copping out on the rightness or wrongness issue.)

It would be different if this were part of SOP applied to any number of enterprises that receive federal funding, but it's not. It would also be different if the same people expressed a proportionate level of concern about the oversight of much bigger amounts of money in Iraq.

*I prefer calling it a "problem" because it's wrong regardless of the scale of wastefulness. It's not "a big deal" because the amount of money, relatively speaking, isn't so big, and most likely PP's future will not be threatened. Don't you think something can be wrong even if the scale or magnitude isn't so great?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It doesn't bother me because I don't actually think anyone's rights are being taken away. People have mentioned privacy, but nobody seems to be able to explain how exactly anyone's privacy is being violated here.

I agree with you that there is no violation of rights. (I think people are misusing those words which have specific meanings.)

However, even though there is no violation of rights and nothing unconstitutional (that is, Congress has the authority to conduct such an audit), it doesn't follow that the audit is right, fiscally prudent, reasonable or desirable.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

No, this is not what I've claimed. I think it is a fishing expedition. I just don't see why it's a big deal that they're on a fishing expedition, or why anyone should be shocked or upset about it. If one does not want to be at the tender mercies of Congress, one shouldn't feed at the federal trough.

My concern is that there is a very real risk in these "fishing" expeditions to the confidentiality of patients of PP, regardless of what services they used PP for.

It's not that I don't trust Congress, but that I don't trust the types of people that have made it their "higher calling" to end abortion at all costs.

Unless you can assure with 100% certainty me that those types of people will never have any access to any of the information in the PP records, then I will simply say that this is dangerous, and disingenuous of the Republicans.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

It doesn't bother me because I don't actually think anyone's rights are being taken away. People have mentioned privacy, but nobody seems to be able to explain how exactly anyone's privacy is being violated here.

It all depends on the nature of the medical records.

I would assume that PP has extracted data on the various services performed and the funds used for those purposes.

I would also assume thatthis is what was evaluated in the previous audits.

The only way to go deeper would be to look at the individual records. This is the point where medical privacy laws apply.

Members of Congress can barely keep matters of national security secret, what makes you think that somone wouldn't release private medical data just to score dubious political points?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

My concern is that there is a very real risk in these "fishing" expeditions to the confidentiality of patients of PP, regardless of what services they used PP for.

It's not that I don't trust Congress, but that I don't trust the types of people that have made it their "higher calling" to end abortion at all costs.

Unless you can assure with 100% certainty me that those types of people will never have any access to any of the information in the PP records, then I will simply say that this is dangerous, and disingenuous of the Republicans.

Again, I don't think there is a legal case (unless or until medical records laws are violated), but you make a good contribution to the point I'm making: given that there is such a dubious policy benefit to this fishing expedition any risk to patient confidentiality is too high a cost relative to the benefit.

I could imagine situations where the risk/benefit ratio would justify such an audit--which is why I keep saying there is no legal barrier to this audit.

It's just bad policy under the actual conditions.

ETA: A probably not very helpful analogy (see my sig): every time I use my credit card, I run the risk of identity theft and make myself vulnerable to credit card fraud. It doesn't mean that I should never use my credit card, or that it's illegal or wrong for a vendor to take my credit card number. However, there are certain transactions where I wouldn't trust a vendor with my credit card based on the risk/benefit ratio of the situation.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And again, I really wish this were a debate about the rightness or wrongness of the Hyde Amendment itself, and not this audit in particular. (I said much the same thing when the GOP managed to redefine rape for the purposes of the Hyde Amendment rape exception.)

 

[BenBurch]

Democrats are not interested in governing.

They want to kill black babies.

Gee, this whole paranoid hyperbole game you invented is fun!

I can find you statements by Republicans saying what I allege. Can you?

 

[sarge]

No, this is not what I've claimed. I think it is a fishing expedition. I just don't see why it's a big deal that they're on a fishing expedition, or why anyone should be shocked or upset about it. If one does not want to be at the tender mercies of Congress, one shouldn't feed at the federal trough.

My appologies. I was mistaken about who his post was in response to.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I can find you statements by Republicans saying what I allege. Can you?

I think Zig's point is that not ALL Republicans (or even, I suspect, most Republicans) want those things you said they want. (Logically, an unmarked noun is the same as "all", in this context.)

I'm a Coffee Party endorser in that while I disagree with most conservative positions, I don't believe every conservative (or every Republican, or even every Tea Party Republican) is after the destruction of our country. I think Zig's point about hyperbole is well taken.

I've been highly critical of Republicans who prefer brinksmanship to compromise, but there can be no compromise and no reasonable debate if you don't give your opponent the benefit of the doubt on matters like love-of-country and so on.

While I disagree with Ziggurat more often than I agree (and probably disagree on those fundamental philosophical bases of political ideology), I find him to be a reasonable person that I can have a "friendly and lively" discussion with. I think it's important to recognize that many of our political opponents are like this, while some few (perhaps currently disproportionately represented in places like the JREF forum and the U.S. House of Representatives) are not.

 

[Corsair 115]

What, you're just now discovering that they don't?

Welcome to adulthood. It's sometimes disappointing.

Yours don't, apparently. In other countries the politicians actually try to get useful stuff done when in office and save the top-tier nonsense for the election campaign. (Welcome to adulthood—not every country is as screwed up as the U.S. appears to be at the moment. It's sometimes disappointing to see how some Americans don't appear to realize that how the U.S. goes is not how it goes everywhere else.)

 

[Corsair 115]

A politician's job is to get re-elected, not to govern.

The extent to which that influences things is, I'd say, dependent on the particulars of the electoral system in use. The U.S. system has such frequent elections it seems as if the country is in an almost perpetual state of election campaigning. That, I would say, is part of the problem. The mentality of an election campaign is rather different from the mentality needed to sit down and work out the best government policy towards a given problem.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

What, you're just now discovering that they don't?

Welcome to adulthood. It's sometimes disappointing.

Recognizing that that's the way things are is not an argument that that's the way things ought be.

Again, I agree with most everything you've said in this thread up to the point where you seem to cop out of addressing the right/wrong issue.

Even though it's completely legal and completely within Congress' authority, this special audit fishing expedition is wrong because it's ideologically motivated and is inconsistent with other audit and fiscal oversight practices. (And as Alferd has been arguing, there is a non-zero risk of harm--so it's not without cost on that side, aside from the cost of wasting taxpayer-funded resources.)

 

[BenBurch]

I think Zig's point is that not ALL Republicans (or even, I suspect, most Republicans) want those things you said they want. (Logically, an unmarked noun is the same as "all", in this context.)

I'm a Coffee Party endorser in that while I disagree with most conservative positions, I don't believe every conservative (or every Republican, or even every Tea Party Republican) is after the destruction of our country. I think Zig's point about hyperbole is well taken.

I've been highly critical of Republicans who prefer brinksmanship to compromise, but there can be no compromise and no reasonable debate if you don't give your opponent the benefit of the doubt on matters like love-of-country and so on.

While I disagree with Ziggurat more often than I agree (and probably disagree on those fundamental philosophical bases of political ideology), I find him to be a reasonable person that I can have a "friendly and lively" discussion with. I think it's important to recognize that many of our political opponents are like this, while some few (perhaps currently disproportionately represented in places like the JREF forum and the U.S. House of Representatives) are not.

The rest don't say end the federal system, sure, but they don't want to pay for it. Has the same effect. No federal government vs one that has no power? Nothing to choose from there.

 

[Ziggurat]

My concern is that there is a very real risk in these "fishing" expeditions to the confidentiality of patients of PP, regardless of what services they used PP for.

It's not that I don't trust Congress, but that I don't trust the types of people that have made it their "higher calling" to end abortion at all costs.

Unless you can assure with 100% certainty me that those types of people will never have any access to any of the information in the PP records, then I will simply say that this is dangerous, and disingenuous of the Republicans.

I don't think they're going to be getting any medical records. What they're after is financial records, and I think those can be stripped of identifying personal medical information rather easily. As for whom to trust, well, I generally trust people about things that I think they can be trusted on. It isn't going to be Congresspeople who actually go in and dig up these records from PP offices. Hell, as far as I can tell, the records themselves will all be handed over by PP, so I think PP has it within their power to ensure that no personal medical information gets released.

But suppose some slips through - then what? Well, what would Congress do with that info? Unless PP hands them records of actual illegal abortions, then what good could such records possibly do even for those who just want PP shut down regardless? They can't actually use those records for any other purpose, or it will backfire dramatically. So we'd need PP to keep records of illegal abortions which indicated that the abortions were illegal, and then hand those records over to Congress on their own, and I just don't see that as a credible scenario. That doesn't really depend on me trusting Congress to be honorable about the whole thing, but rather I expect PP can cover their own ass.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The rest don't say end the federal system, sure, but they don't want to pay for it. Has the same effect. No federal government vs one that has no power? Nothing to choose from there.

You don't think there are conservatives who are perfectly happy with the federal system but only seek to decrease spending to a greater or lesser degree? Or you don't think they sincerely believe that reducing taxes will lead to economic recovery and therefore increased revenues? (I disagree with them on this point, but I acknowledge that their belief is sincere.)

This sounds like you're arguing a version of a strawman fallacy: the extreme man (see "subfallacy" heading).

Worse than just being a weak argument, it's destructive of the ability to debate with those who hold different positions and ruins all chance of compromise. (Why should I compromise with them, if I don't believe they have any desire to act in the interest of the country?)

 

[FattyCatty]

He may hold that opinion, but I don't believe that is what he has expressed in this thread, nor is it necessarily true that any persons rights are in danger from this audit.

He has claimed that, in the absence of proof that it is not a fishing expedition, we should assume that this request for documents proceeds from some reasonable beliefe that PP has improperly used tax dollars to fund abortions. Considering the overt Republican desire to defund PP, that claim is moronic. This is clearly a fishing expedition.

What doesn't make sense is why anyone would feel compeled to argue otherwise. That it is an attempt to cast a wide net in hopes of finding PP in violation is not indictable. It is perfectly appropriate for a political party to use political means to oppose something they were elected to oppose.

Of course, it is also perfectly appropriate to oppose such opposition, and to work to make the party suffer at the ballot box for their pig-headedness.

I wonder at the request for information on these items:`

1. <snip>
   [*]
   
   [*]
   
   [*]
   
   [*]
   
   [*]
   
2. Please provide a summary of how PPFA detects criminal conduct and the policies and procedures in place to prevent it or report it.
   
   
3. Please provide the policies and procedures PPFA and its affiliates have in place to ensure that all Planned Parenthood clinics report all cases of suspected sexual abuse, including statutory rape, to the proper authorities.
   
   
4. Please provide the policies and procedures PPFA and its affiliates have in place to ensure that suspected sex trafficking is reported to the proper authorities.

Is this a normal request? Or mudslinging (implying those activities are rampant and unreported)? Or what?

I agree with you that there is no violation of rights. (I think people are misusing those words which have specific meanings.)

However, even though there is no violation of rights and nothing unconstitutional (that is, Congress has the authority to conduct such an audit), it doesn't follow that the audit is right, fiscally prudent, reasonable or desirable.

This^. And how much is this fishing trip costing the Federal government? Or is cost to Planned Parenthood the point? Because with a 2-week deadline to get everything (paper and electronic records in a format of the Committee's choosing from Planned Parenthood and all their affiliates and anyone they referred patients to) ready, I would think it's going to cost them a bundle.

My concern is that there is a very real risk in these "fishing" expeditions to the confidentiality of patients of PP, regardless of what services they used PP for.

It's not that I don't trust Congress, but that I don't trust the types of people that have made it their "higher calling" to end abortion at all costs.

I don't trust Congress, anti-abortion or no.

Unless you can assure with 100% certainty me that those types of people will never have any access to any of the information in the PP records, then I will simply say that this is dangerous, and disingenuous of the Republicans.

I hope Planned Parenthood will speak up if patient confidentiality is involved. Their statement doesn't mention that issue, however:

Planned Parenthood: Rep. Stearns’ Politically Motivated Investigation Is Latest Attempt to Undermine Health Care Millions Count On

Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) expressed disappointment that Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations for the House Energy and Commerce Committee, has put politics before lifesaving health care by launching what appears to be a politically motivated investigation and demanding an onerous amount of records from PPFA and its 83 affiliates, some going as far back as 13 years.
<snip>
Similar to other health care providers and nonprofit organizations, PPFA and its affiliates routinely work with government regulators, nonprofit foundation donors, and independent auditors to ensure compliance with all rules and regulations regarding the funding Planned Parenthood health centers receive, whether it is a private contribution, a foundation grant, or federal or state funding, such as Medicaid reimbursements. Anytime an irregularity is discovered, it is taken seriously and handled swiftly and appropriately.
<snip>
While extremely disappointed to again be a political target, PPFA has already contacted the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and is responding to the request in a timely manner. As a trusted nonprofit health care provider to three million people, Planned Parenthood affiliates takes seriously their role as a financial steward of contributions, grants, and government funding.
<snip>
“We are confident that any fair-minded person will see through this politically motivated investigation, the purpose of which appears to be undermining access to care,” said Richards. “As people learn about this latest attack on their health care provider, they will speak out and stand with us to protect access to health care for women and families.”

 

[BenBurch]

You don't think there are conservatives who are perfectly happy with the federal system but only seek to decrease spending to a greater or lesser degree? Or you don't think they sincerely believe that reducing taxes will lead to economic recovery and therefore increased revenues? (I disagree with them on this point, but I acknowledge that their belief is sincere.)

This sounds like you're arguing a version of a strawman fallacy: the extreme man (see "subfallacy" heading).

Worse than just being a weak argument, it's destructive of the ability to debate with those who hold different positions and ruins all chance of compromise. (Why should I compromise with them, if I don't believe they have any desire to act in the interest of the country?)

I look at the people I debate who think that no tax is fair and that everything can and should be privatized, and I can get no other point of view. Then when I look at the antics of the Tea wing of the GOP and the fact that they others will still work with those goons, and I have to interpret silence as consent.