Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[RandFan]

Texas Attorney General Compares Planned Parenthood To Terrorist Organization

"Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies -- even if 'earmarked' for nonabortion activities -- free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions ... (because '[m]oney is fungible,' First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to 'humanitarian' activities performed by terrorist organizations)."

The "federal material-support statute" that Abbott mentions makes it a felony to give money to a terrorist organization, even if the funds are specified for nonterrorist activities. Abbott makes the argument that giving Medicaid money to Planned Parenthood for breast cancer screenings, pap smears, STD testing and birth control is akin to giving a terrorist organization money for humanitarian activities.

I'm at a loss. What is wrong with people?

 

[rwguinn]

I'm at a loss. What is wrong with people?

Not content with jumping the shark, they swallowed the sonofabitch.

Somebody replaced what passed for their brains with a bible recording...

 

[RemieV]

Did you read the update?

UPDATE: 8:03 p.m. -- Jerry Strickland, a spokesman for the Texas attorney general's office, said state attorneys were not comparing Planned Parenthood to a terrorist organization, but rather were citing a Supreme Court case in the brief that happened to be about a terrorist organization.

"Texas did not state -– and does not believe –- that Planned Parenthood is a terrorist organization or comparable to one. Period," Strickland said. "When parties to lawsuits are wrong on the facts and wrong on the law, they resort to the same outrageous rhetoric Planned Parenthood is using today to distract from the real issues."

I actually agree with them. The impression I got from reading the quoted passages was NOT that they believed Planned Parenthood was a terrorist organization, but that you can't give money to one aspect of an organization without essentially funding the other. I think the article was intellectually dishonest, because it should have been about whether or not that is true rather than going "OMG -- THEY SAID 'TERRORIST'".

 

[Seismosaurus]

I'm at a loss. What is wrong with people?

Seems to me that there are a lot of Americans who hate abortion. They want it stopped, and for many of them that's pretty much the beginning and end of their thoughts on the matter. You can't argue with them about it - in their mind abortion is wrong, so any argument or action which favours abortion must be wrong. The merits of the actual argument or action simply don't enter into it.

Similarly, anything that is against abortion must be right. The implications don't matter. The stupidity of the argument doesn't matter. The obviously pandering nature of the people doing it don't matter. It's against abortion, so it is right.

Supreme court says abortion is a legal right? Well, appoint justices who will say otherwise. Laws can't stop abortion? Well, just use laws to make it hard to the point where it is effectively impossible. Politicians won't pander to that? Simply elect ones who will.

Not just abortion, either. There's a large and growing number of people for whom the beginning and end of politics is "Get your way". Compromise is treason, wider principles are irrelevant, ruinous repercussions are acceptable. Get your way, though the heavens fall.

 

[RandFan]

Did you read the update?

I actually agree with them. The impression I got from reading the quoted passages was NOT that they believed Planned Parenthood was a terrorist organization, but that you can't give money to one aspect of an organization without essentially funding the other. I think the article was intellectually dishonest, because it should have been about whether or not that is true rather than going "OMG -- THEY SAID 'TERRORIST'".

It would be difficult to figure out which is dumber. Comparing them to terrorists without meaning planned parenthood was a terrorist organization or simply making the comparison. They actually cited the law that makes it illegal to give funding to groups that carry out terrorism. They could have A.) simply made the point that money is fungible. B.) Made it clear what their point was.

That said, money is fungible but it's possible to account for money spent. I doubt terrorist organizations are required to submit to audits.

 

[gnome]

Not to mention they have still failed to make the case that abortion is PP's primary mission. I wonder what they think PP loves so much about abortion? Maybe they just think they're cartoonishly evil.

"So, how can we give out as many abortions as possible this year? Is it legal to threaten women into it yet?"

Personally I tend to argue that PP prevents more abortions than most anti-abortion groups do.

 

[RemieV]

It would be difficult to figure out which is dumber. Comparing them to terrorists without meaning planned parenthood was a terrorist organization or simply making the comparison. They actually cited the law that makes it illegal to give funding to groups that carry out terrorism. They could have A.) simply made the point that money is fungible. B.) Made it clear what their point was.

That said, money is fungible but it's possible to account for money spent. I doubt terrorist organizations are required to submit to audits.

Sure. Bad choice in comparisons. That doesn't mean everyone reading it should ignore what was actually said and jump to "Planned Parenthood is terrorists?! That's preposterous!"

This would be like if I said "I love Hitler's mustache," and everyone accused me of saying I love Hitler.

Then the article is intellectually dishonest a second time, when they say that the eight Planned Parenthoods taking part in the women's health initiative don't perform abortion procedures. This is technically true, as the abortions are a separate company. Two seconds of cruising their web site, however, shows that they do provide information on abortions and refer you to the other branch of PP should you want one.

 

[RemieV]

Not to mention they have still failed to make the case that abortion is PP's primary mission. I wonder what they think PP loves so much about abortion? Maybe they just think they're cartoonishly evil.

"So, how can we give out as many abortions as possible this year? Is it legal to threaten women into it yet?"

Personally I tend to argue that PP prevents more abortions than most anti-abortion groups do.

I think the idea is that any is too many.

 

[RandFan]

This would be like if I said "I love Hitler's mustache," and everyone accused me of saying I love Hitler.

No, it would be like if I compared GOP organization skills to the Nazis. Not that it makes them Nazis. Just saying.

Then the article is intellectually dishonest a second time, when they say that the eight Planned Parenthoods taking part in the women's health initiative don't perform abortion procedures. This is technically true, as the abortions are a separate company. Two seconds of cruising their web site, however, shows that they do provide information on abortions and refer you to the other branch of PP should you want one.

Strikes me as a non-sequitur. How does referring you to a different organization equate to providing abortion? It's no secret that Planned Parenthood provides abortions. If the procedures are not being performed at these sites then the fact they make referrals to other sites isn't the same thing.

Abortion is legal. Planned parenthood provides important health services to women (see the Komen fiasco). Only 3% of what planned parenthood does is providing abortions. Money provided for non-abortion related services are used for non-abortion related services. If you are going to claim that they are doing something inappropriate then please to provide your evidence.

What is dishonest is to tie Planned Parenthood to terrorism through some unnecessary comparison. If I point out similarities between the GOP and fascism some might find that inappropriate even if my points of comparison are correct.

 

[RandFan]

I think the idea is that any is too many.

A.) They are legal. B.) There is no scientific basis to suppose that a mass of cells that can't think or feel is a human being. So, people are free to their emotions and beliefs but at some point we need to move into the 19th century. Hopefully we do it before the 22nd.

 

[JamesDillon]

"Comparing" is an awfully slippery word and this seems like one of the not uncommon instances in which it's being used somewhat unfairly. The Texas AG's point was that contributions earmarked for purposes other than abortion have the effect of freeing up funds for Planned Parenthood's abortion program. There's a not-unreasonable analogy to the terrorist funding statute: both points turn on the fungibility of money and the consequent futility of thinking that earmarking funds for one purpose doesn't thereby facilitate other purposes of the organization with which one might disagree.

This has nothing to do with approval or disapproval of abortion. Sounds like the Texas AG has a problem with Planned Parenthood's abortion program; I don't. But he's not at all wrong to point out that funding one program thereby frees up funds for the other, nor is his analogy to the terrorism funding statute an inapt one. I guess that's "comparing" PP to a terrorist organization, but there's a big difference between "comparing" and "calling" in this context.

 

[RandFan]

"Comparing" is an awfully slippery word and this seems like one of the not uncommon instances in which it's being used somewhat unfairly. The Texas AG's point was that contributions earmarked for purposes other than abortion have the effect of freeing up funds for Planned Parenthood's abortion program. There's a not-unreasonable analogy to the terrorist funding statute: both points turn on the fungibility of money and the consequent futility of thinking that earmarking funds for one purpose doesn't thereby facilitate other purposes of the organization with which one might disagree.

Yes it is unfair. It's emotional, loaded and unnecessary.

This has nothing to do with approval or disapproval of abortion. Sounds like the Texas AG has a problem with Planned Parenthood's abortion program; I don't. But he's not at all wrong to point out that funding one program thereby frees up funds for the other, nor is his analogy to the terrorism funding statute an inapt one. I guess that's "comparing" PP to a terrorist organization, but there's a big difference between "comparing" and "calling" in this context.

See my point about the GOP and fascism above. It's idiotic and unnecessary. Terrorist organizations don't keep books on how much money they spend to commit terrorism and then conform to audits. Planned Parenthood keeps precise records of how their money is spent. And they are subject to audits. They can't just slide some public money over to the abortion side. The comparison is absurd and politically motivated. I'm willing to bet whatever I have the AG has no evidence that Planned Parenthood has done anything illegal or inappropriate.

 

[JamesDillon]

I'm willing to bet whatever I have the AG has no evidence that Planned Parenthood has done anything illegal or inappropriate.

Where does he suggest otherwise? He's making a simple point about the nature of money with an apt analogy to a relevant federal statute. Of course it's politically motivated insofar as it makes no sense to be talking about this if you don't accept the premise that abortions are bad and breast cancer screening, etc., is good. You point out a lot of distinctions between PP and terrorist organizations (though I'm not sure all of those distinctions apply to every charity that has been identified by the US as a supporter of terrorism, but that's beside the point), but how are they relevant. Again, he never said that PP is a terrorist organization. He said that both PP and terrorist-supporting charities both perform "good" and "bad" activities, and you can't financially support one without supporting the other. I've yet to see how that's false (again, granting for the sake of discussion his premise that funding abortion is bad).

 

[RandFan]

Where does he suggest otherwise? He's making a simple point about the nature of money with an apt analogy to a relevant federal statute. Of course it's politically motivated insofar as it makes no sense to be talking about this if you don't accept the premise that abortions are bad and breast cancer screening, etc., is good. You point out a lot of distinctions between PP and terrorist organizations (though I'm not sure all of those distinctions apply to every charity that has been identified by the US as a supporter of terrorism, but that's beside the point), but how are they relevant. Again, he never said that PP is a terrorist organization. He said that both PP and terrorist-supporting charities both perform "good" and "bad" activities, and you can't financially support one without supporting the other. I've yet to see how that's false (again, granting for the sake of discussion his premise that funding abortion is bad).

Without evidence of wrong doing this comparison is idiotic and prejudicial.

We all support terrorism. Daily. A portion of the money you use for gas goes to nations that support terrorist organizations. The money our government gives to Pakistan is used to create nuclear weapons. The money our government gives to Palestine supports the blowing up of children.

This game is silly.

 

[SezMe]

Where does he suggest otherwise? He's making a simple point about the nature of money with an apt analogy to a relevant federal statute.

You may be right logically although I think RandFan is on solid ground. However, abortion in Texas can be widely divorced from logic. It's an inflammatory analogy that does more to distract than edify.

 

[johnny karate]

It is the rhetoric of intellectual cowardice. Make a comparison that is inflammatory but oblique. When called on it, feign innocence.

 

[JamesDillon]

You may be right logically although I think RandFan is on solid ground. However, abortion in Texas can be widely divorced from logic. It's an inflammatory analogy that does more to distract than edify.

That may be true and I don't want to say that there's nothing to RandFan's point. But I think arguments based on comparisons quite often trade on an equivocation between "comparing" and "calling," too frequently claiming the former while implying the latter. I just don't see anything to get too outraged about in comparing Thing A to Thing B to illustrate a point based on a genuine commonality between Things A and B. That's a far cry from saying that Thing A is Thing B.

 

[RandFan]

That may be true and I don't want to say that there's nothing to RandFan's point. But I think arguments based on comparisons quite often trade on an equivocation between "comparing" and "calling," too frequently claiming the former while implying the latter. I just don't see anything to get too outraged about in comparing Thing A to Thing B to illustrate a point based on a genuine commonality between Things A and B. That's a far cry from saying that Thing A is Thing B.

I understand your argument and it's not as if you don't have a point. My biggest complaint is that the comparison was unnecessary and given the nature of this issue nothing good could come of it.

 

[Caper]

I'm at a loss. What is wrong with people?

Shouldn't you have just named the topic... Do you think abortion is wrong or right? Isn't that essentially what you are asking? Unless your larger point is that people against something often compare what they are against to the worst thing they can think of...... then welcome to politics.... and today's society.

 

[Babbylonian]

I understand your argument and it's not as if you don't have a point. My biggest complaint is that the comparison was unnecessary and given the nature of this issue nothing good could come of it.

Don't sell yourself too short here. You've also made the point that - unnecessary or not - it's not a valid comparison (or cite) given that PP does designate money for particular services as it comes in. If they were diverting funds illegally to pay for abortion services, that would be something that would require proof because PP is not a criminal organization according to US law.