Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[RandFan]

Shouldn't you have just named the topic... Do you think abortion is wrong or right? Isn't that essentially what you are asking?

No. A.) I'm saying that this was unnecessary and stupid. B.) The actions over the last two years belie the claims of the GOP that there isn't an attempt to restrict the rights of women and deprive them of needed services.

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.

Welcome to the world of social networking where we discuss and debate ideas and issues and where we try to find and establish truth and persuade each other in an attempt to improve society.

Or, we bitch and moan about the things we don't like. You choose but if you don't like it then let me break the news to you. You are in the wrong place.

 

[RandFan]

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.

Thanks. Agreed.

 

[Corsair 115]

Not to mention they have still failed to make the case that abortion is PP's primary mission.

Perhaps they never got the memo that Senator Kyl's remarks were "not intended to be a factual statement".

 

[JamesDillon]

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.

But that's not what the AG's point is, as I understand it. No one claims that all designated terrorist organizations divert money from humanitarian projects to pay for terror, either. The point, instead, is that even funds earmarked for "good" purposes (health screening in the case of PP or humanitarian aid in the case of so-called "terrorist" organizations (many of which may well not deserve that designation, but that's another matter)) nevertheless free up funds in the organization's general account that can then be applied to "bad" purposes when they otherwise would not have been. Unless it's the case that every single dollar coming into PP is unalterably earmarked for a specific purpose from the outset-- which I doubt very much is the case-- the analogy seems accurate, whatever we might think of the comparison.

 

[RandFan]

But that's not what the AG's point is, as I understand it. No one claims that all designated terrorist organizations divert money from humanitarian projects to pay for terror, either. The point, instead, is that even funds earmarked for "good" purposes (health screening in the case of PP or humanitarian aid in the case of so-called "terrorist" organizations (many of which may well not deserve that designation, but that's another matter)) nevertheless free up funds in the organization's general account that can then be applied to "bad" purposes when they otherwise would not have been. Unless it's the case that every single dollar coming into PP is unalterably earmarked for a specific purpose from the outset-- which I doubt very much is the case-- the analogy seems accurate, whatever we might think of the comparison.

A.) The comparison is inflammatory. No good can come of it. B.) PP keeps detailed records that terrorist organizations don't (you've yet to acknowledge this difference.) C.) PP conforms to audits and legal requirements and terrorists organizations don't.

I'm sorry but the comparison is fatally flawed. PP keeps detailed records and are audited. Funds provided for non-abortion services are used for non-abortion services. If you have evidence that they are breaking the law then please provide it?

 

[Babbylonian]

What RandFan said. You keep making that assertion, James, but it "assumes facts not in evidence."

 

[SezMe]

I just don't see anything to get too outraged about ....

That is the problem with your position. You may not but my (and others') point is that other people will get outraged. Again, you completely miss the point by trying to argue reactions to the statement logically.

 

[JamesDillon]

I'm sorry but the comparison is fatally flawed. PP keeps detailed records and are audited. Funds provided for non-abortion services are used for non-abortion services. If you have evidence that they are breaking the law then please provide it?

The comparison is not flawed because no one-- neither the Texas AG or me [ETA: at least not me, and not the AG as I understand his point]-- is making the claim you seem to think we're making. Let me try to state this more clearly using an obviously simplified example. An organization, let's go with PP, has a spending plan at the beginning of its fiscal year: it's going to spend, say, $100 providing health care screening and $100 providing abortion services. It currently has $200 in its general treasury, just enough to meet its obligations. But, a donor comes along and says "Here's $50, but you can only use it for health care screening, not for abortions." Fine, says PP, we'll take that $50 and apply it to our health care budget-- but look, now we have an extra $50 in the general fund that we would have had to use to pay for health care screenings, but thanks to this donation we can now use it to pay for more abortions.

So, no one needs to claim that PP is breaking any laws, or using earmarked funds for any other purpose, for this analogy to work. This gets back to my point that unless every cent that comes into PP's general treasury is earmarked for a specific purpose-- and yes, I'm assuming that's not that case because it seems highly implausible, but if I'm wrong about that feel free to correct me-- contributions earmarked for health care screening can still have the effect of freeing up funds for abortion services that otherwise would not have been available, resulting in greater funding for abortions than otherwise would have been the case.

That is the problem with your position. You may not but my (and others') point is that other people will get outraged. Again, you completely miss the point by trying to argue reactions to the statement logically.

I assume that you (and others) want to assert that your outrage is not only subjectively real but in some sense justified. I certainly think that assessing the comparison logically is relevant to the latter question.

 

[RandFan]

The comparison is not flawed because no one-- neither the Texas AG or me-- is making the claim you seem to think we're making. Let me try to state this more clearly using an obviously simplified example. An organization, let's go with PP, has a spending plan at the beginning of its fiscal year: it's going to spend, say, $100 providing health care screening and $100 providing abortion services. It currently has $200 in its general treasury, just enough to meet its obligations. But, a donor comes along and says "Here's $50, but you can only use it for health care screening, not for abortions." Fine, says PP, we'll take that $50 and apply it to our health care budget-- but look, now we have an extra $50 in the general fund that we would have had to use to pay for health care screenings, but thanks to this donation we can now use it to pay for more abortions.

I've addressed that. And you keep ignoring the fact that PP must keep detailed records and by law cannot use funds for non-abortion funds for abortions.

So, no one needs to claim that PP is breaking any laws, or using earmarked funds for any other purpose, for this analogy to work.

I really do understand your point but for the many reasons I've laid out, it fails. No one can absolutely provide such a guarantee. Again, you ignore my Palestinian example.

This gets back to my point that unless every cent that comes into PP's general treasury is earmarked for a specific purpose-- and yes, I'm assuming that's not that case because it seems highly implausible, but if I'm wrong about that feel free to correct me-- contributions earmarked for health care screening can still have the effect of freeing up funds for abortion services that otherwise would not have been available, resulting in greater funding for abortions than otherwise would have been the case.

By your logic America cannot give money to Palestine or Saudi Arabia.

I assume that you (and others) want to assert that your outrage is not only subjectively real but in some sense justified. I certainly think that assessing the comparison logically is relevant to the latter question.

Nonsense, such complaints would mean that we could not purchase gas from Saudi Arabia or provide funds to Palestine, Pakistan and other nations.

No, in the grand scheme of things you need evidence that PP is breaking the law. Absent that it's a BS complaint.

BTW: Could you please humor me and pretend that you understand my argument? Please?

 

[JamesDillon]

I've addressed that. And you keep ignoring the fact that PP must keep detailed records and by law cannot use funds for non-abortion funds for abortions.

BTW: Could you please humor me and pretend that you understand my argument? Please?

I guess I don't understand it. I don't see what relevance the record-keeping requirement has, because, as I just explained in detail, it doesn't matter for purposes of this analogy that PP can't use funds earmarked for non-abortion purposes to fund abortions. I feel like we're talking past each other here but I don't have anything to add to what I've just said.

ETA: Have the governments of Palestine and Saudi Arabia been designated as "foreign terrorist organizations" under 18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1)? If not, then your references to them are irrelevant. If so-- and I very much doubt it, certainly Saudi Arabia-- then yes, it probably would be against that law to do business with them.

 

[RandFan]

I guess I don't understand it. I don't see what relevance the record-keeping requirement has, because, as I just explained in detail, it doesn't matter for purposes of this analogy that PP can't use funds earmarked for non-abortion purposes to fund abortions. I feel like we're talking past each other here but I don't have anything to add to what I've just said.

It matters because money IS fungible. Money we give to Palestine can be argued to support terrorism. Terrorist organizations don't keep detailed records and conform to laws and audits, right? Is that right?

Okay, work with me here, PP keeps detailed records and they must follow laws and conform to regulations. Every dollar provided for non-abortion services must be used for non-abortion services. Right? Do you have evidence than any money earmarked for non-abortion services is used for abortion services?

• Helping Palestine, arguably helps terrorism. Buying gas helps terrorism. Right? That cannot be stopped.
• PP must abide by laws and keep detailed records and comply with audit requests. Terrorist organizations don't. Can you see the difference? They are transparent.

 

[RandFan]

ETA: Have the governments of Palestine and Saudi Arabia been designated as "foreign terrorist organizations" under 18 U. S. C. §2339B(a)(1)? If not, then your references to them are irrelevant. If so-- and I very much doubt it, certainly Saudi Arabia-- then yes, it probably would be against that law to do business with them.

Nonsense. Now you are being absurd. You think Palestine has nothing to do with Palestinian terrorism? The PLO? Hamas? You are really stretching here.

 

[JamesDillon]

Do you deny that PP has a general fund of money that is not earmarked for a specific purpose? Or that, when it receives money that is earmarked for non-abortion purposes, using that money for those purposes thereby reduces the amount from the general fund that has to be committed to non-abortion uses? If those two things are true, then donation of money earmarked for non-abortion uses to Planned Parenthood increases the organization's capacity to fund abortion services because it can do so from the general fund which is not restricted to any particular use. That's all I'm saying; I'm not denying in the least that PP is required to keep records, to use earmarked funds for their specified purposes, or that it actually complies with those obligations.

 

[JamesDillon]

Nonsense. Now you are being absurd. You think Palestine has nothing to do with Palestinian terrorism? The PLO? Hamas? You are really stretching here.

The law against material support to foreign terrorist organizations requires that the organization be designated as such by the State Department. If it hasn't been formally designated, there is no legal restriction against giving Palestine or whoever else whatever support we desire. So your argument is just absurd. Absent a formal designation, there's no legal violation regardless of what Palestine or Saudi Arabia is doing.

 

[RandFan]

Do you deny that PP has a general fund of money that is not earmarked for a specific purpose? Or that, when it receives money that is earmarked for non-abortion purposes, using that money for those purposes thereby reduces the amount from the general fund that has to be committed to non-abortion uses? If those two things are true, then donation of money earmarked for non-abortion uses to Planned Parenthood increases the organization's capacity to fund abortion services because it can do so from the general fund which is not restricted to any particular use. That's all I'm saying; I'm not denying in the least that PP is required to keep records, to use earmarked funds for their specified purposes, or that it actually complies with those obligations.

While I don't claim that you have no point it's A.) Limited and B.) Life. Buying gas, paying taxes, funding Palestine, etc. increases the organizations capacity to engage in terrorism. There comes a point where it becomes absurd to search for these kinds of links. In the end laws require that funds for non-abortion services not fund abortions services. That IS what happens.

More importantly, as was seen in the Komen fiasco, PP provides vitally critical services to poor women. Attacking PP hurts those women for no good reason.

The AG is cynical and his remarks are entirely unnecessary. He can only hurt people.

 

[RandFan]

The law against material support to foreign terrorist organizations requires that the organization be designated as such by the State Department. If it hasn't been formally designated, there is no legal restriction against giving Palestine or whoever else whatever support we desire. So your argument is just absurd. Absent a formal designation, there's no legal violation regardless of what Palestine or Saudi Arabia is doing.

Entirely beside the point. Look, your logic has consequences. Funding Palestine results in funding terrorism. There is a point where we draw the line. The question is, will you be morally consistent or will you engage in special pleading?

 

[JamesDillon]

Entirely beside the point. Look, your logic has consequences. Funding Palestine results in funding terrorism. There is a point where we draw the line. The question is, will you be morally consistent or will you engage in special pleading?

Rather than return your implication of intellectual dishonesty, I'm going to suggest that maybe I misunderstood your point. When you said "By your logic America cannot give money to Palestine or Saudi Arabia," did you mean A) "By your logic, America is legally prohibited from giving money to Palestine or Saudi Arabia because it would violate the statute against providing material aid to foreign terrorist organizations," or B "By your logic, America should not do business with Palestine and Saudi Arabia because doing so provides money to state sponsors of terrorism, which from America's perspective is a bad thing"? I assumed you meant (A) because that's what (I thought) we'd been discussing up to this point-- and if that's the case then my first response is right, your argument fails because those regimes have not been designated by the State Department as foreign sponsors of terrorism, so the legal bar does not apply. Reading your further responses, maybe you meant (B). If that's the case, then sure, that follows from my logic, and it seems to me not a ridiculous argument. Maybe there are countervailing considerations-- maybe our love for SUVs outweighs our aversion to global terrorism-- but it doesn't seem to me at all absurd to suggest that giving money to regimes that we believe to be sponsors of terrorism is a bad idea at least insofar as it increases those regimes' capacity for violence.

 

[RandFan]

"By your logic America cannot give money to Palestine or Saudi Arabia," did you mean A) "By your logic, America is legally prohibited from giving money to Palestine or Saudi Arabia because it would violate the statute against providing material aid to foreign terrorist organizations," or B "By your logic, America should not do business with Palestine and Saudi Arabia because doing so provides money to state sponsors of terrorism, which from America's perspective is a bad thing"? I assumed you meant (A) because that's what (I thought) we'd been discussing up to this point-- and if that's the case then my first response is right, your argument fails because those regimes have not been designated by the State Department as foreign sponsors of terrorism, so the legal bar does not apply. Reading your further responses, maybe you meant (B). If that's the case, then sure, that follows from my logic, and it seems to me not a ridiculous argument. Maybe there are countervailing considerations-- maybe our love for SUVs outweighs our aversion to global terrorism-- but it doesn't seem to me at all absurd to suggest that giving money to regimes that we believe to be sponsors of terrorism is a bad idea at least insofar as it increases those regimes' capacity for violence.

By your logic providing funds to Palestine is supporting terrorism.

And, BTW: Abortion IS legal. Terrorism isn't. The law says that funds cannot be used for abortion. Nothing in the law says that abortion cannot be carried out. Or that Abortion clinics cannot use public roads. And by your logic abortion clinics cannot use public roads, right? The public roads are paid for by public funds. That is just how absurd your logic is.

 

[JamesDillon]

Do you really see no difference between the attenuated relationship between public roads and abortion funding and really quite direct, 1-to-1 relationship between earmarked funds and general treasury obligations? One of us is being absurd here, but I'm not sure it's me.

ETA: You evaded my direct question: Are you claiming that, by my logic, providing funds to Palestine is against the law, or simply a bad idea? Those are very different things.

 

[This is The End]

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'".

Still, they were the ones that picked the analogy.

I've seen this "oh but it was just an analogy" trickery before.

Next time use a different analogy!

Perhaps:

"you can't give money to one aspect of the Catholic Church without essentially funding other aspects of it"