Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[RandFan]

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.

There is no 1-to-1 relationship between the funds given to PP and abortion.

• Funds to PP cannot and are not used for abortions.
• Your logic has consequences.
• It is absurd to assert that public resources that helps PP helps support abortions.
• By your logic public roads support abortions. That is your logic.

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.

Failing to answer a question isn't evading your question.

The answer is no. I'm claiming that by your logic providing funds to Palestine supports terrorism. Do you claim that providing funds to PP violates the law?

 

[SezMe]

I assume that you (and others) want to assert that your outrage is not only subjectively real but in some sense justified.

You will, of course, be happy to cite examples of my "outrage".

 

[JamesDillon]

There is no 1-to-1 relationship between the funds given to PP and abortion.

• Funds to PP cannot and are not used for abortions.

• 
  That's obviously not true. Funds given to PP that are earmarked for non-abortion use are not used for abortions. Most funds donated to PP, at least based on my general understanding of how charitable donations work, are not earmarked for any specific purpose. I've already asked you to correct me if that understanding is incorrect in the case of PP, and you haven't taken me up on that invitation.
  
  

  [*]Your logic has consequences.

  As a general principle, that seems irrefutable.
  

  [*]It is absurd to assert that public resources that helps PP helps support abortions.

  Then explain to me how it doesn't, with a specific rebuttal of my discussion of general vs. earmarked funds.
  

  [*]By your logic public roads fund abortions.

  Sure, in a very attenuated way. Earmarked donations help fund abortions in a much less attenuated way, by reducing the amount of general, non-earmarked budget that PP has to commit to those activities. I've yet to see a clear explanation of why that's wrong.

After ignoring me for post after post you accuse me of not answering your question?

If you think I've ignored something important, please point it out. It isn't my intention to do so; from my perspective I've responded to your points and you keep repeating the same things. I'd be more than happy to address anything you think I haven't-- but please don't come back yet again with something about how PP is required to maintain records and segregate earmarked funds. I've addressed that ad nauseam.

The answer is no. I'm claiming that by your logic providing funds to Palestine supports terrorism.

It wasn't really a yes/no question, so I'm still unclear whether we're talking about law or policy here. However, sure, to the extent that our donations allow Palestine to commit funds to terrorism that it otherwise would have had to use for medical supplies or whatever, that's exactly what it does.

Do you claim that providing funds to PP violates the law?

I've answered this explicitly in more than one post. Go back and read them.[Disregard; see below]

ETA: Wait, what?? That providing funds to PP violates the law? Why on Earth would I claim that?

 

[JamesDillon]

You will, of course, be happy to cite examples of my "outrage".

You used the word "outrage," not me. Do you really object to my taking you at your word when you claim to be outraged?

ETA: Or maybe I used it first and then you responded in a way that seemed to place yourself with the group of "others" who are outraged. Is this really worth debating? You seemed to agree with me that some group of people, somewhere, is outraged. Whether you count yourself among that group is a question on which I will defer completely to you.

 

[RandFan]

That's obviously not true. Funds given to PP that are earmarked for non-abortion use are not used for abortions.

That was my point.

Sure, in a very attenuated way.

Funds to PP not earmarked for abortion have not been demonstrated to assist in abortions anymore than public roads. You have only asserted that less money would be spent on abortion without public funds. Where is your evidence?

Earmarked donations help fund abortions in a much less attenuated way, by reducing the amount of general, non-earmarked budget that PP has to commit to those activities. I've yet to see a clear explanation of why that's wrong.

You've not even demonstrated that any funds are freed up for abortion because of public funds. That's just an assertion. Evidence please?

At the end of the day PP does not violate the law and you've no evidence that PP spends a dime more on abortions because of public funds. You only assert it.

Without public resources like roads and infrastructure PP would have less money for abortions. That's your argument for the public funds for abortions. But you can't even demonstrate your assertion.

 

[JamesDillon]

You've not even demonstrated that and funds are diverted because of public funds. That's just an assertion. Evidence please?

At the end of the day PP does not violate the law and you've no evidence that PP spends a dime more on abortions because of public funds. You only assert it.

That's true. I'm not poring over PP's annual financial reports for the sake of a forum discussion, so let me rephrase this just a little bit: Earmarked donations free up, on a 1-to-1 basis, an amount in PP's general fund that can be used for abortion-related services but otherwise would not have been so used because it would have been committed to PP's budget for non-abortion services. That much is true a priori. What PP actually does with the general treasury funds freed up by earmarked donations is indeed an empirical question that would require some research to answer completely. At the very least, though-- and I think I phrased it this way in at least one of my earlier posts-- earmarked funds increase PP's potential to fund abortion-related activities, just as humanitarian aid increases a terrorist-funding-organization's potential to fund violence. PP might dump all those additional general funds into even more non-abortion services, and [Random Terrorist Organization] might dump its general surplus into medical supplies or education or whatever. But in both cases the earmarked donation diminishes the commitments on the general fund, which can then be used for whatever purpose the organization desires. When dealing with organizations that, from an individual's perspective, undertake both "good" and "bad" activities, that might reasonably seem problematic.

ETA: You keep hammering on this roads thing but it is really a silly argument. Yes, as I've already acknowledged, public roads facilitate the provision of abortions in a ridiculously attenuated way. It's impossible to deny that-- do you? They also facilitate domestic terrorism; I'm sure Timothy McVeigh drove on some public roads to the Oklahoma City federal building. But if you really can't see a difference between that and the direct relationship between earmarked donations and commitments of an organization's general fund, I'm really at a loss of what to say.

 

[RandFan]

That's true. I'm not poring over PP's annual financial reports for the sake of a forum discussion, so let me rephrase this just a little bit: Earmarked donations free up, on a 1-to-1 basis, an amount in PP's general fund that can be used for abortion-related services but otherwise would not have been so used because it would have been committed to PP's budget for non-abortion services.

Demonstrate this? Demonstrate that money donated from private sources (earmarked) for abortions is not used to pay for administration and other services allowing more money to be spent for breast cancer screenings?

You are making assumptions without any basis for those assumptions. Where is your evidence to support your assumptions?

 

[JamesDillon]

Demonstrate this? Demonstrate that money donated from private sources (earmarked) for abortions is not used to pay for administration and other services allowing more money to be spent for breast cancer screenings?

You are making assumptions without any basis for those assumptions. Where is your evidence to support your assumptions?

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you read the rest of my post I said the exact opposite of this. My point in the portion you highlighted is simply this: At the beginning of the fiscal year, PP and every other organization has a budget. It has commitments in place for how much it is going to spend on non-abortion services. If it plans to spend $100 and has $0 in an earmarked account, it must budget $100 from the general fund for these services. But if someone comes along and donates $50 earmarked for non-abortion services, then that frees up $50 in the general fund. Again, that's not an empirical claim; it's a logical necessity.

 

[RandFan]

You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. If you read the rest of my post I said the exact opposite of this. My point in the portion you highlighted is simply this: At the beginning of the fiscal year, PP and every other organization has a budget. It has commitments in place for how much it is going to spend on non-abortion services. If it plans to spend $100 and has $0 in an earmarked account, it must budget $100 from the general fund for these services. But if someone comes along and donates $50 earmarked for non-abortion services, then that frees up $50 in the general fund. Again, that's not an empirical claim; it's a logical necessity.

No. I've not missed your point at all. If there were no non-abortion funds then PP would conduct their business and plan their budget accordingly. Getting public funds doesn't mean that they suddenly start performing more abortions. It could very well be that PP is fiscally responsible and doesn't need to rely on public funds to run their business or that public funds means they can perform more abortions.

Again, do you have evidence that PP would by necessity perform fewer abortions without non-abortion funds?

 

[JamesDillon]

No. I've not missed your point at all. If there were no non-abortion funds then PP would conduct their business and plan their budget accordingly. Getting public funds doesn't mean that they suddenly start performing more abortions. It could very well be that PP is fiscally responsible and doesn't need to rely on public funds to run their business or that public funds means they can perform more abortions.

I feel like I've already addressed all this in post 46 and anything I say here will muddle the issue further. Am I incorrect that the receipt of earmarked funds frees up money in PP's general account that it can then use for whatever purpose it wants?

Again, do you have evidence that PP would by necessity perform fewer abortions without non-abortion funds?

Nope. Which is why, if you read post 46, you'll see that I'm talking about the potential rather than the actuality of additional abortion funding that flows directly from funds earmarked for non-abortion purposes, and why that potential alone is reasonably concerning to individuals who believe that PP does both good and bad things.

 

[Caper]

I feel like I've already addressed all this in post 46 and anything I say here will muddle the issue further. Am I incorrect that the receipt of earmarked funds frees up money in PP's general account that it can then use for whatever purpose it wants?

I think that is absolutely correct.

 

[RandFan]

I feel like I've already addressed all this in post 46 and anything I say here will muddle the issue further. Am I incorrect that the receipt of earmarked funds frees up money in PP's general account that it can then use for whatever purpose it wants?

If PP's fixed and variable costs are covered by abortion earmarked funds then yes, you would be wrong. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Look, I don't claim that the fixed and variable costs like rent and paper are absolutely covered by abortion earmarked funds. I don't think they should have to be. Certainly breast screenings services require administration also. Could a few bucks from one side bleed to the other in paying for printer toner? Yea, and public roads are going to support abortion.

At the end of the day you have not demonstrated that by necessity public funds increase the number of abortions PP provides. You are simply speculating and asserting that it must be. No, that is not correct.

Nope. Which is why, if you read post 46, you'll see that I'm talking about the potential rather than the actuality of additional abortion funding that flows directly from funds earmarked for non-abortion purposes, and why that potential alone is reasonably concerning to individuals who believe that PP does both good and bad things.

Now it's "potential". I'll concede the potential is there. But abortion is legal. It's NOT terrorism. There is a law that dictates that PP must follow the law and keep books. If you don't have evidence of wrongdoing then it's wrong to cast aspersions.

 

[RandFan]

If you don't have evidence of wrongdoing then it's wrong to cast aspersions.

And, the AG is an ass and his statement is inflammatory and potentially harmful. Abortion is only 3% of what PP does. The AG is potentially harming people for no good reason.

 

[JamesDillon]

If PP's fixed and variable costs are covered by abortion earmarked funds then yes, you would be wrong. Can you demonstrate otherwise? Look, I don't claim that the fixed and variable costs like rent and paper are absolutely covered by abortion earmarked funds. I don't think they should have to be. Certainly breast screenings services require administration also. Could a few bucks from one side bleed to the other in paying for printer toner? Yea, and public roads are going to support abortion.

I'm assuming that organizations in general-- and non-profits in particular, who lack shareholders and don't give out dividends-- expand the scope of their operations to match their available funding. The more money PP has, the more stuff it's going to do. I suppose that's an empirical claim, but it seems a pretty obvious one.

At the end of the day you have not demonstrated that by necessity public funds increase the number of abortions PP provides. You are simply speculating and asserting that it must be. No, that is not correct.

I'm doing nothing of the sort and I've been abundantly clear about that. Have you actually read post 46? Do you understand the distinction I'm making between the potential for increased abortions and the empirical reality thereof? I've explicitly stated, repeatedly, that there is no necessary connection here, but that the receipt of earmarked funds does necessarily increase PP's potential to fund abortions because money that it otherwise would have spent from its general fund on non-abortion services is now freed up for whatever purpose that PP wants to use it for-- abortions or something else. That's just math.

Now it's "potential". I'll concede the potential is there. But abortion is legal. It's NOT terrorism. There is a law that dictates that PP must follow the law and keep books. If you don't have evidence of wrongdoing then it's wrong to cast aspersions.

Sure, because you're right, there is no clear evidence-- at least without undertaking a lot of financial analysis-- to make an empirical claim one way or the other. But potential is enough, for the reasons I gave. You seem to be veering into a normative defense of abortion here, but I've been assuming throughout the perspective of someone who thinks abortion is morally wrong. If you believe that, then it's perfectly reasonable to be concerned about anything that creates the potential for more abortions. Legality really has nothing to do with it-- and legality certainly doesn't foreclose a discussion about abortion's moral desirability. I'd go so far as to say it isn't even relevant.

 

[RandFan]

IThe more money PP has, the more stuff it's going to do. I suppose that's an empirical claim, but it seems a pretty obvious one.

It's erroneous to claim that an increase in non-abortion funds means that they are going to do more abortion stuff.

I'm doing nothing of the sort and I've been abundantly clear about that. Have you actually read post 46? Do you understand the distinction I'm making between the potential for increased abortions and the empirical reality thereof? I've explicitly stated, repeatedly, that there is no necessary connection here, but that the receipt of earmarked funds does necessarily increase PP's potential to fund abortions because money that it otherwise would have spent from its general fund on non-abortion services is now freed up for whatever purpose that PP wants to use it for-- abortions or something else. That's just math.

I've already addressed this. Yes, it COULD increase abortions. It DOESN'T mean that it will. Now, do you have evidence that it will.

And I'm getting just a little bit tired of your condescension. I was an auditor for 7 years. I understand your argument. I understood it in post 46 and I understand it still. "Could" doesn't mean "does". "Could" does not justify the AG's remarks.

 

[JamesDillon]

It's erroneous to claim that an increase in non-abortion funds means that they are going to do more abortion stuff.

I've already addressed this. Yes, it COULD increase abortions. It DOESN'T mean that it will. Now, do you have evidence that it will.

And I'm getting just a little bit tired of your condescension. I was an auditor for 7 years. I understand your argument. I understood it in post 46 and I understand it still. "Could" doesn't mean "does". "Could" does not justify the AG's remarks.

I haven't intended to be condescending, but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying very well because you're still misstating my position. Post 46 is my best statement and I still don't think you've really responded to it. Earmarked donations free up general funds which may or may not, as an empirical matter, be used to fund more abortions, but which necessarily enhance PP's potential to fund additional abortions, just like humanitarian donations increase a terrorist organization's potential to fund acts of violence. Again, that's not an empirical claim except to the extent of "Money lets you do things," which I hope is sufficiently obvious to not require extensive documentation. If I'm someone (which I'm not) who believes that abortion is morally wrong, then I'm going to be upset by anything that creates the potential for PP to carry out more abortions than it currently does, and I'm going to be opposed to anything that creates that potential regardless of whether PP does or does not apply any particular amount of general fund money freed up by an earmarked donation to the provision of abortion services.

 

[RandFan]

I haven't intended to be condescending, but you don't seem to understand what I'm saying very well because you're still misstating my position. Post 46 is my best statement and I still don't think you've really responded to it. Earmarked donations free up general funds which may or may not, as an empirical matter, be used to fund more abortions, but which necessarily enhance PP's potential to fund additional abortions, just like humanitarian donations increase a terrorist organization's potential to fund acts of violence. Again, that's not an empirical claim except to the extent of "Money lets you do things," which I hope is sufficiently obvious to not require extensive documentation. If I'm someone (which I'm not) who believes that abortion is morally wrong, then I'm going to be upset by anything that creates the potential for PP to carry out more abortions than it currently does, and I'm going to be opposed to anything that creates that potential regardless of whether PP does or does not apply any particular amount of general fund money freed up by an earmarked donation to the provision of abortion services.

No, that is very condescending. Nothing I've said indicates that I don't understand your point. And your assertions are just boorish.

• Yes, I've conceded that more money from public funding means they COULD do more abortions. It doesn't mean that PP does more abortions.
• Abortions are legal.
• PP must keep detailed records of the money they spend.
• PP must conform to audits.
• If you are going to attack an organization that provides such important services to women you ought to have evidence that they are doing something wrong.

You know that the AG doesn't have evidence so you are defending his attacking PP for what they might do.

 

[JamesDillon]

No, that is very condescending. Nothing I've said indicates that I don't understand your point. And your assertions are just boorish.

• Yes, I've conceded that more money from public funding means they COULD do more abortions. It doesn't mean that PP does more abortions.
• Abortions are legal.
• PP must keep detailed records of the money they spend.
• PP must conform to audits.
• If you are going to attack an organization that provides such important services to women you ought to have evidence that they are doing something wrong.

You know that the AG doesn't have evidence so you are defending his attacking PP for what they might do.

I really think your personal views on the acceptability abortion are coloring your judgment here. Why are we still talking about audits and records? If you understand my argument then you understand that I'm not suggesting in the least that PP fails to keep earmarked funds segregated; I'm saying that even segregated funds enhance its potential to conduct other activities. And that's exactly what the AG said, in your own quote:

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 ...

That's exactly correct, isn't it? I think your point in your last post is really the crux of our disagreement-- whether the fact that PP "could" use its additional general fund money to perform abortions is sufficient to justify the AG's comments. Again, adopting the perspective of someone who is morally opposed to abortion, I can't imagine how it's not. If I'm opposed to abortion, then the fact that state funding for non-abortion directly frees up discretionary funds in this organization that also performs abortions is something that is going to concern me.

Putting aside the moral distinctions between abortion and terrorism, why isn't the terrorism analogy exactly right? Humanitarian donations-- even if used for humanitarian purposes-- free up general funds in the budget that the organization is then free to use however it sees fit. Maybe it will use that money to buy vaccines, maybe it will use it to buy bombs. It seems not at all unreasonable, from the perspective of someone who dislikes bombs, to be opposed to increasing that organization's available resources simply because doing so increases the potential for acts of violence. Other than the red herring of "But abortion is legal and not immoral!," what's the flaw in that analogy?

 

[RandFan]

I really think your personal views on the acceptability abortion are coloring your judgment here. Why are we still talking about audits and records? If you understand my argument then you understand that I'm not suggesting in the least that PP fails to keep earmarked funds segregated; I'm saying that even segregated funds enhance its potential to conduct other activities. And that's exactly what the AG said, in your own quote:

That's exactly correct, isn't it? I think your point in your last post is really the crux of our disagreement-- whether the fact that PP "could" use its additional general fund money to perform abortions is sufficient to justify the AG's comments. Again, adopting the perspective of someone who is morally opposed to abortion, I can't imagine how it's not. If I'm opposed to abortion, then the fact that state funding for non-abortion directly frees up discretionary funds in this organization that also performs abortions is something that is going to concern me.

Putting aside the moral distinctions between abortion and terrorism, why isn't the terrorism analogy exactly right? Humanitarian donations-- even if used for humanitarian purposes-- free up general funds in the budget that the organization is then free to use however it sees fit. Maybe it will use that money to buy vaccines, maybe it will use it to buy bombs. It seems not at all unreasonable, from the perspective of someone who dislikes bombs, to be opposed to increasing that organization's available resources simply because doing so increases the potential for acts of violence. Other than the red herring of "But abortion is legal and not immoral!," what's the flaw in that analogy?

You keep saying the problem is empirical.

Okay, the AG has a simple means to solve all of this.

• What are total costs?
• What percentage of what PP does is abortion services? 3%
• What percentage of what PP does in non abortion services? 97%
• How much money does PP take in for abortion services?
• How much is spent on abortions services?

So total expenditures minus 97% should not exceed 3% of revenue. If they do we have a problem.

And yes, I do get your post #46 argument. It's at best incremental. If PP cannot perform any more abortions than 3% of revenue will allow then you have no leg to stand on.

Terrorist organizations can move funds around and merge/seperate cost centers and revenue centers. PP cannot do that. That is what is meant by money being "fungible". At best you can argue that public funds help improve fixed assets and increase good will. They could hire a secretary paid for with public funds but does Abortion work on the side. At the end of the day there is simply a given number of abortions that can be performed for a given amount of money. It's really not so hard to figure out. Demonstrate that PP is getting more abortions than they collect money for. Look at the pay for doctors. Look at the pay for nurses. Look at other organizations who perform abortions. This BTW, is what the IRS does when they audit cash businesses like Pizza parlors. Money is fungible but it has a nasty way of leaving evidence of where it goes. Check stubs are kind of hard to hide and since this isn't a cash business it's rather difficult to move much money around at all.

Sorry, it just doesn't wash.

Now I'm going to bed.

 

[Caper]

• Yes, I've conceded that more money from public funding means they COULD do more abortions. It doesn't mean that PP does more abortions.

• 
  
  I'm not sure if he necessarily means they could perform MORE abortions. I think the point is that they could more easily provide the help they do if they don't have to worry as much about fundraising for all the other services.
  
  

  [*]Abortions are legal.

  
  Not all of them.