Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[JamesDillon]

And yet, the TX AG didn't choose to compare withholding money from PP to withholding money from churches. Or to withholding money from any other group.

He chose to compare it to withholding money from terrorists. He went out of his way to specifically use the term "terrorist" in his motion to the court, instead of merely citing a statute or case law reference. Unlike the other examples you selected for comparison.

Why do you suppose that is? Surely the fine voters people of Texas would be equally understanding of an AG who compared Planned Parenthood to church social programs as they would to a comparison with terrorists.

Right?

I suppose it's because the most relevant Supreme Court case on point happened to be about funding terrorists, not funding churches. As I've explained at length already, Supreme Court decisions are enormously influential sources of law that carry a lot of weight even when they aren't directly binding on the outcome of a decision. Texas didn't pick the analogy out of thin air; it looked at the body of recent Supreme Court decisions, found one that was relevant, and cited it. Which is exactly what happens all the time in legal argumentation.

As for the use of the term "terrorist"-- it's a parenthetical citation explaining the holding of the case. Again, not at all uncommon or inappropriate. And, again, no judge reading that is going to understand it to draw a comparison between Planned Parenthood and the terrorist organizations at issue in HLP.

 

[quadraginta]

He did exactly what supplicants usually to when citing a case: he included a parenthetical summary. Again, nothing unusual about that. If some idiot hadn't quoted it out of context, we never would have heard about it.

That's what's so silly about these arguments that the AG was looking to send a message: in the absence of incendiary journalism, nobody in the public would have ever seen this cite. It strains credibility to believe what you're claiming was the intent.

Any legal exchange, especially last minute emergency ones, which involve Federal courts and laws enacted by a state of the size and with the reputation for neo-con, fundi driven legislation which Texas has is going to have every syllable of any motion they make on a topic as controversial as Planned Parenthood scrutinized in tedious, minute detail by every news outlet in the country. Possibly even the world.

The Texas AG would have to be a politically incompetent, clueless idiot to not be fully aware of this simple fact. And although I would not be at all surprised if the later deficiency would not prove to be an impediment to the election to office of AG in Texas, the former certainly would. No one could rise to the top of the crucible of Texas politics without being equipped with the very best in political and publicity radar.

What strains credulity is the idea that a Texas AG would choose such language without being completely aware of the public and political ramifications.

Quite the contrary. I expect that the media response was not only expected, but very likely the desired one.

It is the half-assed mea culpa which I find deplorable. It is not unlike a trial tactic of making a comment in full knowledge that an objection will be made by opposing counsel, and that the judge will sustain it. The damage is still done. No matter what instructions to disregard are given to the jury the bell cannot be un-rung.

 

[quadraginta]

I suppose it's because the most relevant Supreme Court case on point happened to be about funding terrorists, not funding churches. As I've explained at length already, Supreme Court decisions are enormously influential sources of law that carry a lot of weight even when they aren't directly binding on the outcome of a decision. Texas didn't pick the analogy out of thin air; it looked at the body of recent Supreme Court decisions, found one that was relevant, and cited it. Which is exactly what happens all the time in legal argumentation.

As for the use of the term "terrorist"-- it's a parenthetical citation explaining the holding of the case. Again, not at all uncommon or inappropriate. And, again, no judge reading that is going to understand it to draw a comparison between Planned Parenthood and the terrorist organizations at issue in HLP.

I agree. "No judge" would. It's just that I don't believe even a little bit that the choice of language was directed with the judge in mind. It was pure political theater, carefully crafted for public disbursement.

The media, so savagely attacked for "sensationalism", were nothing more than the intended means of that disbursement. I expect that the AG would have been terribly disappointed if the effort had failed.

 

[AvalonXQ]

The CT forum is that way --->

We deal with facts here, and the facts just don't support the level of Xanatos Gambit Machiavellian machinations required to reach the chain of events you describe.

 

[rwguinn]

The CT forum is that way --->

We deal with facts here, and the facts just don't support the level of Xanatos Gambit Machiavellian machinations required to reach the chain of events you describe.

Take it from a Texan. Those people don't say ANYTHING that is not intended to raise emotions to a fever pitch--especially with elections next week...

 

[RandFan]

The CT forum is that way --->

We deal with facts here, and the facts just don't support the level of Xanatos Gambit Machiavellian machinations required to reach the chain of events you describe.

An AG engaging in silly theatrics isn't CT.

• PP was not breaking any law.
• Unlike faith based initiatives, PP doesn't violate the rules for public funding.

 

[RandFan]

I...it looked at the body of recent Supreme Court decisions, found one that was relevant, and cited it. Which is exactly what happens all the time in legal argumentation.

That's a monumental stretch. There is no evidence that PP uses public funds for abortion. Unlike your faith based imitative example, they do not violate the law.

 

[quadraginta]

The CT forum is that way --->

We deal with facts here, and the facts just don't support the level of Xanatos Gambit Machiavellian machinations required to reach the chain of events you describe.

I don't see it as being all that Machiavellian. if you do then perhaps we do not share a common definition of the concept.

Frankly, I see "the facts" (as you refer to them) as being much more supportive of my surmise than of yours.

I see it as plain ol' everyday politicking. If an elected, state-level official doesn't expect every word of his defense of a law expressly intended to de-fund Planned Parenthood to be carefully and critically parsed by national media then I would question their competence at the very least, and perhaps even their sanity.

Following, as it does, the rather impressive national scale blow-up surrounding the Koman for the Cure snafu it would take more than a little faith (and a boatload of gullibility) to believe that the AG worded the motion to the court in complete innocence of any consideration concerning public scrutiny.

It is far more likely that the wording was chosen with that scrutiny in much more prominent consideration than was that of even the court itself. After all, the court only needed the case cite itself, the benefit of explicitly pointing out that terrorists were involved in the case cited is wasted on the legal aspect of the motion.

Who else would it be useful to point out to?

Oh yeah. The public at large. Voters, even. Maybe Texas voters in particular.

A man who ought to know once opined that, "All politics is local." The AG of Texas has to be a political creature to get and to keep the job. There isn't going to be a word that leaves that office either by mouth or pen which does not have that consideration in the forefront.

Lackadaisical back-pedaling after the fact is all part of the standard play book. No conspiracy required.

 

[RandFan]

Yes, every one of those quotes references acts that are intrinsically illegal (like terrorism). Nothing that PP does is intrinsically illegal. The only legal concern with the activities of PP is that it is illegal to provide public funds for abortion, not to provide an abortion.

There is something fundamentally antithetical to our judicial system to accuse someone of "potential" wrong doing.

 

[SezMe]

Texas didn't pick the analogy out of thin air; it looked at the body of recent Supreme Court decisions, found one that was relevant, and cited it.

You assume that; you don't know that. Or maybe I'm making too big of an assumption. Do you work in the Texas AG office?

 

[xjx388]

That's a monumental stretch. There is no evidence that PP uses public funds for abortion. Unlike your faith based imitative example, they do not violate the law.

This just shows that you aren't giving the cite a fair reading. You are putting your own spin on it. And that's fine, but let's call it what it is.

The AG said "money is fungible." The evidence you are seeking is right there. They get public money which opens up their private money for use on abortions. Since it is against Texas law to use public money for abortion services (even counseling or referrals), it is a perfectly valid legal argument to say that giving public money to an organization that provides these abortion services is tantamount to using public funds to pay for abortion services -even if those funds are earmarked for other, non-abortion services. "Money is fungible."

The SCOTUS case was cited as support for this argument, that's it.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Of the half that is pro-abortion, a very common sentiment is "I would never have an abortion, and there are very few situations where I agree that abortion is the right answer, but it's not my place to make that decision for anyone".



Certainly the majority has made it clear that they don't want to pay for them.

Nearly sums up my position: you want one, go ahead, pay for it.

Like I did. Given the paucity of funds at my disposal at the time, that was a severe blow to my wallet, and my discretionary funds for some time in the immediate future.

 

[JamesDillon]

You assume that; you don't know that. Or maybe I'm making too big of an assumption. Do you work in the Texas AG office?

I practiced law for quite a few years, and I know how briefs are written. There is nothing in this particular example that leads me to think that the process of brief-writing was any different than any other brief I've ever read or written. If I was representing Texas in this matter, I'd have cited the same case for the same point. I also spent a couple of years writing judicial opinions as a law clerk in federal district court. If I were reading this brief, this citation would not have struck me as remotely out of place. In short, there is nothing here that seems at all out of the ordinary to someone familiar with the routines of legal draftsmanship.

I agree. "No judge" would. It's just that I don't believe even a little bit that the choice of language was directed with the judge in mind. It was pure political theater, carefully crafted for public disbursement.

How many members of the public do you know who spend a lot of time reading through court documents filed by the Texas Attorney General? If HuffPo hadn't picked this up with its faux outrage, no one outside of a few Fifth Circuit judges and clerks would ever have seen it. A parenthetical citation to a Supreme Court decision in a legal brief has got to be the least effective form of public relations I can imagine.

ETA: On that note, as best I can tell, the AG's brief isn't even publicly available except through the court's pay-per-page PACER service. Is it really likely that the AG anticipated enough members of the general public are logging on and paying eight cents per page to download its documents that it seemed worthwhile to insert some needlessly inflammatory language in there? Or is it more likely-- as it seems to me-- that the only audience Texas had in mind were the judges and court personnel to whom the brief is directed?

That's a monumental stretch. There is no evidence that PP uses public funds for abortion. Unlike your faith based imitative example, they do not violate the law.

RandFan, with all due respect, I don't think we have anything left to say to each other. I've responded to these same points at least a dozen times.

ETA: I will add one more thing, which goes to the process of legal reasoning and judicial decision making that we haven't talked a lot about. You're right that the facts that you point to distinguish PP's case from the HLP case. In my view, a judge reviewing the brief would view those as irrelevant distinctions. No two cases are ever exactly alike, so virtually all of legal reasoning is a matter of drawing analogies and assessing whether one case can be distinguished from another not only on the basis of any facts, but on the basis of legally significant facts. I've already explained that the illegality of terrorism was not a legally relevant fact to the Supreme Court's decision in HLP. For some reason you refused to accept that, but all I can really say is, if you don't want to accept my characterization, the case is freely available online.

But the new point I want to make here is this: there's a spectrum of relevance in comparing a current case to a prior precedent. Some cases are clearly controlling in that all of the legally relevant facts are exactly the same; some are obviously irrelevant in that there's no overlap whatsoever. If you really want to claim that the AG was acting unethically in citing the HLP case, you'd not only have to show that the analogy isn't perfect-- i.e., that some legally relevant facts are different-- but that HLP is so completely irrelevant to the PP situation that there's no reason for Texas to have cited it other than in some hope of inflaming the court (or the masses of the general public that some people apparently believe read appellate briefs). I just don't think there is any possible way you could make that argument. I'm sure you're going to disagree and come back to me with the same list of distinctions you've repeated over and over in this thread, but I think this is an important point to make anyway.

 

[Corsair 115]

There is something fundamentally antithetical to our judicial system to accuse someone of "potential" wrong doing.

Maybe they saw Minority Report one too many times...

 

[RandFan]

The AG said "money is fungible." The evidence you are seeking is right there. They get public money which opens up their private money for use on abortions. Since it is against Texas law to use public money for abortion services (even counseling or referrals)...

It's against federal law also. Evidence that PP misappropriates public funds?

it is a perfectly valid legal argument to say that giving public money to an organization that provides these abortion services is tantamount to using public funds to pay for abortion services -even if those funds are earmarked for other, non-abortion services. "Money is fungible."

Just because money is fungible doesn't mean that PP can violate the law. PP keeps detailed records and complies with audits. If they were using public funds to facilitate abortions an audit would demonstrate that. Money has a way of leaving a trail. Even cash businesses are audited by the IRS and if they are under-reporting income the IRS can figure it out.

The SCOTUS case was cited as support for this argument, that's it.

If PP conducted their activities like faith based initiatives or humanitarian organizations with ties to terrorist organizations you would have a point. They don't and you don't.

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, with all due respect, I don't think we have anything left to say to each other. I've responded to these same points at least a dozen times.

And I've demonstrated why you are wrong about your claims. PP can't just move their funds around from a general fund. You refuse to answer my questions that demonstrate that you are wrong. So I resent your condescending attitude.

ETA: I will add one more thing, which goes to the process of legal reasoning and judicial decision making that we haven't talked a lot about. You're right that the facts that you point to distinguish PP's case from the HLP case. In my view, a judge reviewing the brief would view those as irrelevant distinctions. No two cases are ever exactly alike, so virtually all of legal reasoning is a matter of drawing analogies and assessing whether one case can be distinguished from another not only on the basis of any facts, but on the basis of legally significant facts. I've already explained that the illegality of terrorism was not a legally relevant fact to the Supreme Court's decision in HLP. For some reason you refused to accept that, but all I can really say is, if you don't want to accept my characterization, the case is freely available online.

But the new point I want to make here is this: there's a spectrum of relevance in comparing a current case to a prior precedent. Some cases are clearly controlling in that all of the legally relevant facts are exactly the same; some are obviously irrelevant in that there's no overlap whatsoever. If you really want to claim that the AG was acting unethically in citing the HLP case, you'd not only have to show that the analogy isn't perfect-- i.e., that some legally relevant facts are different-- but that HLP is so completely irrelevant to the PP situation that there's no reason for Texas to have cited it other than in some hope of inflaming the court (or the masses of the general public that some people apparently believe read appellate briefs). I just don't think there is any possible way you could make that argument. I'm sure you're going to disagree and come back to me with the same list of distinctions you've repeated over and over in this thread, but I think this is an important point to make anyway.

If PP conducted business the way humanitarian organization working as fronts for terrorist organizations do or Faith Based Initatives who demonstrably flout the law then it would be a significant point. PP conducts its business with transparency. They keep detailed records and comply with audits. You have no evidence of impropriety.

I'm guessing you can't cite a case decided on the potential of an individual or entity doing something that some people don't like (your words), am I right?

 

[RandFan]

Maybe they saw Minority Report one too many times...

Exactly, blew me away when that argument was made. We will have to wait an see if a case can be cited that was decided on the potential for an individual or an entity to do something that some people didn't like.

 

[RandFan]

1. Irrelevant. PP could have an excess of abortion funds to offset any shortfall.
2. Money need not be earmarked for abortions to be used for abortions (an important point you are not acknowledging).
3. It is possible that PP receives far more than 3% of money earmarked for abortion. Thus money earmarked for abortion could be said to be used to fund non-abortion services.
4. Money need not be earmarked for abortions to be used for abortions (it is their money for crying in the dark).
5. I concede the potential, however, "could be" is not "is". It could be that they perform less abortions due to public funding.

So long as you cannot declare impossible that PP uses less earmarked funds for abortion, for abortion then you simply do not know. It is a theoretical possibility that if PP stopped accepting public funds they could do more abortions. So long as that is true, and it is, then all you have are aspersions.

Points ignored.

 

[RandFan]

I don't want to be accused of a straw man.

I'm guessing you can't cite a case decided on the potential of an individual or entity doing something that some people don't like (your words), am I right?

Okay, it's not "like", it's "bad".

From the perspective of the state of Texas, abortion is bad, and Texas doesn't want to facilitate it. The analogy to HLP in the AG's brief is therefore a perfectly reasonable one. And, again, no court is going to read a citation to HLP as an implication that PP is a terrorist organization. That's just not how legal reasoning works.

Therefore, donations to PP earmarked for non-abortion services have the direct effect of increasing PP's potential to fund abortion services.

So, "potential" to do something "bad". Not illegal. Just "bad". I will wait for your example of a case that was decided on the potential of someone doing something that was legal but bad.

 

[JamesDillon]

And I've demonstrated why you are wrong about your claims. PP can't just move their funds around from a general fund. You refuse to answer my questions that demonstrate that you are wrong. So I resent your condescending attitude.

I have no response to this. Anyone interested in reading my explanation of why RandFan is incorrect here can go read post 46, which I think is my best statement on the subject, or any of the other posts in which I've addressed these claims. I'm done talking about it.

I will note, though, that you've called me condescending, boorish, and a few other things in this thread. I'm not the one throwing around personal insults here.

I'm guessing you can't cite a case decided on the potential of and an individual or entity doing something that some people don't like (your words), am I right?

Not without doing some research, which I'm not going to do. But that actually supports my point-- if there is no such case, then the citation to HLP is all the more appropriate as the most analogous case to the PP situation, even if the analogy is imperfect.

But let's step back here for a minute and talk about the context in which this case arose, because you seem to be assuming that the Texas AG filed charges or something against Planned Parenthood as an actual or potential lawbreaker. That isn't at all what happened. This case started when the Texas Health and Human Services Commission issued a regulation barring Planned Parenthood from receiving funds for-- and therefore from providing services in connection with-- Texas's Women's Health Program, which is a state-run health program for uninsured women "with a net family income at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level." The 2005 state legislation authorizing the Women's Health Program prohibited the expenditure of funds “to perform or promote elective abortions,” and prohibited contracting with “entities that perform or promote elective abortions or are affiliates of entities that perform or promote elective abortions.” From 2005 until 2012, with some legislative complications that aren't relevant here, the Planned Parenthood groups rendered services in connection with the Women's Health Program as they were not deemed to be ineligible under the legislation I just quoted. In February 2012, the Commission adopted a new definition of "affiliate" that had the effect of bringing these PP organizations within the scope of the legislative bar. The organizations then challenged the constitutionality of that regulation, arguing that the conditions placed on the receipt of public funds are unconstitutional.**

The basic point here is that no one is alleging that Planned Parenthood is doing anything criminal or improper with the public funds it received under the program, and, importantly, the AG did not initiate any prosecution of PP making any such claims. Texas enacted a statute prohibiting any "affiliate" of an organization that performs abortions from receiving public funds. Putting aside the constitutional challenges to that statute, as a general matter, is Texas not free to do that? You've claimed over and over again that there should be some "wrongdoing" shown (though you've never clearly stated whether "wrongdoing" means illegal activity or something less than that), and that would be true if we were talking about a criminal or civil prosecution of PP for violating some applicable regulation. But that isn't what's happening here, at all. Surely it can't be the case that a state must identify "wrongdoing" in order to make its own decisions about who is entitled to receive state money-- can it?

**(All of the quotations in this paragraph are from the district court's decision in Planned Parenthood Ass'n of Hidalgo County Texas, Inc. v. Suehs, 2012 WL 1502439 (W.D. Tex. 2012). I am not sure if this case is available freely online; I found it in the commercial Westlaw database. If RandFan or anyone else wants to read it for themselves, feel free to send me a PM and I will email you a copy of it. Lest I be accused of plagiarism, I'll also add that much of the material lacking quotation marks is either pasted or a close paraphrase from that decision.)