Texas Repubs pass abortion bill

[thaiboxerken]

It's really not that complicated. PP has strict rules they have to follow about money and, strangely enough, they manage not to violate them. If you think it's somehow impossible for them to actually abide by them you should probably take that up with your representative, but until then it appears you're making an argument from ignorance: you don't understand it, so it can't be true.

I can agree with your argument. While money is fungible, it's easy enough to show where different funds are being spent.

Of course, conservatives tend to ignore the "money is fungible" argument when it's aimed at organizations that they support.

 

[elbe]

I can agree with your argument. While money is fungible, it's easy enough to show where different funds are being spent.

Of course, conservatives tend to ignore the "money is fungible" argument when it's aimed at organizations that they support.

I have no problem with money being fungible, but it's not like PP just gets all their money in a giant pile of paper that they have to sort through.

 

[xjx388]

It's really not that complicated. PP has strict rules they have to follow about money and, strangely enough, they manage not to violate them. If you think it's somehow impossible for them to actually abide by them you should probably take that up with your representative, but until then it appears you're making an argument from ignorance: you don't understand it, so it can't be true.

Are they paid in US dollars for all their services? Then you can't escape the fungibility of money.

Can you link to these rules? Is the rule basically: We have an account with the money we get from the State and that only pays for state covered services? You still haven't escaped the fungibility of money.

If anyone is arguing from ignorance, it would be you. This is a well-established concept in economics.

 

[elbe]

Are they paid in US dollars for all their services? Then you can't escape the fungibility of money.

Can you link to these rules? Is the rule basically: We have an account with the money we get from the State and that only pays for state covered services? You still haven't escaped the fungibility of money.

If anyone is arguing from ignorance, it would be you. This is a well-established concept in economics.

Take it up with your representatives. They haven't been shown to violate the legal restriction on federal money going to pay for abortions so until someone can demonstrate that they have I'm going to have to take their word for it that they have somehow managed to separate their finances - even if by magic.

 

[xjx388]

I can agree with your argument. While money is fungible, it's easy enough to show where different funds are being spent.

And any such labeling is purely artificial.

Of course, conservatives tend to ignore the "money is fungible" argument when it's aimed at organizations that they support.

Agree 100%.

 

[thaiboxerken]

And any such labeling is purely artificial.

Agree 100%.

I don't agree that receipts are purely artificial.

I get paid by my company for my labor. They also pay me for expenses, but I have to show receipts. The means that they give me money that is not "fungible."

 

[ponderingturtle]

How do they separate the money? It all kind of looks alike . . . That's the reason why Texas did what it did. By giving money to PP for contraceptives, they are freeing up money for them to provide abortions. It's simple economics. You can't escape the fact that money is fungible; there is no special exception in this case.

I never realized that before. How can a bank keep my money separate from your money? Its simple ecconomics you are stealing my money!

 

[ponderingturtle]

I can agree with your argument. While money is fungible, it's easy enough to show where different funds are being spent.

Of course, conservatives tend to ignore the "money is fungible" argument when it's aimed at organizations that they support.

The thing is that abortion opponents want to stop them from all activities like std screening and general womens health issues. Prenatal care isn't something the poor deserve in their minds.

 

[ponderingturtle]

And any such labeling is purely artificial.

Agree 100%.

Yes like banks trying to say this is my money vs your money. This is also a totally artificial distinction. Doesn't mean it isn't real.

 

[A'isha]

How do they separate the money? It all kind of looks alike . . .

Someone gives you $10,000 with the understanding that you can only use that money to buy a car, and not buy anything else with it. You take that $10,000 to the bank and deposit it in a special account separate from your regular checking account. On your way home from the bank, you stop at the grocery story to buy a week's worth of groceries, using the debit card tied to your regular checking account.

How much of your $10,000 car fund have you spent on groceries? If you check your balance on that new bank account, will it show a debit in the amount you spent on groceries?

That's the reason why Texas did what it did.

No, Texas did what it did because Tea Party Republicans wanted to screw over women.

By giving money to PP for contraceptives, they are freeing up money for them to provide abortions. It's simple economics. You can't escape the fact that money is fungible; there is no special exception in this case.

This is weak, and is nothing more than a cheap excuse to try and completely destroy Planned Parenthood.

And that's your opinion. Maybe they just want to stop people from killing babies.

If so, then they sure aren't acting like that's the case.

In any case, I only care about their opinions as they apply to legislation.

And Dewhurst's and Laubenberg's opinions as they apply to legislation have been made explicitly clear.

That map was not created by him but by a pro-choice group.

So? He tweeted it as if he completely agreed with it.

And it was exceedingly stupid for Dewhurst to tweet that.

I'm glad he did, because it shows the claim that Texas Republicans are only doing this to protect unborn children and that they aren't trying to close those clinics down completely to be the unmitigated ******** it really is.

I question the validity of the data upon which that map was created. The problem is, there is no reference to the data that I can find.

Dewhurst didn't question it, and in fact was pleased as punch at the prospect of 37 out of 42 clinics closing.

If that actually happens, then you might have a point. Luckily, those clinics have until Sep 2014 to make their case in the courts.

Your argument seems to have gone from "this bill doesn't change anything and doesn't put any clinics at risk of closure" to "these clinics have plenty of time to fight the bill in the courts to prevent their closure".

 

[Alt+F4]

Why do women get a special right that men do not have?

Because they give birth to the child. They risk their health/lives doing that. Men just get a "happy ending". That's why women get the special right.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

Don't forget that not only do rural women have to go further to find one of the fewer, more crowded abortion clinics.
They have to go twice.

This costs more money.
This takes more time off work.

I have to wonder what abortion is being stopped by all this.
It's not going to be the urban, glamorously single women who get stopped. They have closer access, more education and money, and they can even go out of state if necessary. If they could get them before, these new procedures merely annoy them.

It's going to be the poor, ill-educated and rural, in disproportionate amounts. Unable to afford travelling hundreds of miles (twice), costing them two days off work, at least they won't burden the few remaining clinics.

So they'll have them anyway. In back alleys with a coathanger, by visiting unlicensed quacks or taking house-remedy abortifacients (and ending up in A&E) or other procedures that are riskier and less reliable. Look it up - this is what denying abortion access causes.

Just as many dead embryos.
A lot more dead women.

And if they succeed - what are the penalties? Jail? For being desperate?

 

[Alt+F4]

The most basic rule for men when it comes to sex is this: bag it or you may have to pay up for years, and years and years.

 

[xjx388]

It's shocking to me that you guys don't understand a simple concept like the fungibility of money.

You can label different piles of cash whatever you want to, but in the end, its still all one pile of cash under your control. It's not like Benjamin A can only be used to pay for Contraceptives and Benjamin B can only be used to pay for Abortions. Any budgeting labels you put on your money are illusions. It's all the same money.

Let's pretend a person makes $3000 per month. Let's assume that this is enough to meet all their bills and provide food and shelter, but no luxuries. Now, let's say this person's parents give them $200 to buy food. This person goes directly to the store and spends the 2 Benjamins on enough groceries for two weeks. Now the person doesn't have to spend the money in their bank on food. That money is freed up for other things. Because money is fungible, in reality all that person did was spend the $200 on those other things.

I never realized that before. How can a bank keep my money separate from your money? Its simple ecconomics you are stealing my money!

Yes like banks trying to say this is my money vs your money. This is also a totally artificial distinction. Doesn't mean it isn't real.

Banks don't escape it either. It's still all the bank's money. When you give the bank your money, it gets put in banks coffers and the bank promises to pay you what's in your account. But your account is an illusion because they don't have a bin in a vault with "ponderingturtle's" money in it and another with "xjx388's" in it. Our accounts are nothing more than a ledger entry and a "promise to pay." The bank takes "our" money and lends it out, invests it, etc. So if everyone ran to their bank to demand "their" money, it wouldn't be there and the bank would fail. The bank has enough in reserve to let daily transactions process but not enough to give everyone what's in their accounts if they all decided to pull it out at one time. That's why the FDIC exists.

If one donates to Hezbollah but tells them, "I only want you to use that money to fund the hospitals you run, not terrorism," I don't think that will hold up well when the FBI arrests them for supporting terrorism.

PP can avoid the whole issue easily by spinning the abortion services off into a separate company. Then the govt would have no claims about money fungibility.

 

[A'isha]

It's shocking to me that you guys don't understand a simple concept like the fungibility of money.

We understand it. We're saying it's a meaningless rhetorical dodge used to justify the gutting of women's health services.

If that argument had any real merit, the law preventing Planned Parenthood from using federal money to pay for abortions wouldn't exist.

If one donates to Hezbollah but tells them, "I only want you to use that money to fund the hospitals you run, not terrorism," I don't think that will hold up well when the FBI arrests them for supporting terrorism.

Because it's illegal to fund Hezbollah for whatever reason, not because it's illegal to only fund Hezbollah's terrorist activities.

PP can avoid the whole issue easily by spinning the abortion services off into a separate company. Then the govt would have no claims about money fungibility.

Tea Party Republicans would just find some other excuse, then. Because they don't care about "money fungibility" any more than they actually care about the health of unborn children, and are merely looking for a way to justify their defunding of these clinics.

 

[ArmillarySphere]

And fungibility is trivially sorted by proper accounting.

A clinic receives $10M to provide general health service. It also receives $2M to provide abortions.

The extra money allows them to hire one extra doctor and some staff, most of whose time is spent doing abortions. The clinic also has fixed expenses such as rent.

The abortion budget is now reduced by an appropriate amount to help pay for fixed costs and other benefits from being under the same roof. Say $0.5M is spent on such things. That means that the government gets $0.5M more general health services than it otherwise would. No money from the government goes to abortions, but the abortion money also helps pay for extra healthcare, free of charge to the taxpayers.

 

[Dr. Keith]

I am quite aware of it. But there are equal amounts of law based on the notion that we cannot do whatever we want to with our bodies and certainly not with the bodies of third parties.

I can't sell my kidney. I can't snort coke. I can't kill other people. I can't make other people donate organs to save my life. I can't force a woman to carry my baby.

I don't see this as any different. A man should be able to decide whether or not he wants to be a parent. In the present scheme of things, a woman makes that decision not just for herself, but for the man as well. Her decision what to do with her body affects the man directly -which makes it more than just a decision that only affects her. Add to that the unborn child and it makes it that much less about her.

I see from the bolded that we are in agreement.

 

[xjx388]

We understand it. We're saying it's a meaningless rhetorical dodge used to justify the gutting of women's health services.

No. If you understood it, you would see that funding an organization that provides abortions is the same as funding abortions.

If that argument had any real merit, the law preventing Planned Parenthood from using federal money to pay for abortions wouldn't exist.

The law exists because of the recognition that most Americans don't want to pay for other people's abortions. Maybe that has changed in the years since the Hyde Amendment was created, but that remains for lawmakers to change.

In any case, for me the goal is not to gut women's health services or punish women for their sexual activity or any such nonsense. I think the goal is to protect the unborn child. That's it.

Because it's illegal to fund Hezbollah for whatever reason, not because it's illegal to only fund Hezbollah's terrorist activities.

But why is it illegal to fund Hezbollah? Because money is fungible.

Tea Party Republicans would just find some other excuse, then. Because they don't care about "money fungibility" any more than they actually care about the health of unborn children, and are merely looking for a way to justify their defunding of these clinics.

That's your own projections upon them. I think most of them do care about the health of unborn children. You just disagree so they have to be monsters.

 

[xjx388]

And fungibility is trivially sorted by proper accounting.

A clinic receives $10M to provide general health service. It also receives $2M to provide abortions.

The extra money allows them to hire one extra doctor and some staff, most of whose time is spent doing abortions. The clinic also has fixed expenses such as rent.

The abortion budget is now reduced by an appropriate amount to help pay for fixed costs and other benefits from being under the same roof. Say $0.5M is spent on such things. That means that the government gets $0.5M more general health services than it otherwise would. No money from the government goes to abortions, but the abortion money also helps pay for extra healthcare, free of charge to the taxpayers.

Then you should have no problem with American (or British) citizens funding Hezbollah's charitable works. Just make sure to tell Hezbollah to hire a good accountant and that the money is ONLY for their hospitals and schools, not to fund attacks against us.

 

[Alt+F4]

If one donates to Hezbollah....

Talk about kicking the can down the road on an abortion thread.

I'm sure there is a thread somewhere here about "evil banks".