Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[JamesDillon]

Points ignored.

That is false. Asking you to explain what you mean by a point is not ignoring it. I still don't understand what you're getting at with this, and if you refuse to elaborate, I'm not going to guess.

If it helps move the conversation along, it's hard to deny that anything is a "theoretical possibility." I have a tough time envisioning how not accepting public funds would enable PP to perform more abortions, and more to the point, I fail to see what possible relevance it has.

ETA: I assumed that the "Points ignored" assertion in the post to which I'm replying here referred only to the part in bold, but I see looking at your original post that that part was bolded there too, so now I'm unsure whether you're accusing me of ignoring only that point (which, as the link above shows, I did not) or the points listed above that, or some unknown combination. For the record, I responded to those other points, too. I'm sorry if it confuses you that I tend not to follow the common practice here of posting responses on a sentence-by-sentence basis; I find that doing so tends to encourage (intentional or otherwise) selective quotation or taking arguments out of context. That's particularly true where all of the individually enumerated points you made in that list contained the same flaws, which I explained at length.

I've said before, and I'll say again, if you feel I've ignored a specific point that's important, tell me what it is and I'll be happy to address it. But simply quoting your own post to which I've already responded at length is not at all helpful in telling me what it is I've supposedly ignored.

 

[JamesDillon]

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





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.

I'm perfectly happy to accept "don't like" as synonymous with "bad." It's actually better because it allows us to maintain an external perspective on the Texas legislature's decision. But read what I wrote above about the history of this case. Is the Texas legislature not free to refuse to allocate public funds to people who do things it doesn't like-- even if no public money would go to support those things? Can't the legislature-- which has ultimate control over and responsibility for public funds-- refuse to hand out money to whomever it wants for whatever reason it wants, subject only to constitutional constraints about, say, not discriminating on the basis of race? In other words, surely "wrongdoing" isn't necessary for the legislature to legitimately say, "We don't like you, so we're not giving you any of our money"?

 

[This is The End]

Once again, citing a case that happens to be about terrorism in a legal brief is not a "comparison" at all. It is simply an analogy of a discrete legal issue that's present in the instant case to a decision on an analogous point in a prior case, which is the core of how the common law system works.

^ This precisely.

I disagree completely.

We choose the analogies we use. The analogy can shed light on what we want to say.

Especially when there are many other analogies that could have been used.

If it really was the only analogy that could have gotten the message across, then any reasonable person would have acknowledged it in their next or previous sentence...

Something like: "I know it is an inappropriate analogy but..."

Otherwise, it is a very offhanded way to try and frame peoples perceptions.

I really can't believe we don't all know about this trick.

 

[JamesDillon]

I disagree completely.

We choose the analogies we use. The analogy can shed light on what we want to say.

Especially when there are many other analogies that could have been used.

If it really was the only analogy that could have gotten the message across, then any reasonable person would have acknowledged it in their next or previous sentence...

Something like: "I know it is an inappropriate analogy but..."

Otherwise, it is a very offhanded way to try and frame peoples perceptions.

I really can't believe we don't all know about this trick.

A citation to a legal decision is not simply "an analogy." That's just not how legal briefs are written. Analogies are made to cases, and as I said before, the universe of cases is finite.

And, again, the analogy was not inappropriate. It was more or less exactly on point. And, yet again, no one in the intended audience is going to understand Texas to be drawing a moral comparison between Planned Parenthood and a terrorist organization by the simple fact of its citation to the HLP decision.

 

[This is The End]

A citation to a legal decision is not simply "an analogy." That's just not how legal briefs are written. Analogies are made to cases, and as I said before, the universe of cases is finite.

And, again, the analogy was not inappropriate. It was more or less exactly on point. And, yet again, no one in the intended audience is going to understand Texas to be drawing a moral comparison between Planned Parenthood and a terrorist organization by the simple fact of its citation to the HLP decision.

Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't understand what I meant by "inappropriate"??? Inappropriate to the specifics of the analogy, not the specifics of the law!

I covered that in what you quote.

The person could have said something like:

"I know this is a really inappropriate analogy but..."

Most everyone agrees that terrorism is bad. Abortions, not so much.

 

[JamesDillon]

Are you seriously trying to tell me you don't understand what I meant by "inappropriate"??? Inappropriate to the specifics of the analogy, not the specifics of the law!

I covered that in what you quote.

The person could have said something like:

"I know this is a really inappropriate analogy but..."

Most everyone agrees that terrorism is bad. Abortions, not so much.

No, I guess I don't understand what "inappropriate to the specifics of the analogy" means. But whatever it means, I think the facts that I already stated-- 1) the analogy was "appropriate" in the sense of legal relevance; and 2) no one in the intended audience would read the AG's citation as drawing a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization-- show that the analogy was not inappropriate in any way.

Go read the post in which I talked about Ernesto Miranda, I think it's on page four. Lawyers cite to cases involving unsavory parties all the time. It is probably not an overstatement to suggest that the Miranda decision gets cited in briefs every single day. And no legal professional reading those briefs would even entertain the notion that by citing Miranda, one side or the other intends to imply that the defendant in the instant case is as bad a guy as Miranda was. That just isn't how legal reasoning works.

 

[RandFan]

That is false.

This isn't a substantive response. I asked if it were possible. I didn't ask you if it were true.

For the record, I responded to those other points, too.

No, not substantively.

I've said before, and I'll say again, if you feel I've ignored a specific point that's important, tell me what it is and I'll be happy to address it.

You enumerated some premises and asked me which were true. I did likewise. Now, just tell me if the premises are true or not. I will edit them to make them real simple. Just 3 premises.

1. Assuming for the sake of argument that only funds earmarked for abortion can be used for abortions, PP could have an excess of abortion funds to offset any shortfall.
2. Non-public funds that are not be earmarked for abortions can be used for abortions.
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.

All I need is for you to acknowledge whether or not these premises are true or not. If you want to expand on that then fine.

 

[This is The End]

No, I guess I don't understand what "inappropriate to the specifics of the analogy" means.

Well your next sentence is what I'm referring to:

But whatever it means, I think the facts that I already stated-- 1) the analogy was "appropriate" in the sense of legal relevance; and 2) no one in the intended audience would read the AG's citation as drawing a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization-- show that the analogy was not inappropriate in any way.

That is what I meant. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Though I'm not so sure about the "no on in the intended audience would read" part....

Otherwise that is spot on:

1) the analogy was "appropriate" in the sense of legal relevance

2) the analogy was "inappropriate" in that someone could mis-read it as drawing a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization


Again, using an analogy to frame peoples perceptions is a common trick. Slanted news organizations do that quite often.

If they really had no choice in this specific case, they could have added a clarifying statement.

 

[JamesDillon]

This isn't a substantive response. I asked if it were possible. I didn't ask you if it were true.

No, not substantively.

You enumerated some premises and asked me which were true. I did likewise. Now, just tell me if the premises are true or not. I will edit them to make them real simple. Just 3 premises.

1. Assuming for the sake of argument that only funds earmarked for abortion can be used for abortions, PP could have an excess of abortion funds to offset any shortfall.

1. 
   I addressed this here. Did I not?
   

   [*]Non-public funds that are not be earmarked for abortions can be used for abortions.

   Addressed here, in the parenthetical PS.
   

   [*]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.

Also addressed here-- the same post as your first point.

All I need is for you to acknowledge whether or not these premises are true or not. If you want to expand on that then fine.

As you see, I have in fact addressed each of these points. If you have some follow-up question that isn't simply repeating the ground we've already been over and over, I'd be happy to answer it.

 

[JamesDillon]

Well your next sentence is what I'm referring to:



That is what I meant. I'm sorry for the confusion.

Though I'm not so sure about the "no on in the intended audience would read" part....

Otherwise that is spot on:

1) the analogy was "appropriate" in the sense of legal relevance

2) the analogy was "inappropriate" in that someone could mis-read it as drawing a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization


Again, using an analogy to frame peoples perceptions is a common trick. Slanted news organizations do that quite often.

If they really had no choice in this specific case, they could have added a clarifying statement.

But again-- that just isn't how legal documents are written. Again, briefs cite cases with unsavory parties-- terrorists, rapists, murderers, embezzlers, etc. etc.-- all the time. Context is essential here if you want to make a credible argument. And the context here is that this was a legal document submitted to a federal court of appeals, written in legalese and intended to be read primarily by legally trained federal judges and their clerks. People who read briefs for a living, all day, every day. It simply is not necessary to put in some kind of disclaimer saying that "In citing this case I don't intend to draw a moral comparison between the parties," because no one in the target audience would ever in a million years have assumed that such a comparison was intended.

 

[RandFan]

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?

According to the plaintiffs, no.

source Although the nine Planned Parenthood organizations that sued maintain legal and financial separation from any entity that performs abortions and do not provide or encourage abortions, they could not certify compliance with this new rule because of how it defines the term "affiliate." They therefore sued challenging the rule on the basis of federal constitutional law as well as on state-law grounds, and sought a preliminary injunction to prevent irreparable injury and to preserve the court's ability to make a meaningful decision on the merits of the lawsuit.

But let's try to advance the discussion. There is nothing that I know of that would preclude the State of Texas from enacting statutes.

My points are as follows:

• This statute is in bad faith. It harms people who need these services for political purposes (these organizations do not perform abortions).
• It harms the organization as it casts aspersions on them (why would organizations not engaged in wrong doing be denied the opportunity to provide free health services to the poor).

See, I keep making the point about "wrong doing" because it's critical to my argument. Absent wrong doing on the part of PP the statute is in bad faith and politically motivated.

 

[This is The End]

But again-- that just isn't how legal documents are written. Again, briefs cite cases with unsavory parties-- terrorists, rapists, murderers, embezzlers, etc. etc.-- all the time. Context is essential here if you want to make a credible argument. And the context here is that this was a legal document submitted to a federal court of appeals, written in legalese and intended to be read primarily by legally trained federal judges and their clerks. People who read briefs for a living, all day, every day. It simply is not necessary to put in some kind of disclaimer saying that "In citing this case I don't intend to draw a moral comparison between the parties," because no one in the target audience would ever in a million years have assumed that such a comparison was intended.

Well I'll just have to take your word on that.

Do such documents normally make it into the public? Or are they normally private?

 

[JamesDillon]

According to the plaintiffs, no.

Absolutely true. And honestly, I don't know enough about their constitutional claims to have an informed view as to whether they're valid or not.

But let's try to advance the discussion. There is nothing that I know of that would preclude the State of Texas from enacting statutes.

My points are as follows:

• This statute is in bad faith. It harms people who need these services for political purposes (these organizations do not perform abortions).
• It harms the organization as it casts aspersions on them (why would organizations not engaged in wrong doing be denied the opportunity to provide free health services to the poor).

See, I keep making the point about "wrong doing" because it's critical to my argument. Absent wrong doing on the part of PP the statute is in bad faith and politically motivated.

[/QUOTE]
I agree 100% with everything you say here. Of course it's in bad faith. Of course it's politically motivated (but "politically motivated" isn't such a bad thing for a legislature, is it? Don't we expect-- even want-- legislatures to act politically?). The Texas legislature is a bunch of reactionary bastards and this statute has the effect of screwing over poor women who need affordable health care because Texans think abortion is icky. Totally in agreement with you there.

But let's remember, it's the job of the Attorney General to defend the policies of the State of Texas in court. And where we started out, and the only thing I think we really disagree on, was whether the AG's citation to the HLP case in its legal brief was or was not appropriate. I say there was nothing unusual or remarkable about that citation; the analogy may not have been perfect, but it was well within the bounds of ordinary legal argumentation, and it wouldn't have been interpreted by the target audience as drawing any moral comparison between Planned Parenthood and a terrorist organization. That narrow point is not really relevant to the bigger question of whether this statute is a good idea, or even whether the legislature has a good argument that providing public funding to Planned Parenthood will have the effect of increasing abortions. It seems like you've been trying to argue with the legislature's decision, not the AG's choice of legal citation, in most of this thread. But the two aren't really the same thing, and I'm certainly not defending the former.

 

[RandFan]

I apologize. Sincerely. It was late when I read your responses and when I got up today I had assumed that they had not been responded to. I think I even quoted your responses to me and then responded. So, again, I'm sorry.

Sure, that's true, but seems a bit trivial.

It's not trivial at all. It's all important. PP knows that they are walking on thin ice. They know that state and federal law prohibits the use of public funds for abortions. There is a simple solution. Take in more than you expend.

I'll follow up with the others in a moment.

 

[JamesDillon]

Well I'll just have to take your word on that.

I've been thinking about that. Yes, this is to some extent an appeal to authority. Perhaps self-serving on my part to say this now, but I don't think appeals to authority are always fallacious, particularly where questions of professional culture are involved. You're not going to find, and I certainly can't show you, any double-blind study showing that legal professionals don't read citations to cases as implying moral comparisons between the parties. Such a study just doesn't exist. I don't know how, short of sitting through, at minimum, a semester of legal research and writing, that could be demonstrated to any non-lawyer by means other than a lawyer saying "Take my word for it."

I would suggest, though, that it's really implicit in the logic of common-law reasoning, and you can read enough about that on Wikipedia or other sources to get a sense of it. In a system based on analogy to rules set forth in prior decisions, it just wouldn't make any sense to read citations as implying moral comparisons between the parties. Beyond that, I think this is an interesting problem and goes well beyond the immediate discussion. We take the words of experts on matters within the scope of their expertise all the time-- not because the facts they're attesting to are not out there for us to verify, but that the investment of time and energy it would take to master the subject well enough to verify them is simply impossible for any one person to expend. If we really wanted to never accept the word of authority, we'd have to become independent experts in everything. Nobody can do that.

Sorry that's a little tangential, but I think it's an interesting point.

Do such documents normally make it into the public? Or are they normally private?

These documents are available to the public, but typically at a cost. Most court documents can be found on the PACER website, I think the going rate is about ten cents a page. But, to anticipate your next point (and I said this earlier to someone else), I don't think the fact that legal briefs are publicly available leads to a reasonable inference that the AG in this case was pitching his argument to the public rather than the court. These things may be "public," but they're not exactly beach reading.

 

[RandFan]

Absolutely true. And honestly, I don't know enough about their constitutional claims to have an informed view as to whether they're valid or not.

I agree 100% with everything you say here. Of course it's in bad faith. Of course it's politically motivated (but "politically motivated" isn't such a bad thing for a legislature, is it? Don't we expect-- even want-- legislatures to act politically?). The Texas legislature is a bunch of reactionary bastards and this statute has the effect of screwing over poor women who need affordable health care because Texans think abortion is icky. Totally in agreement with you there.

But let's remember, it's the job of the Attorney General to defend the policies of the State of Texas in court. And where we started out, and the only thing I think we really disagree on, was whether the AG's citation to the HLP case in its legal brief was or was not appropriate. I say there was nothing unusual or remarkable about that citation; the analogy may not have been perfect, but it was well within the bounds of ordinary legal argumentation, and it wouldn't have been interpreted by the target audience as drawing any moral comparison between Planned Parenthood and a terrorist organization. That narrow point is not really relevant to the bigger question of whether this statute is a good idea, or even whether the legislature has a good argument that providing public funding to Planned Parenthood will have the effect of increasing abortions. It seems like you've been trying to argue with the legislature's decision, not the AG's choice of legal citation, in most of this thread. But the two aren't really the same thing, and I'm certainly not defending the former.

Good post. Thank you.

 

[RandFan]

PP Budget for Fiscal Year 2013
Non-abortion services: $97
Abortion services: $3

PP Assets at the beginning of FY13
General fund: $79
Abortion earmarks: $1
Non-abortion earmarks: $20

In that case, PP must allocate $77 from its general fund to non-abortion services and $2 to abortion services in order to meet its budget commitments. But if a state or someone else comes along and donates $20 earmarked for non-abortion services, PP then need only allocate 57 general fund dollars to pay for non-abortion services. It now has $20 in discretionary funds that it may allocate to abortion or non-abortion services. It is not the case here that A > Y, in your example, but it is the case that PP's potential to fund abortions is greater, by the exact amount of the earmarked donation, than it was before it received that donation.

Okay, I had to quote this as I think it is a concise and well illustrated example of James' argument (and I missed it).

I understand the argument. I do. However, I don't think it is as difficult to audit for though as you do in order to determine if funds are being improperly used. I will say up front, that it's not possible to account for every dollar in such a model. But one can get a fairly accurate picture (which is why I keep referencing cash businesses and the IRS. As an auditor that is the kind of stuff I kept with) It's late and I'm tired. I will post a sample audit using your model tomorrow.

 

[This is The End]

Good post. Thank you.

That goes for JD's next post after that one as well. Thanks for the info JD.

 

[JamesDillon]

Okay, I had to quote this as I think it is a concise and well illustrated example of James' argument (and I missed it).

I understand the argument. I do. However, I don't think it is as difficult to audit for though as you do in order to determine if funds are being improperly used. I will say up front, that it's not possible to account for every dollar in such a model. But one can get a fairly accurate picture (which is why I keep referencing cash businesses and the IRS. As an auditor that is the kind of stuff I kept with) It's late and I'm tired. I will post a sample audit using your model tomorrow.

I may well be misunderstanding a point about finance that you, as an auditor, think is completely obvious. But I don't see that my argument here assumes any misuse of funds. PP plans to spend $77 from its general fund for non-abortion services. PP gets an earmarked donation of $20, which it applies to its non-abortion budget. PP then only has to spend $57 from the general fund-- so it has an extra 20 bucks that it can now spend on whatever it wants, without breaking any laws and without using any money improperly. Am I wrong about that?

 

[AvalonXQ]

I disagree completely.

We choose the analogies we use. The analogy can shed light on what we want to say.

Especially when there are many other analogies that could have been used.

This is usually not true with SCOTUS precedents. Usually there will be one case that establishes your point.

If you can identify another Supreme Court decision that stands for the same proposition as the one they cited, you might have a point.