Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

Not only that, but being judgmental and dismissive. 'Might'? That's your only criteria for trying to deny women an integral part of reproductive health?
 
RandFan said:
Do you have evidence that it is being indirectly used? Do you declare that money earmarked for abortion isn't used for non-abortion services? You are speculating and making assumptions were you have no evidence.
Click to expand...

Where have I made any claim about what PP is actually doing? I've seen no evidence they're not scrupulous about this stuff.

SGM was attacking the basis of the question (there's nothing wrong with tax dollars going to abortions), and I was explaining the relevance of the question, not which way it should be answered in this case.
 
AvalonXQ said:
SGM was attacking the basis of the question (there's nothing wrong with tax dollars going to abortions), and I was explaining the relevance of the question, not which way it should be answered in this case.
Click to expand...

What I am challenging here is your assumption that tax dollars are going to abortions AT ALL.
 
RandFan said:
No. And it could be the case that PP raises far more than 3% of their revenue for abortions but chooses not to do more than 3%.

Yes, and it could be that they raise far more than 3% for abortions but choose to only do 3%.

It's empirical. Look. How much did they raise? How much did they spend? Do the math.
Click to expand...
I'm not following you here. I thought you were suggesting that, from an ex ante perspective, we should expect PP to apply only 3% of any general funds freed up by earmarked donations to provision of abortion services, and my point is there's no reason to expect that to be the case simply because it has been the case in the recent past that about 3% of their resources went to abortions. I don't understand how this responds to that. Moreover, you seem to be assuming throughout that every penny that PP raises is earmarked for some specific use. I conceded two pages ago that if that's the case, the analogy fails. You've yet to show that it is the case. And if a significant portion of their income is not earmarked for a specific use, it doesn't help to talk about how much they raise "for abortions" vs. not for abortions-- I'm assuming that a big chunk of the money is not earmarked for any particular purpose.

This makes absolutely no sense. It is what it is. How many abortions do they perform? What is the national average of per abortion expenditures? Multiply the one by the other. Now, divide that total by total revenue. If the resources expended for abortions is greater than revenue for abortions then they are spending too much.
Click to expand...
Again you're confusing retrospective vs. prospective here. My point, once again, is that there's no reason to assume that application of general funds freed up by non-abortion earmarks to abortion services will be limited to 3%. And again your reference to "spending too much" assumes that everything is earmarked for a particular purpose, which at the very least has not been established to be true.

If they spend more on abortion services than they raise for abortion services than they are breaking the law.
Click to expand...
No, that isn't true, because not all contributions are earmarked. If they spend more on abortion services than the sum of their general unearmarked fund and funds raised for abortion specifically, then they're breaking the law, because those other funds must come from non-abortion earmarks. You claim to understand my argument, but over and over (and over...) you ignore the presence of the general, non-earmarked fund, which is central to my point.

Which of the following propositions is not possible?

  • PP raises much more than 3% earmarked for abortions.
  • PP chooses to only use 3% to avoid any financial conflict.
  • Therefore, if they stopped doing non-abortions services they could do more abortions.
Click to expand...
See above. Not everything is earmarked. Although if they did raise money earmarked for abortions and chose to use it for some other purpose, that, I assume, would violate the law just as using funds earmarked for non-abortions to provide abortions would.
 
Last edited:
Silly Green Monkey said:
What I am challenging here is your assumption that tax dollars are going to abortions AT ALL.
Click to expand...

You may be saying that now; it's not what you were saying in the posts I addressed.

In the post I responded to, you made it clear that if tax dollars do result in more funded abortions, then:
Silly Green Monkey said:
That's a GOOD THING. HELLO???
Click to expand...
I was explaining why it's not.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Ah, yes, pedantry at its finest.

The point stands: the decision has been made that taxpayer money is not to be used for abortion, because many taxpayers, even those who support a woman's right to choose, don't agree that the rest of us should be expected to pay for a choice we may morally disagree with. Therefore, it is very relevant as to where tax money is going when it might be used to directly or indirectly fund abortions.
Click to expand...

Please don't accuse me of pedantry when I'm quoting you:

AvalonXQ said:
Then get out your checkbook; PP takes donations.

The point is that Americans have made it very clear that tax dollars are not to find abortions; that many Americans disagree with most abortions, even among those who agree that it's a woman's own choice.
Click to expand...

This is something you are objectively wrong on (the opinion of Americans re: abortions), and you are using it to support something else (the opinion of Americans re: tax dollars being spent on abortions). You would have a stronger, salient point if you didn't try to say that most Americans oppose abortion. Just stick to the tax dollars bit and your stance is much stronger!
 
AvalonXQ said:
You may be saying that now; it's not what you were saying in the posts I addressed.

In the post I responded to, you made it clear that if tax dollars do result in more funded abortions, then:

I was explaining why it's not.
Click to expand...

It would be a good thing and needs to happen. Just because a bunch of people get together and decide they think it's wrong, doesn't mean that a single woman should die or suffer for them.
 
A Laughing Baby said:
This is something you are objectively wrong on (the opinion of Americans re: abortions),
Click to expand...

No, I'm not.

About half the country is anti-abortion.

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".

In other words, while there is a clear split in the country on the availability of abortion, it is clear that most Americans do not agree with most of the abortions that actually occur.

Certainly the majority has made it clear that they don't want to pay for them.
 
JamesDillon said:
I'm not following you here. I thought you were suggesting that, from an ex ante perspective, we should expect PP to apply only 3% of any general funds freed up by earmarked donations to provision of abortion services, and my point is there's no reason to expect that to be the case simply because it has been the case in the recent past that about 3% of their resources went to abortions. I don't understand how this responds to that. Moreover, you seem to be assuming throughout that every penny that PP raises is earmarked for some specific use. I conceded two pages ago that if that's the case, the analogy fails. You've yet to show that it is the case. And if a significant portion of their income is not earmarked for a specific use, it doesn't help to talk about how much they raise "for abortions" vs. not for abortions-- I'm assuming that a big chunk of the money is not earmarked for any particular purpose.
Click to expand...
I make no such assumptions. I'm simply avoiding making this far more complicated than need be. Money not earmarked for any particular purpose and not prohibited by law from being used for abortions can be used for abortion related services. Set theory.

  • X = Public funds prohibited by law to be used for abortions.
  • Y = Not X (all funds that are not public funds prohibited for abortions).
  • A = Monies expended on abortion services.
All I need to show is that you have not made a case that A > Y

Again you're confusing retrospective vs. prospective here. My point, once again, is that there's no reason to assume that application of general funds freed up by non-abortion earmarks to abortion services will be limited to 3%. And again your reference to "spending too much" assumes that everything is earmarked for a particular purpose, which at the very least has not been established to be true.
Click to expand...
Again, you have failed to show: A > Y

No, that isn't true, because not all contributions are earmarked.
Click to expand...
But funds not earmarked for non-abortion services (X) exist in a set outside of funds that can be used for abortions services (Y). A cannot be greater than Y.

If they spend more on abortion services than the sum of their general unearmarked fund and funds raised for abortion specifically, then they're breaking the law, because those other funds must come from non-abortion earmarks. You claim to understand my argument, but over and over (and over...) you ignore the presence of the general, non-earmarked fund, which is central to my point.
Click to expand...
No I have not. If money that is not by law prohibited from being used for abortions (part of Y) then all PP need do is to ensure that A does not exceed Y

See above. Not everything is earmarked. Although if they did raise money earmarked for abortions and chose to use it for some other purpose, that, I assume, would violate the law just as using funds earmarked for non-abortions to provide abortions would.
Click to expand...
There is nothing untoward about using their money for abortions. So long as A > Y
 
AvalonXQ said:
No, I'm not.

About half the country is anti-abortion.

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".

In other words, while there is a clear split in the country on the availability of abortion, it is clear that most Americans do not agree with most of the abortions that actually occur.

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

I can just assign sentiments to groups of people without citing anything too, watch! Of the posters on JREF, a very common sentiment is "I like to say things without linking to polls or papers supporting my stance, even when I may be correct."

Look. All I'm saying is that you're conflating "many" with "most," and I have an issue with that. That's the problem. It's just as easy to say the following, based on a pro-life website's own stated statistics that I took the 12 seconds to look up for you:

ALB said:
Many Americans are okay with tax dollars going toward funding abortion.
Click to expand...

This is based off the number given in the bullet list of 52% opposing the government "funding abortions," which is similar to the 52% calling themselves "pro-choice" from the Rasmussen poll I linked. Do you see how that is deceptive?
 
RandFan said:
I make no such assumptions. I'm simply avoiding making this far more complicated than need be. Money not earmarked for any particular purpose and not prohibited by law from being used for abortions can be used for abortion related services. Set theory.

  • X = Public funds prohibited by law to be used for abortions.
  • Y = Not X (all funds that are not public funds prohibited for abortions).
  • A = Monies expended on abortion services.
All I need to show is that you have not made a case that A > Y
Click to expand...
No, that isn't true. Which premise do you disagree with?

1. PP starts the fiscal year with a budget in place that includes both abortion and non-abortion services.
2. To the extent it lacks earmarked funds to cover non-abortion services, PP must meet its budget commitments for those services through its general, non-earmarked fund.
3. If PP receives a donation earmarked for non-abortion use, the commitment of its general fund toward its non-abortion budget is concomitantly reduced on a 1-to-1 basis.
4. PP is free to use any general funds thus freed from commitment to its non-abortion budget for any purpose it desires, either the provision of abortion or non-abortion services.
5. Therefore, donations to PP earmarked for non-abortion services have the direct effect of increasing PP's potential to fund abortion services.

In other words, the provision of earmarked funds changes the balance of non-earmarked funds that must be allocated to PP's budgeted non-abortion activities, thereby leaving it with additional unrestricted funds. I'm not claiming that PP uses public funds to pay for abortions. I am claiming that donation of public funds allows it, if it so desires, to allocate more of its general, unrestricted fund to abortions than it otherwise would have been able to because of budget commitments to non-abortion services.

ETA:

I feel like we've already been through this, but here's an example:

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.
 
Last edited:
JamesDillon said:
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.
Click to expand...

And if Planned Parenthood uses any of that $20 earmarked for non-abortion services for abortion services, they have to make a record of it. What happens when they are audited?
 
johnny karate said:
And if Planned Parenthood uses any of that $20 earmarked for non-abortion services for abortion services, they have to make a record of it. What happens when they are audited?
Click to expand...

Please reread the paragraph you quoted. The $20 they'd be using comes from their general, non-earmarked fund.
 
Last edited:
JamesDillon said:
No, that isn't true. Which premise do you disagree with?

1. PP starts the fiscal year with a budget in place that includes both abortion and non-abortion services.
2. To the extent it lacks earmarked funds to cover non-abortion services, PP must meet its budget commitments for those services through its general, non-earmarked fund.
3. If PP receives a donation earmarked for non-abortion use, the commitment of its general fund toward its non-abortion budget is concomitantly reduced on a 1-to-1 basis.
4. PP is free to use any general funds thus freed from commitment to its non-abortion budget for any purpose it desires, either the provision of abortion or non-abortion services.
5. Therefore, donations to PP earmarked for non-abortion services have the direct effect of increasing PP's potential to fund abortion services.

In other words, the provision of earmarked funds changes the balance of non-earmarked funds that must be allocated to PP's budgeted non-abortion activities, thereby leaving it with additional unrestricted funds. I'm not claiming that PP uses public funds to pay for abortions. I am claiming that donation of public funds allows it, if it so desires to allocate more of its general, unrestricted fund to abortions than it otherwise would have been able to because of budget commitments to non-abortion services.
Click to expand...

  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.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
And if Planned Parenthood uses any of that $20 earmarked for non-abortion services for abortion services, they have to make a record of it. What happens when they are audited?
Click to expand...

Yeah, the problem is the existence of a discretionary fund in the middle.

Let me give you an extreme example.

Year 1, before government funding:
$10 private used for abortion
$20 private used for other services

Year 2, after government funding of $20:
$30 private used for abortion
$20 government money used for other services
 
AvalonXQ said:
Yeah, the problem is the existence of a discretionary fund in the middle.

Let me give you an extreme example.

Year 1, before government funding:
$10 private used for abortion
$20 private used for other services

Year 2, after government funding of $20:
$30 private used for abortion
$20 government money used for other services
Click to expand...

And how does Planned Parenthood account for that money in their audit?
 
AvalonXQ said:
Yeah, the problem is the existence of a discretionary fund in the middle.

Let me give you an extreme example.

Year 1, before government funding:
$10 private used for abortion
$20 private used for other services

Year 2, after government funding of $20:
$30 private used for abortion
$20 government money used for other services
Click to expand...
Hence the reason for audits. Money tends to leave a trail, even in cash businesses. But PP isn't a cash business. If they performed more abortions then variable costs would increase (payroll for doctors and nurses, medical supplies, etc.). Just audit their books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom