Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[JamesDillon]

You keep saying the problem is empirical.

I thought I was saying the opposite of that, at least as to the potentiality issue.

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.

But that 3% figure isn't entrenched in PP's by-laws, is it? It simply happens to be the case that, as of today (or as of whenever the most recent statistics are available), the organization devoted approximately 3% of its resources to providing abortions and the other 97% to other services? There's nothing to prevent it from increasing that provision to 5%, or 10%, is there? If not, then I don't see the relevance of this argument; if there's no external constraint on what proportion of resources PP funnels into abortions, there seems no basis for the assumption that it would only put 3% of whatever additional general fund money is freed up by earmarked donations into abortion provision. In any case, how much donation money is earmarked for non-abortion services? I have no idea-- tens of thousands? Millions? This is of course speculation but that sounds like far more than necessary to fund a single additional abortion, so it seems like the potentiality point survives even if we do assume a 3% rate going forward.

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.

Again all of this seems to assume a model in which money is being surreptitiously channeled from non-abortion projects to abortion provisions; at the risk of seeming condescending, I'll say again that I'm not suggesting anything like that. What I am suggesting is totally above-board: PP receives donations earmarked for non-abortion activities, uses that money for the activities for which it's provided, and then has more money left over in its general, non-earmarked account than it otherwise would have-- money that it then can use, if it wants to, to increase funding for abortion services. I'm not talking about hiding money or using it for improper purposes.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

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

This. While yes, money is fungible, there is no evidence that public funds earmarked for other health services are freeing up (a significant amount of) money to be used for abortions.

It could very well be that PP without public money allocates $X for abortion services, and $Y for other reproductive/women's/sex health services. But when the state gives public funds ($Z) for those other services, the money allocated for them becomes $Y+$Z, while the money allocated for abortion services remains at $X. Rather than shifting money out of $Y (which is replaced by $Z) and adding it to $X.

As for the comparison to a terrorist organization, the comparison may have been technically valid to make a point, but to think that there was no ulterior political motive in drawing the comparison between PP and terrorism is, IMO, naive.

 

[Beerina]

I'm at a loss. What is wrong with people?

The anti-abortion crowd has behaved like actual terrorists in the past, bombing and shooting up places.

It's extremely rare, to be sure, but exceeds similar incidents by Planned Parenthood, of which there aren't any I am aware of.

 

[quadraginta]

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.

Purposes like TERRORISM!!!!!

Oh. wait.

That was an accident. It was a completely uncontrived and unintentional reference, and the fact that the people who made it in the first place equate any and all abortions with the indiscriminate, wholesale murder of helpless innocents is purely coincidental.

Right.

(If anyone truly believes this I have a great bargain on magic beans I can offer. Just PM your credit card info. You'll be climbin' that beanstalk to the clouds in no time.)

--------------------------------------------------

I cheerfully acknowledge the right that people have to make statements and comparisons such as the Texas AG did in this case, regardless of how off-the-wall or prejudicial those may be.

But I deplore the rank dishonesty that they exhibit when issuing such "updates".

What is even worse, in my opinion, is that other people are either gullible enough to believe them when they spew out chicken-****, CYA tripe like that, or are themselves disingenuous enough to pretend that they do.

So much for having the courage of their convictions. Just slimy, opportunist, backpedaling pols. And the willingly self-lobotomized ideologues they feed off of.

 

[rwguinn]

Sure. Bad choice in comparisons. That doesn't mean everyone reading it should ignore what was actually said and jump to "Planned Parenthood is terrorists?! That's preposterous!"

This would be like if I said "I love Hitler's mustache," and everyone accused me of saying I love Hitler.

Then the article is intellectually dishonest a second time, when they say that the eight Planned Parenthoods taking part in the women's health initiative don't perform abortion procedures. This is technically true, as the abortions are a separate company. Two seconds of cruising their web site, however, shows that they do provide information on abortions and refer you to the other branch of PP should you want one.

Don't think for a minute that it was simply a "Bad choice in comparisons". The wording was intentional, meant to stir up the knee-jerk reactions from the tea-party-leaning, flag-waving "true patriots"^TM who are Perry's base...

 

[AvalonXQ]

What a stupid article.

The attorney general cited a Supreme Court case that supported their proposition. The Supreme Court case recognized that earmarking funds for desirable activities doesn't stop the money from also impacting the availability of undesirable activites. The Supreme Court case happened to be about terrorist organizations.

The attorney general properly argued, in a brief, that the logic applied in that case was also applicable here - earmarking funds for women's health services doesn't stop the money from also impacting the availability of abortions.

The argument didn't rely on abortions being terrorism or PP being terrorists, and nowhere in the brief was any of that said. Has anyone here actually read the brief?

This is fantastic journalism. I can't wait to go back and find a brief by Obama's lawyers citing a precedent in a case defending a rapist or murderer, and claim that the lawyers are "comparing citizen X to a rapist". Just because the logic and case law applies doesn't mean someone is implying the situations are identical.

 

[Caper]

The anti-abortion crowd has behaved like actual terrorists in the past, bombing and shooting up places.

It's extremely rare, to be sure, but exceeds similar incidents by Planned Parenthood, of which there aren't any I am aware of.

That's funny... I get scolded when I talk about extreme acts inflicted on people because of abortion.....

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

What I am suggesting is totally above-board: PP receives donations earmarked for non-abortion activities, uses that money for the activities for which it's provided, and then has more money left over in its general, non-earmarked account than it otherwise would have-- money that it then can use, if it wants to, to increase funding for abortion services. I'm not talking about hiding money or using it for improper purposes.

That's a GOOD THING. HELLO???

 

[AvalonXQ]

That's a GOOD THING. HELLO???

No, it's not.

Taxpayers don't want to pay for abortions.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

I sure as hell do.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I sure as hell do.

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.

The whole argument is predicated on the premise that we need to figure out whether tax dollars really end up paying for abortions, because that's not what taxpayers want to spend the money on.

This is an important question, despite the fact that some people (like you) are just fine if tax dollars do go to fund abortions.

 

[A Laughing Baby]

No, it's not.

SOME Taxpayers don't want to pay for abortions, and others do not.

I fixed this so that you are not speaking on behalf of literally an entire country. Bolded additions are mine.

Edit: Also like the wording as "many" taxpayers being against abortion, when even according to Rasmussen:

Overall, 51% of Likely U.S. Voters consider themselves pro-choice when it comes to abortion, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey. Forty percent (40%) say they are pro-life, while another 10% are undecided.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

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.

The whole argument is predicated on the premise that we need to figure out whether tax dollars really end up paying for abortions, because that's not what taxpayers want to spend the money on.

This is an important question, despite the fact that some people (like you) are just fine if tax dollars do go to fund abortions.

I may not make much, but I make enough to pay taxes.

How dare you presume to speak for me.

 

[AvalonXQ]

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.

 

[RandFan]

But that 3% figure isn't entrenched in PP's by-laws, is it?

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%.

It simply happens to be the case that, as of today (or as of whenever the most recent statistics are available), the organization devoted approximately 3% of its resources to providing abortions and the other 97% to other services?

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

There's nothing to prevent it from increasing that provision to 5%, or 10%, is there? If not, then I don't see the relevance of this argument

It's empirical. Look. How much did they raise? How much did they spend? Do the math.

....if there's no external constraint on what proportion of resources PP funnels into abortions, there seems no basis for the assumption that it would only put 3% of whatever additional general fund money is freed up by earmarked donations into abortion provision.

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.

In any case, how much donation money is earmarked for non-abortion services? I have no idea-- tens of thousands? Millions? This is of course speculation but that sounds like far more than necessary to fund a single additional abortion, so it seems like the potentiality point survives even if we do assume a 3% rate going forward.

Of COURSE there is a potential that was conceded.

Again all of this seems to assume a model in which money is being surreptitiously channeled from non-abortion projects to abortion provisions; at the risk of seeming condescending, I'll say again that I'm not suggesting anything like that. What I am suggesting is totally above-board: PP receives donations earmarked for non-abortion activities, uses that money for the activities for which it's provided, and then has more money left over in its general, non-earmarked account than it otherwise would have-- money that it then can use, if it wants to, to increase funding for abortion services. I'm not talking about hiding money or using it for improper purposes.

If they spend more on abortion services than they raise for abortion services then they are breaking the law.

I said a long time ago (before post 46) that you had a point. I said in my last post I agree you have a point. Like roads benefit PP public funds for breast cancer screenings and other services could benefit PPs providing of abortions but even if it were so, a tiny fraction would be the result.

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-abortion services they could do more abortions.

Since you don't know you can only speculate.

 

[JamesDillon]

What a stupid article.

The attorney general cited a Supreme Court case that supported their proposition. The Supreme Court case recognized that earmarking funds for desirable activities doesn't stop the money from also impacting the availability of undesirable activites. The Supreme Court case happened to be about terrorist organizations.

The attorney general properly argued, in a brief, that the logic applied in that case was also applicable here - earmarking funds for women's health services doesn't stop the money from also impacting the availability of abortions.

The argument didn't rely on abortions being terrorism or PP being terrorists, and nowhere in the brief was any of that said. Has anyone here actually read the brief?

This is fantastic journalism. I can't wait to go back and find a brief by Obama's lawyers citing a precedent in a case defending a rapist or murderer, and claim that the lawyers are "comparing citizen X to a rapist". Just because the logic and case law applies doesn't mean someone is implying the situations are identical.

This is an excellent point as well. The assumption through a lot of this discussion has been that Texas could have analogized this to whatever it wanted and chose terrorism out of some ulterior motive. The fact is that lawyers reason by analogy to prior cases all the time and the universe of prior cases on point, particularly at the Supreme Court level, is finite. I can't think of another case involving some other organization where the same analogy could be drawn; the fact that this case happened to be about terrorist funding really has nothing to do with its legal relevance.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I'll admit, I do wonder a little bit why PP doesn't break off a completely separate organization to handle the abortions, with no cross-funding.

That way folks can villify/defund the abortion part all they want, while hopefully supporting the contraceptive and health services, and the abortion part can operate entirely from the donations specifically to it (which should be more than sufficient if what they claim now is accurate).

 

[RandFan]

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.

Yes, and A.) public roads, utilities, police, fire fighters, etc. make it so PP can more easily provide help for abortions. B.) It's possible that the non-abortions services restrict/hinder the number of abortions performed.

Not all of them.

If planned parenthood is breaking the law then the AG should shut them down and throw them in jail. Would you not agree? We are talking about the legal ones. The ones PP perform.

 

[RandFan]

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.

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.

 

[RandFan]

This. While yes, money is fungible, there is no evidence that public funds earmarked for other health services are freeing up (a significant amount of) money to be used for abortions.

It could very well be that PP without public money allocates $X for abortion services, and $Y for other reproductive/women's/sex health services. But when the state gives public funds ($Z) for those other services, the money allocated for them becomes $Y+$Z, while the money allocated for abortion services remains at $X. Rather than shifting money out of $Y (which is replaced by $Z) and adding it to $X.

As for the comparison to a terrorist organization, the comparison may have been technically valid to make a point, but to think that there was no ulterior political motive in drawing the comparison between PP and terrorism is, IMO, naive.

You beat me to it. PP could very well keeps aborton services to less that the percentage raised for abortion services.