Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

RandFan said:
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.
Click to expand...

But the AGs point is that you can't separate which dollar was spent on which service. Therefore, any money given to PP from the State can be assumed to be spent on abortion services - just like we can assume that any aid given to a terrorist organization is used to fund terrorism. The intent of the money is irrelevant. That's why the SCOTUS case was cited.
 
xjx388 said:
But the AGs point is that you can't separate which dollar was spent on which service. Therefore, any money given to PP from the State can be assumed to be spent on abortion services - just like we can assume that any aid given to a terrorist organization is used to fund terrorism. The intent of the money is irrelevant. That's why the SCOTUS case was cited.
Click to expand...

Because the amount that Planned Parenthood receives in donations exceeds that which is necessary for abortions, there is no reason for them to tap into federal funds.

But I am loving this line of reasoning because now it is safe to assume that any religious organization which is receiving federal funds for legal non-secular activities is using them for illegal non-secular actives. Not only should those federal funds be cut off, but those religious institutions should be audited and their tax-exempt status reconsidered.
 
bookitty said:
But I am loving this line of reasoning because now it is safe to assume that any religious organization which is receiving federal funds for legal non-secular activities is using them for illegal non-secular actives.
Click to expand...

Cut out the word "illegal", and your argument is perfectly valid.

Note that the government has already made that argument, citing the same terrorist case, as James posted earlier.

The difference is that we didn't have sensationalist media in that case making it seem like a perfectly normal use of a legal citation is tantamount to accusing the other side of terrorism.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Cut out the word "illegal", and your argument is perfectly valid.

Note that the government has already made that argument, citing the same terrorist case, as James posted earlier.

The difference is that we didn't have sensationalist media in that case making it seem like a perfectly normal use of a legal citation is tantamount to accusing the other side of terrorism.
Click to expand...

Federal funds earmarked to provide social service can not be used for religious purposes. It is forbidden by the first amendment. It is illegal.
 
JamesDillon said:
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?
Click to expand...
It's a bit of a perspective thing. Texas doesn't want public funds to facilitate more abortions. If true that public funds increases abortions then it could be argued to be a misuse of funds. However, to move the discussion forward I will not use the word "misuse". Let's see if we can identify whether or not public funding likely increased abortions in your example.

Before I post my example let me ask you a question (not relevant to the example below). Let's assume PP is active in Texas with no public funding. Let's assume they budget $3 for abortion services and $97 for non abortion services. Is there anything preventing them from changing their mind during the year and changing their budget so that the ratio moves 3:97 to 10:90?

Okay, so on with the example:

auditow.jpg


In this instance abortion services as a percentage has increased dramatically and clearly it is due to the increase in public funds.

Now, obviously I kept the example simple to make a point. A real world example would be far more complex. I can think of a number of ways to obscure some percentage of public funds. Particularly using indirect expenditures. Fixed assets, labor, etc.. But in the end, increasing abortion services to any significant amount is going to change the ratio and it is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
 
xjx388 said:
But the AGs point is that you can't separate which dollar was spent on which service. Therefore, any money given to PP from the State can be assumed to be spent on abortion services - just like we can assume that any aid given to a terrorist organization is used to fund terrorism. The intent of the money is irrelevant. That's why the SCOTUS case was cited.
Click to expand...

  • The AG can conduct an audit on PP.
  • The AG can identify the percentage of abortion services to non-abortion services or to total expenditures.
  • We cannot conduct such audits on terrorist organizations.
 
RandFan said:
Now, obviously I kept the example simple to make a point. A real world example would be far more complex. I can think of a number of ways to obscure some percentage of public funds. Particularly using indirect expenditures. Fixed assets, labor, etc.. But in the end, increasing abortion services to any significant amount is going to change the ratio and it is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
Click to expand...
BTW: comparing two years, before and after public funding, isn't necessary. I was simply trying to respond to your example where you introduce public funding mid course.
 
AvalonXQ said:
Oh, okay.
Click to expand...

So if this is true
“Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies — even if ‘earmarked’ for nonabortion activities — free up other resources for Planned Parenthood to spend on its mission to promote elective abortions
Click to expand...

So is this:
“Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies — even if ‘earmarked’ for health care — free up other resources for the Catholic Church to spend on its mission to cover up or provide restitution to the victims of sexual abuse.
 
bookitty said:
So if this is true


So is this:
“Money is fungible, and taxpayer subsidies — even if ‘earmarked’ for health care — free up other resources for the Catholic Church to spend on its mission to cover up or provide restitution to the victims of sexual abuse.
Click to expand...

No disagreement from me.

Don't forget that I'm a borderline libertarian; I prefer that all this government spending gets cut and placed back into peoples' pockets, where they can give it to whatever organizations they choose under whatever terms they prefer.
 
AvalonXQ said:
No disagreement from me.

Don't forget that I'm a borderline libertarian; I prefer that all this government spending gets cut and placed back into peoples' pockets, where they can give it to whatever organizations they choose under whatever terms they prefer.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Eliminate government funding from the equation and there are no issues with PP, abortions, etc. You support what you want and the Christians will support what they want.
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
It's a bit of a perspective thing. Texas doesn't want public funds to facilitate more abortions. If true that public funds increases abortions then it could be argued to be a misuse of funds. However, to move the discussion forward I will not use the word "misuse". Let's see if we can identify whether or not public funding likely increased abortions in your example.

Before I post my example let me ask you a question (not relevant to the example below). Let's assume PP is active in Texas with no public funding. Let's assume they budget $3 for abortion services and $97 for non abortion services. Is there anything preventing them from changing their mind during the year and changing their budget so that the ratio moves 3:97 to 10:90?

Okay, so on with the example:

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/5160/auditow.jpg

In this instance abortion services as a percentage has increased dramatically and clearly it is due to the increase in public funds.

Now, obviously I kept the example simple to make a point. A real world example would be far more complex. I can think of a number of ways to obscure some percentage of public funds. Particularly using indirect expenditures. Fixed assets, labor, etc.. But in the end, increasing abortion services to any significant amount is going to change the ratio and it is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
Click to expand...

You're right that it's obvious that abortion services (coincidentally) increased by close to the amount of government earmarks for non-abortion services. However, when you examine the books, it will be quite clear that none of the Government funds were used for abortion services.

This, I believe, is the point that is being made. IF a politcal organization with both legal political functions and illegal terrorist functions are viewed in the whole, that money given to the organization, even earmarked for legal political work, supports the legal and illegal activities, then the same principle should apply to Planned Parenthood, and yes, religious organizations providing secular services.

The same argument has even been applied to food stamps. FS can only be used on certain products, but it frees up money that would have been spent on those acceptable products, allowing it to be spent on tobacco, alcohol, and what not.

The key is, when is fungible money tolerable (perhaps PP, FS, Religious secular activities, and when is it not (perhaps some Political/Terrorist groups, PP, FS, Religious secular activities).

Seems that to prevent the problem, that the organizations entire budget must be published and accepted prior to additional funding being applied.
 
The Greater Fool said:
Seems that to prevent the problem, that the organizations entire budget must be published and accepted prior to additional funding being applied.
Click to expand...

Or, you could leave the government entirely out of funding any charities. Then there are no issues with what they use their money for.
 
The Greater Fool said:
You're right that it's obvious that abortion services (coincidentally) increased by close to the amount of government earmarks for non-abortion services. However, when you examine the books, it will be quite clear that none of the Government funds were used for abortion services.
Click to expand...
I would characterize it differently. What can be be argued is that there exists plausible deniability that the funds were used for abortion services. On the other hand a reasonable argument can be made that there is an appearance that public funds increase abortion services, would you agree? In that case I would be more interested in the fungibility argument.

I suspect that PP has had sufficient rectal exams (they have opened their books to hostile entities) to know that they must avoid the appearance of impropriety. Though I will concede that it can be difficult.

This, I believe, is the point that is being made. IF a politcal organization with both legal political functions and illegal terrorist functions are viewed in the whole, that money given to the organization, even earmarked for legal political work, supports the legal and illegal activities, then the same principle should apply to Planned Parenthood, and yes, religious organizations providing secular services.

The same argument has even been applied to food stamps. FS can only be used on certain products, but it frees up money that would have been spent on those acceptable products, allowing it to be spent on tobacco, alcohol, and what not.

The key is, when is fungible money tolerable (perhaps PP, FS, Religious secular activities, and when is it not (perhaps some Political/Terrorist groups, PP, FS, Religious secular activities).

Seems that to prevent the problem, that the organizations entire budget must be published and accepted prior to additional funding being applied.
Click to expand...
I would be in favor of this.
 
Fwiw:

I'm going to stop defending the OP. I think it likely was political theater but I'm wiling to concede that it was also the only straw that the AG had and can be argued to be on point.

That's all I have to say on that. :)
 
And I am pretty sure it wasn't political theater; it could only even be made to look like it by the article's careful use of selective ellipsis.

We'll never know for sure, and it doesn't really matter.
 
xjx388 said:
Or, you could leave the government entirely out of funding any charities. Then there are no issues with what they use their money for.
Click to expand...

Well that's just a wee bit knee-jerk, over-simplified and smug.

Using PP as the example - The US does not have the funds to create a state-run system to provide healthcare for the millions of people currently served by PP. And, yes I know where you stand on that - Tough titties poor folk! If you haven't got the cash, keep your legs shut. (and also don't be genetically prone to cervical, breast, or testicular cancer. And if you're already pregnant, just drop the kid in a field like women have been doing since the dawn of time.)

It also totally ignores several factors. Birth control is a terrific way to postpone pregnancy. Planning for a family allows people to finish high school & college and later earn more money which pays more taxes. Preventative care can reduce costs and People who are crippled by untreated illness do not work and become a drain on the system. Prenatal care is the very first step towards productive citizenry because health babies and children have a better chance to become tax-paying citizens. And that's just Planned Parenthood.

A healthier society has a higher percentage of people who are capable of contributing.
 
The Greater Fool said:
This, I believe, is the point that is being made. IF a politcal organization with both legal political functions and illegal terrorist functions are viewed in the whole, that money given to the organization, even earmarked for legal political work, supports the legal and illegal activities, then the same principle should apply to Planned Parenthood, and yes, religious organizations providing secular services.
Click to expand...

The key difference is that the activities of concern amongst terrorist groups are illegal regardless of whether they receive federal support. In the case of PP, as with faith based initiatives, the only thing that makes the activities of concern a problem is that while perfectly legal by themselves, they are illegal for the federal government to fund (by statute for PP, by constitution for churches).

This is why I think the law is not properly applied in the case of PP (or faith based initiatives). I was simply pointing out the consequences of ruling with the AG in this situation. If this law is found to apply to PP, becuase of fungibility, then by extension it also applies to faith based initiatives, an outcome that would not be welcome by those attempting to defund PP.
 
Slightly off-topic, but as of today Arizona is following Texas's lead and banning Planned Parenthood from receiving state funds.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom