Planned Parenthood

Libertarians Should Look Twice at Planned Parenthood Defunding Efforts

GOP move to "defund Planned Parenthood" isn't all it's cracked up to be.

|

BLMurch/Flickr

As soon as next Monday, the U.S. Senate may vote on whether to nix all federal funding for Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), the organization responsible for operating hundreds of reproductive health-care clinics around the country. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) have been leading a group of GOP senators in crafting and promoting legislation to "defund Planned Parenthood," which has long been a target of conservative ire because some of its clinics perform abortions. 

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has also been backing the measure, telling The Washington Post that lawmakers are "energized and excited" about the prospect for a vote. "If we get 54 Republicans and three or four Democrats, well, that's 58 votes," said Paul. "We can build on that." Sixty votes are needed for the measure to pass. 

Libertarians on all sides of the abortion debate tend to find fault with the hefty government funding Planned Parenthood receives—to the tune of more than $500 million annually, between state and federal sources. The money is mostly barred from being used for abortions, but that's not necessarily a comfort from a fiscal perspective.

Yet GOP efforts to cut back on PPFA funding will likely provide little comfort to libertarians, either. Some Republicans have been proposing that the funding not be cut but simply transferred to nonprofit "crisis pregnancy centers," which provide things like pregnancy tests, counseling, and baby clothes to pregnant women but do not offer abortions (or any sort of medical care). 

Further complicating things is the fact that much of Planned Parenthood's funding comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursement. To stop Planned Parenthood from getting that money, Congress would have to bar Medicaid patients from visiting there for generally covered services such as contraception, sterilization, and HPV vaccines. Ostensibly, Medicaid patients would go elsewhere for these services, saving nothing overall while imposing an arbitrary restraint on patient choice. 

Planned Parenthood was recently the subject of a sting operation designed to portray the organization's fetal-tissue collection programs as illegally profiting from the sale of human body parts. A third video from the operations was released this week, and features a woman who says she worked for a company that harvested organs from aborted fetuses provided by Planned Parenthood. Since then, Planned Parenthood says its website has been downed twice by hackers using distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the group behind the videos, the Center for Medical Progress, from releasing footage featuring executives from California company StemExpress, which provides researchers with fetal tissue; and Planned Parenthood is asking the National Institutes of Health to convene a panel to study issue surrounding fetal tissue research. 

@SenateMajLdr/Twitter

Planned Parenthood clinics don't seem to be doing anything illegal, at least not broadly. Women who have abortions may lawfully donate the fetal tissue for scientific research, and clinics are allowed to receive reimbursement for the cost of things such as storage and transportation. In 1988, the Reagan administration banned the donation of fetal tissue from elective abortions, but the moratorium was lifted by Congress in 1993 as part of the National Institutes of Health Revitalization Act. Several Republicans who have recently condemned Planned Parenthood for its fetal tissue program—including Sen. McConnell—voted for the 1993 bill.  

Regardless, the videos have sparked heated discussion on fetal tissue research and abortion more broadly. And Republicans quickly seized on the opportunity to push for blocking Planned Parenthood from receiving federal aid

Hillary Clinton—who has been getting blasted by Paul for getting donations from Planned Parenthood—called the videos "disturbing," but pointed out that Planned Parenthood "has done a lot of really good work for women: cancer screenings, family planning, all kinds of health services." Showing a bit more vim and vigor, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Tuesday tweeted: "To Republicans who are trying to defund Planned Parenthood: Good luck with that." 

Never one to miss a "war on women" rallying cry, Reid added that "Republican efforts to defund Planned Parenthood are just another GOP attack on women's health." 

But Reid may be semi-right in this case. Congressional Republicans aren't really opposing Planned Parenthood funding on limited-government leanings. And while they pretend this is a blow against abortion, the money Planned Parenthood gets from the government is to subsidize non-abortion services only—things like cervical cancer screenings, STD testing, and writing birth-control prescriptions for low-income women. Some Republicans, meanwhile, want to give that money to groups that give little more than faith-based pregnancy advice. 

What's more likely is a bill that simply tells Medicaid patients to stay away from Planned Parenthood clinics, and redistributes all grant money going to Planned Parenthood to other women-focused health groups. "Funds no longer available to Planned Parenthood will continue to be offered to other eligible entities to provide such women's health care services," Senate Republicans said in a statement. 

PrettyKateMachine/Flickr

But wait a second… if everyone is supposed to have health insurance these days, doesn't that mean everyone already has access to subsidized gynecological exams, sexual health screenings, and birth control? Indeed. Obviously not everyone has health insurance in actuality, but the client pool for free clinics that provide these services still must have shrunk in the wake of the Affordable Care Act. Allowing birth control pills to be sold over-the-counter could help shrink it further. I'm not saying the need for low-cost women's health services is now or would be nonexistent, but these organizations can (and do) also receive funding from local governments, private foundations, and religious groups. 

Perhaps more diverse funding would spawn more diverse options, instead of contributing to this sort of reproductive-health monolith situation we have now. Part of the reason Planned Parenthood in particular attracts so much pro-life attention is that it's become the symbol of all abortion providers in America. Ironically, the pro-life movement helped bring about this situation. With the ever-increasing (and unnecessary) regulations abortion clinics are subject to, and the constant threat they face of being shut down by state governments, only those big and powerful enough to afford compliance and/or lawsuits have been able to survive. Taken together with its institutionalized support, its no wonder Planned Parenthood has become the what it is today. 

For the record, I think Planned Parenthood clinics do a lot of good. But as a lobbying group, which it is as well, the organization has been as gross as any other, launching attacks on policies that might be good for low-income women but bad for its own bottom line. Most recently, the organization has been opposing proposals to make birth control pills available over-the-counter (OTC), asserting that this would decrease women's "access" to birth control.

It's the same strange logic seen from Democrats, who say prescription-free pills would be more expensive for women since we all get "free" birth control now under Obamacare. Of course, there's nothing saying OTC pills must come at the expense of the contraception mandate, nor that they would obviate the market for prescription pills. But what's interesting is that the liberal logic here rests on a world where all women have free access to birth control through their insurance plans—plans which would then, by definition, also cover other preventative care of the kind provided by Planned Parenthood. So which is it? Are "well-woman" services outside of the traditional doctor/insurance scheme totally unnecessary now that we have Obamacare, or an absolutely vital component to women's health?  

I guess this is the point in the post where I've reached "a pox on both their houses" territory. And we can expect the political circus around this to get much worse before anything productive happens. If Senate Republicans can't get enough votes to pass the Planned Parenthood defunding bill, their counterparts in the House are threatening not to support any government spending bill that provides money to PPFA. 

"Please know that we cannot and will not support any funding resolution—an appropriations bill, an omnibus package, a continuing resolution or otherwise—that contains any funding for Planned Parenthood, including mandatory funding streams," House Republicans wrote in a letter Wednesday. 

We're due for the much-hyped "government shutdown" in two months if Congress doesn't pass any new appropriations bills, so Republicans and Democrats are going to have to come together on this one eventually. But I suspect we're in for a lot of hyperbolic headlines, heated abortion debates, and war-on-women rhetoric in the meantime, and—whether Planned Parenthood is eventually cut off or not—a solution that somehow perfectly maintains the status quo.

Advertisement

NEXT: Hosers

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Planned Parenthood clinics don’t seem to be doing anything illegal, at least not broadly…

    Well fuck, let’s keep borrowing money and sending it to them.

    1. I agree, there is no feel good government program that doesn’t deserve borrowed money.

      Also, when PP spends its grant money for facilities, equipment, and health services for things other than abortions, do they do this in buildings and with employees who have nothing to do with their abortion business? If they are using grant money to support infrastructure, equipment, and supplies in the same facility that they perform abortions in, how can they claim that this grant money doesn’t contribute or aid in their abortion business? Unless they have separate facilities and employees strictly for abortions, funded privately and separately from their other non abortion facilities, the money they receive cannot be said to be separate and spent on separate things. the fact is the grant money is supporting the abortion business one way or another if it is happening with the same employees at the same facilities.

      1. You also have to take into account that their equipment may have processed peanuts, tree nuts, and soy at one point.

      2. the fact is the grant money is supporting the abortion business one way or another if it is happening with the same employees at the same facilities.

        It’s a national organization and money is fungible. It’d be like saying Raytheon is receiving government funds for robotics research and navigation systems, not for guided missiles.

    2. You’ve got to admit, it’s almost a breath of fresh air….

    3. Yes! More money for the abortion mill, also, Obama should pardon Kermit Gosnell. Then Gosnell can become PP’s new chief medical director. I can see it now, Gosnell dining on a casserole of fetal organs over Rafa beams and a nice chianti.

  2. According to the commentariat at HuffPo, it would be the end of the world as we know it.

    1. But do they feel fine?

    2. Very, very view people are capable of a broader perspective. Planned Parenthood is either good, in which case it’s good, which means it’s good, and if anything bad happens to it, that’s bad. Or it’s bad, like BAD, in which case anything bad that happens to it is good, no matter what that thing is or how it’s accomplished.

      I was actually pretty impressed with this article for toeing that line and taking a wider view. It’s probably gonna piss off everybody.

    3. It always seemed bizarre to me that progs are so obsessed with institutional infanticide.

    4. Well, that’s not a surprise. Somehow, someway, the Left conflates the right to an abortion (Roe v Wade, 1973) with the funding of PP. They always do this.

      Logically, it is stupid to claim defunding PP will overturn Roe. But no one has a “positive right” to an abortion.

  3. If half of PP’s operating budget is publicly funded, couldn’t they just double the price of the baby parts?

    1. You’re not helping my baby cyborg robot army budget at all.

      1. My latina nanny cyborg robot army will first pacify your tiny baby cyborg robot army, then ignore it entirely while texting on their smart phones.

      2. Aww, cute!

    2. Particularly for the ‘desired’ parts of a (formerly) healthy fetus.

      No one wants the Mongoloid fetal parts. No salvage value for retards.

  4. But as a lobbying group, which it is as well…

    The ultimate in beltway synergy. Legislators send tax dollars to a group of people so that that group of people can turn around and send it back the legislators’ way.

    1. Sounds like every public employee union in existence

    2. But what’s the wealth multiplier?

  5. I love the smell of abortion (talk) in the morning.

    1. It smells like… rancid body parts.

      1. Only the non-valuable ones. The ones that are worth something are stored for transportation…to be reimbursed at reasonable cost.

        1. A whole new take on “meatpacking”

      2. Dragged on a table in a factory
        Illegitimate place to be
        In a packet in a lavatory
        Die little baby screaming

        Body screaming fucking bloody mess
        Not an animal it’s an abortion

        Body I’m not an animal
        Mummy I’m an abortion
        Throbbing squirm, gurgling bloody mess
        I’m not a discharge
        I’m not a loss in protein
        I’m not a throbbing squirm

        Ah! Fuck this and fuck that
        Fuck it all tha fuck out of the fucking brat

        1. +1 ignored bollock

        2. I mean, false.

    2. For breakfast this morning I had a sausage, onion, and baby-parts deep dish pizza.

      1. what? No foreskin toppings?

        1. Placental dipping sauce?

          1. I knew a lady that saved her placenta and later ate it. Guess where she was from.

            1. Must be California?

            2. The forest?

        2. No; I bought it from a kosher deli

      2. Deep-dish pizza is not pizza, it’s a casserole.

    3. They need the click bait revenue for the weekend.

  6. “Planned Parenthood was recently the subject of a sting operation designed to portray the organization’s fetal-tissue collection programs as illegally profiting from the sale of human body parts.”

    I’m not so sure there was any design involved. The full-length videos were available for everyone to watch and the PP staff did a wonderful job of at least making it appear they were willing to tapdance down or even over the line of “reasonable” storage and transportation costs. The discussion of changing the abortion procedure without consent so as to preserve the most and/or most valuable organs is in and of itself at least unethical, if not actually illegal.

    Don’t want that one line to detract from what is an otherwise excellent article though.

    1. Are libertarians seriously getting upset about a market in human organs? I thought we were all in favor of people being able to sell their organs.

      1. Get the baby to sign on the dotted line, then we’ll talk.

        1. The baby can’t consent. Neither can a 1 year old or a 10 year old, for that matter. It’s up to the parents.

          1. The baby can’t consent. Neither can a 1 year old or a 10 year old, for that matter. It’s up to the parents.

            Parents can sell their 1 year old or 10 year old children’s body parts?

            1. Parents can sell their 1 year old or 10 year old children’s body parts?

              After the kid is dead? Of course, why not?

              1. Even when the parents killed the kid?

          2. “The baby can’t consent.”

            Isn’t that uh sort of the point?

          3. Seems like a conflict of interest there buddy. Kid can’t consent to it’s own death either. And a Death Row inmate cannot consent to being an organ donor either (the government coercion as it drools in anticipation of picking that carcass clean)

        2. Maybe most of you know this is not a problem for me, but in case you don’t, know it now.

      2. I guess you would be fine with people getting pregnant just so they can sell the parts as well. Selling your own part is one thing selling the parts of someone who can’t consent is another which was outlawed when we had that little civil unrest back in 1861.

      3. I thought we were all in favor of people being able to sell their organs.

        Setting aside the fact that a fetus can’t consent to selling its organ, the videos clearly show that the patients aren’t being fully informed that the procedure is being altered to better preserve organs. That’s dishonest and its not consent.

      4. If this doesn’t make you question the definition of ‘non-aggression’ , then please – open a fetal parts farm. You house the pregnant women, you feed them, you provide them medical care. Just like an egg laying chicken.

        Then, you get the ol’ Hoover 5 hp suction abortion machine, careful to crush in all the right areas, extracting as many valuable pieces as possible.

        “Look , another BOY”, you cheerful boast.Then, after 3 – 6 months you rinse and repeat.

    2. “The discussion of changing the abortion procedure without consent so as to preserve the most and/or most valuable organs is in and of itself at least unethical, if not actually illegal.”

      I can’t see how its not illegal.

      The 1993 NIH Revitalization Act say that a physician has to sign a statement, for the consent of the donor, saying that “(ii) no alteration of the timing, method, or procedures used to terminate the pregnancy was made solely for the purposes of obtaining the tissue.”

  7. Cut them off,and cut off the farmers and biofuels and solar and wind and Boeing and on and on.

    1. Yes please.

      1. And Egypt and Israel and Pakistan and Mexico and Columbia and ……….Donald Trump,he has to be in there some where!!!!!

        1. so you admit to be an anti-semite?

  8. Part of the reason Planned Parenthood in particular attracts so much pro-life attention is that it’s become the symbol of all abortion providers in America.

    Perhaps this is not true, but I heard Mark Steyn say that Planned Parenthood performs 1/3 of the abortions in America, which would certainly make them a pro-life target.

    1. all right, you got me curious so I just did a quick search and 2009 numbers were what came up first. but going by those, yes, that’s about right, or even low. PP performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, out of a total of 784,507 abortions that were reported to the CDC for that year

      1. That, combined with the fact that they are defiant and receive taxpayer money sets them up to receive the majority of the attention, and I think in the past they relished it because it helped with fundraising. They are not going to benefit long-term from these videos, and their own hubris is largely to blame.

        1. Yeah, they have a HUGE fundraising drive. They’d go nuts when their fundraising software went down.

          And possibly because of the political campaigns run out of their office.

        2. Not just defiant, they’re hugely a political organization and their pro-choice positions, and generally liberal views of sexuality, are on the extreme end of the spectrum.

      2. Again, you didn’t know this already? Seems like a basic fact to research before writing an article like this.

      3. Just like lefties target Wal-Mart and McDo and not Target and BK…

      4. And did your curiosity get you investigate that the President of Planned Parenthood’s daughter is a campaign staffer for Hillary Clinton?

    2. Which would also make them crony capitalists, fervently working to keep OTC birth control off the market (as Liz so rightly points out), which would ultimately work to reduce the # of abortions in this country.

      Look PP can claim it advocates for Women’s reproductive health. But it’s more interested in saving its own skin while it suctions out someone else’s.

      “Look, it’s ANOTHER BOY”!!!

  9. I really don’t understand what the big deal is about taking responsibility for your own actions.

    If you fuck, you might get pregnant. If you get pregnant then the repercussions are your responsibility. If you don’t want the responsibilities, take measures to not get pregnant.

    1. How is getting an abortion not taking responsibility?

      1. It is as long as I don’t have to pay for it.

        1. Then you have no objection whatsoever to private abortion clinics?

          1. Oh I do, I believe abortion is the immoral destruction of a completely innocent human life. However, I have also come to accept that not everyone believes the same way that I do and am willing to compromise on a first trimester grace period, if you will, as an acceptable compromise. I just don’t think public funds should be used for abortions, or any other ‘reproductive’ health care.

            1. Nor do I. But the current temper-tantrum over Planned Parenthood isn’t about federal funding at all. If it went fully private, it would shut up maybe 2% of it’s haters? Maybe?

              Legalize the sale of tissue and they might be able to fully fund themselves.

              1. Fine by me, as long as I can also sell one of my kidneys.

                1. What libertarian would want to keep you from it?

                  In fact, let’s make deal. I might need one at some point. And I’ll pay you a reasonable fee to store it for me in the meantime.

                  1. SF-

                    Can I kill Shriek, and sell you one of his?

              2. I think it would shut up quite a bit more than 2%. That’s not to say that whatever the remainder was wouldn’t just make up for their losses in sheer volume however.

              3. But the current temper-tantrum over Planned Parenthood isn’t about federal funding at all. If it went fully private, it would shut up maybe 2% of it’s haters? Maybe?

                Translation: PP’s opponents are icky, therefore PP should keep getting funded.

                1. Florin, since you are so blinded by emotions that you can barely read, I’ll spelling out.

                  Defund Planned Parenthood.
                  Defund Planned Parenthood.
                  Defund Planned Parenthood.
                  Defund Planned Parenthood.
                  Defund Planned Parenthood.

                  But don’t pretend it’s going to shut anyone up.

                  1. It won’t shut anyone up. As one of those “haters,” I would see it as a good first step, but certainly not the last step to be taken.

              4. Legalize the sale of tissue and they might be able to fully fund themselves.

                But then they won’t be able to buy Aeron chairs!

              5. it would shut up maybe 2% of it’s haters? Maybe?

                So what? For the record, I’m pro-choice.

                As long as they’re exercising their first amendment right legally, why would a libertarian seek to repress speech they disagree with? The pro-life people have every right to try to persuade others that abortion is morally wrong.

                You’re accusing other’s of emoting, but your own dislike of the extreme pro-life people and their legal tactics colors your view.

              6. It might not shut them up – but SUGAR – what does? People have the right to speech. And they have the right to use moral persuasion.

                This is what we do in America. We bitch and we moan and we protest.

            2. Sounds REASONable to me.

            3. Do you believe that taxpayer money should be used to pay for health care in general? If not, then what difference does it make whether the health care is related to reproduction.

              1. Do you believe that taxpayer money should be used to pay for health care in general? If not, then what difference does it make whether the health care is related to reproduction.

                Actually, the issue with “taxpayer funded healthcare” is pretty much all about what should be covered. Taxpayer-funded childhood vaccinations make sense, taxpayer-funded cosmetic surgery and free Viagra don’t.

              2. No one here except the phony AssHihn supports taxpayer funding

      2. How is a cop shooting a dog that started barking at him because he jumped a fence not taking responsibility?

        How is Obama taking more tax money from cigarette smokers to pay for Obamacare not taking responsibility?

        How is the Chicago police department paying $2M a year to settle police brutality lawsuits not taking responsibility?

        1. The emotion-driven argument, everyone.

      3. Well you could argue it’s as responsible as defaulting on your mortgage. Both resolve the issue.

      4. The emotion driven argument, everyone (including you, Sugar Free.)

      5. I hereby propose that the standard for getting a legal abortion be that you can show you did not voluntarily engage in behavior likely to result in fertilization. I also propose what I suppose will be called the “Drunken Frat Party” exception; if you get strip-and-go-naked drunk in a venue where a sensible person would expect such behavior to result in fornication, then you have voluntarily engaged in behavior likely to result it fertilization, BUT since both you and the father are clearly morons, we the people don’t want you to reproduce, so please have an abortion, on us.

        Yes, I’m feeling grouchy. Why do you ask?

    2. But that’s like totally harsh man. You sound like a whacked out religious nut or something. Why can’t cosmos have fun without consequences?

    3. I thoght birth control is free now.So why do they need P.P.?

      1. I dunno, probably patriarchy or something.

      2. If the Republicans were smart, they would twist this as defunding PP to pay for free birth control.

        1. And that would be a lie also,nothing is free

        2. “they would twist for” immediate approval of all forms of birth control being sold over-the counter and easily accessible, without a prescription.

          Then it’s bye-bye, PP.

      3. thats part of the issue with Obama care PP in no longer needed.

      4. if one wanted to be mean, one might suggest that PPs efforts to shed their founder’s history of bigoted eugenics babbling was not strictly sincere?.

    4. I just love this – it tickles me to no end, especially when coming from someone (I assume) cannot get pregnant. Tell me, does the whole “taking responsibility for your actions” only apply to the person who can become pregnant?

      No form of birth control is 100% effective, not even sterilization. So, the only way to guarantee against pregnancy is to abstain from fucking. And if women aren’t fucking, then guess who else isn’t fucking? A bit of a bummer for you guys, unless you’re gay.

      1. It’s the middle-school level accusation that anyone who disagrees with her is gay that elevates Jan’s comment to the next level.

        1. I particularly love the ‘no vagina so you can’t talk about this nanananananana’ argument. A classic.

          1. I like that too, since if you DO have a vagina and disagree, you’re a traitor, so there’s no winning either way.

            1. There’s no sinning on ANY issue with the typical Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive. They sincerely believe that they should ALWAYS win. That it is, in essence, their Divine Right.

              Woodchippers are too good of them.

          2. But you can pay child support, natch.

      2. I just love this – it tickles me to no end, especially when coming from someone (I assume) cannot get pregnant.

        Waaaah waaaah patriarchy!!!!111!! I love the “men can’t have an opinion” feminists, like there are no women who believe the exact same thing. What a boring ad hominem.

        Tell me, does the whole “taking responsibility for your actions” only apply to the person who can become pregnant?

        Both parties are equally responsible for their actions in my view. However, women are well aware that they have significantly more at risk during a casual sexual encounter. It doesn’t relieve the moral responsibility of the man, but let’s not pretend that men and women somehow have the same risk profile during casual sex.

        No form of birth control is 100% effective, not even sterilization. So, the only way to guarantee against pregnancy is to abstain from fucking.

        Damn, a bunch of people taking responsibility for their own lives and using self-control to overcome their base desires in the interest of not murdering babies. What a horrible world that would be!

        The idea of only fucking when you are in a stable enough situation to handle the consequences seems reasonable to me. It worked for my wife and I. But I’m obviously talking crazy because MUH OHRGAZUMMSS!!

        Of course, now I’ll be shouted down for being impractical and for hating women or something.

      3. Actually you are right, it does take two to tango. Therefore if you want an abortion you must get signed consent from the baby daddy. If you choose to keep the baby and he doesn’t, you must sign consent that the baby is your responsibility. If he chooses to keep and you don’t, he must take responsibility. Everyone is happy. Problem solved.

      4. Since your half of the species bears more of the burden (and as many women are want to say “I control the pussy”), then it stands to reason that yes, women do bear more of the responsibility when it comes to fucking.

        Of course, abortion is one way to take care of that responsibility (however morally repugnant some people might see it). As always though, the best way to not get pregnant or an STD is to not have sex (frowny face).

      5. Jan…shut the fuck up you walking vag.

      6. Tell me, does the whole “taking responsibility for your actions” only apply to the person who can become pregnant?

        If you don’t need a man to raise a child, you don’t need his money for child support either.

      7. So, menopausal women should shut up about it, I guess. Hillary should butt out, as should Nancy Pelosi, etc. And, I guess sterile women, and women on the pill.

        1. And, to answer your question….yes, if it were me getting pregnant I would be responsible for myself. But, I’m not a helpless coed.

      8. That’s it, that’s your threat, the ole no pussy for anybody bit. Shit give me a cold, crisp
        December morning with a sky full of mallards over sticking my dick in your old worn out snatch any day. You better cling to that one as long as you can sugar tits because it’s your last refuge.

        We are going to legalize prostitution and then we are going to perfect the sex robot. Now you’ve just lost half of your power. We will then take the other half when we take your eggs away from you with artificial wombs. We will sell it under the guise of freedom. Freedom from the burden of pregnancy, freedom from the burden of pain. Perfect nutrition for the baby. You’ll line up in droves to donate your eggs and then out to the street you will go. You’ll be obsolete in every way.

        Education (female dominated) is going to go more digital and more online, so you’ll lose that. Medicine will advance and give doctors (male dominated) more control without ever being there thus reducing the need for nurses (female dominated). STEM (male dominated) demand will increase. Raw materials, chemical processing, and finished products all are under male domination. You shrieking harpies will have nothing.

        1. It is not men who are the threatened ones as you dumbasses so claim. It is women, and you see the writing on the wall, which is why you bellow as loud as you do. You’re status is about to drop to the level of that annoying dog that you keep around because you like him even though it’s more trouble than it’s worth.

      9. Jan S-

        Suck more dick- I 100% guarantee you won;t get pregnant

    5. Progressivism is in part about not being accountable for your actions. In fact it’s a cornerstone of what passes for their philosophy.

  10. That was a lot of words to say ” don’t gore MY ox.”

    1. ” don’t gore MY ox.”

      Is that what the kids are calling lady bits these days?

      1. I don’t know. I got tired of trying to keep up with it. Does bad still mean good?

  11. The money is mostly barred from being used for abortions

    Not really. That’s like a college kid having a side job for $50/wk and telling his parents the money they send him won’t go to beer. Sure, the money from the side job will just now go entirely to beer and the money they send him will cover food.

    1. Yes. I do not understand that argument at all.

      1. I do understand that it’s a red herring.

        ENB saw a pro-abortion group getting criticized and knew she needed to throw some words together in support of them. Whether it makes any sense is irrelevant.

    2. You mean momey is fungible? Like water in a glass?

      1. Duh. Just like in a full glass of water the bottom half is pessimistic and the top half is optimistic. Or something.

    3. ‘Mostly’………….

      ‘They come mostly at night. Mostly……..’

  12. “…the organization responsible for operating hundreds of reproductive health-care clinics abortion mills around the country.

    Looks like Rand is stepping on some cosmotarian toes here.

    1. Some religious people advocate violence; therefore all religious people advocate violence.

      Why are you advocating violence, Duke?

      1. Unless you can prove otherwise, all Planned Parenthood facilities offer or facilitate abortions, regardless of whether they offer other services.

        1. Ah, yes. I have to prove a negative to refute your groundless claim. I’ll get right on that.

          1. Groundless? PP offers abortions. Period. Repubs want to defund PP. It’s actually quite simple if you would stop emoting and think for a moment.

            1. Not all PP clinics do, which is what you claimed from your core of emotion-fueled tantrum.

              “Why won’t someone think of the children?!?”

              1. So,money isn’t fungible?There’s seperate pot for the one’s that don’t offer abortions? Like when Wal Mart sells wine that money goes to the C.E.O?

                1. Your tax money paid for a drone strike on a wedding. Should you be thrown in jail for murder?

                  1. Your tax money paid for a drone strike on a wedding. Should you be thrown in jail for murder?

                    Was the money taken under protest?

              2. Not all police depts abuse the military surplus they get from the feds, so we can’t stop sending tanks to the ones that do. QED

                1. Oh, Florin. You’re so precious.

              3. “Why won’t someone think of the children?!?”

                We do, we think of them as little human beings. Planned Parenthood thinks of them as meaty gobbets of revenue.

                1. We do, we think of them as little human beings.

                  Well, that’s the thing, isn’t it? You have two groups of individuals attempting to argue against the a priori assumptions of each other. And when arguments from either group don’t align with the previously-established premises of the other, that side accuses them of being irrational.

                  That’s a sucker’s game.

                  1. Which side is driven by emotion and which is driven by logic?

                    1. Which side is driven by emotion and which is driven by logic?

                      Both and both? If you accept the premise that abortion is a procedure not unlike removal of a cyst, then the emotions and logic fall in place to be pro-choice. If you accept the premise that abortion is extinguishing a person’s life, then the emotions and logic fall in place to be pro-life.

                      I can certainly see the logic and appeal of the pro-choice argument if I only tweak one assumption in my head. I can also see how tweaking that one assumption changes the entire game.

                    2. This is exactly right. The arguments from both sides are sound, given the premises they each begin with.

              4. Does it matter? We’re libertarians, right? Why should government be subsidizing them with other peoples’ money, no matter what they do?

                1. Exactly! On point Cloudbuster.

                  I understand that this is a emotional issue. Generally strong feelings all around. The vids are certainly provocative.

                  But, at issue for most of us I think is why in the hell are the taxpayers giving PP half a billion dollars a year? I know why the progs say they are for it, and I suspect I know why they are actually for it, I suspect I know why some cons are kinda stealth for it, but in a reasoned world (where unicorns crap out match grade ammo) why would taxpayers be on the hook in such a big way?

                  If all the ballyhoo saves us a cool half billion a year, I’m kinda for it.

            2. I wish they would defund just about everyone.

        2. Unless you can prove otherwise, all Planned Parenthood facilities offer or facilitate abortions, regardless of whether they offer other services.

          The one around the corner from me doesn’t offer abortions. What is the bar for “facilitating” them? Because Walgreens sells pregnancy tests.

          1. Assuming you’re correct, read the fungibility of money comment above. If PP HQ gets fed tax bucks, they distribute it nationwide. Some or a lot of those tax dollars fund abortions. If this were someone else’s ox being gored, I don’t think you’d be so obtuse.

          2. Why can’t we just let the progs privately fund the abortion mills in their entirety? That would make this all simpler.

  13. Oh, Elizabeth. Sweet, dear Elizabeth… don’t know know by now that rational arguments have no place in opinions fueled by THE FEELZ?

    1. Exactly. I feel that defunding/restricting abortions should be off the table and never discussed because it hurts my feelings and stuff.

      1. It’s odd how often we mock SJWs and Progressives for emoting rather than thinking, but at supposed to just nod along when you do it.

        1. Which is laughably ironic given that 50 of libertarian positions and 80% of cosmotarian ‘arguments’ are mindless emoting.

        2. Maybe sugar free, but certainly loaded with irony.

      2. Yes, clearly nobody could have principled objections to restricting medical decisions.

    2. Her “rational argument” appears to be that the people who oppose PP are icky and that you can’t cut every last penny of PP funding, so why bother cutting any of it. It’s a showroom of fallacies.

      1. I’m not sure why so many people seem to think I’m arguing for the continued federal funding of PP. There’s not once that I say that.

        1. You’re pretty clearly arguing against cutting federal funding of PP. There really isn’t a difference beyond semantics.

          1. I agree with this comment. ENB’s article clearly comes off as supporting Planned Parenthood and casting aspersions on the motive of those who want to cut PP’s funding.

            “For the record, I think Planned Parenthood clinics do a lot of good.”

            “Yet GOP efforts to cut back on PPFA funding will likely provide little comfort to libertarians, either”

            “But Reid may be semi-right in this case. Congressional Republicans aren’t really opposing Planned Parenthood funding on limited-government leanings”

            This is less of a Libertarian piece and more of a pro-Abortion piece. ENB’s entitled to her opinions and I’m fine with the article as it is, but it’s not a Libertarian argument.

        2. Elizabeth, open a book on population biology and don’t let mathematically illiterate apes intimidate you. In a free society underwriters regulate the practice of medicine through economic means and every lady has access. In our society they are barred only by pulpit-thumping mystical bigots cut from the same cloth as Germany’s Christian National Socialists with their Lebensborn programs and the kidnapping of children in Eastern Europe. As long as these fanatics persist in power there is an excellent case for prioritizing the deregulation of medicine and only then eliminating the palliatives rendered necessary by God’s Own Pestilence activists. These exact same morons used deadly force to ban condoms in 1873!

          1. Anything resembling a rational thought here?

            1. Nay Cap’n! We’ve tried every frequency available on the sensors be she canna make hide nor hair of it.

        3. Because, Liz your “libertarians should think twice” in the headline.

          Duh.

  14. Wouldn’t most libertarians be against the government funding of any private clinics? I may be wrong, but a taxpayer pays to fund Planned Parenthood, Medicaid, and their own insurance (Obamacare)?

    1. Yes, you’re wrong because fairness or something.

    2. Well, that’s part of what I was trying to convey here, b/c I’ve seen a lot of libertarians cheering the Republican efforts. But they’re only shifting around the government funds, not cutting any of them.

      1. I was agreeing with you without giving you any credit.

        1. Ah, okay. 😉 I thought maybe it seemed like I disagreed.

          I’m sensitive to this post coming across like I’m against cutting federal PP $$

          1. I think you did very well, but I would never say so because I do not want the people here to yell at me.

          2. I might not always agree with you but I do like your articles. And you’re cuter than the Robby…

      2. But they are cutting funds for specific things, i.e., abortions, right? What’s wrong with that ENB? The govt will spend a certain amount of dollars every year. If they reduce the amount spent on war and shifted that sum to roads/healthcare/social security/debt reduction, wouldn’t that be agreeable?

        1. No public funds go to PP’s abortions. The abortion services of PP haven’t received a federal dime in decades.

          Public money goes to PP to subsidize women’s health services that PP gets through competitions for grants. These other services are in fact the vast majority of services PP provides (only 3% of PP services involves abortions). If Republicans are targeting this money, I am not sure how they can do so without it being unconstitutional; Congress can’t target a specific organization for denial of federal grants.

          1. Yes, but as has been pointed out above funds are fungible. PP should, if they continue to provide abortions, create a separate corporate entity that only does abortions and doesn’t receive tax dollars.

            1. Which will never happen. It’s all about public funding their abortion mills. Just like part of Obamacare goes in the same direction.

          2. ” (only 3% of PP services involves abortions). ”

            Yeah that’s a bullshit stat from PP that doesn’t stand up to the slightest scrutiny.

            They get it by claiming 11 million total services and 330,000 abortions per year. But the 11 million total services includes handing out condoms and performing cancer & STD screenings at universities all over the US.

            If you look at the basic economics, you get a different picture.

            “For patients not covered by insurance, a surgical abortion in a doctor’s office or a medical abortion at 10 weeks typically costs about $320 to $500. At 16 weeks, a surgical abortion costs about $500 to $700. At 20 weeks or later, a surgical abortion costs about $1,000 to $2,000 or more.
            Most abortions — 88 percent — are obtained by week 13; ”

            http://health.costhelper.com/abortion.html

            If you assume that every PP abortion is at 10 weeks (which obviously many are far later than this), the cost would be (320+500)/2*333,000.

            So, PP is at the low estimate spending a minimum of $135 million per year on abortions. So at least 13% of their budget goes toward abortions, and the real number is almost certainly substantially higher.

          3. Cool, how about we start funding the NRA’s firearms safety programs?

            I need a cheap source for “safe, and reliable” ammo…

        2. No.

      3. Unfortunately the $ shifting is a problem w a lot of measures to reduce tax-funded spending. In some cases the main effect of an ostensible cut is merely to reduce people’s flexibility & hence economic efficiency. That might be the case here, I’m not sure.

  15. I think ENB misses something else here, as well. PP is a major Democrat donor, with some of this $500M in taxpayer money. That’s wholly inappropriate and may be the primary reason Republicans are doing this, but feel as though turning it into culture war is a better way to get the social base rallied.

    1. Now you know they don’t use THAT money to lobby.They have another,seperate pile for that.Like ,3 glasses of water.

    2. Well sure but no doubt they are using private funds to make those contributions, not the public funds.

      1. that was @fleshy’s first comment…

      2. You didn’t know that already? Really?

    3. In accounting school we called that sort of thing ‘money laundering’.

    1. +3 yes,yes ,yes

    2. Shut it down! Shut it down FOREVER!

      https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S5ZSDCvUwN8

  16. From the vortex of derp, de Blasio declares July 29th 2015 John Lennon Day.

    http://imaginepeace.com/archives/21396

    Looks like the event brought out two other super douches, U2’s Bono and the Edge.

    1. Well he is turning New York back to what it was in the 1970s.

    2. Bono has actually made some really cool comments regarding Africa. I have always thought the dude really cared about poverty. He used to think it should be 100% foreign aid but had an open enough mind to realize and admit that capitalism is the poverty killer. And I like that.

      1. The world is off its axis. Bono now understands capitalism and Neil Peart is now a chicken-shit proggie.

    3. The only REAL Bono was Sonny.

  17. If women could no longer go to PP for medical services, I am pretty sure someone else would be willing to take their money. And perhaps that someone else would not take the money they make and plow it into Democratic causes. Planned Parenthood is nothing but a government funded wing of the Democratic Party. Non profit status issues aside, they are of course free to do that. The Republicans, however, are also free to cut them off.

    I don’t see why Libertarians have any dog in a fight over some political group getting cut off from the government tit. Even if you support radical legalized abortion laws, no Libertarian should think the government should be paying for them or care if the government stopped doing so.

    I certainly understand why a Libertarian wouldn’t care about this issue. I cannot see why any Libertarian would be bothered by PP losing access to government funds. If Planned Parenthood wants to take money from the government, then they better be careful who they offend. That is how politics works.

    1. It just amazes me in my naivet? that a federally funded (ok PARTIALLY — see comments above) program is allowed to donate to a political party. This is such an amazing feedback loop for Democrats.

      If you don’t fund PP, you hate women. If you’re a Republican, you won’t fund PP. Democrats love women and so does PP, so pay taxes so that PP can help Democrats not hate women although the Republicans do.

      1. This is one of many such loops. There are all kinds of these sorts of nonprofits that collect huge fees from the government and then plow it back into the Democratic Party machine. Planed parenthood has all kinds of government funded rackets. For example, in many states they are the single contractor that is allowed to do STD tests. It is illegal in some states for independent labs to offer STD tests. If someone wants to take them, they have to either go to their own doctor or Planned Parenthood which is then paid handsomely for the service.

        1. Sometimes the loop is even tighter, as when a gov’t agency is allowed or even mandated to propagandize for the same narcotics policy that keeps it in biz.

        2. The Democrats have been very, very good at this.

          ACA recycled a ton of tax money to NGOs who will support them later.

          I call it tax laundering.

      2. It just amazes me in my naivet? that a federally funded (ok PARTIALLY — see comments above) program is allowed to donate to a political party.

        Most people who receive government handouts can donate to political parties again, whether it’s public sector unions, home owners and their tax breaks, welfare recipients, or non-profits receiving government grants. Trying to prohibit some of those groups from donating while allowing others to continue to donate makes the system even more corrupt. In different words, once government spends large amounts of money, it is unavoidable that people spend money on lobbying government to convince legislators and regulators that their causes are deserving. In many cases, there isn’t even anything wrong with that: if the money is supposed to produce benefits, people need to make a case for that. And those feedback loops operate for both parties.

        If you want to interrupt that feedback loop, selective defunding isn’t going to work; you have to spend less overall. The only way to “get money out of politics” (as Democrats like to say) is to take in much less in taxes and to have much lower government spending.

    2. The only reason a self-professed libertarian would be bothered if PP was defunded would be if her pro-abortion sentiments outweighed her libertarian political orientation … or perhaps, if she confused libertine with libertarian like Bill Maher.

    3. Population biology works differently from politics. God’s Own Party has a stake in the Rapture, Armageddon, Antichrist, and The Mark of the Beast. Politics to them is a way of making the Bible’s predictions of famine and holocaust come true so they can say “I told you so” to scientists like Richard Dawkins. It is true the LP has forced them to back away slightly from murdering and penning up youngsters for weed, but this is only a temporary retrenchment. Their imitation Libertarians, Ron and Rand Paul, have devoutly sustained the use of deadly force to have government declare that women are unpersons when impregnated. The idea is to divest them of individual rights until they can deliver a brainwashable child for enlistement into a Hitlerjugend no less fanatical than anything in the Middle East. At least learn the definition of natural logarithms and exponential growth–subjects not included in the Saint James Version. Survival is THE libertarian issue. It is what makes freedom important.

      1. Show us on the doll where the mean Christians touched you.

        1. LOL…burn.

      2. Would you take your mass murder ideology somewhere else please.

      3. Hank, at least make an effort to understand people who disagree with you.

      4. ummm…jezebel is thataway. I think you ended up on the wrong thread.

    4. As usual, I agree w John. It’s more fun the few times I disagree w him.

      1. WHY DO YOU HATE MY FUN, JOHN?

  18. Okay, I looked a second time.

    Now defund Planned Parenthood. There is absolutely no libertarian case for government to support it with money coerced from taxpayers. None at all.

    1. Everyone wants less government except when it comes to their pet causes. Cut everything else.

      1. I have no pet causes. Cut it all.

    2. Yes, and by the same argument vaccination clinics and the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta ought to be likewise defunded. Surely they can make money peddling anthrax, ebola, bubonic and black plague cultures to religious activists eager to make their Holy Book predictions of plagues and pestilence come true. Overpopulation is a medical and environmental problem with major neighborhood effects. Econazis and mystical prohibitionists of other stripes have a vested interest in blanking out this aspect of reality in their grabs for power, but that doesn’t make it go away. Just as A is A, the derivative of e to the x is e to the x and exponential growth laws apply to biology as they do to finance. If superstition were uprooted overnight I would gladly demand the defunding of PP the following morning. But the worship of death still controls most congressional votes here, and a greater proportion in the People’s States where abortion is as illegal today as condoms or beer once were in America.

      1. Yes, and by the same argument vaccination clinics and the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta ought to be likewise defunded.

        Fire up the woodchippers!

      2. There is no social problem, or environmental problem, that government can’t make worse, and it usually does.

        Defund them all.

      3. Overpopulation is a medical and environmental problem with major neighborhood effects.

        Overpopulation is a myth.

        exponential growth laws apply to biology as they do to finance

        Populations are not generally governed by exponential growth laws. Human populations certainly aren’t.

        Yes, and by the same argument vaccination clinics and the Center for Disease Control in Atlanta ought to be likewise defunded.

        Probably. It is likely that their functions could taken over and handled better by private organizations. Of course, a smooth transition from a centrally planned mechanism to a market mechanism is difficult and takes time.

  19. Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Superior Court issued a temporary restraining order preventing the group behind the videos, the Center for Medical Progress, from releasing footage featuring executives from California company StemExpress, which provides researchers with fetal tissue

    Hooray for prior restraint of speech!

    1. How could any Court even consider such an order unless there were specific threats of violence coming from such a group? Certainly this will be overturned

  20. They are as populas as the Confederate Flag.
    If they play Dr. Mengele, their neo-nazi medical ideas might be technically legal but still monstrous. Candidates have returrned contributions for far less.

  21. As far as Planned Parenthood doing anything illegal, I haven’t seen a real analysis of the laws involved. Regardless of its legality, one of the main criticisms of Planned Parenthood is that they are in the abortion for profit business and pressure women into having them. Planned Parenthood has always denied this and claimed they offer women choices and have no interest in what that choice is. These videos beyond their salacious nature put lie to that. They make it clear that Planned Parenthood is in the abortion for profit business and are lying when they claim not to be. Since they are, they have a motive to pressure women into getting abortions and are not in the “pro choice” business but in the “get as many women as possible to have abortions” business. That is a pretty big deal.

  22. So, some folks at my alma mater decided to publish a “bias-free language guide” to assist students, faculty, and staff. If I worked there and chose to follow this guide, I would have found it impossible to teach, as the field of Linguistics requires one to, you know, talk. Indeed, this guide is so comprehensive that the particular “micro-agressions” putatively contained in each phoneme of the English language was identified, analyzed, and ‘problematized’.

    The president of the university was so appalled that he now requires the guide to promenantly display this disclaimer:

    “While individuals on our campus have every right to express themselves, I want to make it absolutely clear that the views expressed in this guide are NOT the policy of the University of New Hampshire. I am troubled by many things in the language guide, especially the suggestion that the use of the term ‘American’ is misplaced or offensive. The only UNH policy on speech is that it is free and unfettered on our campuses. It is ironic that what was probably a well-meaning effort to be ‘sensitive’ proves offensive to many people, myself included.”

    1. Sadly, my own experiences as a student on that campus many moons ago don’t match with Huddleston’s assertions. At least, not in the class where Prof. Brown didn’t cotton to my challenging the bio-conservatism of Leon Kass.

    2. “It is ironic that what was probably a well-meaning effort to be ‘sensitive’ proves offensive to many people, myself included.”

      Kudos on the President getting the wording exactly right. He knows damn well the effort wasn’t “well-meaning” but to say so is academic suicide. So putting the work “probably” in front let’s everyone know that he questioned their motives also.

    3. Read and enjoy, especially the grudging eurotard comments.

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2…..era_drone/

      1. If I understand correctly, you generally have air rights over your property up to 500 feet.

        1. Not in Canada.

        2. Not in the US. There is an automatic easement above 500 ft for aircraft, but that doesn’t mean that you are guaranteed all rights below that.

          For example, Amazon has proposed reserving the space between 200ft and 400ft for commercial drone flights, and it looks like the FAA could impose that on property owners.

      2. 40 mm Glock?

        It really is an AA gun.

  23. The laissez-faire principle that the govt should not pick winners applies to the abortion market.

    If regulations were cut wholesale across the board, then abortions would be affordable for poor people and there would be no need to subsidize PP.

    Also, baby clothes are nearly free at yard sales and church fundraisers. Whatever other services PP provides can likely be provided for cheaper in a competitive market.

    1. There are virtually no regulations of abortions. Abortions are about the least regulated medical procedure there is. It is the only medical procedure that the courts have decided to be a fundamental right such that any restrictions placed on it are subject to strict scrutiny.

      1. This is true. Abortion lovers torture the meaning of “health care” by trying to lump abortions in that category. They call abortions “reproductive health care” and even more idiotic, “abortion care.” Yet, while these folk want to lump abortions in the mainstream medical thought as say, cataract surgery, they fight tooth and nail when any regulations are imposed on the abortion procedure. Because, that would be like an icky so-con thing to do.

        Seriously, abortion supporters are the worst of the emotional-argument types. Nothing in science or medicine or human rights philosophy supports a million abortions a year in our country alone. Abortionists are hypocrites and cannot ever be taken seriously. The recent PP videos prove that beyond any doubt.

        1. No other country other than China has abortion laws like we do. Even the most liberal countries in Western Europe do not allow late term abortions much less allow the parts to be sold off. It is just appalling.

          1. Europe only does this because they’ve been borrowing on great-grandchildren for 80 years.

        2. Considering the importance of the brain allows you to support abortion easily. A heartbeat, respiration, fingers, etc. are useless without a functioning brain. Our brains allow us to interact with the world and perceive the world even if some people’s brains develop with limitations compared to “normal” brains. To me, the brain seems awfully important to the issue–more precisely the cerebral cortex since the cerebral cortex governs cognition rather than things like respiration/heart beat as in the brain stem, which happens in other animals. An embryo at a few weeks in development doesn’t have a functioning brain or a developed cortex at all, so it seems silly to get all bent out of shape over an embryo without a brain. Sure, it could develop into a being with a functioning brain, but so what? It doesn’t have one at that moment, so it’s not losing anything. To me, it’s losing the potential just like sperm loses potential to be united with an egg and develop if uninserted.

          It does get more difficult when you get into defining a functioning brain or the important moment for the cortex. Carl Sagan wrote about the issue saying the linking up of neurons and regular brain waves typical of adult brains don’t occur until about the 30th week of pregnancy onward. If that’s the case that basically seems like a good point to me to have a cut off. (Be wary of pro-lifers who have published incorrect numbers about brain waves.)

          1. Although the fetus can move at week 14, the movements are little more than jerky reflexes. They are not driven by higher cortical functioning. Therefore, another school of thought is that life begins at week 20, when the thalamus is completely formed. The thalamus is the relay center of the brain, and helps to connect the cerebral cortex to the spinal cord and peripheral nerves.

            A sizable contingent would assert that life begins at 25 weeks. The rationale for this starting point is based on our definition of death. The definition of death is not disputed, and is considered the time when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. EEG measures brain activity and must demonstrate regular wave patterns to be considered valid. Therefore, by this rule the onset of life would be the time when fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns, which occurs fairly consistently around week 25. Previous to that time, the EEG only shows small bursts of activity without sustained firing of neurons.

            As much as I admired Sagan (whom I knew, btw), he pushed some very liberal policies and was a collectivist. In this aspect he was simply wrong, being out of his field. Baby brain waves are not typical of adult brains either.

            IMHO abortions before 20 weeks should be outlawed.

            1. After 20 weeks, not before?

          2. Yeah, you need a functioning brain, but that’s not enough to say you’re losing anything. You need knowledge of life & death. If you haven’t had enough experience to anticipate a future, you lose nothing by dying.

            1. That means I get to abort any progressive at will. As not a God damned one of them meets that litmus test. Or we could just go off the brain thing.

        3. It’s true. It shows that at base they understand that “quality of care” regs are bull shit that mostly just make medicine more expensive. Which means they’re full of it themselves when they favor imposing them on all other aspects of care.

    2. When China banned imports of opiates in 1911 the market glut backed up into These States. Teetotalitarian prohibitionists and their looter allies descended on Congress with whoops of joy and their Harrison Act smuggled in additional coercive prohibition even as the 18th Amendment gained momentum. Honest doctors ignored the law until federal prosecutors began indicting them en masse, and only dropped charges on evidence of bootlicking subservience. This was the thin wedge of socialized medicine which entered American jurisprudence in lockstep with the Communist party’s graduated income tax. Women cannot afford choice because entrenched venal cowardice has joined forces with Byzantine superstition to create a nanny state holding their health hostage. It would be nice to resolve this political conundrum before the Four Horsemen do it for us–as superstitious bigots earnestly pray and predict they will. Until women are free we should protect them from forced exploitation by the Comprachicos who banned condoms when they had the power.

      1. Cool story bro. Power to teh People!

    3. Face it, if regs were cut across the board, children would be more affordable too! Midwifery, day care, college, monocle fitting….

  24. Planned Parenthood was recently the subject of a sting operation designed to portray the organization’s fetal-tissue collection programs as illegally profiting from the sale of human body parts.

    Since when are sting operations and filming in public something that Libertarians object to? Elizabeth, if they were filming jail officials offering their inmates slave labor, would you be worried about it being a “sting operation”? Moreover, if Planned Parenthood is not doing anything wrong, then why are you even concerned about the videos? You can only be the victim of a “sting operation” if there is something to sting you with.

    Moreover, the judge in California’s prior restraint of speech is outrageous. How in the world is that in any way consistent with the 1st Amendment? Do you really think it is a good idea for courts to suppress speech that is damaging to politically connected organizations? If Planned Parenthood can do this, why can’t a cop union get a judge to prevent the release of a dash cam video showing one of their members doing something embarrassing?

    1. Stating a fact is objecting to it?

      1. By implication yes. If Elizabeth doesn’t object to it, why does she mention it? What is the point of calling it that if not to imply there is something wrong with it?

        1. Because one point of the news is to describe the actual events that occurred? If ENB used the term ‘victim’ instead of ‘subject’ you might have an argument, but her statement is completely neutral in the context she used. There’s no implication to what she said other than she is describing the events leading up to this push.

      2. This is obviously a PP-sympathetic article. This particular sentence is accurate, but it is worded to make it seem that the PP employees were tricked so that the film’s makers could “portray” misconduct.

  25. If there is a case for government to lift a finger to prevent an Ebola epidemic, the same reasoning applies to Planned Parenthood. Overpopulation has effects similar to disease, and experiments with rats–the exact same source superstitious conservatives point to as a valid basis for sending men with guns to enforce prohibition laws–do not augur well in a world packed with chemical, biological and nuclear weapons. Conservatives know their superstitions are dying out because no adult can be brainwashed to believe and fear nonsense. That is no concern of the Libertarian Party. Overpopulation and the coercion of women as breeding dams are libertarian issues on grounds of public health and individual rights. Laws respecting the coercive exercise of religious superstition are illegal under the First Amendment. The practice of medicine became a tool of prohibition with passage of the Harrison Act, hence the ridiculously high cost of abortions and medicine in general is prohibition-induced through enforcement blackmail.

    1. So because people believe in God, we should fun planned parenthood?

      Cool story.

    2. I take it you attended the Dr. Goebbels School of Political Thought.

    3. Anyone else find it hilarious that the guy complaining about those horrible religious people and the delusions has constructed a delusional theocratic cabal to justify himself?

  26. A pox on both their houses? I’ll add a pox on the libertarian house as well, which always posits the same analysis as yours, Elizabeth:

    “Both Reps and Dems are wrong. We have no idea what to do, but we’ll just complain about everyone else. It’s just so much easier.”

    Come on, Elizabeth. Have some courage. Say whether you want PP defunded or not.

    1. I can see you read the story and comments. Good job!

      1. Do tell… Quote Elizabeth on whether she wants it funded or not. You read the story.

        1. Elizabeth Nolan Brown|7.30.15 @ 9:13AM|#|?|filternamelinkcustom

          Ah, okay. 😉 I thought maybe it seemed like I disagreed.

          I’m sensitive to this post coming across like I’m against cutting federal PP $$

          reply to this

          OMG!!!!!!!!

          1. You quoting her article?

          2. Ah, no I get it. One has to wade through comments to get her thoughts, when the only thing that will get pushed across the Internet is her article. You must have questioned it as well, since she had to respond to you.

            She’s sensitive to it? That’s how it did come across. But typical…just complain about everyone else, when the option could have been chastise the GOP for efforts at defunding. But no, that would have taken courage.

            1. “when the option could have been chastise the GOP for efforts at defunding.”

              That would be the Progressive option, but clearly not the Libertarian option.

              Since a core principle of Libertarianism is a small government and defunding parts of the current government align with that core principle. The Libertarian position would be in favor of the GOP defunding it.

              1. Then she should say it, or say the opposite. And I’m at the point that I don’t disagree with you. Defund it. If women are as wushu washy about it as Elizabeth, then defund it.

                1. The problem is the GOP isn’t really defunding anything, they just want to shift the money to other pregnancy related causes.

                2. Gods, you are a mendacious ass.

  27. Nope…. the article didn’t make me think twice. DEFUND Planned Parenthood. BTW Reason… is this even a Libertarian site anymore? Your contributors are peddling more progressive and big government and crony capitalist ideas than ever before. It makes me go…. hmmmmm.

    1. Could you maybe go hmmmmmmmmway?

    2. I think the point of “thinking twice” was because they aren’t cutting government spending, they are shifting it to other favored causes.

  28. I love abortion as much as anybody but none of this shit should be paid for by taxpayers.

    1. I agree,making the unwilling pay is a real crime.

  29. I find the title of the organization ironic. In order to be a parent, one must have children. Removing unwanted viable tissues that otherwise would become children is planning to be the opposite of a parent (of course one could already be a parent, but why shit on the point?).

  30. the money Planned Parenthood gets from the government is to subsidize non-abortion services only…

    True enough, but as we all know, money in the left hand is money in the right.

    To be more clear, if the government pays for everything except abortions, guess where all the non-governmental money goes to?

    1. Of course

  31. Family planning counseling and related services are funded by Title X, passed in 1970, well before Medicaid

    The Social Security Amendments of 1965 created Medicaid by adding Title XIX to the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. ?? 1396 et seq.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicaid#History

  32. It seems like ENB’s objection is to the money going to “crisis pregnancy centers” (i.e. anti-abortion advocacy/support groups). I don’t see a libertarian dog in this fight, though. Who cares if it goes to CPCs instead of PP? What difference does it make, from a libertarian perspective?

    Note: I would personally recommend no CPC accept the money, lest they become dependent on it, and cease to function as independent organizations and become political footballs like PP.

  33. Further complicating things is the fact that much of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes in the form of Medicaid reimbursement.

    This is inaccurate. According to the Vox article you link, 40% of PP’s funding comes in the form of block grants.

    You’re obfuscating.

  34. This article is more retarded than an extra-chromosomal aborted fetus.

    Basic composition — try to make it so that reader understands your point of view on the subject more clearly *after* having read your article.

    1. Social signaling to contradictory groups will do that.

  35. What I think we need to keep in focus is that the pro-life/abortion debate centers on when human life begins and how much we value human life, both the mother’s and the growing baby’s. It might behoove us to keep in mind that in the long run, as machines become more intelligent, they almost certainly will not end up valuing human life more than we value human life and we should probably be very careful how much we devalue human life as it will set the low bar for all future humans and intelligent machines. It would also presumably to some degree set the low bar for how much value any sentient extraterrestrial life places on human life. Yes, I’m looking forward a bit, but that isn’t a bad thing, is it? If we don’t value human life, why should sophisticated machines of our own making or octopoids from planet Cthulu? Maybe we should make a big, clear, impossible-to-miss, line in sand now.

  36. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  37. “Since then, Planned Parenthood says its website has been downed twice by hackers using distributed denial of service (DDoS) attacks.”

    The intimate and personal decision whether to abort a Web site is a deeply personal and private decision between the hacker and his conscience.

    “Planned Parenthood clinics don’t seem to be doing anything illegal, at least not broadly.”

    Why, then, is PP behaving like it just got caught with its hands in the cookie jar?

    First it attacks the people who caught it with the cookie jar, then it insults our intelligence by claiming that the videos are misleading and maybe they were actually putting cookies back *in* the jar, then it tries to get the cookie-jar videos suppressed as violations of privacy, then it blames the sinister right-wing anti-cookie conspiracy, and finally, in a step right out of the Bill Clinton playbook, it admits there’s a problem but claims to be the victim of a systemic flaw in the system, and calls for hearings by the Federal Cookie Jar Committee.

    Not the actions of a group whose activities are above-board and uncontroversial.

  38. Bob Heinlein was right abt the collapse of education in government schools. That tax subsidies favor only schools preaching superstition and lobbying for teetotalitarian prohibition laws–in blatant violation of the First Amendment–has now bred libertarians who lick the blacking off of mystical jackboots in the name of fiscal conservatism… would certainly have killed the poor fellow had he known about it. Here is a university web page that has to do with the effects of bovine incomprehension of population biology.
    http://www.geo.arizona.edu/Ant…..ndeer.html
    I call attention to the phrase “died of starvation”. Had the victims been human, Creation Scientists of the Goebbels Positive Christianity persuasion would doubtless prefer “went to Heaven” in their assessment of outcomes.

  39. Look up the anti-PP sponsors’ records. Ernst, the Women’s Christian Temperance prohibitionist is on record: She voted for a fetal personhood amendment in the Iowa Senate in 2013 and has said that she would support a federal personhood bill. This maniac is a jail the queers, shoot-the-hippies, Hitlerjugend Christian National Socialist straight out of the platform penned by Adolf Hitler in 1920. From the same state as Herbert Hoover–who used the prohibition and tax laws to literally destroy the US economy while rebuilding Germany into a military-industrial juggernaut–this creature is an example of Nixon’s Moral Majority that prompted the founding of the Libertarian Party. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) is a fanatical prohibitionist responsible for making everything BUT heroin disappear out of reach. These politicians are monsters exactly like what governed Germany in 1914 and 1939. We should ship them somewhere abortion is illegal: Angola, Congo, Uganda, Tanzania, Sudan, Venezuela before they turn the USA into one of those looter satrapies.

  40. Libertarians Should Look Twice at Planned Parenthood Defunding Efforts

  41. But as a lobbying group, which it is as well, the organization has been as gross as any other, launching attacks on policies that might be good for low-income women but bad for its own bottom line.

    Holy crap, I’ve never seen someone as obsessed with making money as PP affiliates.

  42. Planned Parenthood receives?to the tune of more than $500 million annually, between state and federal sources.

    Hillary Clinton?who has been getting blasted by Paul for getting donations from Planned Parenthood

    These two facts should never be in the realm of possibilities. An organization receiving state and federal money should not turn around and make any political contributions/donations.

    -a solution that somehow perfectly maintains the status quo. You said it sister.

    They (PP) have provided health services to many women and not only for low income women. Many years ago most teenagers and young adult women didn’t have access to any birth control or contraceptives. I’m thinking like you, maybe it is time this monolith moves over and lets other organizations/companies fill the present gap.

  43. According to Sean Davis, it looks like the alleged website attack was faked as part of a fundraising campaign:

    http://thefederalist.com/2015/…..-pr-stunt/

  44. Strikes me that there is a most serious need to closely examine exactly who is pushing action against Planned Parenthood, what is diving them and perhaps most important, who is funding their operations/efforts. Finding out might prove to be really interesting

    1. Does any of that matter if the claims they are making are true?

  45. Strikes me that there is a most serious need to closely examine exactly who is pushing action against Planned Parenthood, what is diving them and perhaps most important, who is funding their operations/efforts. Finding out might prove to be really interesting

    1. Double post attributable to either the magic of the internet, or to operator error.I hesitate to place the blame.

  46. For this Libertarian termination of funding for the Planned Parenthood butchers is a no-brainer. The Constitution of the United States does not authorize the government to fund any health care procedure, let alone the butchering of unborn babies and the sale of their body parts. Nothing to be more contrary to libertarian principles.

  47. It is enough to support ending funding to Planned Parenthood simply by being against crony capitalism regardless of your view of what they do. This is why Gary Johnson opposes it.

  48. Seriously? A Reason staff member is opposed to cutting government subsidies? I haven’t been a Republican since Ron Paul was running in the primaries, am pro-choice on everything (not just reproductive decisions) but the idea that a Reason editorialist isn’t given a pink slip for defending government subsidies on purely personal life choices is disgusting. Reason sells itself as a libertarian voice. If I want the usual liberal or conservative crap it’s ubiquitous.

  49. As regards God’s law: In the New Testament, Jesus of Nazareth consistently preaches individual freedom, compassion and personal responsibility. If He told the adulterous woman to “go and sin no more,” what would He have us tell a woman seeking an abortion? Would He grant her the freedom to choose? Would He allow her the personal responsibility for her action?
    As regards civil law: The question, “When does life begin?” – can be argued philosophically, physiologically or emotionally without ever reaching a consensus. So shouldn’t a Constitutional Republic focus on a legal definition? “Life” is mentioned if in our Declaration of Independence – so let’s define when life legally begins and pass law that defends it as the founding documents require, end the debate and move on to other matters. … Civil law could “draw a line” that the medical profession (or Planned Parenthood) could not legally cross without facing a murder indictment. At the same time, no one would be deprived of the right to carry their baby to term.

    1. “…so let’s define when life legally begins and pass law that defends it as the founding documents require, end the debate and move on to other matters.”

      Human life begins before conception. Both the sperm of my father and the eggs of my mother were alive and human before they took a roll in the hay sometime in 1947.
      If somehow either of those two components were not alive when they screwed me together I would not be here today.

  50. Does it stand to reason there may be factions within PP that have a eugenics agenda?

    1. The founder of PP certainly did.

    2. I mean, abortion has a eugenics agenda. Most of the people who get abortions are going to do so because they’re either not ready for a baby or can’t afford one, so it’s going to be slanted heavily against poor people. But what you do with that information or what opinions you form from it is going to be highly subjective.

  51. As a Libertarian, why should I oppose any government defunding of any special interest?

    1. Apparently, it’s what REASONable libertarians think.

    2. ++++++++++++^this^++++++++++++++++++

  52. Elizabeth Nolan Brown is a libertarian in name only.

    1. I’m not sure where or if ENB ever claimed to be any sort of libertarian.

  53. I only needed to look at it once. I’m good with it.

  54. Liz…good points. I feel much the same way about funding Hamas or Hezbollah. Much of their activity is pretty good. Sure they do kill people, but probably not as many as Planned Parenthood does, and PP gets $500 mill a year in funding. Why not fund Hezbollah, because they provide schooling for people, and even better, well secured schools armed with rocket launchers. Let’s not be so judgmental. Sure, it sure looks to me and every other thinking person PP is selling baby body parts (“here are our body parts…how much will you give us for them?”), but their lawyers have assured them if they word it carefully enough they can get out of being charged.

  55. It’d be amusing if Planned Parenthood were defunded, and then revamped itself into an industrial-scale fetal organ farming business in order to remain fiscally viable.

    Fuck yeah, unintended consequences.

    1. At least it would be honest then.

  56. Guys, what does liberal even mean to people anymore? Genuine confusion.

    The author mentions “liberals” are prone to arguing that if birth control goes OTC, it will make the pill more expensive for poor women. I’ve heard this argument before, but not from people I feel identified as liberal or conservative. If I had to make an assumption, it would be that they were conservative, because arguing against freer restrictions and easier access to birth control would indicate to me that they were either against birth control, or against women having sex, or generally against, I dunno, women having more freedom something something.

    How the hell do you tell if some rando troll on the internet is liberal or conservative anymore? Do those designations even carry any actual weight or importance?

    I guess I also want clarification on, when the author says “liberals,” whether he means “liberal politicians I can name,” or just “some people I assumed to be liberal because I had a reason to categorize their arguments as such.”

    1. She, sorry. Read too many articles in a row.

    2. Well, political denominations are meaningless in this day and age. Nobody knows what any of them mean anymore. You kind of have to invent your own schema for it.

      I prefer a trichotomy of Conservative, Progressive, Liberal. See Hayek’s Why I Am Not a Conservative and it’ll make sense.

  57. Why oh why, does the govt. have to be involved in this at all? My ex-wife went to Mexico and got an abortion for about $15 in the 60’s. It is simple, and a decision that is personal and nobody’s business, as long as it is done correctly with no pain to the fetus. Even now, thousands of gringos come to Mexico for cheap medical care (NOT INSURANCE–CARE).

    Let free-enterprise into medical/dental care and the govt and AMA OUT of it and keep the business in the USA.

    1. So, if (actually if) you are a libertarian, why would you be okay with the murder of another human being via abortion?

      OOOOOR, if you don’t believe the fetus is human, why do you care if it feels pain?

      1. Zun…for the same reason in the videos they keep referring to the fetus as the ‘baby’. Because deep inside everyone knows it is a baby.

      2. No. But the other being can be evicted as a trespasser by the woman who does not wish to carry it to term. As long as the baby is not killed when it is evicted there is no violation of libertarian principles even if some cannot survive outside of the womb even with the help of medical technology.

        Note that many abortions can be eliminated by allowing mothers the ability to make contractual arrangements with couples seeking to adopt on a free market.

        1. “As long as the baby is not killed when it is evicted there is no violation of libertarian principles even if some cannot survive outside of the womb even with the help of medical technology.”

          So, by that logic, causing someone to fall off of a cliff isn’t a violation of libertarian principles of non-aggression because it is actually gravity that casts their bodies to the ground below.

    2. Plus, when the government gets involved it distorts the market for fetal body parts.

  58. How long before some capitalistic abortion seeker asks for their cut of the parts profit?

    I don’t buy the “postage and handling” charges from Planned Parenthood for one minute. If I donate clothes or books I don’t get to charge the Goodwill store for me to drive the stuff to the dropbox. They could just as easily hand the researchers a full bucket of bodies and let THEM sort out the parts.

    Anyone who cant see there is a profit motive here is just being willfully blind. It’s sick.

  59. The issue is where the principles lead us. The pro-abortion people see a woman’s right to control her body as the only issue. The anti-abortion people see the right to life as the only issue. Both sides a problem because their positions violate libertarian principles.

    Walter Block has come up with a principled compromise that adheres to libertarian principles. He says that a baby has a right not to be murdered and that a woman has the right to evict it from her body. As long as a woman evicts the baby by the gentlest manner possible she should be able to have an abortion. Babies born in the first two trimesters would die because they are not viable. But viable babies can survive and anyone who wants a guardian position should be able to do so and pay the costs for saving and raising the baby.

    The approach respects the right of the woman to control her body but it also respects the right of the baby not to be murdered during the eviction process. It would save babies born in the last trimester that are currently killed. Since property rights are respected and no force is initiated it is consistent with libertarian principles. It may not be perfect but it seems the best option so far.

  60. My take on Planned Parenthood is they confuse abortion rights, (they right to have an abortion), with the right to a FREE abortion. And we all know there are no free abortions. The doctor, nurse, clinic etc all want to be paid. And if the patient does not pay, they want the taxpayers to pay. That’s you and me.

  61. Planned Parenthood clinics don’t seem to be doing anything illegal, at least not broadly…

    Well got to love that. If it is only kind of illegal, and only here and there, then what’s the big deal?
    Send ’em some money!
    What the hell has happened to Reason?

    Can the same writer and magazine also go along with, something like….. “Hey it was only a few drone strikes, and it was a really bad guy that was really mean to a lot of people, and besides those were really mean civilians that were really mean to other civilians that got blown up with him. And the kids would have grown up to big meanies too! So you should accept it as OK because it isn’t broadly done!”

    1. Killing human babies is against every law of nature.

  62. Planned Parenthood should be completely defunded-at its very best it is killing babies & American morality along with it.

  63. “Libertarians should not want to de-fund federal program X cuz my feels.”

    Yeah…….no.

    The federal government needs like 90+% of its programs de-funded. (you look at our debt lately?) You need a better reason to keep a program going other then the fact that you happen like the gender of the people getting free shit from it.

  64. You can argue, on libertarian grounds, that the government shouldn’t be funding either health care or education. But I have a feeling that if Congress decided to only ban funding for religious universities that don’t accept gay marriage, a lot of conservatarians would object…

  65. ANYTIME we can cut off funding for the spending of our tax dollars, it’s probably mostly a very good thing. This author can spin it anyway she wants, but let’s not miss an opportunity to defund a federal government spending program.

    1. Suppose the Congress decided to eliminate Medicare payments to white people (and only white people). Would you support that? It would result in a huge reduction in government spending — hundreds of billions of dollars per year.

  66. Wow! I have never read an article that avoided discussing the actual merits of aborting (murdering except in self defense) of a human baby! Let us not forget what is the heart of this problem, we have all just seen a video with the faces of evil. unless a mother’s life is in danger this is murder.

  67. Leave it to Reason’s own “Abortion Barbie” to find a way to defend the federal funding.

  68. I just love being told how to think by Abortion Barbie.

  69. What’s the difference between Reason and Politico these days? From the content it’s impossible to tell one from the other these days. :-/

  70. Elizabeth Nolan Brown, to her credit, has been a vocal proponent of OTC birth control for quite some time. So, while she’s poo-pooing Republican efforts to defund PP (and quoting Vox, when she knows better), at least she’s got something right.

  71. Hey, Liz- so, libertarians should “think twice” when Republicans want to defund PP but fully supported Democrats who advocated same-sex-marriage?

  72. You know its really not that complicated, even retarded butt holes like Jackoff Asshole and Tony-derp-ass-hat could get it if they wanted to. Defund Planned Parenthood, the government has no business funding it or really anything else for that matter.

  73. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $8596 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, so you can try it too. You can check it out here…
    http://www.jobnet10.com

  74. I don’t see how so many libertarians can get this issue so wrong time after time. Abortion is not right and neither is fetus part harvesting. And taxpayer’s money funding these actions definitely isn’t. The focus is always on ‘consent’ but an unborn baby can consent to be aborted. Technically speaking, a woman is the vessel for the conception and birth of another. The rights of ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’ are individual rights and don’t include the right to take another’s life (unless that person has been found guilty of a crime punishable by death). Unborn children have not committed any crime and cannot ‘consent’ to their own abortion and no one has the right (including the mothers,govt, or PP) to make that decision for them. That’s the whole basis of libertarianism right?? No one person, corporation, or govt entity should be able to make decisions for you or take away your individual rights and freedom as outlined in the Constitution, right?? And speaking of consent, I never ‘consented’ to my tax dollars going to goddamn PP! I dunno maybe I’m wrong……I’m drunk.

    1. ^ I thought twice, and I cannot understand either why so-called Libertarians are in favor of gov sponsored infanticide. It’s not just wrong, it is pure evil. The quibbling about whether or not a baby is a baby is absurd. A beating heart is a life. If there really is a hell, surely it is made for people who endorse the murder of babies.

  75. So once again we are presented with an article on Reason that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It also highlights part of my problem with the fence-walking Libertarian platform. (even though I align with the libertarian ideology) Both sides are to blame, both sides have problems, both solutions present pitfalls. Fine. I get it.

    So why the heck do I have to pay for Planned Parenthood again? Why is Reason, the supposed libertarian voice, pushing to steal money from one person to give to another? Have I been sold a lie that each person is supposed to be responsible for themselves? Giving to charity is one thing but welfare is another thing all together.

    Let Planned Parenthood stand on it’s own I say… they can do fund drives like any other non-profit to raise money for their services instead of stealing it from the taxpayers.

  76. The money is hardly the biggest issue here. Even if the money doesn’t go directly to abortions, it still goes to an organization that performs them and then does something horrendous with the results of those abortions. If it ends up going to another organization instead that doesn’t gleefully participate in the macabre, fine. I’d rather see it go to a faith-based clinic that will provide women with the support they need to avoid abortion than to one that is going to profit off of their suffering and the suffering of the unborn.

    If there is truly “nothing illegal” about what Planned Parenthood is doing, then there needs to be some changes in the law. If government can’t protect the most innocent and vulnerable in society from heinous acts of violence then it literally serves no purpose whatsoever.

  77. This entire argument, like just about all of the abortion fights post Roe, is really just a distraction from the central question: Is the fetus a person?

    I would argue that a one-day-old fertilized egg is obviously not a person. No brain, no heart, no internal organs at all. On what basis other than religious belief (“the soul enters the baby at the moment of conception”) could you argue otherwise?

    On the other hand, I would argue that a nine-month-old fully-developed fetus is obviously as much of a person as a newborn infant. Again, on what scientific basis could you argue otherwise?

    The problem is that we then have to draw a line somewhere in the middle. You could draw it based on a specific age, like requiring people to be 18 years old to vote. Or you could draw it based on a objective test, like detecting brain activity, as we do at end-of-life to determine whether to keep someone on life support.

    Regardless, both of the extreme positions (“Ban the morning-after pill!” or “Allow partial-birth abortions because the woman changed her mind!”) strike me as absurd.

    1. And, RoninX, as soon as you demand an “objective test” to define ‘personhood’ you are asking for a decision-by-consensus… a bunch of people agreeing to that fine point in time when ‘personhood starts’ AS DEFINED only by the consensus-agreement on the ‘objective test.’

      That’s not science; there is no possible ‘scientific test’ that Defines Personhood or anything else you want to call it. You’re simply going for ‘agreement’ and nothing more.

      I’m now getting three or four “defund PP” pleas from the Rand Paul organization and its supporters.

      I believe in Choice, which I also believe is a key Objectivist/Libertarian tenet, so ANY laws that limit “Choice” are anathema to me. Any and all Anti-PP begging letters now automatically go to the Trash bin in my email upon receipt.

      I just finished reading “Think Like a Freak” and I believe a lot of the arguments and perspectives put forth by the authors are applicable to this alleged ‘discussion.’

      Consensus is NOT THE SAME AS “TRUTH” unless you’re the one insisting that it is. Terrible logic and argument, but not from ‘your side.’

  78. Read Freakonomics and find out how birth control pill availability may have ’caused’ a decrease in crime rates…

    Unintended consequences, anyone? What just MIGHT happen if PP is de-funded…? Other than the obvious, simplistic goal stated so far?

    No, you Don’t Know.

  79. I will say this. PPFA brings in a total of 1.3 Billion in revenue, 526 Million of that being government dollars. They take that money and then they lobby government for their interests even if that means stopping over the counter contraception because it hits their bottom line. In any Libertarian sense, tell me how this is okay? This is a private institution that treats government like it’s working for them even if it hurts everyday women. Yes, PPFA does a lot of good work and I have no problem with them remaining to continue that work but funding them is not okay when they behave like every other corrupt business that we condemn for their cronyism.

    If you are arguing for their funds then you are not Libertarian.

  80. An unplanned pregnancy is an accident, but it does not justify ending an unborn life. Surprising as it may be for some, women don’t get pregnant and men don’t become fathers — babies don’t pop into the world — without a preceding act of intercourse. That’s a given fact. Can anyone think of an accident that ought to result in death? I didn’t think so.

    There are very few people who don’t know this salient fact. So, why the surprise when pregnancy occurs?

    Men, as well as women, are totally and completely responsible for every pregnancy since the beginning of time.
    Intercourse should be approached as a way to create a pregnancy, and only as recreation if there are proper rules of engagement. It’s as if no one knows about birth control. It’s easily and widely available. so that excuse is removed from the table of debate about this common phenomenon.

    If some women don’t want to become mothers, and some men don’t want to become fathers, then the answer is simple. Birth control. It’s really not a new concept nor is it difficult to comprehend.

    Rape, incest, and danger to the life of the mother are the only logical and ethical fall back positions in which abortion can be contemplated.

    I know a lot of women will disagree with me, but a lot of women would be wrong, too.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.