Planned Parenthood

Trump Wants to Control Planned Parenthood, Not Defund It

His sneak attack on the reproductive rights of women.

|

Pro Choice
CLODAGH KILCOYNE/REUTERS/Newscom

Even the most pro-choice Americans who insist that women should have unfettered control over their bodies might be willing to concede that it is not incumbent on the government to actually pay for their abortions. So is it really so terrible that President Trump is trying to prevent Planned Parenthood from using federal dollars to perform abortions?

Yes—because he wants to control the organization, not just defund its abortion services.

Planned Parenthood has been in the crosshairs of pro-life conservatives because it is the nation's largest abortion provider—although that's only a part of what it does. In fact, it is a full-service family planning nonprofit that offers a range of health-care services to women that include prenatal care, cancer detection, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception. But its large abortion business—it performs about 330,000, or 40 percent of total abortions, each year—has invited constant attacks from conservatives. These attacks reached a fevered pitch a few years ago after the "expose" by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion outfit, which tried to cast Planned Parenthood as a soulless organization that eagerly and actively harvested fetal organs for sale. President Trump campaigned on a promise to defund Planned Parenthood and, true to his word, last week he announced a plan to do just that.

Planned Parenthood has two sources of federal funding that add up to about 40 percent of its $1.3 billion budget: Medicaid and Title X, a 1970s federal program that subsidizes family planning services for low-income women. It gets roughly $430 million from Medicaid and about $70 million from Title X. Federal law already bars the organization from diverting any of its government money toward abortion. And to satisfy that requirement, it has maintained entirely separate bank accounts, separate tax ID numbers, separate articles of incorporation, separate insurance policies—separate everything—for its abortion services. But pro-life conservatives have long argued that this is not enough because money is fungible, so every federal dollar to Planned Parenthood for one purpose simply ends up freeing its other dollars for abortion activity.

That is a misplaced concern for the simple reason that Planned Parenthood raises more than enough private funds to cover its abortion services. Indeed, if each abortion costs $1,500—a rather steep price—that would add up to $450 million, which is well below the $780 million it gets from private donations through corporations and individual donors.

But that is not stopping President Trump from attacking Planned Parenthood's federal funding. He can't do much about its Medicaid money because that requires congressional action. But Title X funding is under his control, and he wants to reinstate a discarded Reagan-era rule and make this money conditional not on "mere bookkeeping separation" but a physical separation of abortion and other services. This means that Planned Parenthood would have to construct entirely separate facilities for its abortion and non-abortion services. It wouldn't be able to house them in the same clinic.

Obviously, this would be tremendously expensive for Planned Parenthood. It will undermine the nonprofit's ability to perform abortions.

That's the point. After all, this will have no effect on the existing fungibility issue. It is not an effort to ensure that federal dollars don't go toward abortions—they already don't. Instead, it is an effort to hold federal dollars hostage in order to control how Planned Parenthood spends its private funds. It is an attempt to force a more expensive business model on the outfit and undermine it financially.

This won't hurt just Planned Parenthood. It would hurt untold numbers of Americans women, especially low-income ones given that there are many underserved counties where Planned Parenthood is the sole safety-net family planning center that offers emergency contraceptives and other services.

All of this will save taxpayers not one single dime, because President Trump didn't cut overall Title X spending, despite threatening to do so. Instead, his plan is to divert any potential savings from Planned Parenthood to more abstinence preaching as part of family planning, regardless of whether that is effective or not.

The solution for Planned Parenthood may be to voluntarily eschew Title X grants. At $70 million, they constitute a relatively small part of its overall $1.3 billion budget, but open it up to government control. Planned Parenthood would likely be able to make up for this funding loss with increased private donations (an increase of about 9 percent would do it)—and save itself from a world of political attacks. In fact, it can turn Trump's political attack on it as a rallying cry to raise more private funds.

President Trump is acting in bad faith to appease his faith-based constituency. But his attempt isn't the first and it won't be the last—until Planned Parenthood simply walks away.

This column originally appeared in The Week

Advertisement

NEXT: Today Is the Start of Hurricane Season. Trump's Tariffs Could Make It More Costly.

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. Seriously, how is Shikha a “Senior Analyst?”

    1. OMG, Shikha and abortion?

      [starts popping]

      I should probably also make some popcorn.

      1. Popping AND locking, one hopes.

        1. I read that as “[starts pooping]” . I really thought I was going to be the only person who had that reaction!

    2. Fuck, clicked on this article before noticing it was Shikha.

      1. These ad hominem attacks on Shikha are getting awfully tiring. Would you have thought this article a good one if someone else had written it? If so, that opinion should stand, even if she did write it.

        1. Doubtful. It, was from a libertarian view, fucking horrible.

          It’s just that Dalmia FREQUENTLY seems to have no clue what libertarianism is.

          Which seems key for a SENIOR analyst for a major Libertarian publication.

          1. Yup

        2. Dan…. do you think it was a good article?

    3. TLDR
      “Kill more black babies to make room for immigrants.”

    4. I see Senior AnalCyst

    5. She’s to ticking stupid to analyze anything.

    6. How is she “libertarian”?

      Her demands that we fund groups seems exceptionally off from anything resembling a libertarian perspective.

      Planned Parenthood has tons of money. Let them stop receiving welfare. The “feared” NRA (who has killed millions fewer) manage to get by without federal money.

  2. This comment thread is hitting 500 today.

    1. No. The board never hits 500 anymore. And most people are just bored with Shika. She is nuts. There isn’t much left to say about her. And certainly not 500 posts worth.

      1. I gotta get back here more often.

        1. Same. I switched jobs about a year ago and have to spend a lot more time actually working during the day.

          1. Same, it’s fucking gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

        2. You’ll be welcome :). Just ignore everything with Dalmia’s byline. It will improve the rest of your day considerably

          1. The comments for her articles are fun.
            I don’t read her actual articles, but that’s true for 90% of what I click on here at “Reason”

        1. Soave is the new dingbat to rant and rave about. Shika is so 2016. And she does not have teeen idol hair

        2. Woohoo. Rico Suave knows how to deliver.

          1. I’d read that erotic fan fiction.

        3. The reason that thread hit 500 is because it was linked on Drudge. Hence all the nutty randos.

      2. John, just do your part and Ken and Eddie will take care of the rest. You should be able to hit 100 comments on this thread easily. It is Friday, there are no DHS emergencies, you probably don’t have a date lined up for tonight, and $parky already got you worked up.

        1. John has a date…with your mother!

          (It’s because she’s fat, you see.)

          (And a SLUT.)

        2. I am seriously concerned about Sparky. He seems to have blown a gasket.

          1. It’s Friday you retard. I’m just trying to liven the place up.

          2. We are all entitled to a blown gasket now and then. I am seriously curious as to what it would take for you jackasses to get me to go off and start ranting.

            1. Maybe some douche with a fake handle can come by and start ranting about how wrong you are on science.

              1. People are wrong about science all the god damned time here.

            2. This is true. We all have our moments.

              1. I would go off on so many here but I can’t remember which of you are my sockpuppets.

                1. Well, one of them’s on your dick, if that helps any.

                2. The only sockpuppets Eugene uses are the ones he takes to the bedroom with Mrs. Fist.

                3. I would go off on so many here but I can’t remember which of you are my sockpuppets.

                  The ones that are stiff and smell of semen and desperation?

            3. I think Joy Reed should be cancelled. Maybe put her in stocks and drive her down Fifth Avenue like a cow.

              How is that CMB?

        3. Have you considered restarting your fanfic for Reason posters?

          1. Dude there’s Reason poster fanfic? Where can I find some, and how come it’s not on Archive?

          2. Is this directed to me? If so, please let me know which Reason poster you would like a fanfic for, and I will try to deliver.

            1. (put it on Archive sos I can read and comment please and also so it can be super long)

              1. What Archive?

            2. Are you the one that wrote the US Senate erotic fan fic a few years ago featuring a five way orgy?

      3. And most people are just bored with Shika. She is nuts. There isn’t much left to say about her.

        And yet…

  3. The solution for Planned Parenthood may be to voluntarily eschew Title X grants. At $70 million, they constitute a relatively small part of its overall $1.3 billion budget, but open it up to government control. Planned Parenthood would likely be able to make up for this funding loss with increased private donations (an increase of about 9 percent would do it)?and save itself from a world of political attacks. In fact, it can turn Trump’s political attack on it as a rallying cry to raise more private funds.

    I encourage private donations to PP, of course, but I want them to continue receiving taxpayer money as well. I love the idea of spiting anti-choicers by making them give money to an organization they oppose. Serves them right for trying to turn this country into The Handmaid’s Tale.

    #StandWithPP
    #LibertariansForTaxpayerFundedFamilyPlanning

    1. This one’s not very good. It’s too Arthur Kirkland, not enough “well-meaning liberal”.

      1. A Chinese Room can only translate. It can’t synthesize content on its own.

      2. No, it doesn’t have enough obvious bigotry to be a Rev. Kirkland post.

        1. I’m not saying she went full Kirkland, I’m saying she leaned too far towards Kirkland in her comment as compared to the type of parody she usually does.

          1. After reading the Kirkland wannabe, I thought of in Hihn. Boom! The next post is from him. I can just picture the Hihn house: a lot of clucking, strutting, and laying of eggs!

          2. After reading the Kirkland wannabe, I thought of in Hihn. Boom! The next post is from him. I can just picture the Hihn house: a lot of clucking, strutting, and laying of eggs!

    2. “Make the bitter clingers choke on it! And have them bake me a cake while they’re at it!”

  4. Not giving is taking. But PP is enshrined in the emanations and penumbras. At this point we should probably just explicitly make it part of mandatory spending for all of those valuable services it provides, because as we all know health care is one of the most important roles of the federal government.

    1. Trump should start giving the NRA a few billion every year for gun safety and self defense classes. Owning a gun is a right just like abortion you know.

      1. You know that’s totally different because when the Second Amendment explicitly references a right, it obviously doesn’t mean an individual’s right. Clearly it means “the people” in a general sense that excludes individuals. Plus, it has the word “regulated,” ergo we can take away your right, even though “regulated” modifies the word “militia.”

        1. And it only protects the right to own non- functioning flintlocks.

      2. That’s a good idea. Even a token amount will really stick it to the progtards. The amount of site alone makes it whoa worthwhile endeavor. Hell, the amount of spite just towards the progtards that comment here makes it worthwhile.

      3. No joke. At the very least, NRA is trying to give you a chance to survive. PP wants to kill if you accidentally survive.

    2. Fund the NEA. Don’t force people into back ally conceal and carry courses.

      1. One recoils at horror at the prospect of a back-alley concealed carry paintbrush accident.

      2. I’ll sit through a sonogram of a gun being melted down before every purchase if it means I can buy without my FOID card and wait 72 hrs.

    3. Republican Prohibitionism holds that hiring agents to shoot children and dogs over plant leaves is Christian National Socialist healthcare. Shikha was overly generous calling mystical bigot lynch mobs “pro life.” The anti-choice Rumanian dictator the Gee-Oh-Pee so admires, Ceausescu, was tried and executed for genocide by his own nation’s judiciary. Since the 9/11 attacks showed the true face of race-suicide superstition, their fanatical ranks have withered and desperation has gotten all the shriller.

      1. The way you write conjures up the image of you sitting in a pile of your own filth in a mental institution, writing it all on the walls with you own shit.

    4. Planned Parenthood saves a lot of short sighted libertarians a lot of fucking money not having to pay for unwanted kids and more welfare families. Women have the right to do what they want with their bodies.

  5. But he is using Title X funding to try and control how the outfit spends its private funds.

    “try to” not “try and”

    1. “to try to” just sounds wrong.

      1. Proper American always sounds wrong.

        1. That’s why we need more immigration

    2. A.C. Doyle wrote “try and”.

  6. The solution for Planned Parenthood may be to voluntarily eschew Title X grants.

    This should have been the entire article.

    1. The solution for Planned Parenthood may be to voluntarily eschew Title X grants.

      1. The solution for Planned Parenthood may be is to voluntarily eschew Title X grants.

        Fixed.

    2. “The solution for Planned Parenthood may be to voluntarily eschew Title X grants.”

      Got it in one.

      In a libertarian magazine dedicated to small government and free markets it certainly should have been.

      1. Translation: The Plain Truth was a libertarian magazine, because to mystics, superstition and coercion mean freedom.

    3. If it were written by a libertarian it might have been. Maybe some explication of the idea that if you’re going to take the king’s coin you’re going to have to dance to the king’s tune and you really have no right to complain about it. But why make a reasoned argument based on principle that advances the cause of individual choice when you’ve got an opportunity to bash Trump?

  7. might be willing to concede that it is not incumbent on the government to actually pay for their abortions

    Sorry, but this is kind of a dumb thing to think.

    1. I was going to say the same thing. The most militant pro-choice Americans tend to veer hard left, and believe the government should do just that.

      1. I have no problem with abortions, but I don’t think the government should be paying for it either.

  8. As noted earlier this morning, once you give people money you really can’t tell them how to spend it. Either suck it up or stop giving them money.

    1. Isn’t saying that you cannot accept money without giving up control to the person who gave it to you just as valid?

      1. Only if you’re stupid. Makes sense you would think so.

        1. Yeah because money never equals power and people never use it to manipulate and control other people. Are you 12?

          1. If you give me $10 to buy a sandwich you can’t make me buy a sandwich. Once that $10 is mine you have nothing control over me or it. I know you want to have control, but you don’t.

            1. Just sign this contract and I’ll give you the $10. It’s unenforceable, right?

              Hey, once the bank gives you the money for a mortgage there’s nothing they can do like force you to pay homeowners insurance.

            2. This is true as far as it goes, but if you want another $10 tomorrow it might be wise to take the givers feelings into consideration.

              1. This is true as far as it goes, but if you want another $10 tomorrow it might be wise to take the givers feelings into consideration.

                If all of the givers are involuntarily giving, I don’t need to care how they feel.

                1. As I like to say, when you take money at the point of a gun, you don’t have to say thank you.

                2. As I like to say, when you take money at the point of a gun, you don’t have to say thank you.

            3. Yes I can Sparky. It is called a secured loan.

              1. Yes I can Sparky. It is called a secured loan.

                Too bad that isn’t how welfare works.

            4. “If you give me $10 to buy a sandwich you can’t make me buy a sandwich. Once that $10 is mine you have nothing control over me or it. I know you want to have control, but you don’t.”

              You might think that, but if you sign one of my contracts to get the money and breach it you won’t be very happy. My agreements have a lot of teeth. Which would become apparent once a judge is involved.

            5. But then he can say “Well, you won’t get $10 again”.

              That is what Trump is doing here.

              We are under no obligation to provide funding forever.

    2. Well, sure, you can. But in order to enforce that, you have to impose all sorts of rules which may wind up doing more harm than good.

      1. That’s what I said.

        1. But I would also disagree with the premise that a donor shouldn’t try to control how his/her money is being spent by others, whether that donor is a private individual or a government agency. It is the donor’s money after all, and he/she has every right to decide how it may be distributed and to whom, and under what conditions.

          1. It’s a little different for government agencies, because a government is under different obligations than private donors. But the same general idea should apply.

          2. If you give something to someone then it isn’t yours anymore. Since it’s not yours, you don’t get to have any say in its use anymore.

        2. No, you said you can’t enforce any conditions. Apparently that’s the 4th law of thermo, but no one ever gets to that one.

          1. It’s all about context.

            1. Which isn’t helping your case.

    3. The US government should not be funding planned parenthood. How many murdered black babies is too many?

      Problem solved.

    4. Being robbed at gunpoint by looters of the communist and fascist persuasions is “giving” them money?

  9. Pay for your own God-damned abortion, you professional fake libertarian scumbagetta cunts.

    1. Your show has been canceled.

    2. ^What Mikey says to the ENB doll he made out of pantyhose stuffed with shredded old copies of The Limbaugh Letter.

      1. While he’s fucking it and slapping it with a ham sandwich.

      2. The same goes for you too.

        If there had to be one recipient of a taxpayer-funded abortion in America, why couldn’t it have been your filthy whore mother?

        1. Do you have paper cuts on your weiner, or did you use a plastic bag in constructing the doll for “protection”?

          1. He probably uses the sandwich bag.

            1. I was under the impression he made the sandwich himself out of soggy bread and a single slice of ham and way too much mayonnaise. You sure he bought it and it came with a bag?

              1. Yeah, he couldn’t pay $5 extra for it to be unbagged.

              2. No, he puts it in a sandwich bag and lets it sit in the fridge overnight. He wants the sandwich to be cold because he’s going to fuck it first. Once he gets all lubed up with the mayo then he fucks the doll while slapping it with the sandwich. Don’t ask why he needs to lube up before putting on the bag, it’s something he learned from his mother.

                1. …right as I start my lunch, I read this.

                2. …right as I start my lunch, I read this.

  10. This is just standard left-wing “you should have to pay for all the things I like” statism.

  11. Shikha’s immigration position has failed so much, so moved into ENB territory. Imaginary lines and all.

    1. And comp,wining about this kind of government largesse is pretty tone deaf when the readership here is for limited government.

  12. routine Mainstream Intellectual for sure, but where’s the Unusual Point of View?

  13. Did I get on HuffPo by mistake? At what point do we hold women personally responsible for their actions? Men have NO reproductive choices except abstinence or condoms, women have multiple birth control options. At the point of pregnancy she can abort, even if it is against his will, or she can decide to have it, at which point we hold HIM responsible to pay for her decision, even if he didn’t want a child. In fact he is responsible even if she lied about her reproductive status. And DNA shows 1 out of 3 men are misidentified as the father in out of wedlock when they check, which probably correlates to an overall 10% of “duped daddies”. The out of work poor woman who doesn’t opt for her “free” abortion is given housing, food, money, and heat while the poor man is given the streets, persecution, and prison. Perhaps we need to throw out the “responsible father” campaigns and start holding women responsible for their choices in life?

    1. Hold women responsible for their choices?
      What are you, a monster? How can you expect those fragile, innocent, weak minded things to be responsible?
      Next you will be expecting them to get jobs and all that.

      1. It would be sexist to give them agency.

    2. Did I get on HuffPo by mistake?

      Pretty much. Welchie Boy is “newly woke”.

    3. “Men have NO reproductive choices except abstinence or condoms”

      Actually, the courts have held that if a woman fishes the used condom out of the trash, and uses it to get pregnant, you’re still on the hook.

      So, no, the only reproductive choice men have is abstinence.

      1. Nope, California has held that even if a man is raped. He’s still responsible for child support. Men literally have no options.

        1. Pulling out and shooting it on her tits isn’t an option?

      2. True, but … in How To Avoid “Getting Screwed” When Getting Laid, RK Hendrick says, bring your own condom (no pin pricks in yours) and dispose of it away from her. In the liberal lala land of NYS the Court of Appeals has ruled men have no reproductive rights beyond ejaculation. Which is why 13 year olds are held liable for “child support” when their female pedophile rapist gets pregnant.

  14. Under this version of “constitutional analysis”, the government owes me a gun and a printing press, right?

    1. I don’t think I have room for a printing press. Can I convert that printing press into an equivalent dollar amount of guns?

  15. Just require a concealed carry permit to get an abortion.
    What is a common sense control for one constitutional right should be just as reasonable for all rights.
    Then PP can partner with the NRA for permit classes and safety training – – – – – – –
    (I would pay big bucks to be in that meeting!)

    1. That sounds like a pretty amusing meeting, I have to admit.

  16. Oh, this should be good.

  17. That is a misplaced concern for the simple reason that Planned Parenthood raises more than enough private funds to cover its abortion services. Indeed, if each abortion costs $1,500?a rather steep price?that would add up to $450 million, which is well below the $780 million it gets from private donations through corporations and individual donors.

    Since they raise so much money from private individuals, there’s no need for the government funding then.

    1. exactly… if they don’t need the money, then why are they up in arm about it being taken away. They should raise their funds entirely privately and then do whatever the heck they want.

  18. Instead, it is an effort to hold federal dollars hostage in order to control how Planned Parenthood spends its private funds.

    Yes it is. Because that is what happens, both with public money and with private money, when donors give money away to recipients. The donors impose strings so that they have some reassurance that their money is being spent properly. One of the problems with the strings imposed by public funding, is that those strings sway with the fickle desires of the voting public and the corrupt politicians, and not really by any logical or fiduciary standard. That is less so the case with private donor funding.

  19. I don’t see what the big deal here is. Planned Parenthood can subdivide it’s offices and have two separate entrance. With each side paying it’s own utilities and rent. The workers pay would be allocated based upon billing hours per side.

    That’s a reasonable solution. Or they can forego the Federal money. That all seems perfectly legitimate and not particularly onerous. Indeed, Shikia explicitly states that the private money would fully cover abortion services. She’s just saying the costs would go up. Well No Shit, if you stop the implicit governmental subsidies the Cost will go up. Duh!

    “President Trump is acting in bad faith to appease his faith-based constituency. ”

    Sorry but that’s just bullshit. Planned Parenthood has been skirting the law for years by commingling services.

    1. Right. The point here is that PP doesn’t want a real separation, because they DO use the federal funds to help pay for the abortions, and don’t want to stop doing that.

  20. Even the most pro-choice Americans who insist that women should have unfettered control over their bodies might be willing to concede that it is not incumbent on the government to actually pay for their abortions.

    Maybe, if you put a gun to their head. But that’s sort of the whole definition of leftism, the idea that it *is* incumbent on government to do whatever it is they think serves the common good. It’s just those nutty extreme individualists who insist the needs of the many don’t outweigh the needs of the few. It’s why punitive, confiscatory taxes on the rich are not only not a necessary evil but a downright moral necessity, for example. The sheep must not be allowed to stray from the flock lest they come to harm and any sheep caught attempting to flee from the safety of the flock will be summarily shot as a lesson to any other sheep getting silly ideas about their role in the production of mutton.

    1. Wasn’t free abortions part of the DNC platform? It’s one thing to champion access to abortion and other reproductive options but once you add the “regardless of ability to pay” then you’re talking about government handouts to support the industry or intentionally bankrupting it.

  21. Of course, just yesterday John was arguing, in the context of the Roseanne cancellation story, that if he had a hypothetical dry cleaner which gave him good service, but whom he knew to be an ardent abortion supporter, and donated part of his profits to Planned Parenthood, that John would have no problem continuing to do business with this dry cleaner, even though he fully knows that part of the money he willingly gives to the dry cleaner winds up paying for abortions.

    So, given this argument, I’d really like to see John’s objections to government funding of Planned Parenthood. It can’t be due to the coercive aspect of taxation, because John would freely give his own money to an individual that he knows will give some of it to pay for abortions.

    1. Yes I would. It is their money and what they do with it is their business. My only business with them is getting my clothes drycleaned. It fucking amazes me how dumb you are. You actually think this is some kind of gotcha point and that being forced to pay taxes that are spent on something you hate is the same as some guy you do business with spending the profits he makes on something you don’t like.

      Taxes are a zero sum game. It is not a trade. They just take my money. And I get a say in what it is used for. Trade is a mutually beneficial transaction. I benefit from it or I would not do it. So what you do with the money you make is really none of my concern. I am trading with you because of the benefit I receive. That is not true of taxes.

      You really are just kind of dense.

      1. Jeff just sees all of those valuable government services that his tax dollars are buying. Of course when he pays those taxes he also knows that they are going to be spent on fighter jetz and interventions around the world and he is a-ok with that.

        1. He actually seems to think that I should have the same say in what you do with your money that I have over how the government spends my tax dollars.

          1. He actually seems to think that I should have the same say in what you do with your money that I have over how the government spends my tax dollars.

            I never said that, John. This is a weak strawman.

            1. You attempted the much weaker gotcha of attempting to enforce purity in all things, when the more dogmatic libertarian position would be that as long as the trade was mutually beneficial on net it would naturally occur. Of course john has the choice in this case and you seem to believe that, like the dry cleaner, john is deriving some benefit from funding PP in which he has no choice.

              So about those weak straw men…

              1. I never said anything about John deriving any benefit from funding PP. In fact I’m pretty sure John doesn’t think he derives any benefit from funding PP. I don’t think coercive taxation of government programs is analogous to voluntary trade in a free market.

                1. And yet you think paying a dry cleaner for dry cleaning is analogous to finding PP because the dry cleaner chooses to donate. So which non-abortion service is john receiving from PP?

                  1. No, Skippy. My question is about the inherent contradiction that John complains about coercive government taking his money to fund causes that he opposes – a complaint that I completely agree and sympathize with – but at the same time John also complains when individuals choose not to spend their money at private businesses which support causes that the individuals might oppose. If it’s wrong for the government to take my money to spend on abortion because “abortion is murder”, then why wouldn’t I be justified in refusing to spend my money at establishments that support abortion?

                    Evidently John thinks that when I give money to a private business, my moral judgment should not extend beyond the very narrow limits of the particular transaction itself. And I just fundamentally disagree with that.

                    1. For the simple fact that the interactions that you wish to boycott have nothing to do with the issue you are concerned about except through the independent actions of the people you are trading with. You are the one who believes that some extended moral purity not only can but must be enforced in every daily interaction. That’s a special kind of intolerance from someone so #woke.

            2. Jeff, it isn’t a weak strawman. You have a weak mind. See the difference?

      2. being forced to pay taxes that are spent on something you hate is the same as some guy you do business with spending the profits he makes on something you don’t like.

        In other words, you hate that you are being forced to pay for abortions, and yet you would willingly give money to someone whom you knew would use part of that money to pay for abortions.

        So is your *only* objection to the taxpayer funding of PP is that it is funded via coercive taxation, and not that it is spent paying for abortions?

        And I get a say in what it is used for.

        Yes, you do. A very insignificant say in how the tax money is used for, as just one of hundreds of millions of votes. However, when given the choice to have a much more direct say in what your money is used for, you choose not to exercise it, and freely hand it over to the abortion-loving dry cleaner. You’re going to have to help me understand why, if you view abortion as the moral abomination that it truly is, that you choose not to exercise your moral judgment to spend your money in a way that is in more alignment with your values.

        Note that I am NOT saying that you should organize a mass boycott of the dry cleaner or anything along those lines. Simply exercising discretion over your own choices.

        1. Is PP providing him dry cleaning? Or perhaps there is some other valuable service. Or are dry cleaners predominantly abortion providers in your neck of the woods?

        2. His objection is that his money is being used, in one instance, to pay for abortions. In the other instance, his money is being used to pay for dry cleaning, and then the guy who cleaned his clothes uses it to pay for abortions. In both cases, he likely disagrees with money being used to pay for abortions, but in the latter case, it’s not “his” money anymore; he spent “his” money and it’s now somebody else’s money, while in the former case, the government under the guise of representing him took his money and used it for something he opposes.

          1. while in the former case, the government under the guise of representing him took his money and used it for something he opposes.

            So John doesn’t mind his money going to fund something he opposes, he just objects to the false pretense involved when the government does it?

            The way I see it, when it comes time for John to get his lawyer suits dry cleaned, he has a choice on whether to spend his money at a dry cleaner that supports abortions, or a dry cleaner that does not. If John truly believes that abortion is a moral abomination, as I’m sure he sincerely does, then I don’t see why he doesn’t choose to spend his money at the dry cleaner that doesn’t support abortion. That isn’t the same as fomenting a mob against the abortion-loving dry cleaner, and that isn’t the same as trying to dictate to the abortion-loving dry cleaner what he should spend his money on. That is simply exercising one’s free choice motivated by moral reasoning in the marketplace. But John sees this as an unforgivable sin. And then he turns around and complains when coercive government gives his money to the same moral abomination that he opposes. I am struggling to wrap my head around the contradiction.

            1. Again you fail to see that it isn’t John’s money at that point. What is the full context of the choice? Is there an alternative dry cleaner? Is it cost effective? Is john weighing the greater impact that enforcing purity on every single issue in every single daily interaction is at best impractical if not impossible?

              At this point you’re just being wilfully obtuse. But since you are so certain that perfect purity is attainable in all things I look forward to your correspondence from federal prison when you withhold your taxes based on principles.

              1. It’s funny that you guys are down here staking out positions exactly opposite of the ones you took in response to my comment.

                Once you give someone else money it’s not yours anymore and you don’t get to tell them what to do with it.

                1. How am I taking the opposite position?

              2. Again you fail to see that it isn’t John’s money at that point.

                AFTER John pays the dry cleaner, you are right. No one is arguing that John should dictate to the dry cleaner how he should spend his money.

                But BEFORE John decides to pay anyone for dry cleaning, it’s still his money, and he is free to choose whomever he wishes to clean his clothes.

                And again if John wants to treat every market transaction as consisting of nothing more than exchanging dollars for goods and services, with no other moral significance than that, then he has every right to do so. Go right ahead. It’s his money, his choice.

                BUT, if John is going to complain about abortion, and then when presented with the option of not giving money to someone whom HE KNOWS is going to use some of that money to fund abortion, John says “eh I don’t give a shit”, I’m going to wonder why he doesn’t exercise more care in whom he chooses to do business with.

                Plus, John’s argument is not just that he isn’t going to use moral considerations in choosing with whom he chooses to do business – which is his right and prerogative – but furthermore, that if I *do* choose to use moral considerations in my market transactions, that *I am wrong* for doing so. That I am, according to him, trying to punish ordinary businesspeople for their private beliefs. And I thoroughly reject that position completely.

              3. Jeff is usually willfully obtuse. He pulls this same kind of stupid shit when he feebly attempts to argue with me.

                1. Jeff is making sense. Dollar votes are the only votes that matter. I know that Starbucks is a major PP donor so I choose not to spend my money there. I don’t understand why this is so hard for everyone here to understand.

            2. Radical “individualism”… Must be a newspeak progressive definition of “individualist”.

        3. The Harrison Act of 1914 made doctors into lying witnesses for coercive prohibitionism in exchange for cartel collusion in fixing prices for medical care. Observe that mystical conservatives seek to preserve the communist manifesto income tax they added to the Constitution in 1913–rather than recognize that women, indeed “all persons born” have self ownership and individual rights.

    2. Why do you want to kill black babies, Jeff?

      1. How about – I don’t?

        1. According to Candace Owens, PP aborts 800 black babies every day.

          1. According to Candace Owens,

            Well there’s your first problem.

            PP aborts 800 black babies every day.

            Well then it’s a good thing I don’t support public funding for PP, as I mentioned above.

            1. It is no fun trolling you at all, Jeff.

              Candace is a paragon of enlightened thought.

    3. Because he believes other people who may disagree shouldn’t be forced to give their money. An individual going to a store themselves and making that decision is quite different from money taken for taxation.

  22. “How should Planned Parenthood fight back?”

    I may of course be biased, but may I suggest dissolving their organization and giving their assets to centers for unwed mothers?

    1. Someone has to keep the undesirables from breeding Eddie.

      1. …did you just quote Kirkland? Because I can legit see him saying that proudly and without any sarcasm.

  23. Let’s hope PBS is next.

  24. Bottom line on abortion:

    They happen everywhere, whether legal or illegal, except where they’re illegal they’re more dangerous and they happen later in gestation. So people who are “pro-life” simply want to make women’s lives needlessly more miserable without actually eliminating abortion.

    There, solved that, you’re welcome.

    1. Tony on murder

      Murders happen everywhere, whether they are legal or illegal, except where it is illegal it is more dangerous to the shooter. People who want murder laws just want to needlessly endanger the lives of shooters.

      1. Past Me on rape

        Rapes happen everywhere, whether legal or illegal, except where they’re illegal they’re more dangerous and they happen to more vulnerable populations. So people who are “anti-rape” just want to make vulnerable populations needlessly more miserable without actually eliminating rape.

        There, solved that, you’re welcome.

      2. So are you going to come out in favor of punishing women who get abortions for first-degree murder, or are you still full of shit?

        1. Are you going to call for a tax on yourself to fight global inequality or are you just full of shit?

          1. Sure, why not? Call it the Ebola prevention tax and maybe you’ll be on board.

            1. I already pay my fair share tony. Let me know when you become a net contributor.

              1. I also want to pay few to no taxes and still have civilization and I also want a rainbow unicorn and free ice cream for life.

                1. You expect more productive people than you to give you your pony. After all, you want it.

                  1. Why do you people always say more productive when what you really mean is richer.

                    Being shat out of a Walton cunt doesn’t make someone a better person.

      3. John – abortion is not murder. Like it or not, a fetus is not viable outside the womb until late in pregnancy. That is just a fucking biological reality and has NOTHING to do with politics or a philosophical view of when life begins.

        Maybe at that point of viability, you can piss around with coercing women into surgical delivery and pretend that that is a completely acceptable use of state coercion.

        But before viability, your argument is nothing less than advocating slavery as a preferable alternative. And like everyone else who advocates that, your complete lack of interest in the fetus/victim/child once they’re born (and still totally dependent) undermines any argument that ‘life itself is important’.

        1. So you believe that viability is important. Then it does become murder at about 22 weeks. So “late” is defined as anything slightly past the midpoint.

          1. Fine. Then you die on the ‘libertarian’ hill that says it is a perfectly appropriate role for the state to coerce the woman into delivery then (incurring some health risks to her), pay for the preemies medical expenses (we spend about $26 billion/year for current preemies – so add a LOT to that), and decide who will be the guardian of that post-birth child until age 16/18/whatever when they can actually become independent. I ain’t gonna die on that hill.

            1. Oh – and you actually have to do ALL those above. You can’t just coerce the woman into doing all that because that is merely extending the ‘slavery’ from viability to age 18.

              1. Ah the utilitarian argument. So convincing. See it isn’t murder if it’s inconvenient. Keep telling yourself that you’re principled though.

                1. YOU are the one saying that the act is murder. YOU are apparently the one who is OK with doing nothing to actually stop/prevent it from happening.

                  YOU are apparently the one who thinks that the only thing to be done is what – imprison the mother after she aborts? Or are you saying that this murder should not result in imprisonment? In which case – WTF is the point of calling something murder and not punishing it – to throw poo at political opponents? Is this ACTUAL murder or merely rhetorical poo?

                  1. No, you claimed that it wasn’t murder prior to viability. The corollary is that it then becomes murder after the point of viability. So which is it? Or would you simply prefer to listen to your feelings with no self-consistent philosophy?

                    1. you claimed that it wasn’t murder prior to viability. The corollary is that it then becomes murder after the point of viability. So which is it?

                      That corollary is just your own nonsensical creation. It is not and cannot be murder before viability. That is my assertion.

                      That does not mean it magically becomes murder at viability. The burden is on those who claim it is murder BEFORE viability (and sometimes even back to conception) to then say what they will do about that at the first point when they CAN do something about it (separate from the woman herself). Deliver and prevent the murder? Punish it? Whatever – that ain’t my hill by definition.

                2. Personhood does not begin at conception.

                  1. Now brace yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall inform me! 4Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding. 5Who fixed its measurements? Surely you know! Or who stretched a measuring line across it??

            2. Of course, no “coercion” is really necessary. Birth happens naturally at the end of 9 months.

        2. John – abortion is not murder. Like it or not, a fetus is not viable outside the womb until late in pregnancy. That is just a fucking biological reality and has NOTHING to do with politics or a philosophical view of when life begins.

          This isn’t exactly what John is saying and is wrong as a predicate to what Tony is saying (falsely). Abortions don’t just happen and don’t just happen everywhere. Or, to put it another way, the majority of abortions that do happen and happen everywhere are predominantly early in gestation and frequently occur without the woman being entirely or definitively aware that it happened. Even if we limit it to induced abortions, the ones performed in a more ‘everywhere’ fashion are medically/chemically induced and still happen early in gestation. The places where they do happen later in gestation are relatively centralized and happen later more directly by the woman’s choice.

          Tony chooses to say that making women live with their choices makes them more miserable and then proceeds to acknowledge that these bigoted zealots won’t be able to or aren’t out to eliminate all abortion. Medical termination (as opposed to surgical) is the more popular choice in countries who’s abortion rights we seek to emulate. The argument (absurdly in the case of the pro-choice side) in this country seems excessively focused on particular methods of abortions and the clinics that surround them. Especially considering abortifacients are covered under the ACA.

          1. They’re out to eliminate all abortion but are too cowardly to say that it should be punishes as the murder they think it is. They don’t seem to favor doing anything to prevent spontaneous miscarriage (surely the largest global killer of precious babies by far), but Jfree rightly notes that rightwing Christofascist dickwads have no interest in socially attending to the basic needs of actual living humans. Government must be small enough to grab women by the pussy but no larger.

            1. They’re out to eliminate all abortion

              “They” as in John and I or “They” as in the straw men in your head?

              but are too cowardly to say that it should be punishes as the murder they think it is. They don’t seem to favor doing anything to prevent spontaneous miscarriage… Government must be small enough to grab women by the pussy but no larger.

              So, they’re wrong to want the government to grab women by the pussy but in pursuit of their convictions their fault is that they don’t want government to grab more women by the pussy hard enough?

              You really need to stop talking to your straw men because it really just comes across like you want to fuck over anyone who opposes you, whether they have a pussy or not, because the straw men told you so.

              1. It’s not a straw man. They want to outlaw abortion. They want to overturn Roe. They say so in their campaign literature. It’s like their #1 priority.

                1. It’s, by the way, why we have Trump. Christian “moralists” are so fixated on outlawing abortion they were willing to tolerate this amoral shitshow in order to accomplish it. Straw man? They are willing to toss into a dumpster every last shred of moral credibility they ever had in order to achieve this goal.

                  1. See, Robby, whwn have you ever seen a leftie apply alinksy’s rule? Never, I tell ya!

                2. They just want to be more like the europeans you admire so much, Tony.

                3. It’s not a straw man. They want to outlaw abortion.

                  So, not exactly or necessarily John and I then.

                  They want to overturn Roe. They say so in their campaign literature.

                  I could say that another way of saying this is that they want to make babies more viable earlier in the pregnancy, but I’m not that dishonest and detached from reality. However, more overarchingly, they oppose procedures that, rather obviously, in the next several of decades will be regarded as barbaric. The idea that we must have abortion clinics and that women must have access to them is becoming about as relevant as the idea that we must have post offices or public phone booths and women must have access to them.

                4. But whut about the Constitushunal Amendment to restore coathanger abortions and force them Jezebels to move to Canada or bleed to death? That was Prohibition and God’s Own Prigs party dogma beginning in 1976.

                5. Yeah, overturning Roe wouldn’t make abortion illegal nationwide. Rather, it would return the decision to the states and they could deal with the issue as they see fit.

        3. A fetus is a baby at the very second the mother decides that she wants a baby. That ‘personhood’ is gratuitously extended back to conception.

          As long as the mother wants the baby.

          If she miscarries, it’s treated as the death of a baby. As long as the mother wants the baby.

          If something happens to harm her or the fetus, it’s treated as a crime against two people, not one. As long as the mother wants the baby.

          If something happens to kill her or the fetus and no one knows whether or not she wanted the baby its treated as if she did…and the crime becomes a crime against two people.

          Throughout all of this, the ‘personhood’ of the fetus has relied solely on the whim of the mother. But society has acted in accordance with that whim.

          Should anyone’s life rely on whim? Should anyone have the power to decide that someone isn’t a person based on whether that person’s existence is ‘convenient’ or not?

          And if it can be said, factually, that you were you at your conception, why is it so easy to deny that same fact to others?

  25. What the states are doing re abortion clinics now is far more significant than what the feds are doing or can do.

    It’s the states themselves that are denying the capability for women to even make the decision – as a way of avoiding directly (and illegally) taking away the purported right. It’s a passive-aggressive dishonesty that has apparently now become the standard MO for socons. Doesn’t speak well for their supposed ‘religious ethic’ if that is the ethical means they choose to achieve their goal.

    1. denying the capability for women to even make the decision

      Say what now? I think women are still free to travel to a more abortion-friendly state if they so desire.

      1. Of course. They are also free to travel to a foreign country. They are free to run marathons in the ninth month. They are free to carry to term and raise the kid to age 18 without assistance. Free free free.

        Seriously – you are arguing that the freedom available to anyone outside prison (including men) is sufficient to ensure that pregnant women can make a difficult unique decision in a very limited window. Everything else is effectively made illegal. Not merely unfunded by taxpayers – but MADE ILLEGAL. As I said – this demonstrates a really ugly ethic at work.

        Ain’t the Xianity I grew up in. It is hateful – intolerant – anti-compassionate – and that is also exactly the ethic now on display at the ‘private’ ‘alternatives’ that are more readily available.

      2. Say what now? I think women are still free to travel to a more abortion-friendly state if they so desire.

        Up to about 9 weeks, they can get an abortion in the privacy of their own home at significantly lower risk and their employer/insurer covers it. This is overwhelmingly the most popular option in the rest of the West. There’s a pretty clear rent-seeking, virtue-signalling aspect at play behind having brick-and-mortar abortion clinics that you can point to.

        1. Another way of putting it is that pro-lifers are obsessed with interfering mostly with abortions that are most necessary and most difficult.

          Of course this is simply a way station on the path to total prohibition, as you well know.

          1. Another way of putting it is that pro-lifers are obsessed with interfering mostly with abortions that are most necessary and most difficult.

            This is not another way of putting what I said nor really reflective of reality.

        2. The only rent-seeking going on here is by the pro-life side who are getting state-level assistance to coerce pregnant women into going there for ‘mandatory medical advice’.

          There IS an actual ‘free market option’ here. Adoption agencies and pro-life obgyn could actually offer competent compassionate and effective ‘womens health’ services. All the gynecological and pre-natal stuff that ensures healthy moms and babies. The more expensive stuff that is unfortunately needed at times (and FAR FAR too often in the US where 10% of births are preemies). Social counseling to help women deal with the social issues that come with carrying a child to term when they aren’t going to be a mother. And the post-birth adoption services that help a pregnant woman believe it might all be worth the hassle/risk she incurs. Funded PRIVATELY by the pro-lifers who say this is all important.

          So pregnant women – no matter what their own politics/religion/circumstances/etc – actually have a positive CHOICE. And coercion ceases to be the MO.

          1. The more expensive stuff that is unfortunately needed at times (and FAR FAR too often in the US where 10% of births are preemies).

            This isn’t a complete sentence and seems half-baked. The overall suggestion seems to be that ‘expensive high-risk pregnancy stuff’ be provided by privately funded adoption agencies and pro-life obgyns. Which has plenty of empirical evidence (of both the Kermit Gosnell-type, the clinical epidemiology type, as well as the “We’ll give you an abortion but we’d really like you to have your baby here”-type) to indicate it’s a bad idea.

            1. The overall suggestion seems to be that ‘expensive high-risk pregnancy stuff’ be provided by privately funded adoption agencies and pro-life obgyns.

              As a comprehensive service to patients – yeah. No one can predict ahead of time whether a pregnancy will have complications. That’s not a surprise to you is it? But I can guaranfuckingtee that EVERY newly-pregnant woman who is looking at making a choice of what doctors/services she may need for that pregancy – is gonna have no interest in making an entirely separate set of Chinese-menu decisions of what OTHER services she may need in the event of complications because one group of those providers washes their hands of ‘complications’.

              Purely medically, this is a NATURAL advantage of abortion. Because abortion ends the pregnancy and thus ends the complications of pregnancy. If pro-lifers can’t deal with this, then they aren’t dealing with reality. That’s not usually an effective way to develop a service in the free market.

              1. Oh – and I’m not saying that these have to happen outside hospitals or as additional infrastructure anything. Obgyns all have admitting privileges – precisely because that’s where the preemie/ICU wards are. And obviously the entire function of those wards is, effectively ‘pro-life’.

                If POLITICAL ‘pro-life’ can’t figure out a way to work with – and yes help privately finance – MEDICAL ‘pro-life’, then WTF are they good for? Just more poo-flinging?

              2. Because abortion ends the pregnancy and thus ends the complications of pregnancy.

                This is actually a fallacy on several levels and, in fact, the US has arguably the worst new mother mortality rate in the Western world because of this assumption and this is even without addressing or including post-partem psychoses.

                Abortion is not just like regular birth but shorter/easier. Rather objectively, nothing really prevents OB/GYNs right now from offering the services you suggest (indeed they frequently do have to choose at the last minute). The main reasons no one does is because if you’re even remotely in touch with your OB/GYN regarding your impending pregnancy/abortion, it’s dead simple to get the issue resolved without surgical intervention and the overwhelming majority of OB/GYNs can and do consider it to be a violation of their oath to wait 20-24 weeks or more and *then* decide to abort. It’s the reverse analogue of Obama and the left pushing free preventative medicine in order to drive costs down under the ACA. Even if the fetus has zero potential of becoming a living being, these women are knowingly gaining weight and undergoing a surgical procedure without talking to a physician until the last minute and expecting everyone else to support it and/or pick up the cost. To the point of demanding separate, more convenient clinics where they can be freed from any/all criticism from doing so.

                1. in fact, the US has arguably the worst new mother mortality rate in the Western world because of this assumption

                  Where do you people get this sort of nonsense? Yes we may well have the worst new mother fatality rate in the Western world. Just like we are at the bottom in prenatal care and have double the rate of preemie births and a whole slew of other crappy metrics re our healthcare system. But it sure as fuck isn’t because we have some uniquely socialist or eugenic or positive attitude about abortion. Yeesh.

                  if you’re even remotely in touch with your OB/GYN

                  Well golly. This might be one explanation for our stats. We have fewer obgyns/peep than most countries in europe at least (we have 2x the number of Germany with 4x the peeps so half the rate/peep). Ours are poorly distributed geographically too – with poor access – like all medical services here. No surprise there since obgyn is the closest ‘specialist’ to a GP type – and we don’t do GP type healthcare in the US.

                  So ‘remotely in touch’ is prob accurate. Like maybe can’t get an appointment for a month or more or they are a ‘practice is full’. So golly – maybe it AIN’T so dead simple as you want to imagine.

                  1. Also – Germany/Benelux/Italy/Spain are countries that also tend towards surgical abortions like us rather than medical abortions. France/UK/Scandinavia tend toward medical, so maybe there is something cultural at work too.

                2. Yeppers. I mean beer is legal, but haven’t yet heard any refrain from avid sports’ watchers demanding federal funding of sports bars all of which serve free beer (which should also be paid for by taxes).

                  After all, if there aren’t enough of these establishments close enough to the needy and if they don’t serve the needy for free – then can we really say beer or drinking is legal at all?

                  Per PP: Without free, easy, convenient access, this is an absolute direct frontal assault on US citizen’s cherished and historically observed right to imbibe.

                3. The second derivative of the population curve changed just before the LP overpopulation plank became Roe v. Wade–the illiterati can look it up. Christianomohammedans eager for jihad at Armageddon will never forgive us for asserting the individual rights of women. But we can delete their “good faith” infiltration plank from the LP platform.

    2. The states just aren’t treating abortion as the golden calf of medical procedures, and they’re subjecting it to the sort of onerous and expensive regulations that apply to other surgical procedures. That seems very equitable to me, and if pro-choice advocates don’t like it then they need to get on task with deregulating medicine instead of just this one procedure, but most won’t because that would solve our healthcare cost crisis and undermine the case for universal healthcare.

      1. No they’re not. The requirement that abortion doctors have hospital admitting privileges is not a mere surgical requirement. It is a SOCIAL requirement because it requires that hospitals themselves get involved in the politics of abortion re their staff decisions – and it would also require hospitals themselves to perform abortions which many don’t want to do for a multitude of reasons.

        The requirement of multiple visits and waiting times has absolutely NOTHING to do with any medical issue.

        if pro-choice advocates don’t like it then they need to get on task with deregulating medicine

        If deregulating medicine is your goal, then it is YOUR goal – and YOUR responsibility to move that along. Mandating that someone else make that their goal and do what you want them to and only what you want them to do, is EXACTLY the sort of incompetent passive/aggressive BS that seems to characterize the modern R’s.

    3. women have the same choice that men do — keep their legs closed or deal with the consequences…

  26. A spirited meeting of Libertarians For Big Government this one turns out to be.

    The subcommittees (Libertarians For Government Micromanagement Of Clinics, Libertarians For Womb Management By Government, Libertarians For Compulsory Transvaginal Ultrasounds, Libertarians For Compulsory Speech, Libertarians For Censorship, etc.) also are in fine form on this one.

    Carry on, clingers.

    So far as your betters permit, as always.

    1. Yeah, John totally quoted you upthread.

    2. Being pro-life is not the same as “womb management.” Real crimes (where there is a victim) can remain crimes and still respect constitutional privacy rights.

      The “transvaginal ultrasound” claim was one of the most absurd in recent memory. The fact of the matter is that Planned Parenthood does one 99% of the time an abortion is performed. So if having one is such an invasion of privacy (or the equivalent of rape, as ridiculous leftists claim it was), then PP has been “raping” women in this way for years. Yet the left doesn’t seem to care to much, does it?

  27. People who think abortion is wrong want to make it harder to get abortions. Film at 11.

    PS. “Faith” isn’t the only source of morality.

    PPS. The next Democrat will just swing the pendulum back the other way. Maybe the “unfettered control over their bodies” crowd should just keep their pants on until then.

  28. Abortion and immigration, the left’s two non-negotiables. Weird how they are non-negotiable here too.

    Report: Planned Parenthood Covers Up Sex Abuse of Minors
    Planned Parenthood once again finds itself under fire after a report was released showing that the ‘women’s health’ clinic performed abortions on young girls who had been sexually abused by family members, and then failed to report these crimes. Instead of taking a harsh stance against sexual abuse, Planned Parenthood sent these girls back home to the abusive arms of the family members who perpetrated sex crimes without law enforcement having any knowledge….

    1. The Left can never seem to condemn the repeated, disgusting behavior from their favorite campaign fundraiser, Planned Parenthood.

      Where is the fucking Pulitzer for this publication?

      1. The NYT still brags about its Pulitzer for Duranty’s lies about Stalin, so that award doesn’t mean a whole lot.

        1. Oh sure. Next you’ll be telling us how the Nobel Peace Prize doesn’t mean a whole lot either…

          1. Nominations for Obama’s ended one week after he first took office.

  29. Even the most pro-choice Americans who insist that women should have unfettered control over their bodies might be willing to concede that it is not incumbent on the government to actually pay for their abortions.

    What kind of bubble do you live in? Read comments anywhere, or follow any social media, and it’s clear they don’t think that way at all. And get violently angry if you suggest it.

    1. It should be covered like any other medical procedure, but many of us are willing to compromise if it will shut the warriors for Christ up for a day or two (it won’t).

      1. Tony|6.1.18 @ 12:49PM|#
        “It should be covered like any other medical procedure,”

        You pay for any medical procedure you please. Not me.
        Fuck off, slaver.

        1. Why do I really think you probably receive a monthly disability check or somesuch.

          1. From experience?

          2. “Why do I really think you probably receive a monthly disability check or somesuch.”

            Because you have an active fantasy life.

    2. The Government is the entity that formed the doctor cartel in exchange for pseudoscientific testimony that plant leaves cause eternal damnation and chromium damage, and that LSD caused Art Linkletter’s daughter to flee bad parenting then kill herself to avoid recapture. At least the medical examiner was honest in exposing the lie. Every Comstock law whack job sockpuppet is outed here in carpetbiting rage. Take note of their ailiases and fake names.

  30. Why can’t we just put in protectionist tariffs on foreign baby parts so that Planned Parenthood can sell there’s at a fair market price. Everybody happy now?

    1. *theirs (damn me)

  31. it is a full-service family planning nonprofit that offers a range of health-care services to women that include prenatal care, cancer detection, screening for sexually transmitted diseases, and contraception”

    this is not true most planned parent place dod none of these things

  32. If PP is so concerned with ‘family planning’ why do they oppose OTC BC pills, even though most doctor groups, like the ACOG and AMA support the idea? Even though globally it’s the rule and we are the exception? It’s almost like making family planning and BC easier to obtain isn’t the goal, and revenue is. They don’t care about accessible BC, they care that poor women have to get it through them and only them.

    1. If PP is so concerned with ‘family planning’ why do they oppose OTC BC pills, even though most doctor groups, like the ACOG and AMA support the idea?

      PP doesn’t oppose OTC birth control–they just want it to be fully paid for like it is under Obamacare. So the idea is that you’d get reimbursed by the insurance company for whatever pills you buy.

      1. Condoms aren’t covered by insurance. Btw, I bet self scanning at drug stores and grocery stores has lowered the unplanned pregnancy rate more than PP!

        1. why do they oppose OTC BC pills

          Condoms aren’t covered by insurance.

          Were you drunk when you posted this?

    2. I agree that PP’s obsession with abortions is counterproductive to their overall goal but other than killing babies they do a good job…at least according to Trump.

  33. 1. Money is fungible.

    2. You seriously believe that no one is capable of providing the same services Planned Parenthood currently does?

    1. Omg, if Republicans put birth control clinics in black neighborhoods they would be accused of genocide!!

  34. “These attacks reached a fevered pitch a few years ago after the “expose” by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion outfit, which tried to cast Planned Parenthood as a soulless organization that eagerly and actively harvested fetal organs for sale”

    Uh, TRIED to cast?

  35. stop giving these shit heads goobermint money – either that or also give goobermint money to the NRA and NORMAL.

  36. Reason is trolling its readers again. Why else would such a woeful article be published here?

    Reason can only have one position on Planned Parenthood: no public funding whatsoever, and all power to PP and their generous donors. But the article smells of nothing but Trump Derangement Syndrome. What else is to be expected from government funding but government interference? Is the writer pretending this is not an age-old problem, and why libertarians eschew public money? Yet we have outrage that Trump seems to be using the funding as a control mechanism. It also seems like the writer would be happy if Trump just backed off and left the public money in place.

    The only saving grace is that an immigration connection was not dreamed up, although I’m sure that could be arranged.

  37. “But Title X funding is under his control, and he wants to reinstate a discarded Reagan-era rule and make this money conditional not on “mere bookkeeping separation” but a physical separation of abortion and other services. This means that Planned Parenthood would have to construct entirely separate facilities for its abortion and non-abortion services. It wouldn’t be able to house them in the same clinic.”

    Which is entirely reasonable if the Title X funds are prohibited from funding abortions. Using the funds toward a building in which abortions are performed is funding abortion.

    “That is a misplaced concern for the simple reason that Planned Parenthood raises more than enough private funds to cover its abortion services. Indeed, if each abortion costs $1,500?a rather steep price?that would add up to $450 million, which is well below the $780 million it gets from private donations through corporations and individual donors.”

    Great. They don’t need public money to help fund abortions. Problem solved.

    1. “Trump Wants to Control Planned Parenthood, Not Defund It”
      i.e.
      “I can read Trump’s mind and will tell you all about it”

      The Reason Clown Show, starring Shikha “When the Walls Fell” Dalmia.

  38. Planned Parenthood provides very, very limited prenatal care. They’re in the abortion business.

    They do approximately 300,000 abortions a year, at $500 a pop, that’s 150 Million dollars a year.

    Simply no reason what so ever that they should receive federal funding.

    I’ve done 100’s of abortions, I no longer kill humans for money. And it’s not a religious thing, i’m an agnostic, it’s damn bad Karma.

    1. If you’re going to kill for money kill adults.

      1. Readers will observe that HIV here defines a woman as an unperson once there is hope of Die Ewige Staat harvesting a Hitlerjugend trainee from her flesh.

  39. When did Reason become a dumping ground for Planned Parenthood propaganda? Is a “libertarian” stumping for corporate welfare? Planned Parenthood voluntarily giving up tax money? That is the funniest part of this article.

  40. Shikha should heed Petr Beckmann’s warning against adopting the vocabulary of the enemies of freedom. There are no “pro-life” Conservatives. There is a diminishing # of Comstock Law conservatives who want the 1873 law restored by men with guns to its full glory under Herbert Hoover. The 1873 Comstock Law banned condoms, diaphragms, pills, potions, “disloyal” or titillating text and even provided fines and ten years hard labor for a mother who counsels her daughter as to how to find these things. The shameful pandering whereby the LP–whose platform became Roe v. Wade in 1973–is reduced to echoing Prohibition Party planks 46 years later, handily explains why 2 out of 3 libertarians AREN’T women today.
    Let National Socialist Race Suicide fanatics threaten women with no aid, comfort or abetting from the LP, and delete that shameful “good faith” plank. Canada’s LP ‘platform contains no such cowardly appeasement, for there are no laws defining women as other than individuals there.

  41. “The solution for Planned Parenthood may be to voluntarily eschew Title X grants. ”

    Well, there you go. Talk about burying the lead. We’re done here, right?

  42. So the question remains: why exactly is Shikha Dalmia a Reason Foundation Senior Analyst and contributor to Reason magazine?

    Leaving aside her (shall we say) dubious defense of Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion activities, her reasoning is more suited to Mother Jones or Vox than Reason. She wants the government to continue to fund Planned Parenthood because “pro choice” or something. But to me the libertarian position on “pro choice” issues is simple: Yes, I support freedom to choose. No, I do not support having the government support one or another choice. Nor is there any consistent rationale for the government to do so. The government should stop funding Planned Parenthood in any fashion. Period.

  43. Why fund it at all? ACA was fixing everything for everyone. Medicaid covers much for low income persons. And there is no reason for the federal government to subsidize healthcare, period! Eliminate ethanol, planned parenthood and continue.

  44. Separate into two different legal entities:

    Planned Parenthood – everything except abortion

    Unplanned Parenthood – abortion only

    Simple.

    1. Simple, but the whole point here is to force people who don’t like abortion to subsidize it. Planned Parenthood doesn’t even need the money.

      Forcing people to be complicit in things they don’t approve of has become a central driving force for ‘liberalism’; No victor is complete until you can compel somebody who doesn’t like it to become involved. Baking a cake, taking a photo, paying for an abortion.

      They want to rub your nose in the fact that they make the choices here, not you.

  45. Jesus fuck. Stop making me pay for your baby murder obsession.

  46. “Even the most pro-choice Americans who insist that women should have unfettered control over their bodies might be willing to concede that it is not incumbent on the government to actually pay for their abortions.”

    Maybe a few, but not many. This is why I say to pro-choice libertarians that you aren’t going to be pro-choice the way that the left wants you to be. As soon as you claim that you want any kind of reduction in PP funding, they are going to hate you for it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.