Gingrich Vows To Defund Planned Parenthood

[Slappo]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1327444841' post='2374643']
Federal funding for abortion is illegal, however Planned Parenthood, per former employees, does not differentiate the money used on abortion services and family planning according to former employees. It all goes into one pot, account wise, and gets spent accordingly.
[/quote]
[quote name='Hasan' timestamp='1327445757' post='2374656']
Any evidence? I doubt it. Because if there were any hard evidence for that claim there are any number religious groups with plenty of funding and fairly litigious inclinations who would love to see Planned Parenthood shut down and its members jailed.
[/quote]

I have to side with Hasan on this one. I don't really care what planned parenthood employees say. The fact of the matter is they would not get funding if they could not pass a federal audit of their accounting books. I doubt that there's never been a single portion of planned parenthood that's been audited, and if they truly just threw all their money into one pot, then they'd have failed that audit miserably.

Like I said in my previous post - it's much more likely that they just pull their regular donations and put them towards their own desires while throwing the federal dollars at the non-abortive free services they provide. If they weren't federally funded at all, they would have to pull from other parts of their budget (like abortions) to fund the non-abortive free services.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1327553013' post='2375551']
If PP doesn't have to pay part of their administrative costs or a bunch of their free services because the feds are paying it, that means they have more money in their non-federal funded budget to put towards abortions (or anything else they choose).

This happens virtually [b]everywhere[/b]. You get a federal grant for something you really want, and then you take the money you WERE going to fork over for it, and put it somewhere else...
[/quote]

which of course leads to the question as to how one could make a case for this being ILLEGAL (not immoral) without affecting several other things.

[Winchester]

Just stop interventionist economic policies.

[Papist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327552688' post='2375549']
I was mostly talking about Catholic schools. and that isnt a stretch at all to say that they are government funded.
[/quote]

Catholic schools not equal the Catholic Church

[kujo]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1327578370' post='2375618']


Catholic schools not equal the Catholic Church
[/quote]

Probably he mistyped.

[Socrates]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327543659' post='2375481']
But can they be voted out, like many of the Dems who voted for Obamacare were, and like Obama will (hopefully) be this November?

There's a gigantic difference between "tyranny" and stuff you don't like.
[/quote]
Government tyranny, once in place, tends not to go away. Generations later, we're still suffering from the legacy of Roe v. Wade.

If forcing citizens to pay for a mass-murdering organization against their will isn't tyranny, I don't know what is.

Lite beer is stuff I don't like.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Slappo' timestamp='1327553013' post='2375551']
If PP doesn't have to pay part of their administrative costs or a bunch of their free services because the feds are paying it, that means they have more money in their non-federal funded budget to put towards abortions (or anything else they choose).

This happens virtually [b]everywhere[/b]. You get a federal grant for something you really want, and then you take the money you WERE going to fork over for it, and put it somewhere else...
[/quote]
This is exactly the problem.

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327443177' post='2374623']
I think he is saying that it will still indirectly aid the organization.

of course, if the government is not allowed to fund prayer and religious speak, why should they still fund other parts of the catholic church and related organizations? its just a shell game obviously, as giving the church money for humanitarian aid and education is just allowing the Church to spend even more of prayer and other stuff.
[/quote]
Last I checked, praying didn't cost one red cent. And, while I get your point, I think equating prayer (which even a sane atheist must regard as harmless, if useless) to the slaughter of innocent babies is an extremely poor comparison.

If I'm not mistaken, you've called yourself "pro-life" and "Christian." If so, why are you so much against the de-funding of the world's biggest killer of unborn children?

Is it just a knee-jerk reaction because this thread involves Newt Gingrich calling for PP's defunding? If Obama or another leftist politician you approve of called for PP to be defunded (yeah, I know, fat chance of that happening), would you have the same negative reaction?

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327549779' post='2375524']
now you are getting into semantics.

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3]"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler [/size][/font]approaches[/color][color=#000000][font=sans-serif][size=3] 1."[/size][/font][/color]

[color=#000000][font=sans-serif]you dont have to call someone hitler to invoke Godwin's law.[/font][/color]




Catholic private schools are at least partially funded by the government. that is what i was referring to. And i suppose not paying taxes counts a bit too.
[/quote]
While invoking "Godwin's Law" may get you lots of propz from teh phatmass peanut gallery, it's a complete evasion of the issue at hand.

Should taxpayer's be forced to pay for an organization which commits mass murder as its daily business? Does the fact that the funds do not go directly to the murder make this right?

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327554130' post='2375562']
which of course leads to the question as to how one could make a case for this being ILLEGAL (not immoral) without affecting several other things.
[/quote]
Ultimately, the nonsensical and diabolical judicial monstrosity of Roe v. Wade needs to be overturned.

But until then, there's absolutely no legal reason why PP (or any other such organization) must be funded with tax dollars.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1327785004' post='2376649']
This is exactly the problem.


Last I checked, praying didn't cost one red cent. And, while I get your point, I think equating prayer (which even a sane atheist must regard as harmless, if useless) to the slaughter of innocent babies is an extremely poor comparison.
[/quote]

taking a legalistic standpoint here.

[quote]
If I'm not mistaken, you've called yourself "pro-life" and "Christian." If so, why are you so much against the de-funding of the world's biggest killer of unborn children?
[/quote]

because its already defunded?


[quote]
Is it just a knee-jerk reaction because this thread involves Newt Gingrich calling for PP's defunding? If Obama or another leftist politician you approve of called for PP to be defunded (yeah, I know, fat chance of that happening), would you have the same negative reaction?
[/quote]

hah, as if Obama is actually a leftist. I dont mind the abortion part of PP being defunded, it already is. I do take issue to the other stuff that they do, which somebody needs to do, being defunded. if that could be solved by somehow splitting the organization up all the better.

and no, just because i would scoff at Newt serving me a croutons sandwich doesnt mean i would eat it if Obama prepared it. Of course everyone who dislikes Obamacare but likes Mitt Romney is guilty of that.


[quote]
While invoking "Godwin's Law" may get you lots of propz from teh phatmass peanut gallery, it's a complete evasion of the issue at hand.
[/quote]

and comparing anything to Hitler is not going for an emotional response?

[quote]
Should taxpayer's be forced to pay for an organization which commits mass murder as its daily business? Does the fact that the funds do not go directly to the murder make this right?
[/quote]

have i been saying that? afaik, tax payers are still not paying for abortions. talk all you want about shell games, but as every other organization seems to do it, whats a good legal way to discourage this?


[quote]
But until then, there's absolutely no legal reason why PP (or any other such organization) must be funded with tax dollars.
[/quote]

there are many parts of PP that should be funded with tax dollars, whether or not they are under the name of PP.

Edited January 28, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327788146' post='2376655']

because its already defunded?[/quote]
!?


[quote]hah, as if Obama is actually a leftist. I dont mind the abortion part of PP being defunded, it already is. I do take issue to the other stuff that they do, which somebody needs to do, being defunded. if that could be solved by somehow splitting the organization up all the better.[/quote]
Again, evading the whole point of my post. Any organization which commits mass murder does not deserve any funding for anything, sorry.

The government "splitting up" PP into "abortion" and "non-abortion" segments, would likely be no more effective than the government splitting the mob into "murder and crime" and "legit business" segments and funding the latter (while doing nothing about the former).

To use a non-Nazi example, would you support the government funding the KKK for charitable works, so long as the funds didn't go towards things like lynchings and cross-burnings?

There are plenty of charitable groups which help women in crisis pregnancies which do no perform or support abortions. Though they lack PP's massive size and funding which comes from abortions and massive government and corporate funding, but perhaps they are more deserving of public funds, if you insist the federal government really, absolutely must use tax dollars to engage in forced charity.

Abortion is PP's major cash cow, and PP centers are actually given abortion quotas which they must fulfill, so PP commonly pushes women into getting abortion. Planned parenthood is a racist eugenics organization turned murder-for-hire business disguised as a charity. It is an utterly despicable organization which doesn't deserve one red cent of tax-dollar funding.


[quote]and no, just because i would scoff at Newt serving me a croutons sandwich doesnt mean i would eat it if Obama prepared it. Of course everyone who dislikes Obamacare but likes Mitt Romney is guilty of that.[/quote]
Not using my tax money to fund an organization which murders babies by the millions every year is not a "cr[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]a[/font]p sandwich," but a good thing which I'd take regardless of who served it.


[quote]and comparing anything to Hitler is not going for an emotional response?[/quote]
Sometimes you need to wake people up. [i]Not[/i] being emotional when millions of babies are being deliberately murdered each year is the inhuman, and is the bigger problem.



[quote]have i been saying that? afaik, tax payers are still not paying for abortions. talk all you want about shell games, but as every other organization seems to do it, whats a good legal way to discourage this?[/quote]
The big problem is the judicial monstrosity of Roe v. Wade, which has (quite nonsensically) declared abortion a "constitutional right."

Legally, there's nothing which dictates the government must take money from citizens and use it to fund PP.

I tend to agree with Winchester here that we should do away with government intervention in charities, as it creates a host of problems.


[quote]there are many parts of PP that should be funded with tax dollars, whether or not they are under the name of PP.[/quote]
The small amount of good that PP does can be (and is) be performed by charitable groups that have nothing to do with baby-killing.

Whether they must be funded with tax money is another issue. So far, the vast increase in government spending on social programs since the 1960s to "help the poor" has done little to alleviate poverty and nothing to reduce abortions.

[XIX]

[quote name='kujo' timestamp='1327543659' post='2375481']
But can they be voted out, like many of the Dems who voted for Obamacare were, and like Obama will (hopefully) be this November?

There's a gigantic difference between "tyranny" and stuff you don't like.
[/quote]
Bad Catholic makes a really good case for Obama actually being a tyrant here:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/01/an-open-letter-to-president-barack-obama-concerning-recent-tyranny-with-pictures.html
[quote]
Being a tyrant is not necessarily a negative or positive thing, though I know the word is loaded with a not-so-nice connotation. It is simply a matter of definition. A tyrant, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is “an absolute ruler unrestrained by law or constitution”. If you prohibit the free exercise of religion, you are acting unrestrained by the Constitution, and thus as a tyrant. End of story.

In case there are any doubts as to my claim, I will give it to you straight: I hold that you are prohibiting the free practice of Catholicism in this country, and that you are thus, categorically speaking, a tyrant.
[/quote]

[XIX]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327788146' post='2376655']
and comparing anything to Hitler is not going for an emotional response?
[/quote]
This is something I don't understand in the slightest. Why are there people on here who categorically reject any comparision to Hitler? I...seriously. I don't get it. I can even add a permutation: back in Nazi Germany, there were probably people who said "LULZ Godwin's law you are an emotional kook" every time Hitler was compared to a slave owner or a barbarian, or whatever what mutually agreed upon as super-evil.

Those who don't learn from history...

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1327978550' post='2378063']
This is something I don't understand in the slightest. Why are there people on here who categorically reject any comparision to Hitler? I...seriously. I don't get it. I can even add a permutation: back in Nazi Germany, there were probably people who said "LULZ Godwin's law you are an emotional kook" every time Hitler was compared to a slave owner or a barbarian, or whatever what mutually agreed upon as super-evil.

Those who don't learn from history...
[/quote]

Its because sooner or later, every argument has someone reffering to hitler. Its a trope, a cliche, a cop out.

Its also incredibly insulting to compare every relatively minor evil to Hitler, as it diminishes how truly awful the Nazis were when they are compared to Homeowners Associations, overzealous small town cops, and nearly every politician alive.

there are situations where the comparison is apt, where either the scope or the specifics of the case line up with some part of Nazi Germany, but after seeing it so many times, its like those movies(all of them) about some white teacher making a difference in a ghetto through the power of dance/football/etc. Its been done before.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='XIX' timestamp='1327978550' post='2378063']
This is something I don't understand in the slightest. Why are there people on here who categorically reject any comparision to Hitler? I...seriously. I don't get it. I can even add a permutation: back in Nazi Germany, there were probably people who said "LULZ Godwin's law you are an emotional kook" every time Hitler was compared to a slave owner or a barbarian, or whatever what mutually agreed upon as super-evil.

Those who don't learn from history...
[/quote]



wow, i was just thinking of this today...

...my sentiments exactly...

in the 1930's hitler used all sorts of emotional reasons to brainwash germans into cooperating with his final solution...

...with the support of his countrymen, he wiped out 11 million people in 12 years... 6 million of those, Jews....he was able to wipe out 2/3 of the European Jewry....

today, pro-abortionists use all sorts of emotional tools to convince and brainwash the populace into going along with the murder of babies...

...in 39 years, they have succeeded in wiping out [b]50 million lives[/b].... and the count continues...


...the motto that was given to us after World War II, "never again," is lost and not heard.... because...well, it is happening again....and it is worse this time around... and those who want to supress our thoughts and control what we say about it will mock us if we even dare compare the two abominations....

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1327982510' post='2378100']
Its because sooner or later, every argument has someone reffering to hitler. Its a trope, a cliche, a cop out.

Its also incredibly insulting to compare every relatively minor evil to Hitler, as it diminishes how truly awful the Nazis were when they are compared to Homeowners Associations, overzealous small town cops, and nearly every politician alive.

there are situations where the comparison is apt, where either the scope or the specifics of the case line up with some part of Nazi Germany, but after seeing it so many times, its like those movies(all of them) about some white teacher making a difference in a ghetto through the power of dance/football/etc. Its been done before.
[/quote]
Nobody said it was original or innovative to use Hitler in examples, but this isn't a creative writing contest here.

The truth is that Hitler and Nazism are convenient to use in illustrating moral points, as the Nazis happen to be about the only group of people everybody can immediately agree are evil. It's a kind of shorthand illustration. (Stalin and Communists would work almost as well, but bringing them up too easily risks getting the conversation derailed into discussions of the Cold War, McCarthyism, Mutually Assured Destruction, etc.)

My point (which you repeatedly evade) is whether an organization which engages in mass-murder of innocent human beings should receive public funding for any other activities it might engage in.

Evading legitimate questions and issues because Hitler happened to be mentioned is what is a cop-out.


And I certainly don't regard the deliberate killing of many millions of unborn babies as a "relatively minor evil," but that's just me (and a couple thousand years of Christian moral teaching).

[Socrates]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1327983277' post='2378108']
wow, i was just thinking of this today...

...my sentiments exactly...

in the 1930's hitler used all sorts of emotional reasons to brainwash germans into cooperating with his final solution...

...with the support of his countrymen, he wiped out 11 million people in 12 years... 6 million of those, Jews....he was able to wipe out 2/3 of the European Jewry....

today, pro-abortionists use all sorts of emotional tools to convince and brainwash the populace into going along with the murder of babies...

...in 39 years, they have succeeded in wiping out [b]50 million lives[/b].... and the count continues...


...the motto that was given to us after World War II, "never again," is lost and not heard.... because...well, it is happening again....and it is worse this time around... and those who want to supress our thoughts and control what we say about it will mock us if we even dare compare the two abominations....
[/quote]
Don't be emotional.

Argument over abortion is to be restricted to parsing the finer nuances of "choice" and "women's rights."

Any emotionally-charged language such as "murder," "killing," "holocaust," "baby," etc., etc. is strictly forbidden, lest we upset our opponents.