Obama Bars States From Denying Federal Money to Planned Parenthood


#1

#2

This is just an administrative rule, one that the new incoming President Trump can change. He can issue a new rule that will override this one. I would say that the days of PP getting Federal funds are coming to an end…


#3

I certainly hope there will be a quick end to funding PP, but courts have been siding with PP. Indiana lost in court at the district and appeals level on this issue. PP could have received funding if they had legally separated their abortion business from their other services, but told the courts that would not be possible financially. That seems to contradict their other argument that abortion is only a small part of their business. Would people who kill babies for a living lie to the courts?:frowning:


#4

Is the Hyde Amendment currently in effect, do you know?


#5

The one “good” thing about this going to court is that PP has had to admit that their “only 3% of our business is abortion” claim was just creative accounting. Abortion accounts for about 80% of their revenue.

In Texas this really hit home after HB2 went into effect. PP claimed the law would shut down centers that provided actual womens’ health care even though those centers were not affected at all by the new law. But PP needed the cash flow from the abortion centers which would have been eroded by costs to make those centers safety compliant.


#6

I think Jay Sekulow of ACLJ said on his stream the other day that Trump could get rid of this.


#7

One can hope.


#8

The two statements are not mutually exclusive. In metrics on services rendered each procedure is considered a service. Noteven that one visit could involve multiple services. Ex:someone gets an std test done and then receives antibiotica. That is two services. When I worked at a medical company working on software to track patients the same method of counting was used. It was required for transactions with the insurance companies.

Different services have different costs. Abortion is more expensive than many of the other services available so it accounts for more revenue. If a jewelry shop sold cheap and expensive jewelry most of their sales might be from cheap jewelry, but most of their revenue may come from an occasional high priced transaction.


#9

Didn’t Trump say that PP does good things?


#10

It’s been in effect since its inception. It’s actually part of every budget.


#11

Its true that the statements are not exclusive; but the question is more, what is important for PP, what do they consider to be their important services?

And in regarding that at least fot for-profit companies the reasonable metric would be what gerates revenue (and/or profit). And while it could be different for non-profit organizations tendencies to care most about the services bringing money is not that unusual among non-profits.


#12

I don’t think that is what the question was. But approaching this as a new question I am not sure how someone would make an assessment. Within an organization or other grouping of people individuals can have their own varying feeling on what they find most important. I don’t think the revenue and services rendered charts would be sufficient for making this assessment by themselves. There are some other more fundamental questions on how medical facilities decide on the price of a service that would be necessarily a part of the discussion that I believe you would like to have.


#13

Hi ThinkingSapien!!

It’s me again! :wave: Your annoying sidekick.

What about all the undocumented money that put Planned Parenthood under the microscope to begin with?


#14

¡Hola, faithsmind!

I don’t remember you ever annoying me, but all the same it’s good to hear from you!

Are you referring to the videos from the Center for Medical Progress?

My understanding of it’s current status is that between questions on the authenticity of the videos and several state level investigations (and one from the House) there’s not yet been sufficient evidence for prosecutions and convictions. Several (including Mike Pence) had come back to say they hadn’t found evidence of wrong doing. For now I don’t think it has any bearing on Carn’s question of what’s considered most important to Planned Parenthood.


#15

Technically, they do offer non-abortion health services. Technically.

But given that alternative health care centers far outnumber PP, there is no practical reason to give them the government pie. Especially not a $500 million piece of pie.


#16

Even if there’s no law that was technically broken, the public is now aware of the organ-selling racket.

One cannot ignore the biological reality of a human life growing in the womb.

The leftist narrative of “clump of cells” cannot stand in light of the visible, biological, obvious truth.


#17

In any business, the emphasis will be on that which brings in the money.


#18

Overjoyed to hear you don’t think I’m annoying. Sincerely.

And yes, I am referring to those videos.
Here’s all the evidence of laundered money for the sale of baby body parts right here if you ever want to watch it:

centerformedicalprogress.org/cmp/investigative-footage/

And Mike Pence thinks there’s no evidence. :shrug:

And I think you’re right about Carn.
At any rate, denying states a right to decide on where federal money goes is a restriction of the people’s freedom. Why can’t they just let the people decide if they want their money to go to support crooked institutions?


#19

I think they may have done better if they had started with turnining in unedited undramatized videos before doing the dramatic and edited releases. Working with a law enforcement agency may have helped too. Released as they were there was some damage to credibility and not useful for a case or conviction.

Whether it’s from the federal government or from individual donors there exists restrictions on how money can be used if provided for a specific purpose. If I gave money to an organization with the agreed purpose of paying for one expense if it is used for another then it might be considered a form of fraud. However, a donor cannot put restrictions on the money that comes from other sources.

Restrictions on funds given for a specific purpose are not considered an offense or obstacle to one’s free exercise. One can also refuse to receive the money. For example, the federal government offered money to pay for the health insurance of people that made below $11,880 per year could not pay for their own (see Medicare Extension). Some states (including my home state) refused the money.


#20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.