Monday, April 11, 2011

In today's "Best of the Web" the WSJ"s James Taranto talks about the federal budget impasse and John Boehner and BHO's conflict in aims, which boiled down to Planned Parenthood. However, the most interesting paragraph in the story is this one:

". Planned Parenthood receives millions in taxpayer subsidies and spends hundreds of thousands on lobbying and campaigning. In February, reported that Planned Parenthood's political action committee "donated more than $148,000 to federal candidates--almost all Democrats--during the 2010 election cycle" and "spent more than $443,000 overall." Planned Parenthood made an additional $905,796 in "independent expenditures" during the 2010 cycle--exercising its right to free speech pursuant to last year's Citizens United decision.

The biggest beneficiaries of Planned Parenthood money, according to, were Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Barbara Boxer of California. According to the Hill, both were also among "a defiant group of Senate women," all Democrats, who "said Friday they'll oppose any spending bill that would affect reproductive health funding":

"We are not going to throw women under the bus to give them an agreement to keep this government open," Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said during a press conference at the Capitol.
"We are determined to draw the line in the sand," Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) added. "There are moments when you must do that, and this is one of those moments."
Yet in contrast with Reid, Murray's and Boxer's sincerity seems beyond question. They're not in it for the money; Planned Parenthood gives them money because it knows they are true believers.

In some ways the dispute over Planned Parenthood funding is symbolic. The legal right to abortion is not at stake, and the subsidy doesn't even pay directly for abortion, which the group is required to fund from nonfederal revenue. So why is the Democratic Party's No. 1 priority?"

OK, Planned Parenthood can't legally pay for abortions with federal funds. But the organization receives millions in taxpayer subsidies. So, does that mean that they have two or more sets of books to keep that money separate? And how much are they charging for an abortion? Do the 300,000 plus women undergoing the procedure pay for the entire cost of it themselves? And, even if no federal funds are used to perform the actual abortions, doesn't that money actually defray expenses that Planned Parenthood would otherwise have to charge "patients", even if the costs of the procedure were paid for by other parties? And the federal government punishes the accounting practices of guys like Bernie Madoff.

The Canadian Free Press, the ultra-conservative counterpart to FiredogLake, brings up an interesting point in the "birther" argument. The issue, as these people see it, is not that Barry Soetoro, as they call the POTUS, was born on US soil, but that he is the offspring of a father that was never a resident of the US. "The key provision in this U.S. Supreme Court case, also highlighted by Mr. Gilliland, lies in the following statement: “the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.” This is very different from the story we hear from the Mastodon Media.

No comments: