What really pisses me off about the attack on Planned Parenthood

[MH1]

(I rarely post OPs. I made a response on another thread and just writing it made me so pissed off at the attitude I was responding to, I thought I'd post it separately and see what others think.)

Planned Parenthood saves lives and prevents abortions. It does allow women to get abortions who need them, but that's like 3% of what they do. And they don't use tax dollars for it. They also fund some adoptions.

Here is the Politifact analysis in response to Kyl's Big Admitted Lie: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/apr/08/jon-kyl/jon-kyl-says-abortion-services-are-well-over-90-pe/

The crux of the extremist's argument against PP is that "money is fungible". And they say they "don't like my tax dollars going to fund the biggest abortion provider". (They all say this the same way. Almost like they watch/listen to the same radio and tv shows.)

For anyone who is wondering what "fungible" means (I used to, before taking ECON classes): it means that even if the money doesn't go to a specific activity, just by going to that organization, it ends up helping to pay for that activity, because all the money ends up in a big pot anyway. By this argument, if the federal government didn't help PP pay for other women's health services, then it would have less money to fund abortions.

This is an important point, because think of the implications if the fungibility argument is applied to other federal funding. Thus, my rant (and I am sorry if I offend any members of various religious organizations, but it is true; and the 'you' and 'your' refers to the poster I originally replied to, who made that canned right-wing argument):

I don't like my tax dollars funding religious indoctrination either. But that is what will be happening in DC now thanks to YOUR friends in DC. (school vouchers)

I don't like my tax dollars funding religious proselytizing either. But by the same argument ("money is fungible") that wingnuts use against Planned Parenthood, that is what is happening any time ANY social service provided by a religious organization is funded by the federal government.

I don't like my tax dollars funding the coverup and protection of pedophilia either. But by the same argument ("money is fungible") that wingnuts use against Planned Parenthood, that is what is happening any time ANY social service provided by the Catholic Church is funded by the federal government.


AND YOU KNOW WHAT REALLY TICKS ME OFF? The things I don't want my tax dollars paying for, are ILLEGAL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL. But ABORTION IS LEGAL.

So WHERE THE HELL do you get off withholding federal funding from LEGAL activity while supporting ILLEGAL activity, including PEDOPHILIA??? (or are you ready to give up the "money is fungible argument?? huh??)

Well that's how I feel about it and I am sick and tired of the religious organizations getting a pass on this argument. What do you all think?

[xchrom]

1. ...

:applause:

[shraby]

2. Recommend and kick

[Lyric]

3. I agree with you completely.

Kicked and recommended.

[hayu_lol]

4. Good threadstarter...

when do we collectively stand and say NO MORE.

[MH1]

14. I think 'when' has to be this year.

With the debt ceiling coming up next, and then next year's budget, we are going to fight this battle over and over again.

The good news is I saw something from the negotiations where when Boehner tried to get Obama to give on PP and EPA he said "No. Zero." (as in not giving back a penny). Hopefully he will keep that stance.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. Hypocrisy by the Right.

Same argument to ALLOW taxpayer dollars to be given to religious organizations and their programs. The argument is that the money is not directly given to say, The Catholic Church. Rather, it's going to a program sponsored by the Church to feed hungry people. Nothing religious there. Just provision of food. Or the Pell Grants to Liberty University. Or the tax credits for parents of students who attend religious schools.

Indirect subsidies to religion, good.

Indirect subsidies to abortion, bad.

[CrispyQ]

6. Write this up in a LTTE & submit it to your local paper.

:thumbsup:

[MH1]

18. That's a good idea, I should do that.

But my locality is hugely Catholic. I might ought to reword it a bit in the LTTE. :)

[Turbineguy]

7. Excellent points.

K&R

[90-percent]

8. James O'keefe

I heard in a current events chat at a local Radio Shack that this should-be-in-jail Breitbart Baby did his pimp get up shtick with Planned Parenthood.

Something like;

O'Keefe: "I have my "girls" here that work for me. Their work occasionally gets them pregnant. Could you assure me P.P. will be there when we need to fix that? Gotta keep 'em working, after all."

P.P.: "Thank you for asking. Our motto around here used to be; "You rape 'em, we scrape 'em", until all this political correctness made us drop that. Bring 'em by. We'll fix 'em up for yah in no time!"

I GET ALMOST ALL MY NEWS FROM DU. Where the hell is all the info on DU about this latest O'keefe formula smear?

Where, also, is the info I was told that P.P actually does 300,000 abortions a year. 3%? The other side contends it more like 97% abortion.

Boy is it hard to be an informed American back by FACTS these days!

-90% jimmy

[MH1]

9. Who?

1) In your retelling of 'someone said' the second speaker isn't 'P.P.' unless it was an official spokesperson.

2) got a link for the smear you are retelling?

3) read the link in my o.p.

4) It wouldn't matter if it was 99.9% if money is NOT fungible. If money IS fungible, please re-read the stuff in the gray box in my o.p. Or do you (or the people you are quoting) support pedophilia?


(and ... you get almost all your news from DU? Please don't. Don't become a rabid Fox viewer either, but sheesh ... DU isn't exactly a non partisan source either. Come here for the liberal / left wing view and additional factors you might not find in the mainstream media. Don't expect fully contextual facts.)

[90-percent]

11. read your link

And know that side of the story from Rachel. I knew that already.

Thanks for your lecturing condescension. You completely missed the point I was trying to make.

You appear to think I was trying to promote the magnificent :sarcasm: journalism of O'Keefe?

Instead, I'm indirectly soliciting more information from the DU community about this remarkable O'keefe manufactured smear.

I think the DU bubble is much more broad based than the FOX NEWS bubble.

DU provides links to Thom Hartmann, Democracy Now, Bill Moyers, Max Keiser, Greg Palest, Al Jazerra, RT, FOX NEWS, Beck, Orally, and so on. It also provides copious links to MSM.

My wife records GMA and Diane Sawyer and The View and Joy Behar. We are of like mind. She tells me of the "conventional wisdom" MSM views on these channels.

Please don't leap to conclusions about the critical thinking abilities of DU members you appear to know almost nothing about. Say what you want. It will not be worth my response any longer.
-jim

[MH1]

13. Yes, I read your post as promoting that whack job

who is best ignored.

I don't follow the smear artist, and haven't heard his name in a while, so I don't know why you would bring him up, unless you are trying to spread his filth. He's thoroughly discredited. If the video you mentioned exists, it must be very heavily edited. If any person actually said what 'P.P.' is alleged to have said, they need to be come down on HARD. But I don't believe for a second that was actually said.

In your post it sounds like you didn't bother to read the link to Politifact. Sorry if I misunderstood, but maybe you should re-read what you wrote. You are asking a question that is already answered in the Politifact article, and posting a ridiculous claim that 'some say'. I don't know why you would expect your post to be taken any other way than what I took it. Your intentions may have been pure, but your post looks like a textbook example of inserting b.s. into a discussion while trying to appear innocent. (If you're really on our side, why not go over to FR and post something similar but with left wing talking points instead of right wing talking points?)

[MH1]

17. "Where, also, is the info" - well it is here in that link in the o.p.

Planned Parenthood calculates the numbers by services provided, rather than dollars spent. In a fact sheet last updated in March 2011, the group lists the following breakdown of its services:

Contraception (including reversible contraception, emergency contraception, vasectomies and tubal sterilizations): 4,009,549 services

Sexually transmitted infections testing and treatment: 3,955,916 services

Cancer screening and prevention: 1,830,811 services

Other women’s health services (including pregnancy tests and prenatal care): 1,178,369 services

Abortions: 332,278 procedures

Miscellaneous (including primary care and adoption referrals): 76,977

Total services: 11,383,900

By this tally, abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, which is the most recent year for which the group is reporting statistics. And that would make Kyl’s statement way off.

We should note a few caveats.

First, we think many people would acknowledge a difference between providing an abortion and, say, handing out a pack of condoms or conducting a blood test. The former is a significant surgical procedure, whereas the latter are quick and inexpensive services. So Planned Parenthood’s use of "services" as its yardstick likely decreases abortion’s prominence compared to what other measurements would show. Using dollars spent or hours devoted to patient care would likely put abortion above 3 percent in the calculations.

Second, it’s worth noting that Planned Parenthood self-reported these numbers, although the group says each affiliate’s numbers are independently audited. (There is no single, national audit.) So we have no choice but to accept their accuracy more or less on faith.

Still, even with those caveats, we do think that Kyl has vastly overstated the share of abortions.

We checked with Kyl’s office but did not hear back. However, a few hours after the speech, CNN anchor T.J. Holmes told viewers that the network had received a statement from Kyl’s office saying that the senator’s remark "was not intended to be a factual statement but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions in taxpayer dollars, does subsidize abortions."

Do you get that SENATOR KYL just admitted that the "over 90%" is a lie??? That is what is so farcical here. They ADMIT it's a lie. Then you want to know "where is the info that counters it"??? How the fuck do you counter "I know it's a lie but I don't care"??

[90-percent]

28. I googled it

It wasn't O'Keefe. What the Radio Shack guy was describing sounded like O'Keefe's M.O., so I leaped to a semi-reasonable conclusion. Turns out it's the copycat ambush selectively edited work of a "Lila Rose".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/01/940459/-OKeefe-copycat-who-targeted-Planned-Parenthood-faceplants-out-of-the-gate

Ahhhh......... facts!

-90% Jimmy

[brewens]

10. Doesn't the Chamber Of Commerce try and claim foreign

contributions don't end up financing their support of Republicans? I've used the fungible argument in a positive way at our Eagles Lodge. Guys that only belong to drink at the bar, are criticized for not helping with any charitable functions. They help the bar make money and keep the doors open. We wouldn't do anything charitable if we had to shut down, so they help the whole organization. They don't exactly deserve a pat on the back for being generous to charities though. They just know where to get a good cheap drink.
I wish the abortion fanatics would just STFU! A couple I know are just bitter women that got knocked up when they were kids. They were stupid and ruined their lives, and want to force other girls to do the same.

[felix_numinous]

12. Another lame argument from the religious right.

Their talking points are crafted to attract their own base. These people have given their WILL over to a fundamentalist religion, which means they have given up their ability to reason. Few of them can actually be reasoned with, because these pulpits and RW media have turned into RW programming centers. That is why they all have the same freaking talking points.

I am not afraid to say that a coup is underway by the RW, using any means at their disposal, and dominionionism has enough fear and loathing in it so people will go along with their hellish agenda. They ignore the Constitution and Bill of Rights, all the Amendments because they are planning to change them.

You bring up the crux of the issue, that the RW have already broken Constitutional law. Just like domination by the corporate/military industrial complex, the use of religion to further this agenda has long ago breached Constitutional law, and this cannot stand.

I have to think that their attempt to go after Women's Rights will result in a fight they have not anticipated--but I STRONGLY believe that the LONGER we wait to push back, the stronger they will get.

:) Hey have a good one.

[olegramps]

15. What I find ironic is that Planned Parenthood strives to prevent unplanned pregnacies.

The primary goal of Planned Parenthood is same as that of Margret Sanger whose primary motivation was the prevention of pregnacies that resulted in self induced and back alley abortions that often had debilitating consequences. One of the most vocal opponents of abortion, the Catholic Chruch, continues its illogical opposition to effective birth contol measures that actually significantly reduce women from having to face this crucial decision. It is little wonder that the Catholic Church has little credibility for their illogical stance even among their own flock.

[MH1]

16. I agree, but PP opponents don't care one whit about preventing unplanned pregnancies

it is all about 'God's will' remember? Not to mention the will of men to control women.

[1monster]

19. What do I think? Recommended!

[babylonsister]

20. Rec'd highly! nt

[MH1]

21. Thanks!

and a kick for the evening crowd.

[PotatoChip]

22. K & R

You make some excellent points.

[Search4Justice]

23. I guess you didn't get the memo...

... money is only "fungible" when the rightwingnuts say it does. :sarcasm:

[Dogtown]

24. Nicely put!

:applause:

[karynnj]

25. Great post

Their argument is completely disingenuous - and your use of the same concept shows how stupid it is.

[NutmegYankee]

26. K&R!

[FormerDittoHead]

27. Don't forget Bush's "Faith Based Initiatives".

I understand Obama has continued the plan, but the OP's argument holds true for me with these projects whose money goes, however indirectly, toward promoting specific religions.

I would also like to share a fragment of a conversation that I had with a real righty in the supermarket. I asked him what had Bush done for him, and he pointed out just this as being a major victory for "their" side.

So yes, if the argument is to go against PP, it should be made consistently.