image courtesy of wikimedia.org
Once again the Grand Old Party has a prime opportunity to do the right thing by ending federal funding of the nation’s #1 abortion provider.
The moral scandal of Planned Parenthood helping to facilitate the sale of body parts of aborted children – exposed in living (pardon the grotesque pun), graphic detail in a series of (appropriately) deliberately humiliating videos – should be more than enough of a reason to end any and all Federal funding of that organization.
Once again, however, the GOP is its own worst enemy.
I say “should be” enough of a reason because, beyond the fact that in the court of public opinion the GOP has already failed miserably, these videos are not necessary to make the case.
The Pro Life Movement and the Republican Party have chosen to focus on these videos as some magic bullet or smoking gun that will rip from Planned Parenthood’s grip a half billion dollars in Federal Aid. Why?
One need only look at the absolutely irrelevant and distracting form of argument employed by the chief prosecutor of this ‘case’ – House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah – to understand that the GOP has already lost the argument.
In Tuesday’s ‘questioning’ of {read: attempt to humiliate} Planned Parenthood President Cecile Richards, Chaffetz insisted that “the question before us is: Does this organization — does Planned Parenthood really need a federal subsidy?”
By framing the discussion this way, Chaffetz, Pro Life activists and the GOP ceded the case to Planned Parenthood…..and Ms. Richards and the abortion zealots know it.
Observe that Ms. Chaffetz handily brushed aside all questions regarding the ethics of funding this organization in light of the videos in question:
“The outrageous accusations leveled against Planned Parenthood based on heavily doctored videos are offensive and categorically untrue. I realize, though, that the facts have never gotten in the way of these campaigns to block women from health care they need and deserve”
That the videos are NOT edited beyond the removal of scenes showing participants taking bathroom breaks, paying the meal check, ordering drink refills, etc, is beyond the point now. That the videos clearly show discussions of the illegal sale of body parts and discussions of a consistent practice of illegally altering abortion methods for the purpose of ensuring intact body parts for sale is beyond the point now also.
The opportunity to make the case for defunding Planned Parenthood has been effectively squandered thus far because the opponents have ceded to Planned Parenthood and its supporters the critical ethical point.
If indeed, as Chaffetz says, the entire question hinges on whether Planned Parenthood ‘need{s} a Federal subsidy’ (or, as Ms. Richards puts it, whether to ‘block women from health care they need and deserve”), who would dare to say ‘no’?
Some have argued that because Planned Parenthood is awash in cash they do not ‘need’ more from the government. However, if ‘need’ is the deciding criteria, the fact that Planned Parenthood has only spent a fraction of the funding they have received becomes irrelevant. Women (and men) will always ‘need’ more.
Some have argued that the videos are a fair and accurate representation of Planned Parenthood’s ethical corruption. They argue that because the videos are accurate no more tax money should go to such an organization. However, if ‘need’ is the criteria, what good are arguments about video editing, fungible cash, or the question of funding something another person abhors?
Where ‘need’ is the deciding factor, who would dare to say ‘no’?
Some of us, however, have no problem with saying: ‘hell no’.
Some of us understand that the videos are irrelevant. Some of us understand that the question of ‘need’ is instead the smoking gun and the magic bullet.
You ‘need’ the cash, Planned Parenthood? So what? By what right do you dare to insist that tax payers give it to you? You ‘need’ the condoms, the birth control pills, the abortion, or the pap smear, Planned Parenthood client? So what? By what right and by what standard do you demand that your neighbor pay for it?
Why MUST one person pay for the carelessness, poor judgement, unfortunate happenstances, wants, wishes, desires or NEEDS of another? Why is your need a claim on my paycheck, my tax dollars, my labor or my life?
Why?
When Planned Parenthood and its supporters can give a coherent, rational affirmative answer to THAT question, then and only then should anyone be discussing whether to force others to fund them.
Sniperhunter2012 
the society that you seem to be pushing for in your line of questioning seems bleak, without any sense of community or kinship. by extension of your line of reasoning, does that mean that all welfare is unnecessary?
To answer your question first: yes of course that’s the logical extension of my reasoning. To address your concerns over that reasoning: Why bleak? Why presume that because we do not force anyone to pay for the wants, needs or wishes of another that folks would not voluntarily help others if they so chose?
I am not arguing against helping others, I am saying that one is not morally OBLIGED to unilaterally ‘help’ all comers (nor any) if one does not wish to. I oppose the concept of ‘duty’, not charity.
I do oppose slavery, however, which is why I oppose the welfare state. A society that elevates ‘duty’ and ‘need’ over the rights of the individual IS a slave society. I do not assume that a society that bans forced ‘charity’- which is precisely what the Welfare State is – would somehow devolve to a society of heartless cretins. If if it did, than a lack of a Welfare State would be the least of our concerns.
I do not consider Man heartless or evil by nature, nor do I think individuals are owed any concrete ‘thing’ merely because they live and breathe, which are the built in presumptions inherent in any Welfare State.
The Welfare State is predicated on the presumption that without the ‘incentive’ of force, we’d all be monsters. It is the concept of “Original Sin” writ large and in stone – or in this case, in mountains of paperwork. I reject the idea that people are evil by nature. It is absurd, and says nothing except to reveal the nature (and, possibly, the motives) of those who propose it.
If they themselves think that law is the thing standing in the way of them being heartless and cruel, I surely do not wish to see them put their ideas of what’s best for people into practice.
Cutting off government funding from America’s Auchwitz does not nearly go far enough. We must put them permanently out of business. It is easier than one would think. Step one us yes ending government funding. Step two, is that the next president should revoke their non-profit status. Those two steps would destroy the organization. Additionally, to be blunt someone (multiple someone’s) should receive the death penalty for these atrocities and crimes against humanity.
I don’t support the idea of a death penalty on principle, but even if I did I’d be opposed to applying it in this situation. That would be retroactive law, no such laws currently exist, and our Constitution (and morality) prohibits punishment for laws that do not exist already.
I DO think that whatever laws as have been violated by Planned Parenthood (if any) should be rigorously prosecuted.
I’m all for doing away for tax exempt status – and not merely just for Planned Parenthood. I am opposed to ALL tax exemptions for ALL organizations. No group and no individual should gain an unearned benefit at the expense of another. We absolutely should not be (essentially) subsidizing the spread of ideas. That is a very, very dangerous road.
Except in the videos we hear evidence of murder being committed. I’m talking actions that legally constitute murder. They talk about harvesting of organs from babies that were born alive after botched abortions. That’s currently legally murder. Especially since the passage of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. So it’s already illegal. Those responsible for it and anyone with a knowledge and responsibility of overseeing it should be charged with murder or conspiracy to commit murder (and executed for it in my personal opinion.
I have to disagree with you on tax exempt status. Especially for religious institutions. Here’s an article on it from the LA Times titled “Why Churches Don’t pay Taxes” that explains why they shouldn’t better than I can http://www.latimes.com/la-oew-lynn-stanley23-2008sep23-story.html