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 