Planned Parenthood will stop taking reimbursements for fetal tissue.

[churchmouse]

Whoever told you life was in any way "fair" sold you a bill of goods...

However, if you survey a random sample of people and give them the option of whether they like being alive, dead, or never born at all...I would think the "alive" answer would win by a large margin...I am sure even Goth kids, who revel in angst, when given a choice between the three would say "alive"....

Without life there can be no "Angst"

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Without life there can be no "Angst"

....or liberty.

 

[Libertarian01]

The NRA does not receive Government funding for these activities. As a libertarian, I would think that you would understand this important distinction.

Nobody here is suggesting that organizations such as PP should not exist to provide sex education and birth control, as far as I know. They are suggesting that the government should not be funding it.

I agree that the NRA doesn't receive government funding, but that is totally irrelevant to this issue.

The NRA does do fundraisers, raffles and other events. The fact is Planned Parenthood got into hot water for legally selling organs. Are you arguing that Planned Parenthood did NOT have a right to sell organs? Not even to make a profit, mind you, but to balance the loss of the doing the service.

The other issue is exactly how Planned Parenthood receives government funding. Much of their funding is EARNED, not given. From their 2013 - 2014 annual report they received about $528 million from the government. However, about 75% of that (approx $396 million) comes from medicaid reimbursement. This means they EARNED that money, just as any other hospital or doctors office. Surely you wouldn't argue that they can't EARN money like anyone else, are you? We can argue about whether Medicaid should exist at all, but that is a separate issue. They also have government contracts to provide services. This was about $75 million in 2008 - 2009. I would also presume you aren't arguing they cannot get government contracts just like GE, FN, or Bell, are you? So if we combine these numbers $396,000,000 + $75,000,000 = $471,000,000 that was earned. This leaves about $57,000,000 that was probably given to them. I will agree they should not receive that $57 million.

There is a HUGE ignorance about the "government money" they receive! I for one was totally ignorant of the amount they earned from federal government programs, either through services or contracts until I started researching this issue. The antiabortion groups won't tell us that much of the Federal money they receive is earned, because that wouldn't sell so easily.

Regards,

Doug

 

[Libertarian01]

Without life there can be no "Angst"

Who do you think you are now - Soren Kierkegaard?

Doug

 

[jamil]

The NRA does not receive Government funding for these activities. As a libertarian, I would think that you would understand this important distinction.

Nobody here is suggesting that organizations such as PP should not exist to provide sex education and birth control, as far as I know. They are suggesting that the government should not be funding it.

I think they should be supported by volunteerism and donations. Period. Especially since they have a PAC.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization formed as the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

​

The Action Fund engages in educational and electoral activity, including legislative advocacy, voter education, and grassroots organizing. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund Political Action Committee (Planned Parenthood Federal PAC) is a nonpartisan political action committee committed to supporting pro-choice, pro-family planning candidates for federal office.
​

It should be illegal for any organization that receives federal dollars to have a PAC. Fungible as money is, it is a conflict of interest for an org to, in effect, use federal dollars to fund their political pursuits of more federal dollars. I am astonished that this is legal.

 

[steveh_131]

The fact is Planned Parenthood got into hot water for legally selling organs. Are you arguing that Planned Parenthood did NOT have a right to sell organs? Not even to make a profit, mind you, but to balance the loss of the doing the service.

I am a firm supporter of natural rights, but even I can not come up with any good way to explain a human being's 'right' to sell the body parts of another human being.

The other issue is exactly how Planned Parenthood receives government funding. Much of their funding is EARNED, not given. From their 2013 - 2014 annual report they received about $528 million from the government. However, about 75% of that (approx $396 million) comes from medicaid reimbursement. This means they EARNED that money, just as any other hospital or doctors office. Surely you wouldn't argue that they can't EARN money like anyone else, are you? We can argue about whether Medicaid should exist at all, but that is a separate issue. They also have government contracts to provide services. This was about $75 million in 2008 - 2009. I would also presume you aren't arguing they cannot get government contracts just like GE, FN, or Bell, are you? So if we combine these numbers $396,000,000 + $75,000,000 = $471,000,000 that was earned. This leaves about $57,000,000 that was probably given to them. I will agree they should not receive that $57 million.

1. Billing medicaid - sure, they can bill medicaid just like every other medical provider - and voters have the right to attach whatever strings they want to that medicaid funding.
2. $57 Million - I agree, they should not have received that.
3. Government contracts - No, there should be no form of government contracts involved. GE and the like necessarily have contracts because public property is the only way for them to provide their services. PP has no such limitations and these services should be provided solely by the free market.

There is a HUGE ignorance about the "government money" they receive! I for one was totally ignorant of the amount they earned from federal government programs, either through services or contracts until I started researching this issue. The antiabortion groups won't tell us that much of the Federal money they receive is earned, because that wouldn't sell so easily.

There are all sorts of reasons that the voting public might want to deny PP the ability to bill medicaid for their services. There are already hundreds of strings attached to that money.

I see no reason, in terms of liberty, that the voters could not add another string. Say, one that bars medicaid billing for organizations that have demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life.

They have no inherent right to access medicaid funds. If they didn't want to lose those funds, they should have thought twice about mutilating children and negotiating for their brain matter over cocktails.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I think they should be supported by volunteerism and donations. Period. Especially since they have a PAC.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization formed as the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

​

The Action Fund engages in educational and electoral activity, including legislative advocacy, voter education, and grassroots organizing. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund Political Action Committee (Planned Parenthood Federal PAC) is a nonpartisan political action committee committed to supporting pro-choice, pro-family planning candidates for federal office.
​

It should be illegal for any organization that receives federal dollars to have a PAC. Fungible as money is, it is a conflict of interest for an org to, in effect, use federal dollars to fund their political pursuits of more federal dollars. I am astonished that this is legal.

This all goes along with my comparison that PP is a welfare program that can no longer be removed. It's used as a political tool.

 

[KLB]

I think they should be supported by volunteerism and donations. Period. Especially since they have a PAC.

The Planned Parenthood Action Fund is a nonpartisan, not-for-profit organization formed as the advocacy and political arm of Planned Parenthood Federation of America.

​

The Action Fund engages in educational and electoral activity, including legislative advocacy, voter education, and grassroots organizing. The Planned Parenthood Action Fund Political Action Committee (Planned Parenthood Federal PAC) is a nonpartisan political action committee committed to supporting pro-choice, pro-family planning candidates for federal office.
​

It should be illegal for any organization that receives federal dollars to have a PAC. Fungible as money is, it is a conflict of interest for an org to, in effect, use federal dollars to fund their political pursuits of more federal dollars. I am astonished that this is legal.

Should be.

Kind of in the same boat as going to work for one that lobbies the government agency you worked for.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

Doug -
You and I may actually agree more than we disagree.
While I'm all for monogamy and fidelity - I'm also in favor of contraception, for many of the reasons you mentioned.
As others have pointed out - I'm not a big fan of government funding of PP , nor (in fairness) many of the other things that government provides funding for. *cough* Department of Education *cough* Many other alphabet agencies*cough*

EDIT: I don't really give a crap about the "earned vs given" government spending argument. As others have pointed out, there is an inherent conflict of interest. I don't believe that governmental spending on medical care for anyone not in its' employ is justified. Period.



I apply that criteria even handedly to all governmental agencies and others that the government spends our money on. Without exception. If it's not backed by a Constitutional purpose, remove the funding. The further away from the Constitution , the faster to remove the funding. The NRA nor PP nor any other similar Non-Governmental entity deserves government funding.

I believe - as with all other education - that primary responsibility lies at home. Clearly - in our society, that falls short some of the time. Other sources need to step up and fill the gaps - NOT supplant the home in fulfilling its responsibility. Just as the government school ought not to SUPPLANT the home in education.

As for the car accident thing - I don't want to belabor that point until it becomes moot... But I guess my concern is this: First I'm ALL FOR organ donation, but if the people doing the harvesting have a profit motive for doing MORE harvesting, then they have a "perverse incentive". Like instead of just harvesting from accidents - maybe they have an incentive to cut a brake line or two?? My point being, that when a teenage girl gets pregnant, and scared and goes to a clinic for a test - they are in a very scared and malleable situation. It's quite easy at that point to influence someone in a way that maybe they really might be better off by thinking twice about. And in fairness , ANYONE that she might talk to has the potential for having their own axe to grind. PP has theirs, parents have theirs, etc.

As a lay pastor, I have to confront this on a painfully regular basis... My main goal in all of my work is 1) to work with teens so that they make decisions that will avoid an unwanted pregnancy way before it happens 2) in the absence of avoiding that, to help them make decisions that will lead to a productive and good outcome for all concerned. 3) Provide spiritual help to help all concerned through the challenges of life.
Barring a life threatening danger to the mother (I have yet to see that), I have yet to see a situation where I would recommend abortion over adoption or keeping the child (one or the other based on the situation), if my honest opinion were asked. We agree on the personal decision part - and I only go where the people involved have invited me to be part of the conversation and the help.

 

[Libertarian01]

Regarding - "I am a firm supporter of natural rights, but even I can not come up with any good way to explain a human being's 'right' to sell the body parts of another human being." It isn't a human being, it was a human being. It is after the fact a cadaver, or a collection of cells. Hospitals and others have had the right and authority for over a hundred years to sell organs and cadavers. Nothing new here. You just don't the cause of death of the cadaver.

Regarding - "1. Billing medicaid - sure, they can bill medicaid just like every other medical provider - and voters have the right to attach whatever strings they want to that medicaid funding.
2. $57 Million - I agree, they should not have received that.
3. Government contracts - No, there should be no form of government contracts involved. GE and the like necessarily have contracts because public property is the only way for them to provide their services. PP has no such limitations and these services should be provided solely by the free market."

Why do you hate liberty? The votes do NOT have the right to violate the constitution and the equal protection clause. IF one group can be reimbursed for performing a service then other groups, even if we don't like them, have the same right to reimbursement for the same service.

IF the only way for GE and others to exist, which I do not accept, is to suck at the teat of government money - perhaps they shouldn't exist at all! Military companies have contracts for services, not just products, and if they can get government grants so too should Planned Parenthood for other services. IF we want to discuss the issue of NO government contracts, that is another discussion. But as long as such exist, Planned Parenthood has a right to compete and win or lose just like any other for profit or not for profit organization.

Planned Parenthood does not work within the free market as it is a nonprofit organization. It is the same as a church that provides services. If a church can get a contract to provide a service to the community so should any other nonprofit. Now if we want to remove the silly nonprofit status of churches I am ALL for that!

Regarding - "There are all sorts of reasons that the voting public might want to deny PP the ability to bill medicaid for their services. There are already hundreds of strings attached to that money.
I see no reason, in terms of liberty, that the voters could not add another string. Say, one that bars medicaid billing for organizations that have demonstrated a blatant disregard for human life.
They have no inherent right to access medicaid funds. If they didn't want to lose those funds, they should have thought twice about mutilating children and negotiating for their brain matter over cocktails."

The strings attached do not violate the 14th amendment, or if they do they need to be abolished. "They have no inherent right to access medicaid funds." So what? Red herring at its finest. I don't have an inherent access either, but my company that provides medicaid approved transportation does since we earn it. Planned Parenthood earns those dollars, so they have a RIGHT to them, not an "inherent right" as you put it.

So now if they give the brain matter away it's all good? Planned Parenthood was stupid for NOT simply putting out rules across the board for what would be appropriate reimbursement for lost money, but they didn't. So now Planned Parenthood will probably follow HoughMades adivce - "donate" the tissue to companies that flat "donate" to them. Voila! Problem solved.

Regards,

Doug

 

[steveh_131]

It isn't a human being, it was a human being. It is after the fact a cadaver, or a collection of cells. Hospitals and others have had the right and authority for over a hundred years to sell organs and cadavers. Nothing new here. You just don't the cause of death of the cadaver.

And yet, human remains are thoroughly regulated by the government. Would you advocate removing all of those regulations? Maybe I'd agree with you on that, but you won't see me holding any signs.

Why do you hate liberty? The votes do NOT have the right to violate the constitution and the equal protection clause. IF one group can be reimbursed for performing a service then other groups, even if we don't like them, have the same right to reimbursement for the same service.

If you think the 'equal protection clause' has anything to do with riding the government gravy train then I'm not sure we're on the same page at all.

And if your interpretation of this clause is accurate, and you still support it, then you need to seriously reconsider your username.

IF the only way for GE and others to exist, which I do not accept, is to suck at the teat of government money - perhaps they shouldn't exist at all! Military companies have contracts for services, not just products, and if they can get government grants so too should Planned Parenthood for other services. IF we want to discuss the issue of NO government contracts, that is another discussion. But as long as such exist, Planned Parenthood has a right to compete and win or lose just like any other for profit or not for profit organization.

Oh I see, so because public utilities have government contracts to use public land for their power lines... literally EVERY private organization has a right to government contracts?

That is absurd.

Planned Parenthood does not work within the free market as it is a nonprofit organization. It is the same as a church that provides services. If a church can get a contract to provide a service to the community so should any other nonprofit. Now if we want to remove the silly nonprofit status of churches I am ALL for that!

Comparing this to churches is as silly as comparing it to the NRA. This has nothing to do with their non-profit status. I'd be with you on eliminating government contracts for any services that are not legitimate government functions, such as sex education and birth control and whatever else you're talking about.

The strings attached do not violate the 14th amendment, or if they do they need to be abolished. "They have no inherent right to access medicaid funds." So what? Red herring at its finest. I don't have an inherent access either, but my company that provides medicaid approved transportation does since we earn it. Planned Parenthood earns those dollars, so they have a RIGHT to them, not an "inherent right" as you put it.

Your company earns it because your company formed a voluntary contract with the people in your locality who require your services. If those people decide to sever that contract, you'll have to go earn your money somewhere else.

So now if they give the brain matter away it's all good? Planned Parenthood was stupid for NOT simply putting out rules across the board for what would be appropriate reimbursement for lost money, but they didn't. So now Planned Parenthood will probably follow HoughMades adivce - "donate" the tissue to companies that flat "donate" to them. Voila! Problem solved.

Yeah, they were stupid. They revealed their complete lack of any kind of moral compass or human decency and now the people who contracted with them don't want to contract with them any more.

Since we are both alleged libertarians and we should both believe in voluntary contracts, I can't even fathom what we're arguing about right now.

 

[churchmouse]

I will only say this once.
Posts are being reported.
Temper the rhetoric. Please.

-CM-

 

[Libertarian01]

"And yet, human remains are thoroughly regulated by the government. Would you advocate removing all of those regulations? Maybe I'd agree with you on that, but you won't see me holding any signs."

So now government regulations are relevant? Fine. No laws were broken, all was good. We agree they acted legally. Nothing to see here.

"If you think the 'equal protection clause' has anything to do with riding the government gravy train then I'm not sure we're on the same page at all. And if your interpretation of this clause is accurate, and you still support it, then you need to seriously reconsider your username."

The equal protection clause applies to people, yes. And as much as I have in many posts stated my opposition to corporations being considered people under the law, I acknowledge they are. Ergo, yes Steve, the equal protection clause applies here. I don't like it, but I acknowledge it does. Then we come to the ad hominem "purity" test. Always good to see consistent logic here.

"Oh I see, so because public utilities have government contracts to use public land for their power lines... literally EVERY private organization has a right to government contracts? That is absurd."

Ok. Stop thinking about utilities. I was referring to GE's military and other contracts. Companies such as Northrup-Grumman, Haliburton, Colt, Beretta. All of these companies ALSO have government contracts. NG supplied translation services to the military by contract. There is a local store here in Fort Wayne that supplies a drycleaning service to government employees. If these can have get money so can Planned Parenthood. Yes, if one can have access to contract services so can everyone. You want to do away will ALL GOVERNMENT contracts, I might agree (mostly). Until that happens, equal treatment by the government.

"Comparing this to churches is as silly as comparing it to the NRA. This has nothing to do with their non-profit status. I'd be with you on eliminating government contracts for any services that are not legitimate government functions, such as sex education and birth control and whatever else you're talking about."

Comparing churches as nonprofits is exactly the same! Not silly at all. LOL!!! Very funny. Churches get money for schooling. Churches get government grants for programs for the poor. Exactly, 100% the same as Planned Parenthood. And again, we can agree on eliminating government spending on certain things - BUT UNTIL WE DO we treat them the same.

"Your company earns it because your company formed a voluntary contract with the people in your locality who require your services. If those people decide to sever that contract, you'll have to go earn your money somewhere else."

Where do you get this idea? Totally wrong! We offer, without contract, our services to everyone within the community. We accept certain medicaid programs. As such, when we take people who are enrolled in those programs we charge medicaid for providing that service. We do have people fall off of medicaid. Then they pay a full fare that is still far less than our cost for providing the service but far more than their paltry $0.50 or $1.00 copay per trip. We have no contracts with anyone regarding medicaid acceptance.

"Yeah, they were stupid. They revealed their complete lack of any kind of moral compass or human decency and now the people who contracted with them don't want to contract with them any more. Since we are both alleged libertarians and we should both believe in voluntary contracts, I can't even fathom what we're arguing about right now."

Since when is "human decency" required by Libertarians??? There is nothing in natural law, the foundation of our rights, that requires decency of any kind. We may want decent behavior, but we shouldn't expect it.

I believe in voluntary contracts. That doesn't mean that we get to "opt out" participating in our responsibilities. Actually, I am wrong. If we don't believe in paying our taxes or serving on a jury or accepting that the Constitution does allow for eminent domain in some cases, we can always leave, or take action to change. However, if we take the path to advocate for change then we accept working within the system and following all of its rules. Or we advocate for overthrowing the system entirely.

Our country isn't Burger King. We don't always get it our way. That is the bitter pill those on the far left and far right can't swallow. And I pity them.

Regards,

Doug

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

I will only say this once.
Posts are being reported.
Temper the rhetoric. Please.

-CM-

Really? For this?

Wow....

 

[churchmouse]

Really? For this?

Wow....

Hey, folks are very sensitive to terms such as mutilation etc.
That is what we need to watch.
Beyond that....carry on.

 

[Arthur Dent]

Abortions seem to be most of what they do. Hospitals and licensed surgery centers do these.

So 3% of what they do is the majority of what they do?

 

[steveh_131]

The equal protection clause applies to people, yes. And as much as I have in many posts stated my opposition to corporations being considered people under the law, I acknowledge they are. Ergo, yes Steve, the equal protection clause applies here. I don't like it, but I acknowledge it does. Then we come to the ad hominem "purity" test. Always good to see consistent logic here.

You accused me of 'hating liberty', speaking of ad hominems. But yes, you do flunk quite a few libertarian purity tests.

It applies to people, but you'll not ever convince me that it was intended to mean that every entity is entitled to government contracts. Nor will you convince me that any real libertarian should support such a thing.

Ok. Stop thinking about utilities. I was referring to GE's military and other contracts. Companies such as Northrup-Grumman, Haliburton, Colt, Beretta. All of these companies ALSO have government contracts. NG supplied translation services to the military by contract. There is a local store here in Fort Wayne that supplies a drycleaning service to government employees. If these can have get money so can Planned Parenthood. Yes, if one can have access to contract services so can everyone. You want to do away will ALL GOVERNMENT contracts, I might agree (mostly). Until that happens, equal treatment by the government.

Doug, unless you are arguing that every dry cleaning service in existence is entitled to a government contract, this makes absolutely no sense. They pick and choose based on a variety of criteria. By your logic, this picking and choosing is a violation of the constitution.

Where do you get this idea? Totally wrong! We offer, without contract, our services to everyone within the community. We accept certain medicaid programs. As such, when we take people who are enrolled in those programs we charge medicaid for providing that service. We do have people fall off of medicaid. Then they pay a full fare that is still far less than our cost for providing the service but far more than their paltry $0.50 or $1.00 copay per trip. We have no contracts with anyone regarding medicaid acceptance.

Unless you differ from every other medical service, this is patently false. You form a contract with medicaid that allows you to accept medicaid patients. This contract comes with strings attached. Not every provider has this contract with medicaid, and if they don't have it, they can not bill medicaid.

Since when is "human decency" required by Libertarians??? There is nothing in natural law, the foundation of our rights, that requires decency of any kind. We may want decent behavior, but we shouldn't expect it.

This isn't a libertarian issue. There is no natural right to a government contract. Libertarianism has no bearing on this discussion. This is a simple matter of contracts. The people of this nation can use their representative government to form those contracts or not to form those contracts. Neither one is a violation of individual liberty. However, when it comes time to vote, I'll vote for a candidate who would not enter into this contract with organizations that have no basic human decency.

Hey, folks are very sensitive to terms such as mutilation etc.
That is what we need to watch.
Beyond that....carry on.

mutilate
verb mu·ti·late \ˈmyü-tə-ˌlāt\
: to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)
: to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)

Is this not the correct term? It implies no moral culpability, it's simply an accurate description of what has taken place.

 

[churchmouse]

You accused me of 'hating liberty', speaking of ad hominems. But yes, you do flunk quite a few libertarian purity tests.

It applies to people, but you'll not ever convince me that it was intended to mean that every entity is entitled to government contracts. Nor will you convince me that any real libertarian should support such a thing.



Doug, unless you are arguing that every dry cleaning service in existence is entitled to a government contract, this makes absolutely no sense. They pick and choose based on a variety of criteria. By your logic, this picking and choosing is a violation of the constitution.



Unless you differ from every other medical service, this is patently false. You form a contract with medicaid that allows you to accept medicaid patients. This contract comes with strings attached. Not every provider has this contract with medicaid, and if they don't have it, they can not bill medicaid.



This isn't a libertarian issue. There is no natural right to a government contract. Libertarianism has no bearing on this discussion. This is a simple matter of contracts. The people of this nation can use their representative government to form those contracts or not to form those contracts. Neither one is a violation of individual liberty. However, when it comes time to vote, I'll vote for a candidate who would not enter into this contract with organizations that have no basic human decency.



mutilate
verb mu·ti·late \ˈmyü-tə-ˌlāt\
: to cause severe damage to (the body of a person or animal)
: to ruin the beauty of (something) : to severely damage or spoil (something)

Is this not the correct term? It implies no moral culpability, it's simply an accurate description of what has taken place.

Like I needed to see that.
There are other ways to convey your point.
Just keep it real OK.

Post #86

 

[rambone]

Hey, folks are very sensitive to terms such as mutilation etc.
That is what we need to watch.
Beyond that....carry on.

Are there any rules against abusing the reporting system? For wasting mods' time when zero rules are being broken?

Similarly, if mu*****tion is a prohibited word, maybe we could expand the INGO word filter?

 

[Lowe0]

Whoever told you life was in any way "fair" sold you a bill of goods...

However, if you survey a random sample of people and give them the option of whether they like being alive, dead, or never born at all...I would think the "alive" answer would win by a large margin...I am sure even Goth kids, who revel in angst, when given a choice between the three would say "alive"....

Allow me to rephrase, then: how can it be justified, ethically, to create a life without their permission? If we insist that we can't end a life without consent, then why wouldn't that same standard be applied to starting one?