Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simple enough. People keep gushing about how wonderful PP is and how they're absolutely indispensable. By having non-abortion PP clinics open, those clinics can continue to receive federal funding. And I already provided info showing that abortions and abortion-related services are being paid for with federal money. And I provided information showing that PP has been defrauding the federal government and their customers. Then there's the rent and the utilities and everything else. It's incredibly difficult to keep abortion and non-abortion books separate. I'm offering a solution that fixes all of that!
If you're an abortion clinic and you can't afford to pay the rent, the utilities, etc without getting federal funding, what does that tell you? It tells you that taxpayer dollars really are paying for abortions presently. If no federal money pays for abortions, then what's the big deal? Having a separate clinic should be easy enough, shouldn't it? Why would anyone be afraid of the idea?
Meanwhile, Republicans and pro-life folks would no longer have any reason to target PP's non-abortion clinics and there would be no excuse for defunding them. They can continue providing their wonderful indispensable services to the public and do it with federal dollars!
It's a win-win!
No, you have stated your personal opinion that PP cannot separate funding for abortion and non-abortion services. I have provided an example of an audit that shows exactly how that is done. It is not "incredibly difficult" to keep abortion and non-abortion books separate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
A publicly traded company has motivation to stay squeaky clean.
A not for profit..not so much. And especially not so much when they are practically guaranteed hundreds of millions in government grants and are a favorite of the administration.
With the scrutiny that PP is under from politicians on a minute by minute basis it would be extremely unwise for PP not to be meticulous in book keeping.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jacqueg
My guess is that PP would do it, if it was a law that applied to every abortion provider.
But keep in mind you have then mandated the existence of abortion-only clinics. Is that really a road you want to take?
That's a good point. Some private doctors provide early abortion services in their offices. Should they not be able to get paid by Medicaid for other services?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Getting caught selling baby organs and the fact that it was discussed pretty high up in the PP chain of command would suggest they are not nearly so careful as you presume. Since the info was obtained illegally, it won't lead to much. But where do you think the pro-life folks got the idea that such things were going on? Probably from former PP employees.
Simple answer to both: Who's going to prosecute them for misallocation of federal funds? Loretta E. Lynch, our present Attorney General. She is pro-abortion so no she's not going to take PP to task. Why would a pro-abortion Attorney General go after the biggest provider of abortions in the country?
Meanwhile Texas is using verified fraudulent practices in their own state-level process of defunding of PP.
I fully anticipate that such defunding processes or the lack thereof will follow Red-state/Blue-state lines going forward.
It seems logical that any abortion-provider should fall under the same rule -- though such a rule has yet to be created of course. If a mother's life is in immediate danger or her health is in serious immediate threat, then by all means let the hospital or clinic perform the abortion. Otherwise, send them to an abortion clinic.
I really do see this as a win-win. The pro-life folks do not have the right make abortions illegal. Those performing abortions don't have the right to use federal money to pay for abortions. Making the abortion clinics completely separate would allow us to continue funding the good non-controversial services that PP and other medical facilities currently provide and would silence the GOP's attacks on PP.
"Baby parts" are not being sold. They never were. The tissue is donated by the woman having the abortion. PP never charged for the tissue, only a nominal amount for processing and shipping it to the facility receiving it. The people making the videos used creative editing to try to make it seem that tissue is being sold. It's just not true.
It's not necessary to have abortion services and non-abortion services in separate physical plants in order to physically separate the two activities.
In addition, some of the same people who oppose abortion oppose many effective methods of contraception because they want to believe they work by causing extremely early "abortion", which is not true. Their goal would be to eliminate pretty much all contraceptives, from pills to IUDs. They want PP closed, period.
Last edited by suzy_q2010; 02-23-2016 at 01:00 PM..
With the scrutiny that PP is under from politicians on a minute by minute basis it would be extremely unwise for PP not to be meticulous in book keeping
Hardly. They've been called to capital hill on numerous occasions and played the song and dance for Congress.
They do not break out abortions as a separate revenue service.
No different than the Clinton Foundation's books being "squeaky clean" eh ?
Getting caught selling baby organs and the fact that it was discussed pretty high up in the PP chain of command would suggest they are not nearly so careful as you presume. Since the info was obtained illegally, it won't lead to much. But where do you think the pro-life folks got the idea that such things were going on? Probably from former PP employees.
Please provide actual evidence that PP did not follow the same laws governing the transfer of fetal tissue that other medical facilities follow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Simple answer to both: Who's going to prosecute them for misallocation of federal funds? Loretta E. Lynch, our present Attorney General. She is pro-abortion so no she's not going to take PP to task. Why would a pro-abortion Attorney General go after the biggest provider of abortions in the country?
The same people who prosecute medical facilities for misuse of medicare funds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
Meanwhile Texas is using verified fraudulent practices in their own state-level process of defunding of PP.
Um, I'm going to assume you misspoke, and that the state of Texas is not actually using "fraudulent practices" to accomplish their agenda. Please provide a source for what you are really talking about. Or explain it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
I fully anticipate that such defunding processes or the lack thereof will follow Red-state/Blue-state lines going forward.
Texas is free to fund or defund any medical services that it funds with its own money. As are other states. It's federal funding we are talking about here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
It seems logical that any abortion-provider should fall under the same rule -- though such a rule has yet to be created of course. If a mother's life is in immediate danger or her health is in serious immediate threat, then by all means let the hospital or clinic perform the abortion. Otherwise, send them to an abortion clinic.
And by requiring that, you have actually mandated the existence of abortion-only clinics. Which have been disappearing steadily over the past decade or so. You really want them back?
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
I really do see this as a win-win. The pro-life folks do not have the right make abortions illegal. Those performing abortions don't have the right to use federal money to pay for abortions. Making the abortion clinics completely separate would allow us to continue funding the good non-controversial services that PP and other medical facilities currently provide and would silence the GOP's attacks on PP.
See the previous question.
The problem you have is that your solution would have to apply to *all* medical facilities that provide abortion. As I posted quite a few posts ago, SCOTUS has ruled that abortion can not be regulated out of existence. Now you are mandating that abortion-only clinics must exist. Who's going to pay for them if the government mandates that they *must* exist?
I was surprised that someone like Kasich would take such a radical action, this is the 10th state that defunded Planned Parenthood based on their connection to abortion providers. Title X funding serves many poor women and was a bipartisan bill going back to the 1970's under Nixon but here we are again.
Makes no sense at all to pull funding from clinics that actually prevent abortions, there are a few court cases winding their way through the system. I do not see how they can deny Federal Medicaid funds to clinics based on ideology.
Texas threatened the same thing then ....nothing. So what are these states doing just wasting time pandering to their extreme constituents.
"Worried they would be cut from the Medicaid program as early as Dec. 8, Planned Parenthood affiliates in November filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Texas’ efforts. In it, Planned Parenthood argued that terminating its Medicaid contract would prevent low-income women, including 10 unnamed patients that signed on to the case, from obtaining services from a “qualified, willing provider” as required by law.
But when U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks considered the organization's request for a restraining order on Dec. 8, a curious fact emerged. Despite its claims that it had proof of misconduct, state health officials never delivered the final legal notice to defund the organization.
Lacking a final notice of termination, Sparks canceled the hearing.
"Planned Parenthood has not received official notice from the state for termination of our health centers' continued participation in Medicaid so our court case is delayed," said Sarah Wheat, a vice president for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas." https://www.texastribune.org/2015/12...planned-paren/
Last edited by Goodnight; 02-23-2016 at 01:19 PM..
If PP clinics have to run on abortion and non-abortion days -- sure sounds like they'd be better off having separate facilities. Then they could each dedicate fully to providing their chosen list of services. No more need to have separate days for different services. Win-win!
And there are standard accounting practices that apply here. They are the same practices that allow, for instance, companies to track the finances of different divisions working under the same roof. It's exactly the same principle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
As to the roommates analogy, it just leads back to the same problem: If federal dollars help pay for the rent or utilities or anything else, then federal dollars are paying for abortions -- which is illegal. If having separate facilities is unfeasable and the separated abortion clinic simply can't survive on its own, then it tells us exactly what I suspect is true: Tax dollars are being used to pay for abortions right now.
so because a minority of people question PP it needs to reorganize? gee I question which wars I support. should we insist that the military budget be separate for what is deemed necessary and what is deemed by some to be unnecessary? you don't get to pick where your tax dollars goes.
No ... it's a federal law called the Hyde Amendment. It is literally against the law to use federal funds to pay for abortions. So no it's not just me or others who want to pick and choose. It's a federal law.
Seems pretty simple to me: If abortions are not being funded by federal dollars then there's absolutely no reason for Planned Parenthood not to separate things out. I'm calling BS on their claim that they are not in any way currently paying for abortions with federal money. They are. Deep down, you know it too or you wouldn't be arguing the point. If they didn't need federal money in order to continue performing abortions then they'd have already created separate clinics for it. Apparently they can't afford to do so. Why is that?
I was surprised that someone like Kasich would take such a radical action, this is the 10th state that defunded Planned Parenthood based on their connection to abortion providers. Title X funding serves many poor women and was a bipartisan bill going back to the 1970's under Nixon but here we are again.
Makes no sense at all to pull funding from clinics that actually prevent abortions, there are a few court cases winding their way through the system. I do not see how they can deny Federal Medicaid funds to clinics based on ideology.
Texas threatened the same thing then ....nothing. So what are these states doing just wasting time pandering to their extreme constituents.
"Worried they would be cut from the Medicaid program as early as Dec. 8, Planned Parenthood affiliates in November filed a federal lawsuit seeking to block Texas’ efforts. In it, Planned Parenthood argued that terminating its Medicaid contract would prevent low-income women, including 10 unnamed patients that signed on to the case, from obtaining services from a “qualified, willing provider” as required by law.
But when U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks considered the organization's request for a restraining order on Dec. 8, a curious fact emerged. Despite its claims that it had proof of misconduct, state health officials never delivered the final legal notice to defund the organization.
Lacking a final notice of termination, Sparks canceled the hearing.
"Planned Parenthood has not received official notice from the state for termination of our health centers' continued participation in Medicaid so our court case is delayed," said Sarah Wheat, a vice president for Planned Parenthood of Greater Texas." https://www.texastribune.org/2015/12...planned-paren/
They aren't. It's based on the Hyde Amendment.
Now if PP would just separate their abortion clinics from there other clinics and operate them separately then they would get back their funding.
Texas took that money and used it to create a women's health network.
No ... it's a federal law called the Hyde Amendment. It is literally against the law to use federal funds to pay for abortions. So no it's not just me or others who want to pick and choose. It's a federal law.
Seems pretty simple to me: If abortions are not being funded by federal dollars then there's absolutely no reason for Planned Parenthood not to separate things out. I'm calling BS on their claim that they are not in any way currently paying for abortions with federal money. They are. Deep down, you know it too or you wouldn't be arguing the point. If they didn't need federal money in order to continue performing abortions then they'd have already created separate clinics for it. Apparently they can't afford to do so. Why is that?
the law is the reason why they don't use fed money to pay for abortions. claiming they do, doesn't make it so.
there is no reason for PP to go to the expense and trouble to split their services. abortion is legal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
