Charlotte Allen, writing in The Weekly Standard, on the empire that is Planned Parenthood:
Whether the federal government ought to be in the business of subsidizing birth control, which, except in cases of rape or abuse, is a matter of individual voluntary decisions about one's sex life and desire for children, is a good question. Whether people should have an automatic "right" to subsidized birth control under Medicaid, to be paid for indefinitely out of other people's federal taxes, is another good question. Those are matters for a long-term policy debate. The more pressing question is whether the federal government should continue to subsidize, to the tune of tens of millions of taxpayer dollars a year, an organization, the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, that derives a heap of its revenues from abortions, has sustained a demonstrably poor record on reporting suspected sex crimes against underage teenagers--and has a mountain of cash to boot. What about the taxpayers' right to choose?
Comments (5)
I strongly oppose using taxpayer money to pay for abortions. I oppose abortions and I feel that using my tax dollars to pay for something I oppose is taxation without representation. I have written several letter to my representative Harry Mitchell and he replies with the same old rhetoric and never really addresses my opposition. It's like he's saying that's the way it is and it doesn't really matter how I feel. I am not the only person in the USA who opposes abortion, if I were, I would expect a blah-de-blah answer.
October 18, 2007 3:07 PM | Comment Permalink
"I oppose abortions and I feel that using my tax dollars to pay for something I oppose is taxation without representation."
I think perhaps you dont understand the idea of a democratic republic form of government: The people pay taxes, the people elect represenatatives, and the represenatatives decide what to spend it on. Citizens do not get to decide what their taxes will and will not fund: Everyone pays under the same rules.
Look at it from another side: A large portion of the US population is opposed to the war on Iraq. Does this mean the war should be abandoned so that their tax-money is not paying for it? How about drug law enforcement - there are many people who believe cannibis should be legal. So should the government stop funding police departments that enforce the law prohibiting it?
You have your representation, just like everyone else* with US citizenship. You can vote. Use it. But you dont have direct control over where the money goes, and that is as things should be.
*Except felons.
October 19, 2007 5:57 AM | Comment Permalink
Why wasn't PP honest about opening a new facility. Is that honest representation???
October 22, 2007 4:24 PM | Comment Permalink
Officially, fear - they were worried that pro-life activists might try to attack or intimidate the contractors doing the construction work. Dishonest, yes - but secrecy is understandable, if its purpose is the safety of the builders.
I havn't seen any photos myself, but ive heard others say that the facility is built like a fortress - extra-thick walls to resist vehicle impacts, CCTV covererage of the full property. It appears PP is preparing for an attack - even though the majority of pro-life campaigners are peaceful, it only takes one or two extremists to get violent.
October 24, 2007 10:49 AM | Comment Permalink
Suricou says it's OK for Planned Parenthood to be corrupt. All the more reason to not want my taxpayer money to support corrupt organizations. If you're doing the right thing you don't have to hide it from anyone.
October 26, 2007 1:46 PM | Comment Permalink