Planned Parenthood Suing Several States
- Thread starter WizardofOz
- Start date
gcthomas
New member
From their point of view, expanding their services would be an improvement.
(Glad you're not sticking to that $100M profit nonsense now.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Go ahead and disagree with the pro abortion arguments that rexlunae made, that's something that pro lifers are supposed to do (disagree with pro abortionists).
You mean this post?
Yeah, you really let the pro abortion crowd have it with the rest of your post.
Originally Posted by aCultureWarrior
Go ahead and disagree with the pro abortion arguments that rexlunae made, that's something that pro lifers are supposed to do (disagree with pro abortionists).
You mean this post?
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4470919&postcount=12
Yeah, you really let the pro abortion crowd have it with the rest of your post.
WizardofOz
New member
Should there be no oversight? How does spending $14,000 a day on travel expand or improve to the level that this type of spending is justifiable? $600,000 parties, etc...
Would you agree that they have over $100 million after accounting for all of their expenses?
| Chaffetz, a Utah Republican, said Planned Parenthood's $127 million in profit last year showed the organization could survive without federal funds. He accused the group of lavishly spending on travel, hosting "blowout parties" and paying "exorbitant salaries." |
You do realize that's a part of why they held the hearing, right?
WizardofOz
New member
Do you not understand the cases and judgements I cited? Either get into the discussion or get out of the way.
gcthomas
New member
I would have thought that a buisiness oriented Republican ought to understand the meaning of the word 'profit', even if you don't. Unless (whisper it!) that Republican has an ulterior motive in attacking PP that is not related to its finances.
WizardofOz
New member
You seem to have 'missed' the first half of my post.
Should there be no oversight? How does spending $14,000 a day on travel expand or improve to the level that this type of spending is justifiable? $600,000 parties, etc...
Would you agree that they have over $100 million after accounting for all of their expenses?
Should there be no oversight? How does spending $14,000 a day on travel expand or improve to the level that this type of spending is justifiable? $600,000 parties, etc...
Would you agree that they have over $100 million after accounting for all of their expenses?
MortSullivan
New member
Here's the problem. PP will just lie and deny that the videos are authentic and unaltered.
Lying has worked for them in the past, it works for them now, and will continue to work for them in the future.
Sad deal.
Fair enough.
I think that the decision of the Second Circuit is pretty bizarre on a number of counts. That, too, was a Congressional hit-job that the courts refused to halt despite what seems to be pretty clear Constitutional grounds. I think I'll refrain from going into that too deeply right now to avoid getting into the weeds, but the decision is here for the curious:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-2nd-circuit/1534979.html
It seems to me that really, where ACORN went wrong was in endorsing Barack Obama. The Right was pretty content to leave them alone mostly until it sided with The Enemy, which then brought a video sting operation that actually did uncover some misconduct by a few people, and then the congressional hearings began, and defunding was right around the corner. The initial trial judge thought it was a bill of attainder, and issued a permanent injunction, which he did not stay. After losing at the Second Circuit, an appeal to the Supreme Court was filed, but I can find no record of the case ever being heard, or the appeal accepted or refused, and the group collapsed shortly thereafter, perhaps in part because the local chapters started quitting the national group, because the defunding law applied to "affiliates and allies", to hell with freedom of association or due process, and the thing that they all had in common was that they advocated for the poor.
I know it's tempting to draw on ideological positions about abortion or the poor in judging these groups, but isn't that a bit chilling? What if Congress decided they didn't care for the Boy Scouts of America, and passed a "defunding" law against not only the Scouts themselves, but also anyone and any organization that was an "affiliate" or an "ally". Should Congress have the power to snuff out private organizations that rely on funding for a part of their budget without any due process or obligation to fairness or accuracy for entirely political reasons?
In any case, Planned Parenthood is not ACORN, and there's a lot more money behind them and a lot more public and political support. I don't think they're going to collapse too quickly regardless, and that's a fight almost guaranteed to make it to the Supreme Court if the defunding passed.
Jose Fly
New member
Pretty good points here...
Doing the Math on Planned Parenthood’s Alleged Fetal Tissue Profit Scheme
Doing the Math on Planned Parenthood’s Alleged Fetal Tissue Profit Scheme
gcthomas
New member
Oversight, yes. Oversight by politico-religious groups that have invested in destroying PP? I think that wouldn't be a good thing.
(You still seem to be pushing the 'profit' line.
Q for you - should charities continue to be encouraged to run a single digit percentage surplus, as they seem to be, or must they be unable to use funds to expand?)
WizardofOz
New member
gcthomas
New member
When you answer the ones I asked first. :idunno:
WizardofOz
New member
Shouldn't questions asked first be answered first? :idunno:
gcthomas
New member
You asked if there should be oversight, and I said conditionally yes. You immediately quoted the second half of my post and challenged me to answer, despite cutting out my answer.
I asked from post #13 onwards one question, essentially this: do you think the $100M is a business profit that individuals are benefiting from, or is it a surplus that must be ploughed back into the charity's work?
You still haven't answered. Because the answer is that the 'profit' accusation is plainly false and you know it?
WizardofOz
New member
I realize you addressed the oversight part. We're good on that. I kept repeating my questions that you failed to address at all.
I addressed it. You are trying to play a deflective game of semantics (profit versus surplus) in order to avoid the point of how their money is spent. This is a big part as to why the oversight committee hearing was held in the first place.
PP has hundreds of millions of dollars in excess after accounting for all of their expenses. However, in order to keep their non-profit status they must "reinvest" this into their business rather than giving it to owners.
Question 1: Would you agree that they have over $100 million after accounting for all of their expenses?
Question 2: How is spending $14k per day on travel or throwing $600k celebrity parties expanding or improving their business?
I'm kinda curious about something. Is there a problem with them having $100+ million in profits? That seems relatively modest to me, for a national organization.
It's pretty easy to spend $14k per day on travel in a large organization. Of course it seems like a waste of money when we're just looking at the aggregate sum without any explanation what it was used for, but it probably represents the travel expenses of a few dozen people. I've personally been reimbursed for travel on a six-week period for about $17k, so if you figure that their traveling expenses are similar (and there are standard per diem rates for given areas), that would mean that on average day, they have about 34 people traveling. That's not exorbitant by any reasonable standard.
As for the $600k parties, that also sounds fairly reasonable to me for a celebrity party. And these parties may also be fundraisers. Looking at the cost doesn't tell the whole story.
WizardofOz
New member
Not necessarily, this is simply the point where gct is trying to bog down the discussion. I was never disputing their non-profit status in the first place.
I'm sure such expenditures can be rationalized but I am all for the oversight and transparency as to the paticulars.
Back to our earlier exchange, I still do not see how a bill defunding PP is unconstitutional...
Ok, so, $100 million is reasonable. Check.
I'm sure they comply with all requirements of the law in that regard. Transparency is a worthy cause, but there's been no suggestion that I'm aware of that their spending is anything but above board, so I guess I don't see why they are particularly a target for this at this moment other than as an excuse to continue the witch hunt against them.
It's a bill of attainder. It's just that simple, to me. And if you want a second reasons, passing a law punishing "affiliates" seems to violate the Constitutional freedom of association. If the Second Circuit disagrees, I'd like to see the Supreme Court take it up. I did give a rather thorough discussion of this topic, so far unanswered.
WizardofOz
New member
Just be sure to explain to gct that non-profits can indeed profit just as long as they reinvest the funds into their business.
I'm sure it largely revolved around the videos (this time). But obviously there have been numerous pushes to defund them. I have no issue with the oversight committee digging into their finances.
I just don't think it's that simple.
I am not igoring it but am doing some further digging. I like to be careful with legal arguments as they can be quite technical (it's just not that simple, to me
). Further reading:
Defunding Planned Parenthood Is Legal, but Don’t Expect the Courts to Act Like It