Abortive concepts: Question for pro life pro Trumpers

[Seriati]

Is it your assertion that they will cut that particular expense by $60 million?  if not, it's still the same issue.  The trick is that money expands the operation as a whole, in all facets, but the accounting pretends that certain dollars are only for one purpose (even though it allows more to spent on prohibitted purposes in total).

Again, it's not illegal, but i definitely is an accounting trick.

[TheDrake]

It seems to me you're refuting GAAP. There is a calculated value assigned to any good or service - its cost. It generally isn't trickery.

Now mind you, it would be perfectly clear to have written the law stating that any entity providing abortion services is ineligible, but they deliberately specified that this accounting method is sound by writing it the way they did, legally.

At its inception, it had strong bipartisan support and clearly had a net effect of reducing the number of abortions overall.

[Seriati]

If it sounds like I'm "refuting GAAP" you're not listening.  Maybe you can cite to the provision in the actual law that supports you (hint, it isn't there).

[TheDrake]

Sorry, I did make a mistake. It's not GAAP per se, which is financial accounting. Dividing funding amongst programs is managerial accounting.

The Statute says this:

None of the funds appropriated under this title shall be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

A non profit organization has one or more programs. The intent of the law is clearly designed to allow separate programs to include abortion. That budgeting process is time-honored and used by all major corporations and charities. It's not a mingled tricky slush fund.

When non-profits mingle their programs, they get in trouble, like when the Red Cross took donations for various relief efforts and then slushed it into other programs, including their marketing campaigns. As you say, there's nothing illegal about this. There are repercussions.

I totally understand why anti-abortion groups feel like any dollar that goes to any organization that has anything to do with abortion, even the handing out of a pamphlet about it, is supporting abortion. That wasn't the bipartisan agreement that put Title X in place, however. The Senate passed Title X unanimously. Every single pro-life conservative signed off on the compromise.

That's what the actual law says.

[Seriati]

Sure, and the new regulation closes a loophole that's been exploited for decades whereby PP has never had to clearly account for such mixing.  If federal funds were used to pay rent for a facility that included a portion used for abortions, it was arguably a violation of the law, and accounting tricks were used to pretend that the specific funds were used for everything but the abortions.  Yet the end result was that those funds were in fact used to support programs were abortion is a method of family planning, and only an accounting trick made it look otherwise.

I don't get your objection.  Just because you agree with it, doesn't mean it isn't a trick.  There's zero question that the original provision was included in the law specifically to prevent abortion providers from receiving the funds, yet an abortion provider was a massive recipient of the funds.

[cherrypoptart]

This what they call the fungibility of money.

[TheDrake]

Except it doesn't say provider, it says program. You think they created a loophole in the language that got exploited, but was not corrected when Title X grants went to planned parenthood, and it took 40 years to fix that problem?

It's exceedingly difficult to dig up any of the original stories from the 1970s on the debate and the language concerning abortion, and I somehow expect that even if I found a quote from a Republican Senator describing why they wrote it that way, or floor or committee debate about the language where they expressly understood that meant organizations like Planned Parenthood would be eligible, you'd still insist it was a tricky loophole rather than the intended legislation.

[Seriati]

You're boring me.  Take it for what it is or don't, I'm not interested in going in circles on a ridiculous point anymore.  It's really just absurd to argue that there is "substance" somehow to an accounting measure, it's literally an accounting measure.

Loop hole closed (for now).

[Pete at Home]

If Republicans were to create a thorough direct government distribution of birth control as Seriati describes, I'd not gripe about slashing funding for PP.  I just don't like tossing half the lifeboats off a ship on the high seas just because the accounting is wrong on the lifeboats.

[Pete at Home]

"As you may recall, Obama passed a rule in Dec. 2016 that prohibited states from allocating the funds away from abortion providers, and Congress overruled the rule early in 2017.  The whole fight is about PP, which essentially has been using accounting tricks to take federal funds and claim they aren't funding abortion.  "

I doubt that you can give Congress or even most church charities 60 million dollars and not, through some "accounting trick" end up paying money for someone's mistress' abortion.  With that said, I've yet to see anyone offer proof that Planet Parenthood systematically used such accounting tricks. 

"As you may recall, Obama passed a rule in Dec. 2016 that prohibited states from allocating the funds away from abortion providers, and Congress overruled the rule early in 2017.  "

Obama may tried to invite such tricks, but Obama is not Planned Parenthood.  And there's not much time between Dec 2016 and early 2017,

" The whole fight is about PP,"

Oh, on that I agree.  PP is the target, and I think for at least some of the PP opponents, the real war is against birth control, not abortion.  I doubt, for example, that someone who makes Crunch's brothers-keeper arguments against funding distribution of birth control, really gives a floundering frack about fetal lives and rights.

"[pp] which essentially has been using accounting tricks to take federal funds and claim they aren't funding abortion. "

Do you dispute that PP has distributed birth control value well in excess of its yearly intake?

Whether or not PP has used the accounting tricks that you claim (I've yet to see evidence of it but I acknowledge the possibility) that by distributing birth control, PP has prevented more abortions than all pro-life groups put together?

[Seriati]

I doubt that you can give Congress or even most church charities 60 million dollars and not, through some "accounting trick" end up paying money for someone's mistress' abortion.  With that said, I've yet to see anyone offer proof that Planet Parenthood systematically used such accounting tricks.

I think, given this comment and TheDrake's general agnst, I must not be clearly expressing myself.  By "accounting trick" I'm not accusing anyone of nefariousness or fraud.  I do not mean that someone has set up an account labelled, "general marketing expense" that they use to make payments to their mistress.  I just mean that the allocation of funds is permitted - by accounting standards - to be a more than a bit of a farce.

If you have a budget for 2019, that say's you're going to spend your $60 million dollar budget with $50 million for Task A and $10 million for Task B, and you get an unexpected donation of $20 million in November (after you already spent $45 million for Task A) specifically for Task A, it's an "accounting trick" that allows you to go forward with a final spend of $50 million for Task A and $30 million for Task B, because you can allocate the already spent funds to the new donation and "free up" the general funds you used previously.  Even though the donee wanted you to spend more on Task A, you had sufficient assets to "replace" the general funds with designated funds, and what they got was more funds on Task B.  Granted this is a one sided example (intentionally to show the principal).

There is nothing illegal about that, and the accounting rules allow it.  But it doesn't sit right with a lot of people, and particularly for those with moral objections the sophistry can't cleanse the reality that after the grants are received the amount to be spent on abortion activities increases.

"As you may recall, Obama passed a rule in Dec. 2016 that prohibited states from allocating the funds away from abortion providers, and Congress overruled the rule early in 2017.  "

Obama may tried to invite such tricks, but Obama is not Planned Parenthood.  And there's not much time between Dec 2016 and early 2017,

Yes, but the point is that there has been an ongoing struggle between those who want to expand the use of federal funds for abortions, and couldn't care less that the law says otherwise, and those who don't want any federal funds going to increase abortion funding.  This example really doesn't brook a "middle ground" and certainly not one that relies on sophistry.

As I've said before, I don't have a problem with federal funds being used for abortion, but that is not what the law says today and there are a lot of people for whom that would be a serious moral problem.  Ergo, this is one that should be decided by political will, not trickery and court action.

" The whole fight is about PP,"

Oh, on that I agree.  PP is the target, and I think for at least some of the PP opponents, the real war is against birth control, not abortion.

Maybe, but I haven't met anyone in years that seriously objected to birth control.  This may be one that varies based on yhour local community. 

I doubt, for example, that someone who makes Crunch's brothers-keeper arguments against funding distribution of birth control, really gives a floundering frack about fetal lives and rights.

That's a very uncharitable view of Crunch, and one that I doubt would play out in reality.  There's nothing immoral about being a libertarian and believing that no one can rightfully be required to support another economically (and oddly, that's really just a facet of the entire pro choice position - is it not?  -  The mother can not be required to support the fetus against her objection).  It seems a little inconsistent to me to both argue for choice over birth/abortion and for being required to support other persons over your objections?  Does it not?

Do you dispute that PP has distributed birth control value well in excess of its yearly intake?

I don't know what that means.  As I said before, as a matter of economics birth control is a net loss for the country. 

Whether or not PP has used the accounting tricks that you claim (I've yet to see evidence of it but I acknowledge the possibility) that by distributing birth control, PP has prevented more abortions than all pro-life groups put together?

The evidence would be if they've spent even one dollar more on abortion than they would have/could have without the birth control subsidies. 

[TheDeamon]

Maybe, but I haven't met anyone in years that seriously objected to birth control.  This may be one that varies based on your local community.

Some of that gets into definition games. Giving women access to birth control pills/devices is one thing. (Given that men have no such option)

While giving everybody free access to condoms is an entirely different matter. I'm sure you could easily find people who would strongly object to "free condoms for everyone" as I'm sure there is at least one person in here that would object to going that far. Heck, I'm less than enthusiastic about that option.

However, for a number of people out there, condoms are considered a form of birth control. Which also happens to be technically correct.

[Pete at Home]

Libertarians aren’t any more entitled to change the facts than leftwits. I have no idea of what Crunch is “in reality” but I’ve responded to what he posted in this forum. I don’t care if he’s a troll or the sock puppet of some other member, but charity cannot compel me to pretend he said something less Cain-ish than what he said. 

Speaking of sophistry, is that really your best understanding of the economic issue? You really don’t see a bifurcation of economic potential of wanted kids of the upper middle class (who use birth control already) and children born from parents who didn’t use bc because they could not afford to?  If you answered this already, apologies; I missed it.

[TheDeamon]

Crunch certainly does walk right into the point many activists make in regards to birth control and abortion in general.

In that for many "pro-life" advocates, it doesn't seem to so much be about the life of the fetus. It seems to be more about punishing the woman for being pregnant. (Because they were engaged in activities Crunch doesn't support)

And since we're revisiting some older content, this was glanced over the first time through.

Just to be clear, since this confusion seems to keep cropping up.  If we're going to pay for birth control it should - without question - include free condoms and other forms of barrier control, as well as vascetomies and "male pills" as they become available.  The entirety of the social good here is about preventing any person from unwillingly become a parent and it's heavily undermined if only women have that control and/or it leads to an increase in STDs.

That mean's endorsing a "take over" of a lot of companies such at Trojan that are in the business, on a the same kind of idea that vaccine producers were "taken over."

The "take over" of Trojan would only be partial at best. The taxpayer shouldn't be "on the hook" for anything more than the bare minimum. If you want a condom with ticklers, "ribbed for her pleasure" or any of those other extras, go buy your own condoms. The taxpayer funded ones are a basic piece of latex molded to perform the task, nothing more, nothing less.

[Pete at Home]

Unlike Ayn Rand, I won’t go so far as to say that Libertarianism is an inherently corrupt and invalid approach to anything and everything. 

My point to Crunch was that his reply utterly failed to respond to my OP question. Being too short term cheap to pay to prevent millions of yearly homicides does not  make him “pro-life” in any meaningful way.

[Seriati]

Libertarians aren’t any more entitled to change the facts than leftwits.

Why do you think that's responsive?  You seemed to be positing some kind of inherent morality behind paying for health care for others, it's perfectly legitimate that some believe that taking from one to benefit another is always a wrong act.  That's a form of the philosophy they ends do not justify the means.  As absolute philosophy it's not viable, but neither is any other philosophy.  That doesn't make it invalid as a source of principled argument.

Speaking of sophistry, is that really your best understanding of the economic issue? You really don’t see a bifurcation of economic potential of wanted kids of the upper middle class (who use birth control already) and children born from parents who didn’t use bc because they could not afford to?  If you answered this already, apologies; I missed it.

Sophistry refers to the accounting treatment, not to the economic argument.  The economic argument (ie that abortion is cheaper than raising a child) is just bunk that only appears valid by limiting the scope of what's covered, since Americans on average are of net economic benefit to the country.

And sure, there are kids born with greater or lesser economic potential.  Doesn't really make much of a difference though as there is no material demographic that is born on the net loss side at average.  I'm sure you could pick out a sub-group, such as crack addicted babies that won't live past one, for which there is no way they will be economically productive, but that you'd have to parse it to that level says a lot about the point.

Again, the economic argument is a stupid way to think about this issue. it's invalid.  It's useless.  But feel free to dive down the rabbit whole if it fascinates you.

[Pete at Home]

Libertarians aren’t any more entitled to change the facts than leftwits.

Why do you think that's responsive?  You seemed to be positing some kind of inherent morality behind paying for health care for others,

[/quote]

I’m often told that I seem gay too, but I’m not, thank you very much.

I posited and for purposes of sanity and not wasting time that
(!) someone who valued “life” in the abortion context,
 cared about the actual deaths of fetuses.

I was hoping to engage you in a good faith discussion whether the government has a valid interest in reducing abortion.  And whether the data I presented above shows that birth control access is the most cost effective way to reduce the number of abortion.  I thought we were headed in that direction at first.

it's perfectly legitimate that some believe that taking from one to benefit another is always a wrong act. 

I have No problem with Crunch believing that. 

[TheDrake]

If you use that criteria, that a dollar can free up another dollar that might be used toward an abortion, it seems like you could make that argument about any federal dollar? Including any public assistance paid to individuals? Medicaid, for instance?

Is the Hyde amendment just another loophole that needs closing?

[Pete at Home]

If a fed funded emergency room provided emergency services to abortion complications from a nearby clinic, did the ER violate terms of its Title Ten funds?