Planned Parenthood...

[Double Trouble]

While I vehemently disagree with Russ on the function of PP and whether they should be publically funded or not, Russ is absolutely right that a publically funded institution should NOT be involved in political campaigning. If a private institution wishes to do so, that's fine. I don't want to be forced to hand over my money to some organization, which then in turn uses that money to campaign against the values I stand for.

PP is an excellent organization, and certainly a much needed thing, but they should not be involved in politics - certainly not if it involves using resourses that society is paying for. :disgust:

 

[visgf]

Here's my question:

Did Planned Parenthood present a biased opinion?

OR

Did Planned Parenthood present both sides fairly, and we the readers assume that they were presenting a biased opinion because one of the candidates just happens to support their cause?


The "campaigning" isn't going to change any minds and it really isn't any surprise to anyone who knows the general party stances that the democrat candidate supports these alternatives more than the republican candidate.

 

[Russ]

visgf,

They didn't present "both sides" at all. It is purely and simply an attack ad on Bush using distortions and innuendo. It is a series of women "claiming" to be Republicans talking about how Bush will completely eliminate a woman's right to choose.

Russ, NCNE

 

[DABANSHEE]

Well Russ, it turned out that US Police Depts were using govt money on campaignes to encourage people to vote no, on medical marijuarna initives. I take it you are against police depts useing govt monet to lobbying against drug law reform, just because they don't want to loose their overtime, too.

But, maybe the govt money 'planned Parenthood' received was conditional funding, which meant those funds had to be spent on a special purpose, which would them imply 'Planned Parenthood' could then spend other funds on whatever they wanted.

But it looks like your question has already been answered by Doug

"According to that:
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. is a tax-exempt corporation under Internal Revenue Service code section 501(c)(3) and is not a private foundation. (Tax ID #13-1644147) Contributions are tax deductible.
The IRS classifies the Planned Parenthood Action Fund as a 501(c)(4), not-for-profit organization. Contributions are not tax deductible."

So it appears that 'Planned Parenthood Feration of America' does receive govt funding, while the 'Planned Parenthood Action Fund' is a completelly seperate orginisation that doesnt recieve govt funding, so are therefore free to campaign & lobby.

Anyway Govt funding of 'Planned Parenthood' is a good investment, as the govt probably saves billions out of all the unwanted children that they don't have to end up supporting. Same way the Australian govt has saved millions by running needle exchanges country wide.

 

[Shuxclams]

Ok, wait a minute. Who here asked thier parents for Sexual advice, condoms birth control before having Sex? I didn't, I also used thier services when I got the drip when I was 18, PP's funding would obviously be cut under GW's presidency, so do they have a right to spend the tax money the republikan congress gave them to defend their existance? Prolly, is it fair that Russ or anyone OPPOSED to thier services has to have thier taxes included? Well kinda, TAX Laws are drawn up in Congress which has been a republikan Majority for the past many years, those who oppose Birth control services, sexual education and abortions "tend" to vote republikan, so it is "somewhat fair", I don't like alot of things my taxes go to but I also check up on my Representatives and Congressmen and thier actions, the best way for you to get your point across is to vote. I support Planned Parenthood 100%, it helps minority women ALOT, its just not 16 year old girls getting condoms or women getting abortions, its a service for those without insurance and no place to go, so you inadvertantly gave $0.0125
in Taxes, get over it.





SHUX

 

[Russ]

DaBrainless,



<< I take it you are against police depts useing govt monet to lobbying against drug law reform, just because they don't want to loose their overtime, too. >>



You would already know the answer to that question if you actually took the time to read the thread before jumping in to add your socialist pennies worth.



<< Planned Parenthood Action Fund' is a completelly seperate orginisation that doesnt recieve govt funding, so are therefore free to campaign &amp; lobby. >>



You'll believe just about anything won't you? There are far too many of these outfits that have been nailed for co-mingling of funds. I don't buy for a second that when their PAC division runs short of funds thay aren't dipping in to the other cookie jar. Sooner or later, they'll get caught too.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Raspewtin]

<< So, how does everyone feel about this outfit spending your money to run attack ads against Bush? >>



To be honest, I'm glad they're informing the public and protecting abortion rights. If Bush gets hurt in the process, I could care less. He has enough money behind him to take care of himself. To me, the fact that they're spending the money of pro-life individuals on this (as well as the rest of us) is icing on the cake.

Now I can say during an abortion argument - &quot;You say you're pro-life, but some of your money is going to abortions!&quot;


What bugs me is not that their spending our money on this, but spending the nation's money on a hugely expensive underground highway in Boston that I'll never use.

 

[Russ]

Shux,

The funding of PP is not the issue. The issue is the expenditure of that money on political activities. liberals are climbing all over the campaign finance reform bandwagon. Funny how they are strangely silent, or change their tune completely, when it's one of their own pets.

Russ, NCNE

 

[Shuxclams]

I hoped to make the point that monies are appropriated VIA congess (House and Senate) and signed into LAW by the President, the House and Senate make up the rules governing budgets and spending, not the President, the President can ONLY &quot;guide&quot; in a general way with his Budget Proposalsand use the Power of Veto on bills which contain Laws to which he does not like (I am 100% behind the LINE ITEM VETO by the way). The House AND Senate have both been Republikan Majority for the past few years and the Laws that would have covered the Spending Budgets concerning PP were created and approved in Congress, which is still held by the Republikans, if you want change, then find out what your reprisentitives voted for and do what you need to. As far as I can tell since TAXATION is all about Congress, and Congress is Republikan, then the PP is the Republikan's &quot;pet&quot; and maybe thats why nobody is saying anything, either that or the Pro-Life propaganda machine has whipped up this fever about PP and its Abortion &quot;statistics&quot; and the only ones buying it are the Anti-Abortionist's they cater to. Also, arent you totally opposed to statistics?



SHUX

 

[jobert]

The 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 tax exempt classifications
are yet another example of how the IRS laws are nothing
but a colossal collection of special interest laws...
one law for each and every special interest with a couple
hundred thou to spend.

If you want to accept tax-exempt contributions and
federal grants you form a 501(c)3.
If you want to support politicians, you form a 501(c)4.
If you want to do BOTH, you form ONE OF EACH.
The key is that the 501(c)3 can SUBCONTRACT work to the
501(c)4, paying for the work with 501(c)3 funds as long
as the subcontract is carefully worded in nebulous terms.