Susan G. Komen and Planned Parenthood

You can't replace the word fetus with the infant, because they don't mean the same thing. You don't know the difference between a cluster of parasitic cells and a human child.

You can't replace the word "black" with the word "human" because they don't mean the same thing. You don't know the difference between a black person and a human.

yeah,right...

My understanding is that abortion is treated democratically in those countries. That is, it is regulated by the democratic process. The legitimacy granted by the democratic process has a cathartic effect even on its losers.

Americans, however, are denied this democratic process on the abortion issue because the Supreme Court has usurped the democratic authority.

The other issues are not nearly as divisive as abortion (i.e. death penalty and guns) or really afterthoughts (flag burning). As to the former, different states have regulations that fit the political climates of their populaces, and the political furor is quelled, save for intermittent outbursts.

"the Supreme Court has usurped the democratic authority"

The same way they "usurped" the authority of the Deep South to segregate by skin colour, yes? Those pesky constitutional rights, always getting in the way of local majority rule.

Note that it's the U.S. Republican Party that generates the hysteria on these issues. Hardly anybody would vote for their (objectively, compared to the rest of the world) extreme-right economic policy if they didn't use social policy to incite Southerners and evangelical Christians. Conveniently, the Republicans will never actually achieve the end goals, so they will never lose these issues as a way to get votes. American "liberals" generally support the status quo on these issues, and just want to spend more government money.

That is what they say anyway.

I don't think we are really more principled. Simply more morally inconsistent.

Or priggish. But plenty aren't either.

Different national histories, different issues:

1. Guns: The USA is a huge country with vast open areas and game, in some places, on an African scale. It is also not far removed from its frontier days. Personal ownership of guns in such circumstances is unsurprising.
2. Abortion: It involves the taking of life with fully human potential. Unlike most European states -- certainly the largely pagan UK -- religious opinion in the USA is intense. As a result, this is a moral issue for many.
3. Death penalty: Again, a moral issue. It was abolished in the UK within living memory (at least mine) so -- not so different. There are, remember, fifty largely sovereign jurisdictions and each must reach its own conclusion on this moral dilemma. No Home Office or Parliament can decide for all.
4. Flag burning: No surprise, It is a symbol of the nation. Brits may not care if one burns the Union Jack but on my many trips to the UK I was always amused at how they got their backs up if anyone made comments critical of the Queen. All depends on which ox you object to seeing gored.

This may sound chauvinist but it is not meant to be. England is in its senescence. It is a place with , to quote Milton, "all passion spent." America is still passing through its Elizabethan Age. It is fraught with racial, religious and moral discord and is, withal, a violent -- but immensely creative -- place. It is enjoying a lusty middle-age and with its huge and varied population will hammer away at issues unintelligible to others. America will, of course, eventually lose its edge and become like the Omniglop culture of contemporary Europe.

"Net is this: less money for Planned Parenthood means more women will die from breast cancer."

Nice to believe, but if the grants just go to a different provider, you can't assume that.

Planned Parenthood doesn't screen anyone for cancer. It's a myth. The refer people to cancer specialists. However, they do perform over 300,000 abortions.

The idea that more people will die from cancer because of this move is a fantasy.

"Planned Parenthood doesn't screen anyone for cancer. It's a myth. The refer people to cancer specialists."

No, no, PP does do screenings. Several women in my design group — freelancers who have no health insurance — use PP for their annual screenings. PP ALSO refers people to cancer specialists in case the screenings turn up something.

"Anyone who believes that abortion is evil would hardly be swayed"

... by any logic or rational thought, really. The argument that an organization which offers one legal procedure that you disagree with which isn't even remotely close to being a significant part of their budget makes he entire organization is evil is logically fallacious.

I mean I could argue that republicans have murdered and that there have been gay republicans ousted, and that there have been corrupt republicans, therefor that must mean that all republicans are gay corrupt murderers, and it would have the same logical value.

really melissia, so if a company employed slaves, but labor was a small part of their overall budget you would have to be without all thought, logic or reason to not buy from them?

interesting, see I learn more about the left everyday!

About this availability of mammograms elsewhere that the wingnuts keep talking about. Does anyone know of any that aren't affilitated with PP? Has anyone even heard of another organization that offers free or reduced price mammograms to poor women? Can you name any without having to do a Google search to find a few local organizations, none of which have the expertise of PP?

this is a red herring - slavery is illegal, abortion is not illegal

so all ur moral principles are guided strictly by legality?

god damn u leftists dig hard.

come up with a better example - there are very compelling moral concerns about abortion, but comparing it to slavery isn't one of them

Melissa you are mistaken. As Doug notes, by PP's account, abortions represent 3% of the services it provides. But abortions represent a much larger portion of PP's revenue stream, and a significant part of its budget.

Hard numbers are not released by PP, which is why the congressional investigation may be informative.

you're right, in slavery the slave doesn't end up dead by design.

but what is nastier than slavery?

Abortions do not rerepsent a large portion of Planned Parenthood's revenue stream or its budget.

In many ways, slavery is worse than death.

And to further your point . . . .

Women annually receive two cancer screenings at their gynecologist, breast and cervix. 1 in 6 women receive this screening from Planned Parenthood. Without a Google search can you name any additional local or national organizations that provide those essential, annual screenings?

To explain this further for people who aren't good at math (or just lazy), based off of PlannedParenthood's revenue report for last year, 320.1 million are earned from non-government services revenue, out of a total of 1048.2 million. The rest is made up of government grants and private contributions. Government grants are controlled directly by the government, IE, they are earmarked for specific things (I would know, using one to further my education).

Even if HALF of this was from abortions-- a ridiculous claim without any basis in fact-- that would still only end up being <15% of the organization's revenue. And that's with the most absurd claims about revenue that I've seen outside of republican propaganda pieces.

Melissia, 15% is not an insignificant number. One of the issues at stake is PP's conflict-of-interest as an abortion counselor. If an organization makes ~40% of its fees-for-service from a single procedure, the finance people in the organization will value that procedure above every other service it provides. And for one reason or another, PP has been expanding its abortion program - plans call for an abortion center in each of its regions.

Note that the 15% number was arrived at by multiplying an estimate of the average cost of an abortion by the total number of abortions performed. Changing the cost estimate may increase or decrease that number, but with over 300K abortions/year, the revenue is still going to be significant.

No, that 15% was based off of assuming half of all non-grant, non-private donation revenue was from abortions.

IE the only way that one can get a number as high as 15% is to make a ridiculous assumption.

I doubt that melissia, slavery has been a human institution for many thousands of years. I bet asking slaves at many points in that chain if they'd rather die and they'd answer no.

of course I guess its easier to be flippant about life and death if you're pro abortion. its probably a requirement.

Just because slavery lasted for a long time doesn't mean it wasn't a thing worse than death.

And it is not abortion that people are a proponent of, but rather, the choice to be able to have it. In truth, it is you that's being flippant about life and death, trolling and insulting everyone you disagree with as you are.

It's easy for you to be flippant about life and death when you casually toss aside other peoples' views and mock them for being different than you.

The real problem with Planned Parenthood is that providing both counseling services and abortions creates an inherent conflict of interest. They could avoid this by setting up a complete organizational and financial firewall between the two functions, but why would they? The left will defend them on principle regardless of any conflict of interest, and any criticism to that effect by the right is easily dismissed as sour grapes.

And the 9/11 hijackers spent most of their time doing non-violent stuff like praying, cooking, and laundry. So unfair that they're attacked for this one single thing they did. Get over it! Fund terrorists!

Feeling a little bit strawmanny today, are RR?

I really like most of what you write, but that was one hell of low arguement :)

Douthat: Religious Giving and Its Critics

Actually, Douthat's numbers come from this piece in The Economist: Bishop's move

McArdle thinks it's obvious. Religious institutions are run by extremely motivated volunteers who have personal knowledge of people's needs. Should the Church Have to Dispense Birth Control?

I don't see how providing both counseling and abortion services is a conflict of interests. Counseling for what? Cancer? STIs? How is that a conflict of interest?

I can see the logic in deciding to separate the abortion service from the rest of the organization, if only to make the pro-life movement feel happy, but where an organization is trying to cover as much ground as possible (even if the quality isn't great), for the very poorest in society, it doesn't make sense to separate everything out that way. You want a front door on the street to try and provide access to pretty much every health service which otherwise would be out of reach.

"The Mormon Church... spends $200 million a year in Utah alone on welfare programs that are run more efficiently than government welfare programs."

And what objective empirical studies concluded that the Mormon programs are run more efficiently than government programs? Or is this simply your opinion?

Counseling for abortions; i.e. helping a pregnant woman decide if she should have the child or not. The impartiality of their advice can be called into question if they stand to profit by pressuring their clients.

I agree, although the problem goes the other way also, with counseling services funded by pro-life organizations who are also trying to sell something which may not be in the best interest of their client.

I guess this is what you get when you politicize any aspect of reproduction.

Having read your links I don't think one can say that because they are a private organization that they are more efficient. It seems 2 things are highlighted:

1. They are organized in small groups (which is just a function of management structure and style, not unique to the private sector)

2. They give a lot of their own time directly, which again is not unique to private institutions.

also as I understand it most of the aid the Mormon Church provides is to other Mormons, this is hardly a model that can be extended easily to the other 98% of the US population that isn't Mormon.

This is a little crazy. Mostly in terms of pregnancy, what PP does is provide contraceptives. So suggesting that PP actively pushes abortions to profit from them (how exactly), kind of an odious charge in the first place, is absurd, because most of their "business" comes from advising people who do not want to get pregnant at that time, on how to avoid getting pregnant, and so possibly getting an abortion.

I'd bet Komen provides some cash for cancer treatment. Would they advocate mammograms in the hopes that some women will contract cancer from the extra radiation and so increase their cancer treatment "business"?

@Anakha82 They stand to profit more by the woman carrying the child to full term and seeking her pre-natal care at one of their facilities.

I never said that Planned Parenthood pushes women to have abortions, and I'll thank you to not put words in my mouth. To say that a conflict of interest exists does not imply wrongdoing. It simply means that they have a financial incentive to not be objective. Their actions may or may not be influenced by that incentive, but to say that it doesn't exist is pure denial.

I never said that you're lying, just that your view point incents you to be focused on false equivalencies. Of course, being focused on false equivalencies does not imply wrongdoing or lying.

I was saying no conflict exists. There is no "profit" incentive to advocate abortion. PP loses money on everything they do. Friends of mine that have volunteered there told me that women who wanted abortions came first for two pregnancy tests and counceling, and then came back at least a couple of days later for the actual abortion which involved a couple of nurses and a doctor. The money they charged represented an enormous loss compared to what any comparable operation would have cost on the markets we have. That is why they need to rely on charity and why this decision by this charity is important. You said they engage in "counseling for abortions" and that this creates a conflict of interest because PP stands to profit from abortion. This is not putting words in your mouth. What you said is crazy.

Breast cancer screenings for women who cannot afford them is not comparable to making cars affordable to women in Germany, which is famously different than America in terms of transport options. Advocating wide availability for abortion, especially in an organization that does most of its business advocating family planning, and the responsible use of contraceptives, and screening for STDs, and and and, is not the same, at all, in theory and in ethics and in practice, as advocating abortion as the good. Wealthy women can doctor shop complaining of stomach pains, as can wealthy drug addicts complaining of insomnia or whatever.

Point is that doing good doesn't cancel out the bad. It's ludicrous to argue that pro-lifers should support Planned Parenthood despite the 330,000 abortions they perform every year because they also provide breast cancer screenings.

You said: "So suggesting that PP actively pushes abortions to profit from them... is absurd"

I did not suggest that PP actively pushes abortions, whether to profit from them or not. To say that I suggested that is to completely misrepresent my statements.

You appear to have stopped reading my post after two words. Otherwise, you would have noted that I described "counseling for abortions" as "helping a pregnant woman decide if she should have the child or not", which does not mean "helping a pregnant woman decide to not have the child".

As to your argument that PP does not profit by providing abortions, I'm certainly not familiar with their financial structure. However, it would appear that abortions provide 15% of PP's revenue, while only accounting for 3% of their total services. I understand this doesn't necessarily mean that they profit by providing abortions, but it is a very large amount of revenue for such a small part of their operations.

Point is that there is bad, and there is worse. This is our modern political reality and 99% of the discussion on DIA. If Komen wants to say abortion is bad and we will have nothing to do do with abortion then why not. They should say that.

But why not, given that the coalition against abortion also depends on those also opposed to contraception, or really sex in general that doesn't have any immediate procreative function.

The Nazis banned abortions. Does this invalidate pro-life positions.

Also, I think the real questions are:
Should the government contract out its services?
If yes, should the government favor non-profit agencies?

I think the tacit assumption is that people shouldn't make big profits on public contracts and we might be getting away from the idea that contracting with non-profits avoids that. I don't know what the reality is, just that I seem to have missed the debate.

I've read some of that study out there on the interweb that shows in general religious people give far more in charity than none religious ones regardless of whether they are left or right leaning.

As you mentioned the thing was a lot of what they gave to charity was to their own religous organization.

I'm not aware of any data that looks at directed giving of the kind jouris mentions.

Right, my old church in Atlanta did a capital campaign to raise a bale of money for a spectacular new organ. I like the new organ, I am glad they raised money for it, and I think it follows from the constitution that the government shouldn't tax money raised by religious organizations. But I sure didn't feel charitable putting in my paltry contribution. I felt the same as I would feel a few years later when I bought my first iPhone.

Uh, this does not appear to be the case. Self-identified conservatives appear to donate more money than liberals to charities. They even donate more BLOOD!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html

-dk

The data I have seen (don't remember where, but it was in the last few months) showed that religious people did give more to charity. But that was skewed by the amounts that they gave to their church. Which is not a bad thing, but IIRC the amount that they gave to other charities was lower.

If work stops getting in the way (no bets) I'll see if I can run down the reference.

As noted in my reply to Doug (just above), they gave more when their donations to their churches is included. But, as Kristol notes on the link you provided "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."

Since at least some of what churches spend money on is charity, that likely puts conservatives back slightly in the lead. But since some of it is also for the running fo the church, that lead is a lot less than it appears at first glance.

As Kristof also pointed out in his article, if we decide to discount conservative churchgoers' donations to their churches, some common liberal donations [opera houses, art museums] should be similarly discounted.

Furthermore, what about those blood donations. As it turns out, my synagog organized blood drives, and I occasionally donate there. Should those blood donations be discounted?

-dk

I wouldn't discount blood donations, including my own gallons over the years. But I know of no way to fairly determine their value. On one hand, the value is nigh infinite to someone whose life is saved -- and there really isn't any substitute. On the other, the cost to the donor is a little time; time which can be spent doing other things (reading, in my case). and it will grow back without any particular effort.

Perhaps we should just classify them totally separately. In which case, as you note, we conservatives win that one.

The note about blood donations is not to increase the monetary value of conservatives' donations, but to refute the meme that conservatives are by and large just stingy skinflints that enjoy cackling over the plight of the less fortunate.

The point I am making [I've read Brooks' book] is that people criticizing its findings say that a substantial portion of the conservatives' contributions -- to their churches -- is for their own enjoyment on weekends to have better pews to sit in or in some other sense don't serve needy people.

Perhaps that's fair. Perhaps we should not consider donations to a church used to run the church to be a charitable gift. However, if we travel down this path, we also should discount liberals' donations to the kind of organizations that hold $500 black tie wine-and-cheese parties to build a new wing.

So why did I mention blood? The argument goes:

"Conservatives are stingy, compared to liberal."

"No, they donate more."

"Well some of the donations are to their churches. Are these really charity?"

"There are donations that liberals characteristically make that are equally not received by society's most needy."

-dk

That sounds right to me. What is IIRC? And I agree that giving to church is not a bad thing but that it should be counted separately from charity. It's more like untaxable consumption.

Churches do black-tie fundraisers, too. I think the problem is in comparing conservatives to liberals.

You are falling into the error of assuming that conservatives and liberals are equally religous. Well that and relying on a NYT columnist :P

Brook's research indicates that amongst the religious giving is not predicted by their political leanings.

However since more conservatives tend to be more religous (or vice versa if you prefer), the average giving by conservatives as a political group is higher...

Sorry.
IIRC is short for "If I Recall Correctly"

Just trying to indicate that I am working from my notoriously falible memory, not a reference work in hand.

I certainly wouldn't take the positionthat conservatives are stingy skinflints. (Perhaps that those who claim to speak for conservatives are, but that's another story.)

On the other hand, it is perhaps noteworthy that
a) traditionally the poor give a greater percentage of their income to charity than the rich, and
b) the pereption is that the rich are more conservative and the poor are more liberal.
Which, I suspect, is where the meme you mention comes from.

Actually, my observation has been that the very rich are rather openhanded. There are people who are relatively well off who are also stingy. But once someone is really rich in his own mind, his wallet tends to be pretty open.

It is reasonable to think that way, although solid data would be nice. I would also add that those that donate more to religious organizations are probably protesting more against government taxation, while the mostly liberal types that don't donate to charities are less inclined to protest against taxation (except for the fact that is used to fund wars)...

Thanks. I hope I didn't harry you into that by asking for sources. I just thought, IIRC, that religious people gave more to "charity" so I was suspicious of your claim that the people who claim to want things done by non-profits don't give to the same.

That is not what the article said. It said that if you don't exclude contributions to their own churches, religious people, left and right donate more. If you knock out self gifts it is the liberals who give more. The conservatives give more as percentage of their salaries. Liberals also tended to donate to the playthings of the economic elite: museums, symphonies, etc. A final point is that non-religious conservatives are the biggest tight-wads of all.