Planned Parenthood spends $1.4 Million in Anti-Romney ads

[Al B. Sure!]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...151237629.html

The political arm of Planned Parenthood officially endorsed President Barack Obama on Wednesday, and simultaneously announced a seven-figure ad buy targeting Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.
The $1.4 million television ad campaign, which will run in markets in Florida, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Iowa through June 19, criticizes Romney for pledging to end federal funding for the reproductive health group. Planned Parenthood has long been a target of Republicans because it provides abortion services and access to contraception at its clinics.

So Romney wants to cut funding to Planned Parenthood which then spends $1.4 Million on campaigns to prove the legitimacy of their receiving funding

Why are tax dollars being used to fund their partisan ads?

Must be an ends justifying the means thing... that describes abortion, as well, I guess.

[gribbler]

In the fiscal year ending June 30, 2010, total revenue was $1.05 billion: clinic revenue totaling $320 million, government grants and reimbursements of $487 million, private contributions and bequests of $224 million, and other revenues $17 million.[42] Approximately two-thirds of the revenue is put towards the provision of health services, while non-medical services such as sex education and public policy work make up another 16%; management expenses, fundraising, and international family planning programs account for most of the rest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Funding
How do you know that private contributions aren't funding the ad buy? Would Planned Parenthood have no reason at all to oppose Romney in a world where the government didn't provide PP with any funding that could be cut? The obvious answer is that they would still oppose him because he might appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

[Al B. Sure!]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood#Funding
How do you know that private contributions aren't funding the ad buy? Would Planned Parenthood have no reason at all to oppose Romney in a world where the government didn't provide PP with any funding that could be cut? The obvious answer is that they would still oppose him because he might appoint justices to the Supreme Court that would overturn Roe v. Wade.

fungibility

[Elok]

Money is money; it's not like there's a difference between cash from private donors and cash from the government. Even if the government gives them X dollars with the proviso that it can't be spent on abortion, ad campaigns or whatever, all that does is require them to spend at least X dollars on things that aren't abortion/ad campaigns/strippers and cocaine/whatever. Unless I'm missing something.

With that said, I don't fault PP for going after Romney; it's to be expected that they'd defend their activities, even if I think one of those activities is repugnant.

[gribbler]

Must be an ends justifying the means thing... that describes abortion, as well, I guess.

No. Embryos are not an end so it doesn't really matter if people kill them.

[Al B. Sure!]

Money is money; it's not like there's a difference between cash from private donors and cash from the government. Even if the government gives them X dollars with the proviso that it can't be spent on abortion, ad campaigns or whatever, all that does is require them to spend at least X dollars on things that aren't abortion/ad campaigns/strippers and cocaine/whatever. Unless I'm missing something.

With that said, I don't fault PP for going after Romney; it's to be expected that they'd defend their activities, even if I think one of those activities is repugnant.

I question the ethics of publicly-funded organizations engaging in partisan activities in the first place and that includes religious organizations.

I also question the appropriateness of spending so much of public funds to say we need more public funds! I understand the rationale but it isn't right; it isn't the moral high ground. You need money so use the money you already have on things you need the money for.

I realize most charities have ad campaigns and all charities have costs associated with generating funding and the 1% or so that Planned Parenthood is spending on this campaign is a pittance but when you're taking so much money from the government and your funding is a political question, why would you think it appropriate to spend even a cent in a way that would be seen as questionable?

I would think just as likely as people are to support Planned Parenthood from seeing their ad campaign, there's going to be a lot of people who see "1.4 million on anti-Romney ads" in headlines and will be what the ****?

[gribbler]

I question the ethics of publicly-funded organizations engaging in partisan activities in the first place and that includes religious organizations.

I also question the appropriateness of spending so much of public funds to say we need more public funds! I understand the rationale but it isn't right; it isn't the moral high ground. You need money so use the money you already have on things you need the money for.

I realize most charities have ad campaigns and all charities have costs associated with generating funding and the 1% or so that Planned Parenthood is spending on this campaign is a pittance but when you're taking so much money from the government and your funding is a political question, why would you think it appropriate to spend even a cent in a way that would be seen as questionable?

Do you also think individuals shouldn't be allowed to donate to political campaigns if they receive any money from the government?

[Al B. Sure!]

Do you also think individuals shouldn't be allowed to donate to political campaigns if they receive any money from the government?

Joe Sixpack's job and lifestyle isn't a heated political issue.

Well, unless he's gay.

[gribbler]

Joe Sixpack's job and lifestyle isn't a heated political issue.

Well, unless he's gay.

So... it's okay to intervene in the political process as long as you don't have much at stake in the political process?

[Elok]

No. Embryos are not an end so it doesn't really matter if people kill them.

Tell that to China, and India, and...most of Asia, really. Among others.

[Guynemer]

I'm okay with banning PP's ads so long as no corporation or industry receiving any government subsidy is allowed to air political advertisements as well.

Good luck with that.

[The Mad Monk]

It occurs to me that ads paid for by PP can only help Romney, no matter how good they are.

[regexcellent]

I have a little trouble believing Planned Parenthood is going to make headway in places like Iowa and Virginia.

[OzzyKP]

Money is money; it's not like there's a difference between cash from private donors and cash from the government. Even if the government gives them X dollars with the proviso that it can't be spent on abortion, ad campaigns or whatever, all that does is require them to spend at least X dollars on things that aren't abortion/ad campaigns/strippers and cocaine/whatever. Unless I'm missing something.

With that said, I don't fault PP for going after Romney; it's to be expected that they'd defend their activities, even if I think one of those activities is repugnant.

+1

[kentonio]

It occurs to me that ads paid for by PP can only help Romney, no matter how good they are.

Sorry dude, but you couldn't be more wrong as Susan G. Komen found out to their cost. Low income women get really, really pissed off when they find out that people are trying to close down their only access to reproductive healthcare services, and other women get really pissed about it from an ethical POV. Attacking Planned Parenthood to appease the pro-life lobby is one of the stupider GOP plans in recent years.

[Elok]

SGK had a number of other problems: they at least appeared to be caving to pro-life pressure rather than doing it out of principle; they lied about their reason for doing it (and it was a really obvious, cumbersome lie); they already had image problems which were easily magnified by scrutiny; and they finished by caving again, winning back basically nobody and infuriating the "friends" they'd made by the first move. Their colossal PR screwup doesn't mean nobody can fight PP at all. They just have to be more careful about it.

If they weren't so dependent on opposition to birth control as well, the Pro-Life movement could create their own version of PP minus the abortion and, with careful handling and determined funding, slice PP up like a thanksgiving turkey. The problem is that PP also has something close to a monopoly on providing popular services to poor women, and those act like a human shield of sorts for abortion.

[kentonio]

Except that only makes sense if you don't consider abortion to be an important part of reproductive healthcare for women, which it is.

As for SGK, how exactly is the GOP's own attack on PP working out? Heard the polical slogan 'War on Women' much lately?

[Elok]

Except that only makes sense if you don't consider abortion to be an important part of reproductive healthcare for women, which it is.

Abortion is the fat kid nobody wants on their team. Even people who want to keep it legal don't call themselves pro-abortion, because it's repugnant to contemplate and is only supported as a lesser-of-two-evils/personal-freedom deal. The Hyde Amendment (which is an absurdity for the fungibility reasons given above) was only necessary because PP provides non-abortion services and nobody else can do it as well. If there were a competitor who didn't do abortions, or even did less of them, do you know how much PP would get? Dick.

As for SGK, how exactly is the GOP's own attack on PP working out? Heard the polical slogan 'War on Women' much lately?

? I've mostly heard it in the context of that Catholic healthcare brouhaha, and I've seen conflicting statistics presented by either side about whether it's helping or harming them. Too lazy to get to the bottom of the mess. The only part of the "WoW" that has to do with PP is a couple of ill-timed shove-the-probe-up-there-dammit type laws. I don't hear much about that sort of thing anymore except from extreme liberal friends on FB. Maybe it will do more lasting damage to the GOP/Romney than I think it will, but that's not what I'm talking about. The real damage to PP is done with a thousand tiny bureaucratic paper cuts ("all abortion providers in this state must have hallways of uniform width with nonslip floors and tiles of a beige color distinct from the mauve walls"), and those barely get attention at all. But they close down clinics, or at least hurt their bottom line, and they're all nominally about "safety."

[DaShi]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/p...151237629.html



So Romney wants to cut funding to Planned Parenthood which then spends $1.4 Million on campaigns to prove the legitimacy of their receiving funding .

Because they expect to get more than $1.4 million over the next four years under a sane candidate.

[regexcellent]

Except that only makes sense if you don't consider abortion to be an important part of reproductive healthcare for women

Yeah, and murdering wives is an important part of psychiatric therapy for men in bad marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'm okay with banning PP's ads so long as no corporation or industry receiving any government subsidy is allowed to air political advertisements as well.

Does this include General Motors?

[Ben Kenobi]

because PP provides non-abortion services and nobody else can do it as well. If there were a competitor who didn't do abortions, or even did less of them, do you know how much PP would get? Dick.

Right, look at what happened to Kamen. *cough* Bullshit *cough*. PP gets money because they are an effective front to launder money and get the public to fund abortions. Kamen said that they would no longer give money to organizations that perform abortions and they were SAVAGED.

[Dinner]

Given that Romney wants to shut down Planned Parenthood and make both birth control and abortion illegal I can understand why they don't like him.

[kentonio]

Yeah, and murdering wives is an important part of psychiatric therapy for men in bad marriages.

Typical bullshit short sighted crap from someones whos never had a loved one go through that kind of heartwrenching decision. STFU until you have to deal with that situation.

Right, look at what happened to Kamen. *cough* Bullshit *cough*. PP gets money because they are an effective front to launder money and get the public to fund abortions. Kamen said that they would no longer give money to organizations that perform abortions and they were SAVAGED.

Obviously we expect nothing better from you, but shut the **** up anyway *****. People like you do more to mentally angush women than anyone else. The vast majority of women find old fashioned, braindead ****s like you disgusting and will fight you at every step. You're an anachronism and a revolting one.

[Al B. Sure!]

Typical bullshit short sighted crap from someones whos never had a loved one go through that kind of heartwrenching decision. STFU until you have to deal with that situation.



Obviously we expect nothing better from you, but shut the **** up anyway *****. People like you do more to mentally angush women than anyone else. The vast majority of women find old fashioned, braindead ****s like you disgusting and will fight you at every step. You're an anachronism and a revolting one.

While Ben probably anguishes women more than myself, don't do the typical Liberal thing of putting the cart before the horse and claiming you speak for women when, in the US, it's pretty split:

[Guynemer]

Problem with that poll is that they ask people how they describe themselves; when asked whether abortion should be legal or not, the numbers are quite different.

[Al B. Sure!]

Problem with that poll is that they ask people how they describe themselves; when asked whether abortion should be legal or not, the numbers are quite different.

Not really. Now this includes males:



Assuming 'few' circumstances is the typical 'rape, incest, life in danger' mantra than actually, there's more opposition to abortion than support. It's a 60-40 pro-life/pro-choice split.

You wouldn't get that from the way the Liberals and MSNBC talk. They so think they speak for America that I often forget how conservative America really is.

I was watching Sons of Guns and they had Ted Nugent on and the staff were going gaga over Nugent which I thought was really weird until I realized... these are blue collar guys from Louisiana who are into guns. A lot of America loves Nugent. A lot of America is really conservative.

It's very easy to forget that when you are used to Philly, Detroit, Chicago, etc. where otherwise conservative union members and bible thumpers still vote and shout the Democrat line.

[kentonio]

While Ben probably anguishes women more than myself, don't do the typical Liberal thing of putting the cart before the horse and claiming you speak for women when, in the US, it's pretty split:

Actually I wasn't talking about a vast majority supporting abortion, I was talking about a vast majority despising the kind of ignorant misoginism that ****** like Ben spout.

[Elok]

*misogyny, not that it matters

[Ben Kenobi]

Given that Romney wants to shut down Planned Parenthood and make both birth control and abortion illegal I can understand why they don't like him.

Coming from Dinner is the [[citation needed]] tag necessary?

Mr. Romney’s attempt in 1994 to “out-Kennedy Kennedy,” as people here say, led him to take stands on issues like abortion and gay rights that he has since backed away from, giving rise to accusations that he is a flip-flopper. Mr. Kennedy’s tough campaign advertisements, which portrayed Mr. Romney as a cold-hearted financier, rattled him, and his bruising loss in the race “viscerally pained” him, one friend said

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/us...imes&seid=auto

Is it sad when I'm citing evidence from the Times?