Planned Parenthood spends $1.4 Million in Anti-Romney ads

[Al B. Sure!]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/planned-parenthood-action-fund-launches-1-7-million-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.

[giblets]

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.

[giblets]

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 ****?

[giblets]

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.

[giblets]

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.