House GOP: ‘Instead of Raising Taxes, Why Don’t We Stop Funding Abortion?’

Posted on | September 28, 2011 | 24 Comments

A Congressional committee has taken the first steps in investigating the Planned Parenthood abortion business over abuses ranging from financial disparities to its compliance with federal regulations on taxpayer funding to concerns that it is covering up cases of sex trafficking.
In a September 15 letter LifeNews.com obtained, Rep. Cliff Stearns, a Florida Republican who is the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Investigations, writes to Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood.
“Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the United States House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Commerce is examining the institutional practices and policies of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) and its affiliates, and its handing of federal funding,” Stearns writes. “That Committee has questions about the policies in place and actions undertaken by PPFA and its affiliates relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion.”
The letter asks Richards to comply with current federal regulations and legal obligations by providing Congress with a wide range of documents within two weeks of the date of the letter.
“Please provide all internal audit reports conducted by PPFA and its affiliates from 1998 to 2010. If not clearly indicated in the audit reports, please detail how much PPFA and each affiliate expended and received in Title XIX Medicaid funding, Title X family planning, and any other federal funding,” the letter says.

In other words: “Just askin’ questions,” IYKWIMAITYD. Planned Parenthood has never been forced to account for their expenditures of federal money, and pro-lifers have a hunch that once taxpayers find out what they’ve been paying for, they won’t want to pay it any more. But the people who sold their souls to the Abortion, Inc. stay bought:

Reps. Henry Waxman (Calif.), senior Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee, and Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), the ranking member of the panel’s Oversight subcommittee, claim Republicans have “singled out” the Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA) “as part of a Republican vendetta against an organization that provides ~~family planning and other medical care to low-income women and men~~ generous campaign contributions to Democrats.”

Fixed that for you, Henry. And here’s a statement from Charmaine Yoest of Americans United for Life:

“AUL welcomes the news that Congress is investigating the abortion mega-provider Planned Parenthood for financial improprieties and its poor handling of the public trust. AUL’s groundbreaking report on Planned Parenthood released this summer outlines a template for investigators and provides extensive information on the abortion giant. The American taxpayer does not want to be in the business of abortion, and this investigation is an important first step toward ending public funding of the nation’s largest abortion provider.
“We also want to congratulate Rep. Cliff Stearns, chairman of the House Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee, for his leadership on this issue and for his willingness to look more closely at Planned Parenthood and its affiliates for their fraudulent use of taxpayer dollars, as outlined in AUL’s report.”

UPDATE: This goes to show, BTW, why fiscal conservatives should pay attention to social conservatives. Many of the government policies that social conservatives find objectionable have a fiscal component that generate the instinctive taxpayer response, “They’re spending my money on what?”

And if you think deeply about these issues, you have to ask yourself why it makes sense to spend taxpayer money to kill future taxpayers, which is what Planned Parenthood has been doing for decades.

PREVIOUSLY:

Category: Abortion, Congress, Planned Parenthood

Comments

24 Responses to “House GOP: ‘Instead of Raising Taxes, Why Don’t We Stop Funding Abortion?’”

Adrienne
September 28th, 2011 @ 2:03 pm

I don’t understand people who try and separate social and fiscal issues. In almost all cases a break down of the social order costs tons of money. Unwed mothers, AIDS, abortion, drug and alcohol abuse, and on and on carry huge financial burdens.
Joe
September 28th, 2011 @ 2:09 pm

An excellent start.

Of course to cure our finanical woes we need to address entitlements, but cutting discretionary spending like this is definitely a good idea. It is also the right thing to do, beyond fiscal issues.
ThePaganTemple
September 28th, 2011 @ 2:33 pm

And if you think deeply about these issues, you have to ask yourself why
it makes sense to spend taxpayer money to kill future taxpayers, which
is what Planned Parenthood has been doing for decades.

I have to question exactly what percentage of these mostly future Democrats and Leftists would be taxpayers or otherwise contributing members of society, but well, okay, I guess at least some might be, arguably. I guess you can at least make the case that the ones that will grow up to be future RINOs might well be.

As the bard might snarkily say, “All’s Well That Ends Well”.
DaveO
September 28th, 2011 @ 2:42 pm

“IYKWIMAITYD” ???

Sounds like a naval organization.
Joe
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:07 pm

Maybe we should be all supporting Chris Christie as the next president of the United States….

Oh wait, I was temporarily possessed by the GOP elites.
Anonymous
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:10 pm

Sometimes we might need to think counterintuitively. Our intuitions tell us that the realization of Margaret Sanger’s vision of “family planning” as a vehicle for reducing the numbers of “undesirables” would have Sanger’s desired effect.

But that’s not necessarily the case. Although it seems counterintuitive, perhaps Sanger’s grim methodology actually contributes to greater numbers of the types of people who Sanger considered undesirable.

RSM wrote persuasively on the liklihood that the “contraception culture” contributed to lower birth rates among the GENERAL POPULATION, but the effects of the contraception/abortion/welfare culture might not uniformly impact all segments of society.
Anonymous
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:13 pm

Or a Latvian scrabble board.
Anonymous
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:21 pm

If Chris Christie can be persuaded to rescue us, despite his many reservations against committing to a presidential campaign, wouldn’t that prove his selfless devotion to improving our backwards ways?
ThePaganTemple
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

While we’re add it let’s make Michael Moore Secretary of the Treasury, Noam Chomsky Secretary of Defense, and Bill Ayers Attorney General.
Joe
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:26 pm

We are just paleo conservative cavemen and Chris Christie will apire us to be better, more nuanced, people.

And no more Michelle Obama telling us to eat healthy!
dad29
September 28th, 2011 @ 3:54 pm

you have to ask yourself why it makes sense to spend taxpayer money to kill future taxpayers

Yup. The Japanese “Lost Decade” is specifically attributable to demographics: they don’t have enough babies AND don’t allow immigration.

But for some reason or other, all the ‘sophisticates’ don’t mention demographics and babies and like that. They prefer to mumble about ‘monetary policy’ and ‘fiscal policy’ BS.

If one conceded that growing the economy requires demand, then one must also concede that only PEOPLE ‘demand.’ Ergo, when you have less and less people, you have less and less demand…..

Oh, well.
Anonymous
September 28th, 2011 @ 4:13 pm

I don’t care how they play accounting games. All monies are fungible. If PP gets X # of $ for “counseling services” those $ off set abortion funds. For example they can pay the electric bill out of the government provided funds for “counseling services.” That same electric bill provides lighting so the murderer has a good view while killing little kids. No money confiscated from taxpayers should go towards funding that evil.

Watch http://180movie.com/ and share with any friends who are morally confused about the American holocaust.
House Republicans Investigating Planned Parenthood Funding | The Lonely Conservative
September 28th, 2011 @ 12:59 pm

[…] Congress with a wide range of documents within two weeks of the date of the letter. (Read more)The Other McCain has more, including the predictable response of the Democrats.google_ad_client = […]
Adjoran
September 28th, 2011 @ 6:38 pm

If vile creatures of pure evil like Henry Waxman are allowed to live, why kill innocent babies?
Anonymous
September 28th, 2011 @ 7:15 pm

It sure hasn’t worked out that way, has it?
Anonymous
September 28th, 2011 @ 7:17 pm

I understand not liking Christie for various reasons (and for those who aren’t aware of them, there’s a link in today’s “Live At Five” that’ll clue you in) but this is a bit over the top. Did you leave your /sarc tag in your other pants?
Anonymous
September 28th, 2011 @ 7:18 pm

Because it’s illegal to kill Waxman out of hand but not to perform abortions. At least they haven’t legalized infanticide yet.
DaveO
September 28th, 2011 @ 8:40 pm

Wellll, then State Senator Obama voted to permit post-birth abortion in Illinois hospitals four times. Apparently that was twice as much as his allies were willing to vote on.

Infanticide may be illegal, but denying care to at-risk babies isn’t illegal.
ThePaganTemple
September 28th, 2011 @ 8:58 pm

What did I say that should require a sarc tag? Once somebody adopts Christie’s position on the 2nd Amendment, I judge them by the company they keep.
ThePaganTemple
September 28th, 2011 @ 9:01 pm

Bear in mind, those “post-birth abortion survivor” babies in Illinois that were left to die had just had a sharp object jabbed through their brains, probably had their limbs pulled off, and on top of that their spinal cords had probably been snapped.
JeffS
September 28th, 2011 @ 9:26 pm

But the people who sold their souls to the Abortion, Inc. stay bought….

Which means Waxman, by (cynical) definition, is an honest politician.
Gustav5
September 29th, 2011 @ 12:55 am

Waxman is a pig…………..literally
P. Possum
September 29th, 2011 @ 1:53 am

IRS stats show a $100K earner pays $10K in taxes. It takes 30,000 of those taxpayers to support Planned Parenthood.
Tennwriter
September 29th, 2011 @ 4:15 am

Are you trying to say ‘its just a small bit of cash, and we should not be upset?’

Let us start an avalanche with one small pebble.