check out drudge's post on kerry cheating during the debates

I saw them (or at least women in PP T-shirts) actively campaigning for Kerry on Saturday while being dragged through UWS by girlfriend. It struck me as really odd, but I assumed they had stopped taking federal funding. Any idea what their rationale is?

Totally in agreement with Karol and Dawn the Greater (what can I say ?I think of the Dawns as I do the Apostles James). But who has been in charge of the federal purse strings lately ? What is the point of having Republican control of Congress for a decade (with a brief interregum) and the White House for 24 of the last 36 years if they could not pull federal funding for Planned Parenthood? Or balance the budget? Or put in term limits? Or roll back the National Endowments that mock our most sacred values?

It is fair to say the stupid party (as opposed to the evil party) is funding the knife that is pointed at their belly here.

The theory Planned Parenthood uses to prevent pregnancy in teens is to keep the girls moving from door to door so they cannot have sex.

Planned Parenthood used to be a wonderful organization that used contraceptive education to prevent unplanned pregnancies. But it has morphed into a political arm of the DNC. What they are doing is clearing illegal under IRS regulations.

Actually, I've read that Margaret Sanger, the founder of PP, was a big fan of eugenics. Before the organization was called Planned Parenthood, it was called The American Birth Control League, which published a newsletter called, I believe Birth Control Review. That newsletter, I've read featured the writings of many eugenecists (sp?).

Ms. Sanger also wrote a book called "The Pivot of Civilization" which you can read on the web site www.pro-life.net, where she goes on and on about "feeble minded" people, and how they must be prevented from reproducing.

So I don't know about it ever being a "wonderful" organization.

I'd love to see your response to Friedman's latest article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/03/opinion/03friedman.html?oref=login&8hpib

From the Planned Parenthood Federation website:

"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. Planned Parenthood® Action Fund (212-261-4691) is a way to support voter education, grassroots organizing, public opinion research, and lobbying. Because it engages in electoral activity, the Fund relies solely on gifts that are not tax-deductible. The IRS classifies the Planned Parenthood Action Fund (http://www.plannedparenthoodvotes.com) as a 501(c)(4), not-for-profit organization."

So much for the fatuous notion that some kind of "secret" electioneering by a "non-partisan" organization is going on in violation of law. Not-for-profit is NOT the same as non-partisan.

Also if you actually follow the links to see what the so-called "Government funding" consists of, you find that much of it appears to be payments for medical services rendered through Medicaid. This hardly appears to be "funding" in the sense that recipients of NEA grants receive "funding".

The next time you lash out at an organization you don't like, you might take the time to read what they have to say for themselves. You'll find that the target is penetrated more easily by real bullets than by blanks.

Joseph, if you look at Planned Parenthood's Web sites, you'll see numerous links to their PACs. Nearly every PP Web site, like their New York one, http://www.ppnyc.org, also has an essay prominently featured on "President Bush's War on Women." The San Francisco one, http://www.ppgg.org, offers in its store a Bush-bashing T-shirt. Practically speaking, the federal money enables them to use other tax-exempt funds for illegal political activity.

Von Bek is right. The Republicans continue to finance left wing programs and organizations year in and year out. The Republicans seem afraid to spend any political capital to defund these groups.

Zelda:

I am not sure what is so great about feeble minded people having kids.

Dan:

Who is to judge then what "feeble minded" is? And what would you have? Forced sterilizations?

I sort of agree with Joseph but the whole PP set up is confusing. They have 2 parts to thier organization but they don't make if very clear. When people donate money I bet a lot of people don't know which part thier donation is going to.
Planned Parenthood® Federation of America
OR
Planned Parenthood® Action Fund

I also think an organization can say they are non-partisan yet support or not support certain politicians or policys they do not agree with.
It really doesn't make a difference if it's Republican, Democrat, Independent or anything else. PP cares about their agenda. If President Bush shared thier agenda they would support Bush.

"Practically speaking, the federal money enables them to use other tax-exempt funds for illegal political activity."

What illegal political activity? In violation of what law?

As far as I can see, the Government payments your source lists are payments for services to Medicaid clients, not services performed under government contract to the government itself. Does Wal-Mart Pharmacy, or any doctor, lose the right of political participation because they accept Medicaid payments?

Planned Parenthood clearly has a separate political arm whose financing is NOT tax-deductable, and I strongly suspect they are under regular IRS audit, given the hot-button nature of their political advocacy.

No one has given any indication that they are in any way engaged in fiancing of specific candidates for office--their advocacy is purely issue oriented--so I do not see where any violation of campaign financing law would be involved.

So what law are they breaking?

Zelda:

I am sure that certain tests or standards could be developed that would have broad support. And monetary incentives might be used most of the time instead of force.

I still do not see why you think doing something about feeble minded people reproducing is a bad thing. Do you think that we have some sort of a moron shortage in the United States?

I essentially agree with Joseph - if there are two separate organization and the federally funded money is being used solely for reimbursement, then I think the politial activity is likely legal. (That said, there would be no planned parenthood action committee if there were not a separete planned parenthood providing medical services. I suppose this is technically enabling but not of the impermissible sort.) The PP websites, however, do raise questions of the actual separateness of the entities. When you're on PP New York and want to make a donation, you are directed to the action site. (I do suspect most people who donate understand their contributions are going to political/lobbying activity.) I suppose the main question as to legality is whether the operations of the entities are really separate (the finances almost certainly are), which I think can be argued from both sides. That the two entities present themselves to the public as essentially being one probably does not have much of a legal effect. Even if it causes confusion among the public, I don't think there is any issue as to whether the public is relying on their separateness or lack thereof.

Dear asshats:

I was going to post a couple of links showing you how PP is non-profit, not non-partisian, but Mr. Masrshal beat me to it. Thank you, Mr. Marshall.

It's not a matter of it being 'illegal'. I don't want my money to go to causes I don't support.

Here's a tip: when calling a group of people "asshats", "dillholes", "dramatic weasel intestines", or whatever, you really ought to use the Preview button first. That way, you can catch your spelling errors and not come off like some drunken sailor.

BTW, being totally serious here.

I have a message for those claiming that Planned Parenthood's political-action committee is the organization engaging in political activity and not PP proper: Do your research. All it takes is one visit to a Planned Parenthood Web site—one run by the national 501(c)(3) nonprofit or one of its branches—to see that Planned Parenthood itself blatantly engages in partisan political activity, making no distinction between the tax-exempt main organization and its PACs. Dawn Patrol readers know this from an I wrote last month, which links to another one with additional information on PP's partisan activities:

http://www.jtanzer.com/dawneden/2004_09_01_archive.html#109471894096956013

In addition, all one has to do is look at the Sun-Sentinel story to see that the education director of the local branch of Planned Parenthood coordinated the camp that sent teenagers out to protest the president. So the organization which receives a quarter-billion annually in taxpayer funds unquestionably gave its subsidized resources to this partisan political activity.

easy. they're the ones who think they're entitled to it.

But is your money going to the cause, or is it being used to pay for abortions and contraceptive services? As long as federal funding goes to doctors who are performing identical procedures, I don't think there is a legal basis to withdraw funding from PP on the grounds that there is a very closely related organization engaging in political activity designed to protect the provision of those services.

By the way, with respect to the article Dawn quotes, there is nothing at all illegal about the activist camp. (And I admit that many of her other examples - including that which I saw over the weekend - are troubling if attributable to the 501(c)(3).) I read the article, and nowhere does it indicate that the kids were trained to protest Bush or anything of the sort. One attendee of the camp also attended an anti-Bush rally. The article does not make a connection between this attendance and her PP work - it's simply how she spent her summer. The kids do work on registering voters and promoting women's health issues, but this is precisely the kind of lobbying efforts a 501(c)(3) is permitted to do. 501(c)(3)'s are permitted to lobby based on issues and register voters. They can do all the lobbying they want regarding women's access to abortions so long as they refrain from endorsing or opposing particular candidates.