Paul vows push to defund Planned Parenthood next week

[Feeding the Abscess]

I don't know, but they're criticizing Rand for not being a libertarian for taking the position that Planned Parenthood shouldn't be funded.

I don't even. Even a left-libertarian should be able to recognize the difference between being pro-choice and using theft to enforce that position.

 

[timosman]

Why is he tackling this issue ? What good can come out of this ? Another great advice from the campaign managers.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

Why is he tackling this issue ? What good can come out of this ? Another great advice from the campaign managers.

Removing federal funding from programs is a sound position to take. There are many areas in which Rand could be criticized from a libertarian perspective. This probably won't be one of them.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Maybe they are pro-choice because of their principles and not political expediency?

Oh yeah. There's nothing like a principled infanticide supporter like Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. Really principled.

 

[Sola_Fide]

Removing federal funding from programs is a sound position to take. There are many areas in which Rand could be criticized from a libertarian perspective. This probably won't be one of them.

You'd think that, but you'd be surprised what passes for "libertarianism" these days.

 

[Occam's Banana]

It's kind of interesting how Democrats support Planned Parenthood. Because, realistically, wouldn't a ban on abortion greatly increase their voting base? (Considering how many aborted are black)

Maybe they are pro-choice because of their principles and not political expediency?

LOL.

 

[erowe1]

Why is he tackling this issue ? What good can come out of this ? Another great advice from the campaign managers.

I'm confused too. How do you not see this as good?

 

[juleswin]

They should attach the planned parenthood cut with a cut to something else that the GOP tends to like. Then, the true fiscal conservatives will be separated from the partisans.

I think seeing as they violated federal law that prohibits the selling of human organ, the justice department can just use that case to take down the whole org. Then again, there is a chance they did not actually commit any crime. For all we know, they were probably charging them shipping and handling fees which doesn't equate to organ selling. You don't have to punish another organization who didn't do anything wrong because you are going after PP.

When I remove emotion from this story, I rather see the tissue/organ from the fetuses used for research rather than sent to the biological hazard bin.

 

[timosman]

I'm confused too. How do you not see this as good?

The issue is very divisive, not very important in the grand scheme of things plus it is impossible to swing anybody's views on this one. I expect net negative out of this. This is something an establishment distractor candidate would do in order to justify failure at a later time. If he is trying to emulate Trump he is going about it the wrong way.

 

[Sola_Fide]

The issue is very divisive, not very important in the grand scheme of things plus it is impossible to swing anybody's views on this one. I expect net negative out of this. This is something an establishment distractor candidate would do in order to justify failure at a later time. If he is trying to emulate Trump he is going about it the wrong way.

Can you muster up enough freedom to support people like myself who abhor my tax dollars funding abortions? I would do it for you for your issues.

 

[Brett85]

The issue is very divisive, not very important in the grand scheme of things plus it is impossible to swing anybody's views on this one. I expect net negative out of this. This is something an establishment distractor candidate would do in order to justify failure at a later time. If he is trying to emulate Trump he is going about it the wrong way.

It's a very good issue for Rand to focus on, because it's an issue that unites social conservatives and all true libertarians. Libertarians and social conservatives both support cutting off funding to Planned Parenthood.

 

[timosman]

Can you muster up enough freedom to support people like myself who abhor my tax dollars funding abortions?

500 mil is a chump change in our gov budget. Don't we have a bigger fish to fry ?

 

[erowe1]

The issue is very divisive, not very important in the grand scheme of things plus it is impossible to swing anybody's views on this one. I expect net negative out of this. This is something an establishment distractor candidate would do in order to justify failure at a later time. If he is trying to emulate Trump he is going about it the wrong way.

How divisive is this? Nobody is actually for funding PP with taxes except extreme left-wing zealots. This is kinda like proposing that we not fund the KKK with taxes.

 

[Danke]

500 mil is a chump change in our gov budget. Don't we have a bigger fish to fry ?

It is so little then let their donors pick up the tab.

 

[oyarde]

The usual left-libertarians are out in force on Rand's Facebook page saying "Rand Paul isn't a libertarian since he wants to defund Planned Parenthood."

No , those are commies .

 

[Crashland]

LOL.

The cartoon does not demonstrate how pro-choice people are pro choice because of political expediency rather than principle. (And "principle" is more nuanced than defending everything having to do with choice)

 

[Crashland]

Oh yeah. There's nothing like a principled infanticide supporter like Debbie Wasserman-Shultz. Really principled.

Principles that you disagree with doesn't make them not principles. No pro choice person will tell you they are pro choice because they like infanticide.

 

[RabbitMan]

Thing is that PP does that. I am against abortion, but think PP does do good with birth control. I don't see how you could designate how PP uses the funds they get though.

Uh...they already do? In current law, no public funds are currently allowed to directly pay for abortions. And abortions are only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget anyway and not in any way, shape or form the majority of what PP does for communities.

 

[erowe1]

Uh...they already do? In current law, no public funds are currently allowed to directly pay for abortions.

Of course, since money is fungible, since they fund Planned Parenthood, they do directly fund abortion. Making it look like they don't is just an accounting trick. They need to not fund them at all, for anything.

And abortions are only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget anyway

I don't buy that.

It might be that abortions are 3% of what they do as a percent of total interactions, like they give out 25 condoms (for a few bucks), 49 morning after pills (I dunno, a couple hundred bucks), 13 IUDs (another hundred maybe), 10 brochures (a dollar), and 3 abortions (tens of thousands of dollars). And then they say that abortions are only 3% of what they do, when they're really 99% of their budget.

 

[Crashland]

Uh...they already do? In current law, no public funds are currently allowed to directly pay for abortions. And abortions are only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget anyway and not in any way, shape or form the majority of what PP does for communities.

It's silly though, because if the public money is not allowed to go to the 3% of their abortion budget and instead goes to the rest of the 97%, then PP in turn will use some of the excess money raised from the 97% and apply it to the 3%. In the end, PP decides how much of their total budget goes to what service, and the government increases their total budget.

It's like if a community of 10 produces 9 barrels of wheat, And the federal government supplies 1 barrel and says well this barrel can't go to Fred. So the community gives Fred one of their 9 barrels and gives the govt barrel to someone else. Without the government, everyone would have 0.9 barrels, and with the government, everyone including Fred gets 0.1 more barrels even though the govt barrel can't go to Fred.