https://buy-zithromax.online buy kamagra usa https://antibiotics.top buy stromectol online https://deutschland-doxycycline.com https://ivermectin-apotheke.com kaufen cialis https://2-pharmaceuticals.com buy antibiotics online Online Pharmacy vermectin apotheke buy stromectol europe buy zithromax online https://kaufen-cialis.com levitra usa https://stromectol-apotheke.com buy doxycycline online https://buy-ivermectin.online https://stromectol-europe.com stromectol apotheke https://buyamoxil24x7.online deutschland doxycycline https://buy-stromectol.online https://doxycycline365.online https://levitra-usa.com buy ivermectin online buy amoxil online https://buykamagrausa.net

Fungible and Games

So, Ms Ingraham, if you are going to use the idea that money is fungible, so that even if the federal tax dollars that go to Planned Parenthood are earmarked for a variety of women's health services excluding (by law) abortions, it still means that federal taxes are paying for abortions, too …

… then does that mean that tax dollars that go to religious organizations for their public services (adoption services, hospitals, universities, faith-based programs) are thus fungible and are paying for church building upkeep and pastors' salaries?  Because I really don't think you or Fox News want to go there.

Embedded Link

Fox’s Distorted Picture Of How Planned Parenthood Spends Federal Funds
Fox News misrepresented how Planned Parenthood uses the federal funds it receives, falsely suggesting the organization spends hundreds of millions of federal dollars on abortions. In fact, Planned Par…

Google+: View post on Google+

42 view(s)  

2 thoughts on “Fungible and Games”

  1. I’m not anti-abortion, but the idea that funds from an organisation doesn’t go to ‘x’ is something the organisation needs to show/prove.

    The reason is they need to show that those hypothicated funds (i.e. earmarked) do not free up money that is channelled into the banned activity. Eg – Someone spends $50 on’good’ stuff’ and $50 on ‘bad’ (from a total income of $100 obviously). Rich uncle gives $30 on condition it is spent on ‘Good’ stuff.. Person spends Uncles $30 on Good, then adds $30 of his own, so has extra Good stuff this week. However that means he has $70 of his own money to spend on Bad stuff.

    Does PP show that the Federal money goes over and above its ‘normal’ money.

    The alternative is the US Right grows up

    1. @LH, if I understand you, you’re saying, “If PP is getting $X from the Feds, and spends $Y on abortion and $Z on non-abortion, then if X>Z some of the money is going to abortion.”

      If I parse the article properly, the Feds provide $542 million, and non-government sources provide $311.5 million. Only 13% of its revenue is for abortion services. $311.5 million is significantly larger than 13% than $853.5 million.

      (A particularly pernicious part of the slander against PPA is that they “make 400-something million off of the abortion procedure.” That makes it sound like profit, thus the whole “abortion industry” terminology used by the Right. But PPA is a non-profit organization. The money (far less than $400MM, but even use that number) is what is being *spent* on abortion services, not what’s going into some magical set of coffers that allow the PPA execs to go swimming in pools full of greenbacks.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *