Is Rick Santorum's Religious Extremism a Deal Breaker for Voters?

[Ryan_m_b]

Aside from funding, how is the federal government going to have any control over sex-ed (or music or gym or social studies) in local school systems?

I defer to Char's answer for that.

As it should be. There's obviously a big social divide in the country on abortion. The natural resolution was arrived at years ago: abortion will be legal, but those who disagree don't have to pay for it through taxes. Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.

So if someone disagrees with an issue they should be allowed to decide not to have their taxes go towards it? By that logic pacifists could withdraw their tax fund the military, greenpeace members could withdraw their tax for any non-green energy etc. Why one rule for one issue and another rule for everything else? I also defer to Char's for this one.

 

[daveb]

Planned Parenthood is a flagrant federally funded abuse of that deal.

That's a statement that demands a source if I ever saw one!

 

[lisab]

That's a statement that demands a source if I ever saw one!

Seconded.

 

[mheslep]

I find this statement funny. "Aside from the main method the federal government controls education, how will the federal government control education?"

Then it should be easy to show where the federal govt. has shut down some other primary education offerings in the past? The feds account for ~10% of education spending in the US, unlike highway spending and the like.

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

No, FC points out the law, it does not say the reality is that no fed funding goes to abortion.

Here are the facts:
1. Federal law states since the 1976 Hyde amendment that federal money may not used for abortions
2. PP received $363.2 million (by admission) in 2009 from government (federal and state), a third of its total funds.
3. PP performed 329,445 abortion procedures in 2010 (by admission), or about 40% of all US abortions recorded by the CDC.

Federal law also says, for example, that the Senate shall do a budget each year, but it has not for the last three.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

1. Federal law states since the 1976 Hyde amendment that federal money may not used for abortions

That wiki link doesn't say that all tax spending cannot be used for abortion where people don't want it, it's not even a permanent law. Where specifically is your evidence that funding of planned parenthood comes under this agreement? I'm not saying there isn't any but this isn't enough.

2. PP received $363.2 million (by admission) in 2009 from government (federal and state), a third of its total funds.
3. PP performed *329,445 abortion procedures in 2010 (by admission), or about 40% of all US abortions recorded by the CDC..

And in response to this...

Only 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions, and none of their federal funding goes to abortion. Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2011/04/planned-parenthood/

So what if 1/3 of funding comes from the government? If the 3% of PP budget that goes to abortion doesn't come from this third then what does it matter?

 

[mheslep]

... So if someone disagrees with an issue they should be allowed to decide not to have their taxes go towards it? By that logic pacifists could withdraw their tax fund the military, greenpeace members could withdraw their tax for any non-green energy etc. Why one rule for one issue and another rule for everything else?

I did not say someone. I asserted such a resolution where there is a "major social divide in the country", in this case with split opinion for decades. Then, in such a situation, I suggested a legislative, lawful, i.e. democratic, resolution on government spending, not civil disobedience on tax payment.

 

[turbo]

Sex-education, contraception, and abortion (within limits) has been the law of the land for quite a while. Santorum would like to erase all that and send us back to the 50s. Women deserve better from our chief executive. Many on the right seem to want to send women back to the civil servitude that they had been in 50+ years ago. It may play well with their base in the primaries, but it will kill them in the general election. If Santorum gets the nod, he doesn't stand a chance against Obama.

Even the serial-cheater Gingrich and his trophy-Barbi would have a better shot.

 

[mheslep]

That wiki link doesn't say that all tax spending cannot be used for abortion where people don't want it, it's not even a permanent law.

Right, it is not permanent but as you must have seen Hyde is routinely written into spending bills every year.

Where specifically is your evidence that funding of planned parenthood comes under this agreement? I'm not saying there isn't any but this isn't enough.

http://www.plannedparenthoodaction.org/positions/title-x-americas-family-planning-program-855.htm family planning clinic, funded out of the HHS budget (H/T FC):

By law, Title X funds may not be used in programs where abortion is a method of family planning.

And in response to this...

So what if 1/3 of funding comes from the government? If the 3% of PP budget that goes to abortion doesn't come from this third then what does it matter?

I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.

Assuming that are right on this why don't you think it has been challenged?

 

[WhoWee]

Sex-education, contraception, and abortion (within limits) has been the law of the land for quite a while. Santorum would like to erase all that and send us back to the 50s. Women deserve better from our chief executive. Many on the right seem to want to send women back to the civil servitude that they had been in 50+ years ago. It may play well with their base in the primaries, but it will kill them in the general election. If Santorum gets the nod, he doesn't stand a chance against Obama.

Even the serial-cheater Gingrich and his trophy-Barbi would have a better shot.

I'll assume this post is your opinion?

 

[mheslep]

Assuming that are right on this why don't you think it has been challenged?

Challenged by whom? FC suggested 10%. PP has been under investigation by the a Congressional Oversight and Investigations subcommittee since Sept 15, "relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion". Kansas PP garnered multiple felony indictments for falsifying pregnancy reports until the charges were dismissed because the paperwork disappeared in the Kansas AG's office.

 

[turbo]

I'll assume this post is your opinion?

You can safely assume that, WhoWee, but if you will search Santorum's statements, you will find how radical he is.

 

[WhoWee]

You can safely assume that, WhoWee, but if you will search Santorum's statements, you will find how radical he is.

Why don't we all read through his voting record in Congress - to be fair?

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/S000059/votes/

 

[turbo]

Why don't you summarize this fairly -to be fair?

 

[Char. Limit]

I find PP's figure of 3% highly dubious (it is not Fact Check's figure). I don't accept that the money is, or can be, fire walled off like that inside the same organization.

If you find it so dubious, surely you can find an equally reliable source stating otherwise.

 

[WhoWee]

Why don't you summarize this fairly -to be fair?

You'd like me to summarize his voting record?

 

[turbo]

You'd like me to summarize his voting record?

Yes, and his opinions, too. Please don't omit right-wing stuff.

 

[Jasongreat]

It seems that the same groups that are arguing that money in planned parenthood can be specifically allocated, were adament that the chamber of commerce could not keep its foreign funds separated from domestic funds, during the last election. That statement also works if you switch the chamber and PP.

I think it is semantics, if the chamber uses foreign funds to pay domestic bills, it frees up domestic money that would not have otherwise been available. So even though the foreign money did not specifically go to the campaign adds, more funds were available because of foreign money. The same can be said for planned parenthood, all money going to planned parenthood pay for abortions, might not be direct funding, but it makes the amount spent on abortions available for use.

 

[Evo]

Challenged by whom? FC suggested 10%. PP has been under investigation by the a Congressional Oversight and Investigations subcommittee since Sept 15, "relating to its use of federal funding and its compliance with federal restrictions on the funding of abortion".

The investigation is nothing more than a bogus witch hunt, IMO which was brought about by an anti-abortion religious activist group with such insane accusations as PP is involved in sex trafficking!

Planned Parenthood Investigation Is An Abuse Of Government Resources

WASHINGTON -- Ranking Democrats on the House Committee on Energy and Commerce sharply criticized Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-Fla.) on Tuesday over his call for a far-reaching investigation into Planned Parenthood and its handling of federal funding.

After Republican lawmakers tried and failed to defund Planned Parenthood during federal budget negotiations in February, the anti-abortion activist group Americans United for Life released a 30-page report that accused the family planning provider of misusing federal funds, failing to report child sex abuse, assisting sex traffickers and a host of other illegal activities, though similar accusations were made against Planned Parenthood and debunked earlier this year. The purpose of AUL's report was to convince Congress to investigate Planned Parenthood and revoke its taxpayer funds.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/...estigation-government-resources_n_984002.html

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, and his opinions, too. Please don't omit right-wing stuff.

This is a log of his key votes - according to the Washington Post.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/S000059/key-votes/page1/

He typically voted with Republicans.

 

[Char. Limit]

It seems that the same groups that are arguing that money in planned parenthood can be specifically allocated, were adament that the chamber of commerce could not keep its foreign funds separated from domestic funds, during the last election. That statement also works if you switch the chamber and PP.

I think it is semantics, if the chamber uses foreign funds to pay domestic bills, it frees up domestic money that would not have otherwise been available. So even though the foreign money did not specifically go to the campaign adds, more funds were available because of foreign money. The same can be said for planned parenthood, all money going to planned parenthood pay for abortions, might not be direct funding, but it makes the amount spent on abortions available for use.

So, let me get this straight, cause I want to make sure I have you correctly. Even though PP uses only 3% of its money on abortions, ALL money going to planned parenthood is paying for abortions? And for the record, I've never made the argument that the CoC couldn't keep foreign and domestic funds separate. I think as long as you're careful, of course you can. And I don't see the difference here.

 

[ThomasT]

I wonder if Santorum has heard about the new Abortionplex. I can't link to it because it's in The Onion and they sometimes use bad words.

 

[Jasongreat]

So, let me get this straight, cause I want to make sure I have you correctly. Even though PP uses only 3% of its money on abortions, ALL money going to planned parenthood is paying for abortions? And for the record, I've never made the argument that the CoC couldn't keep foreign and domestic funds separate. I think as long as you're careful, of course you can. And I don't see the difference here.

Not that ALL money going to PP is paying for abortions, but that ALL the money going to PP makes paying for abortions easier.

 

[Char. Limit]

Not that ALL money going to PP is paying for abortions, but that ALL the money going to PP makes paying for abortions easier.

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization, a claim that I disagree with.

 

[Jasongreat]

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization, a claim that I disagree with.

I think I can make that argument. :) You may disagree, which you have a right to do so, and I hope you do. Without dissent how can we come to truth?

I agree that corporations can segregate monies. However, there is no need to, so why would they? I can put 30% federal money into my charity, I can use it to pay overhead, advertising and any number of things. Then I can take the money that I don't have to use for those purposes, and invest in abortions. I can still claim with immunity as far as abortion funding goes that not one cent of the 30% federal funding goes to abortions. It is even easier to prove that only 3% of that funding goes to abortion.

 

[AlephZero]

But you can't make that argument unless you make the claim that it's impossible to segregate money within an organization.

It might be possible to do that in theory, but the main point of "money" is that it is fungible. When you give somebody or some organization a dollar bill, you can't attach a label to it saying "it's illegal to spend this particaular dollar bill on anything except XYZ".

 

[WhoWee]

From the posts in this thread I have to wonder if a race between Santorum vs Obama wouldn't become the pro-religion candidate Santorum vs the anti-religion candidate Obama - given the current controversy with the Catholic madate - seems to be shaping up that way - doesn't it?

 

[daveb]

From the posts in this thread I have to wonder if a race between Santorum vs Obama wouldn't become the pro-religion candidate Santorum vs the anti-religion candidate Obama - given the current controversy with the Catholic madate - seems to be shaping up that way - doesn't it?

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

 

[WhoWee]

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

There's an old saying - 'you are what you eat' - if he joins another church like Rev Wright's, or makes more speeches about the US not being a Christian country/one of the largest Muslim countries, or it becomes known he attended another school similar to the Muslim one, or if his participation at a prayer breakfast is dismissed as insincere, or he squares off with the Catholics or another group again - then the new thing might become an issue - IMO of course.

 

[lisab]

I find it ironic that Obama is now being labeled anti-religion by some on the right when he was labeled a radical Christian back in the Reverend Wright days, then a Muslim. I wonder what's next.

Well to some on the fringe who see a boogie man behind every blade of grass, Obama seems to be the embodiment of their apparitions, and whatever it is they're afraid of changes all the time: Obama is a Muslim/socialist/foreign/fear-of-the-week-goes-here! Really interesting...it says a whole lot about the collective psyche of those who are on the fringe. Be afraid! Be very afraid!

IMveryHO, of course .