From http://www.covenantnews.com/lofton081029.htm
By John Lofton
The Covenant News ~ October 29, 2008
So, President Bush throws $2.2 billion down the Planned Parenthood rathole and I'm supposed to thank him for not wasting the federal tax dollars of pro-life taxpayers? Well, yes, that's what the folks at Focus On The Family want me and others to do.
The October 2008 issue of Citizen magazine has in it (page 6) a full-page article with the headline: "Thanks, Mr. President." A smaller headline reads: "Pro-life taxpayers can thank President Bush for keeping their dollars from being misspent." This article is an interview with Ashley Horne, a "federal policy analyst" for Focus On The Family Action.
But, there's a slight problem here that keeps me from thanking Mr. Bush, and that problem is that during his term in office he has approved giving Planned Parenthood at least $2.2 billion in federal tax dollars! Is this money that has been "misspent"? Hmmmm, I'd say "yes."
So, where do I get the $2.2 billion figure? I get it from Jim Sedlak of the American Life League, an expert on Planned Parenthood and its federal funding. In an interview, Jim tells me yes, the Bush administration has indeed "extensively" funded Planned Parenthood, the total amount of federal funding (through 2006, the most recent figures known) being at least $2.2 billion. In Bush's first year (2001), he approved $202 million for PP; in the last year for which there is reporting (2006), Bush gave PP $337 million – a single year funding increase of 67 percent. Sedlak notes that in 2006, PP showed a $114 million profit so did not need federal funding.
And "yes, certainly," Jim says, every federal tax dollar given PP frees up one of its other dollars to pay for abortions. He adds: "And there are dollars that go into Planned Parenthood, especially state dollars, that pay for abortions. There are Medicaid programs, for example, that actually pay for abortions in some of the states. So some of this [federal] money goes directly to abortions."
Jim says he has "no good answer" as to why Bush, supposedly pro-life, supposedly a "compassionate conservative," would OK giving $2.2 billion in federal tax dollars to a group as evil as PP. He adds that he and others were hopeful that when Bush was elected he would cut off all Title 10 money to PP, "but he never has."
When asked if over the years his group and other pro-life people have asked Bush or his people to cut off all PP federal funding, Jim says: "Yes, we made it absolutely clear that it is outrageous that Planned Parenthood continues to get all of this money." So, what did Bush and his people say? "They gave no legitimate excuse for not cutting off the money. They told us this is difficult to do, they were working on it, they had to deal with Congress, etc. There was no substantive answer."
Jim says that under President Bush, "Planned Parenthood has gotten more and more [federal] money every year – a slightly greater increase than under President Clinton."
I tell Jim about what Bush said in a debate with Kerry in 2004: "We're not going to spend taxpayers' money on abortion." I tell him that that after only 30 minutes or so worth of phone calls, I found out that federal tax dollars under Bush were being spent on abortion by Medicare, Medicaid and the Federal Bureau of Prisons.
Q: Do you know of any other federal tax dollars paying for abortion during Bush's administration?
Arghhh!
A: Yes. We learned that Planned Parenthood opened an abortion clinic in Fairbanks, Alaska (2004 or so). The Department of the Interior had some sort of jurisdiction over the Eskimos living in that area, and they were paying for some of the Eskimos to get abortions.
Q: So, under Bush, our federal tax dollars have paid for Eskimo abortions?
A: That's what we were told.
OK. So, I ask for and receive a go-ahead to interview the previously mentioned Ashley Horne about her interview and that headline and, of course, the billions Bush has given Planned Parenthood. The interview is set up and holding for days. Then, one hour before I'm to interview Horne, I get a call canceling the interview. A cell phone message from Devon Williams, who coordinates and schedules all interviews, tells me that my Horne interview is canceled because they have a new policy limiting the availability of their spokespeople.
Right. I know what happened. It's happened before. I got "Googled." Once that happens, whatever interview I had scheduled is usually canceled.
So, bloodied but unbowed, I call the number I had for Horne to see if she has the same understanding regarding my canceled interview as what I was told by Williams. Providentially, Horne answers her phone. I ask Horne's understanding of our cancellation. She refers me to Williams. The following is a close paraphrase of our conversation.
Q: Did you know that over eight years Bush has signed into law legislation giving Planned Parenthood at least $2.2 billion, according to James W. Sedlak, a Planned Parenthood expert who works for American Life League?
A: What legislation was that?
I repeat the question.
A: I'd have to look at that. And also that money is not to be used for abortion.
Q: But why give PP any money at all? Every federal dollar given them allows them to spend a non-federal dollar on abortion. I assume your organization is against any federal funding of PP, right?
A: We would prefer to see PP absolutely defunded, yes.
Finally, Horne says yes, she is aware Bush has given millions to PP and assumes this was under Title 10.
Q: But you don't know how much?
A: I'm not sure why you're asking these questions.
Q: Really? I'm asking these questions because you were interviewed for this article headlined: "Thanks, Mr. President/ Pro-life taxpayers can thank President Bush for keeping their dollars from being misspent." And it seems to me that giving Planned Parenthood $2.2 billion is misspending the dollars of pro-life federal taxpayers, is it not?
A: (long pause) I think that I stand by what I said.
Q: Thanks, Mr. President for giving $2.2 billion to Planned Parenthood?!
No reply. Dial tone.
John Lofton, a “recovering Republican,” is, Editor of TheAmericanView.com website and co-host of “The American View” weekly radio show. You can e-amil Mr. Lofton here: JLof@aol.com
Commentary Index
Back to The Covenant News
4 comments:
Not mentioned is the fact that this isn't directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html).
If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it's totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.
What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don't have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who says any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn't pro-life. If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He's done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy pro-life groups that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding (http://www.lifenews.com/nat3405.html).
So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy.
The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abrotion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan year limits in addition) because it is involved in China's forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.
By the way, McCain takes the same position against abortion funding, while Obama does not.
Thank you for showing your perspective. I will read all of your words.
By Timothy
Republican Party cheerleader Steve Ertelt’s rseponse to my column is pathetic and a tissue of lies. How so? Let us count the ways:
Ertelt: Not mentioned is the fact that this isn't directly from Bush but from part of the Congressional budget. Pro-life advocates have tried for years to cut this family planning money to Planned Parenthood and we have lost the votes. Most recently we lost a 52-41 vote in the Senate to cut this funding (see http://www.lifenews.com/nat3385.html).
Comment: Bush IS directly responsible because he signed into law the legislation that gave Planned Parenthood $2.2 BILLION! He could have vetoed this legislation if he was truly pro-life – which he is NOT because he thinks it should remain “legal” to murder unborn babies if they are in the womb because of rape or incest. In any given year, Bush could have sent his budget to Congress with ZERO Planned Parenthood funding. He never has.
Ertelt: If we could cut the funding, Bush would gladly sign the non-gifting Planned Parenthood budget, so it's totally disingenuous to say Bush wants this money and directly gave it to Planned Parenthood.
Comment: The point is Bush could have fought the funding of PP, vetoed all bills funding PP, made a big issue of this. He NEVER Has done any of this. And he is directly responsible for all the PP-funding bills he signed because HE signed them.
Ertelt: What is keeping us from having the votes to defeat this PP funding? We don't have enough pro-life members of the House and Senate. Who opposes these pro-life candidates? Oh yes, John Lofton, a third party advocate, who says any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn't pro-life.
Comment: This assertion is a lie and Ertelt can produce no statement I’ve ever made where I’ve said “any pro-life Republican or Democrat really isn't pro-life.” I have said and repeat it here: Pro-life means PRO-ALL UNBORN HUMAN LIFE – NO EXCEPTIONS!
Ertelt: If Lofton is serious about cutting this $2.2 million in Planned Parenthood funding, he would launch a vigorous campaign to up our pro-life numbers in Congress. He's done no such thing to my knowledge and frequently attacks the strategy pro-life groups that do and that have led the fight to cut this funding.
Comment: Most “pro-life” Congress members are NOT pro-life because they favor exceptions and believe it’s OK to murder some classes of unborn babies.
Ertelt: So Lofton does nothing to remedy the situation that enables the PP funding. Talk about hypocrisy. The truth of the matter is that Bush has repeatedly cut off abortion funding. He installed the Mexico City Policy to prohibit funding of abortions abroad, he has signed bills with numerous abortion funding bans domestically, and repeatedly cut off funding to UNFPA (and expanded the Reagan year limits in addition) because it is involved in China's forced abortion programs. To say Bush is not against abortion funding is simply not factual.
Comment: If Bush is “against abortion funding” why has he approved giving at least $2.2 BILLION to Planned Parenthood? Why did he sign into law all the legislation that allowed this? Why did he not veto any of these bills?
Ertelt: By the way, McCain takes the same position against abortion funding, while Obama does not.
Comment: Wrong. McCain has also voted to give millions to Planned Parenthood and he, too, is not truly pro-life because he, too, like Bush, thinks it should remain “legal” to murder innocent, unborn rape/incest babies.
For more re: the lying lips and Republican Party cheerleading of Ertelt, visit our web site The AmericanView.com and put his name in our search engine.
John Lofton, Editor
TheAmericanView.com
Jlof@aol.com
A few quick points, since Lofton essentially helps me make my case...
* Bush didn't veto the budget because he knew we don't have the votes to rid it of the Planned Parenthood funding. We're on the losing side on this. Lofton concedes my point that Bush would sign a budget that zeroes out Planned Parenthood funding.
* To get on the winning side, I propose electing more pro-life members of the Senate who will vote against funding. Lofton makes my point and by failing to demonstrate how he is doing anything of consequence to make that happen. Instead, he labels the 41 members of the Senate who voted to defeat the funding as "not pro-life."
* Lofton says pro-life members of Congress are not pro-life because they support rape and incest exceptions. (Not all of them do and I don't). Lofton won't campaign for them, won't support them, etc. So the very people who are in office or could be elected who could cut Planned Parnenthoods funding are the very candidates he claims aren't pro-life and he won't lift a finger to get/stay in office. See the hypocrisy here? Lofton condemns the problem of PP funding but won't do a darn thing about it. All talk, no action.
* Lofton misstates the position of John McCain on abortion funding. As recently as April 2005, and several times before that, McCain opposed an attempt to send taxpayer money to groups that perform or promote abortions in other nations. This anti-funding rule, known as the Mexico City Policy, is expected to be one of the first to be removed under a potential Obama administration as he has voted to scrap it. During his tenure in the House and Senate, McCain has also voted against taxpayer funding of abortion at military hospitals, in the District of Columbia, in the federal employee's health insurance plan, on Indian reservations and has supported the Hyde Amendment to ban direct abortion funding in almost all cases. Anyone can find those votes by going to the Thomas web site.
Ultimately, Lofton loves his job as chief complainer and chief critic of pro-life groups, pro-life elected officials and pro-life advocates. But what does he do to actually stop abortion other than condemning the rest of us. Not much it appears. I'd rather make a difference than make a point.
Keep up the talk Lofton, the rest of us are going to actually both to do something to stop abortion and, in this case, stop PP funding.
Post a Comment