OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

House Votes to Defund Planned Parenthood

February 18, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

The Republican House of Representatives took their latest shot at limiting access to abortions today by passing an amendment to their 2011 government funding bill that would defund Planned Parenthood. There amendment has some big problems, however, and it’s very unlikely that it will become law.

First, the Senate, which is still controlled by Democrats, will never agree to this. Some Republicans — namely Sen. Olympia Snowe [R, ME] and Sen. Susan Collins [R, ME] — have even said that they would oppose an attempt to block Planned Parenthood from receiving funding. Senate Democrats are confident they have the votes to block this.

The second problem is that it is clearly unconstitutional. Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution forbids Congress from passing bills of attainder, i.e. laws that punish a specific individual or group that have not been given a judicial trial. The Republicans passed a similar bill of attainder last year against the community organizing group ACORN that resulted in the federal government being sued. The Republicans may want to repeat that, but nobody else does.

One more thing to be clear on here. Planned Parenthood does not receive federal funding for abortion services. That has been against the law since 1974. They currently receive funds for other health care services, like cancer screening and family planning. But abortion services are subsidized exclusively by private donors. This amendment is about killing Planned Parenthood, not about blocking public abortion funding. That’s already blocked.

By the way, the full roll call details are not yet available, but according to Politico, “The vote was 240-185 with 11 Democrats voting for the amendment, and seven Republicans voting against. One member voted present.”

UPDATE: The full roll call has finally been published and can be viewed here.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.
 

Comments

Displaying 1-30 of 68 total comments.

Spam Comment

Juuniper 02/25/2011 10:29am
in reply to KyleAbbott Feb 18, 2011 12:46pm

The cuts would eliminate funding for birth control, cancer screenings, and HIV testing, among other things.

According to Tracey Brooks, president of Family Planning Advocates of New York State, federal funding does not go to support Planned Parenthood’s abortion services.

Get your facts straight.

AlexisML 02/25/2011 2:07am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 24, 2011 3:42pm

The point of civilization is to improve the quality of life. “What’s wrong with not having anyones taxes pay for health problems?” The same thing that’s wrong with not having anyone’s taxes pay for anything else… infrastructure, education, police departments…“It’s not like we always lived that way”? That’s your justification? Well, in that case we may as well reject all forms of technology and be hunting-gathering nomads.

Spam Comment

Spam Comment

AlexisML 02/24/2011 3:28pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 18, 2011 4:29pm

The same thing can be said about employees from any organization. Bad people are everywhere, that doesn’t mean that the organization that they work for voluntarily supports them.

AlexisML 02/24/2011 3:20pm
in reply to M4Finny Feb 19, 2011 3:58pm

1) Sleep “around”? Maybe she’s only sleeping with “one” person, but doesn’t want to have children. Are opposed to recreational sex?
2)“Murder mill”? Planned Parenthood spends 3% of it’s budget on abortion. That hardly makes a “mill” for abortion.
3)Are you a vegan? Because if you aren’t, that would make you’re anti-abortion stance hypocritical.
4)By your logic no one’s tax dollars should pay for anyone’s self-induced health problems? Got the flu? Well, maybe you should’ve washed your hands more often? Got high cholestreol? Well, maybe you shouldn’t have eaten so much fatty foods? Got, diabetes? Maybe, you shouldn’t have eaten so much carbs.

REPVET 02/23/2011 7:59am
in reply to dbroncos Feb 18, 2011 2:36pm

if nothing is free yet condoms are offered with no out of pocket direct expense to those who wish to receive them, why should my taxes be used to fund abortions of those who chose not to take the proper precautions. while getting volunteer hours as a pre med student, i accepted and position at a PP during my time there more than once, i received a file on a few young women who were there for another abortion. one had even been there 5x in only 2 years. even as a true conservative i believe that abortion does have its place in our society. however, the availability of these services are abundant and are unfortunately being used as the easy solution instead of condoms or birth control or abstinence. which is completely wrong.

and many places provide free condoms including most major universities in which the condoms are actually payed for by the students health fee that is included in their tuition

fakk2 02/21/2011 10:39am
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 21, 2011 8:10am

Totally agree, Bill/writ of attainder is definitely a bad thing. That’s why I have no stance on this position, I’m not totally convinced it is a bill of attainder and I’m not convinced it’s not.

I mean, yes, I can see how it can be interpreted as such, but it doesn’t do 1 thing that it must do for it to be a Bill of Attainder: The amendment doesn’t declare them guilty of a crime. All it literally says is: “None of the funds made available by this Act may be made available for any purpose to Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. or any of the following affiliates of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.” and then it goes on to detail the affiliates. So, since it doesn’t qualify completely as a Bill/writ of Attainder, at least not by the definition of such, then I don’t think it is, but I can see how it is interpreted as such. (BTW, the quote was taken from the Congressional Record)

fakk2 02/21/2011 10:29am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 21, 2011 10:28am

Data links, courtesy of Center for Responsive Politics @ Opensecrets.org:

Female: [http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.php?Cycle=2010&filter=F]

Male & Female: [http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.php?Cycle=2010&filter=A]

(They’re the same links as before)

fakk2 02/21/2011 10:28am
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 21, 2011 8:08am

You’re 100% correct, $2,400 is a lot of money. I work a well paying job, but I’ve gotten into debt, and I’m having trouble saving $1,000 over a year’s time. So, let’s make it more reasonable:

1.) Female donors giving $200 – $2,399 during 2009 to 2010 elections (~175,689 individuals) = $110.6 million
2.) All donors giving $200 – $2,399 during 2009 to 2010 elections (~656,438 individuals) = $438.7 million

These numbers are 0.19% & 0.36% of adult population respectively. So, AT MOST, we’re talking about almost a third of 1% of adults donating to keep PP alive, and this would be yearly. Imagine what we could do if we 10% of the adult population donated $200 yearly, or bi-yearly to something. WOW, that’d be something!

Dayofswords 02/21/2011 8:19am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 10:00pm

I should clarify then:
No federal money has gone to abortions that are non-emergency(so far haven’t been any cases going against it) or rape or incest

Dayofswords 02/21/2011 8:10am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 9:30pm

but you can not punish for for things not proven guilty, this is why bill of attainder exists when it comes to passing laws against someone.

Dayofswords 02/21/2011 8:08am
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 8:41pm

dude $2,400 is alot… I don’t even have that much period let alone to donate.

and most people who use or have used PP are low income so they don’t have 2,400 to donate either.

and most poltics are funded by insanely rich people to get certainly things passed to help their businesses, the average person who are affected by PP are not insanely rich.

fakk2 02/20/2011 10:00pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 9:36pm

BTW, me saying you’re wrong isn’t meant to be a downer, in any way. It’s just a fact. Which is cool, because I’m wrong about a lot, and if I said I like AB11 which they’re protesting in Wisconsin, I’m sure a lot of people would say I’m wrong. That’s why I like OC/OG so much, it’s a place of learning and idea sharing and, most importantly, watching how our government REALLY works instead of hearing about it in soundbites. I wish Donny WOULD write about AB11 though, I’d love to have a debate over that.

fakk2 02/20/2011 9:37pm
in reply to Abaratarrr Feb 20, 2011 1:52pm

Yeah, pretty much. And the Hyde Amendment still allows for abortions to be paid out for rape, incest, or “as certified by a doctor” a life-saving procedure. So, everyone’s going to get reduced health care (state exchanges), which will pretty much make PP obsolete. BUT, if people still wanted PP around, it wouldn’t be too hard to get it to stay afloat.

fakk2 02/20/2011 9:36pm
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 20, 2011 3:32pm

#2: Yes, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funds for abortion except in 3 circumstances (yes, states do use federal funds for abortions), but PP still has $1+ billion revenue.

#3: Donations were covered in the previous post. If I feel like it I’ll repost here for ya, but I’m sure you’ll find them on the first page.

“no money has gone to abortions since the 70s” —I’m going to assume you meant no federal money, which you would be wrong about.

And yes, gallup is definitely annoying at the dang sample sizes

fakk2 02/20/2011 9:32pm
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 20, 2011 1:52pm

Haha, that is pretty funny.

fakk2 02/20/2011 9:30pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 9:26pm

Grrr…..Hate when it doesn’t post everything. Anyways, yes, innocent until proven guilty just like:

ROE ET AL., APPELLANTS, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD SOUTHWEST OHIO REGION ET AL., or

P. VICTOR GONZALEZ, QUI TAM PLAINTIFF, ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES &
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, v. PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL., or

STATE OF KANSAS, v. COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH OF PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF KANSAS AND MID-MISSOURI, INC.,

[http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2973.pdf]

[http://www.aclj.org/media/pdf/Gonzalez_Brief_for_Appellants_No_09-55010.pdf]

[http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/SupCt/2010/20101015/100726.pdf]

They are innocent until proven guilty, too bad they’re also proven guilty.

fakk2 02/20/2011 9:26pm
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 20, 2011 1:36pm

not everyone can be bother to read the hundreds of pages of the archive of debates

fakk2 02/20/2011 8:41pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 8:38pm

4.) Since they are a 501©(3), it can die. I don’t care either way if it does or doesn’t, but nothing says a non-profit has to stay afloat. If it’s as important as everyone thinks, and as useful and efficient as everyone hopes, then I have full faith it will stay alive just like all the other 501’s in America who don’t use federal funds to do good works.

fakk2 02/20/2011 8:38pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 8:09pm

2.) Let’s assume example 1 falls short by half. Well, if we were a democracy, we could make the top 25 congressmen make up the difference, and only half to sacrifice 15% of their total combined net worth every year. After all, they’re only worth a minimum of $1+ billion in a bad year, and that’s just 25 Americans. Considering Bill Gates of Jimmy Buffett could provide $300 million for 100 years at a $30 billion net worth, this doesn’t seem TOO much of a stretch.
[http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2009]

3.) According to PP’s own website’s records, it had a surplus of $23.7 million for FY ended June 30, 2008. Also, the same PDF file says 70% of their revenue came from private donations, so we’re really only talking about making up 30%, which is VERY easy to do if people wanted to give to PP the same way they do to politics.
[http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/AR08_vFinal.pdf]

fakk2 02/20/2011 8:09pm
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 20, 2011 1:40pm

So, you’re saying 4 things:

1.) You can’t rely on people to give a damn about something they care about

2.) Americans want higher taxes on the rich, but not for them to freely give their money because it’s not practical

3.) The patients are the ones who will be footing the bill

4.) It’s a business that needs a bailout, thus the government should keep funding it

Wow, where do I begin. I’ll take them in order and see if they make sense (over a few postings):

1.) Assuming 0.02% of all females in America (~36,265) contributed $2,400+ to PP instead of a political organization, I think PP would survive, considering it’d constitute $260.1 million. Including males and females (~141,141 individuals) it’d come to $1.0821 billion. And that’s just if they gave to PP what they gave to elections in 2009-2010
[http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.php?Cycle=2010&filter=F] and [http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/DonorDemographics.php?Cycle=2010&filter=A] (I love that site)

Dayofswords 02/20/2011 3:32pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 10:01am

for your #2
no federal money goes to abortion under the hyde amendment from the 70s, so this isn’t complying, it’s really not affecting

#3: as i said in another post, donations would need to double and most donated are middle and lower class, most can hardly donate as is. there really is not kept profit, it goes to services for next year, it’s profit is 1/7 of their federal, this CAN NOT keep it afloat.

and in your first post you forget the fact that no money has gone to abortions since the 70s

and gallup is annoying that i cant find the sample size…grrrrrr(rather important)

Abaratarrr 02/20/2011 1:52pm

Why is planned parenthood still needed with the new health care bill that passed? Isn’t everybody going to get free health care anyway?

Dayofswords 02/20/2011 1:52pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 4:58am

I am prochoice, i typed like a whole paragraph…

something about most who are against abortions like war basically, Geogre carlin said it best ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvF1Q3UidWM&t=22 ) “if you’re preborn, you’re fine. If you’re preschooled, you’re fucked” and “they want live babies to raise them to be dead soldiers”

so it goes:
-9months to birth : your awesome
birth to 18: drain on society
18 to whenever: you’re amazing, now how’s your aim?

Dayofswords 02/20/2011 1:40pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 4:39am

“Hopefully it’ll be spent to pay our interest on our debt”
well, that’s kind of the point in their bill.

you can not rely on donations to fix sudden change, there is nothing i have heard of that doubling what needs to be donated(in anything at this amount) has ever worked.

millionaires already give alot but 300million to fill from an already 300mil is ALOT, even to billionaires, and this is for every year. and those donating are normally not rich.

the whole point of going with donations and grants is to lower service costs, if you go to taking out the loss of funding on patients, you lose the whole point of existing. they are not a business, they are a NGO. they use the money they get, they don’t keep it as profit

they cant shrink cuase they would get less donations(less people affected, less people want to donate), then they have to shrink more and repeat, then just die because without funding to lower service costs and not raising price to keep stable, they WILL die.

Dayofswords 02/20/2011 1:36pm
in reply to fakk2 Feb 20, 2011 4:47am
not everyone can be bother to read the hundreds of pages of the archive of debates, takes like 50% longer to read it than hear it, which unless you have dont have a life or it’s your job to, is way to long to keep.

and this was from pence with uncited information and citing only alleged cases. alleged =/= actually happen, it just means accused and last i checked, it was innocent until proven guilty which pence seems to he can judge guilt.

Dayofswords 02/20/2011 1:09pm
in reply to Abaratarrr Feb 20, 2011 10:19am

That doesn’t pay for the gas… and his car will be working for years afterwards. better than buying a new car later on though when it completely dies.

plus vagas is for entrainment, not health care like pap smears and cancer testing.

Abaratarrr 02/20/2011 10:19am
in reply to Dayofswords Feb 18, 2011 8:14pm

It’s like a college kid asking his uncle to pay for his trip to Vegas, via having his uncle pay for a new transmission for his broken car, He asks his uncle for money to fix his car rather then canceling his trip so in turn his uncle paid for the vacation but it looks like he paid to fix his nephews car.

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.