The Liberal Funding Paradox: You Can't Have it Both Ways

Last week, Planned Parenthood was given a choice: stop providing abortions or lose federal funding. In a move that surprised nobody, they put abortions over those other healthcare services they’re always touting. Last night, Planned Parenthood Vice President Dawn Laguens appeared on Fox News to discuss the proposal with Tucker Carlson, who had some tough questions.

Many, including Cecile Richards, the woman at the helm of Planned Parenthood have been going back to the old canard that federal funding doesn’t go towards abortion anyway.

Is there anyone who believes this?

As we know, money is fungible, identical, interchangeable. It doesn’t matter if the money given to Planned Parenthood is earmarked for abortion or something else. It clearly supports their abortion services. Giving money to an organization that provides abortions is financially supporting them, there is no way around that. Can they guarantee the money doesn’t go towards facilities anywhere abortions are performed? A lightbulb in an abortion-only room? A salary for someone who only performs or assists in abortions? Is there a guarantee that a medication they keep on the site would only be used for patients who are there for non-abortion services?

Abortion is so intrinsic in what they do it’s impossible disentangle them to any degree. Even if such disentanglement were possible, the funding would still support abortion. Providing funding for one purpose frees up funding for other things. Like abortion. Even if the money isn’t earmarked for abortion, it will subsidize abortion.

This is so clearly impossible that, should they think it through honestly, even the most ardent Planned Parenthood supporter would have to admit it to be the truth. Since that has yet to occur it is, as of now, just one more area in which intellectual honestly fails our liberal friends. Instead, it’s about the sacred cow of abortion needing to be protected at all costs. Were it the sacred cow for teacher’s unions; the reaction would be opposite. We know this to be true because we’ve seen it; we’ve seen them both in 2017, and it’s only March.

Let’s look at how these two situations have played out. Betsy DeVos supports school choice, including private school programs (which threaten teacher’s unions) wherein state funds, are given back to taxpayers who can use the money for the education of their choice. Many families choose a religious education. I heard approximately six bajillions (I counted) people saying that this was tantamount to giving government funds to religious institutions.

That’s right. According to the left, the government giving funds gained through taxation back to the taxpayers who then choose to pass it along to a religious institution is direct funding, but the government giving funds directly to an organization that provides abortion isn’t funding abortion. Such is liberal logic.

It isn’t about doing the math or looking at the reality of the situation; this is about protecting the cause.