2+3+4PM NC becomes third state to defund Planned Parenthood

In what can only be described as a great victory for the pro-life movement, North Carolina has now become the third state (after Indiana and Kansas) to vote to cut off federal funding to Planned Parenthood. In this case, the legislature actually overrode a veto by the Governor to pass a budget which did not include the $434,000 which would otherwise have flowed to them through state family planning programs.

Even though by law the federal funds are not allowed to be used to perform abortions, the obvious effect of subsidizing one part of the organization with government money is that donations and other revenues can then be diverted to the abortion portion of the facility. Also, just as obviously, it’s a relatively difficult thing to say that money can even be so cleanly distinguished as that. Is a staff physician’s salary paid out of one set of funds when he merely counsels women on ordinary health issues and then paid by a separate check from a different set of funds when he is counseling on abortion or performing one? Is the heating bill distinct? But I digress. The part of this that people don’t ordinarily think about is that abortion isn’t the only controversial aspect of what Planned Parenthood does. Many Americans (more Catholic than not, but at least some Evangelicals, myself included) think that contraception itself is a morally noxious practice that should not be funded with taxpayer money.

But the infuriated reaction to these moves is what I have found so fascinating. See, the argument goes like th is: “Planned Parenthood provides many forms of health services to women, especially poor women. And if you cut off their funding because of just one of their activities, you are harming the women who come to them for other reasons.” This seems like a lucid argument until you simply invert the principle. “If you care so deeply about providing all these other services, then why not simply stop providing abortions so that you can retain the government support? It’s your own irrational commitment to performing these horrible operations that is really keeping you from the funding. So, instead of griping that the taxpayers are no longer being forced to subsidize the most notorious purveyor of a product they despise, perhaps you could simply stop purveying it and show your own commitment to women’s health issues.”

Imagine, for instance, that the local library started stocking X-rated DVDs and truly pornographic magazines and, in response, the relevant overseeing government entity decided to cut off their funding. Who would be the radicals in such a case: the elected officials who didn’t think that pornography (a legal product) should be subsidized by taxpayers or the librarians who seemed outraged at the end result of having their libraries defunded?