By Scott Tibbs, June 18, 2007
I've written two letters to the editor (one in May and one in June) encouraging the City Council to reject Planned Parenthood's request for corporate welfare. The letters have both brought some comments on the Herald-Times web site. My response to some of the major points is below:
|there are many taxpayers who very much appreciate and support the mission of its program.|
That may or may not be the case. Even if a majority of taxpayers support Planned Parenthood's mission, why must the majority for its will on the minority? Why can't those who support Planned Parenthood give their own money to the organization instead of forcing all taxpayers to subsidize it?
|Abortions are one small component of the service that Planned Parenthood provides to our community.|
Does Planned Parenthood do some good things? Yes they do. That good, however, is overshadowed by the fact that they kill babies on Thursdays. You cannot balance "good" things done by PP against the murders committed there each week.
|I suspect the majority of people in our community support the woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy|
While I believe abortion should be illegal, this is not about the right to choose abortion. This is about forcing pro-life taxpayers to fund Planned Parenthood. If someone is truly "pro-choice", he would also support the wishes of those who do not want to subsidize an abortion clinic. Abortion may be legal, but that does not mean that everyone in Bloomington should be forced to pay for it.
|I oppose my taxes going towards supporting...|
Opposition to government spending on other things are unrelated to the Planned Parenthood funding issues. Such Red Herrings are meant to distract from the topic at hand. There are many questionable government expenses, and many of both sides have reasons to oppose them, but those issues are ultimately irrelevant to this discussion. The choice that the City Council will make on Wednesday night should be an easy one.
The major points were basically restated in the thread attached to the June letter, but Michael Newton's complaint about government handouts to private parochial schools and "faith-based" contributions to crackpot religious fanatics like Pat Robertson is worth addressing. Newton asks: Perhaps Scott can explain the difference?
Newton is simply being dishonest here. It has been pointed out on more than one occasion (including the thread on last month's letter) that I oppose vouchers to private schools as well as the President's "faith based" charities plan. Michael Newton knows this to be the case, so why the dishonesty? Does he simply think that when he creates a straw man out of his fantasies that no one will call him on it?