In a flashback to the Reagan era, the Trump administration has proposed a rule that clinics which provide or refer abortion services will be forbidden from receiving federal funding. Federal funding is, of course, not used for abortions, so it might be wondered why this proposal is being advanced.
Proponents of this rule make the not unreasonable argument that could be called the “money pool argument.” The idea is that while a clinic would certainly have distinct components to its budget and would presumably not directly allocate federal funds to abortion, the federal funding does end up in the total pool of money available to the clinic. To use an analogy to a pool of water, the budgetary divisions would be like lines painted on the bottom of the pool, dividing it into zones. While each zone is distinct, the water flows freely throughout the pool. Returning to the federal funding, the idea is that the money flows throughout the financial pool and thus ends up funding abortion services and referrals—the budgetary walls are mere “paint” and do not provide a real division of money.
Another, more direct, analogy is that of a college student receiving money from their parents. Imagine that the parents know the student is, contrary to their wishes, legally buying alcohol. While the student might argue that they only spend the money from their part-time job on beer, the parents would be right to point out that the money they provide enables their child to buy things they do not want them buying. As such, it would be quite reasonable for the parents to require the student to stop spending their money on beer with the penalty for non-compliance being no more parental money.
Alternatively, the parents could simply pay the tuition and other educational expenses directly and leave the other expenses to the student, thus leaving their money untainted with alcohol purchases. This alternative is, however, subject to the objection that the student would thus be free to still buy beer because of the parental support—despite the fact that none of their money is being spent directly on beer. Going back to the abortion clinics, the worry is that even if the clinics do not spend any federal money on abortions because it is directly spent on other services (such as ultrasounds for expectant mothers), federal funding for anything the clinic does will free up money that could be used for abortion services or referrals. As such, while not even a single penny of federal money goes to abortion, the moral worry is that the federal money used to fund non-abortions services allows abortion services to be provided.
To use another analogy, this is like the worry that federal food stamp money (now SNAP) received by people who drink alcohol allows them to drink because some of their food is paid for. Presumably the idea in both cases is to use the threat of defunding to force the drinker and the clinics to behave in accord with the moral values of those who regard such behavior as wrong, even though drinking and abortion are both legal.
Since the moral foundation of the opposition to federal funding is based on the notion that federal money should not be used to fund things people find morally wrong, this indirect argument is rather problematic. After all, it is one thing to argue that one’s money should not be used directly for something one morally opposes (like war, abortion, or corporate welfare), it is quite another to argue that one’s money should not even have an indirect association to something one regards as morally wrong. The moral challenge is sorting out the boundaries of legitimate moral concern. For example, if the principle was that not public money should be connected in any way to activities seen as immoral, then funding for public roads could be seen as morally problematic because people drive over them to reach abortion clinics. While this is absurd, that is the point: there are clear cases in which the moral objection to public funding would be absurd. The question is whether the funding of non-abortion services at clinics that also provides abortions is morally problematic enough to warrant defunding them. On my view, the role of federal money in enabling abortion services would be too distant to justify defunding the clinics on moral grounds. Of course, those that disagree would contend that even though not a single penny of their money went to abortion, they are still enabling abortion because the clinics receive funding for non-abortion services. To me, this seems like insisting that poor people who buy beer with their own money should be denied food stamps because this enables them to be able to buy beer—it is demanding too much on the basis of what seems to be more self-righteousness than moral concern. Then again, it might be something else—which is the subject of the next essay.
First, a humorous anecdote.
When my daughter was very young, she was not very good at taking medicine. Once, I mixed a teaspoon of some elixir in a cup of juice for her – but she saw me and protested vehemently. So I accommodated her – I poured a teaspoonful out from the cup and tossed it in the sink. She accepted the solution (no pun intended) and we were all happy.
Like most moral quandaries, I find that when thinking about things that just don’t “feel right” to me, I have a difficult time reducing the issue to some moral absolute or finding a way in which people won’t find a workaround. When I lived in New Jersey, our supermarket shared a parking lot with a liquor store (in NJ, beer, wine, and liquor are all sold in the same place). Those on some sort of relief would go to the supermarket and hand in their food stamps or EBT cards or vouchers at the checkout – and the cashier would carefully separate the qualified items from the unqualified ones, making sure that the funds were not misused. Then the customers would head across the parking lot and buy a quart of Colt 45, a pint of whiskey, and fill a long shopping list of Lotto numbers. Not only was this an obvious enabling of bad behavior on the part of the government, but also a little exploitative – because the lottery money went right back into their coffers.
With regard to the “money pool” issue, I suppose an easy answer might be to not reimburse Planned Parenthood directly, but rather do things the old fashioned way – have the patient pay PP up front, then submit receipts for services offered. They would be reimbursed for covered services , and other, more controversial expenses would be declined.
Of course, this could and would be interpreted by some as a “ban” (isn’t everything?) or some unfair violation of women’s rights.
As an individual, I am often moved by the plight of people who beg for money on the street. I am also aware that if I give them money, it’s possible that they will spend that money on alcohol or drugs. Sometimes I give them food (I keep a box of granola bars in my car). Sometimes I give them money – and sometimes (if it doesn’t “feel right”) I walk on by. But the difference is that it’s my choice. No one is telling me I have to give to them – but when I do, I quell those nagging doubts by telling myself I am giving freely, and once the money leaves my hands it’s up to them to do the right thing. My gift is what might be called a “Mitzvah” in Judaism – a good thing done for the sake of doing good with no strings attached, no expectations.
At the same time, if there are causes that I support that receive no government funding, and if I trust their organization, I will give money, save the receipt, and make up a quarter of that or so when I file my taxes in April. I have plenty of friends who would be horrified if I gave to the NRA – but the beauty of that is that they don’t have to – and they can donate to Planned Parenthood instead.
I listen to NPR, and sometimes watch Public Television – but I do not donate to either. Why? My perception (which is a reality) is that they get my money via my taxes, so why should I give more? I would rather spend my money on a fancy remote control so I can switch the channel when their fundraising segments air. However – absent the government contribution (which, by the way, I also oppose), I would absolutely give more freely – and I believe that there are enough others like me that these public stations would be awash in clean, green, freely given cash – just as I believe would happen to Planned Parenthood. This would have the added benefit of public broadcasting being able to air whatever content they wanted, without suffering the protests of those who disagree with their politically influenced editorial position.
In my previous answer I noted that Planned Parenthood receives ~$525 million in Federal Funding, and contributes ~$670 million to political campaigns. Given my cynicism for government in general, and with a “follow the money” kind of approach, I might conclude that federal funding of abortion has absolutely nothing to do with abortion rights, women’s rights, preventing unwanted births or any of that – but rather, that it’s all political. Politicians get credit for supporting the cause, which earns them votes – and they get the money right back to use in their campaigns to get more votes. This, of course, relates to my feeling about causes in general, and my requirement that I “trust the organization” as a condition of giving. The government has no accountability when it comes to my taxes – and whereas I can get an accounting from a charitable organization that I can believe – I have no such trust when it comes to government spending.
Anyway – I think it all comes down to the same question we have been wrestling with for the last 250 years or so, which is “What is the proper role of the US Government?” Barack Obama voiced one side of this very clearly when, in his critique of the Constitution, declared it to be a flawed document, “a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the federal government can’t do to you but doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” Others, of course, would restrict government activity to the eighteen enumerated powers and leave it at that – except to once and for all clearly define the so-called “general welfare clause” which has been at the core of almost all government largess in our history.
This would have the added benefit of public broadcasting being able to air whatever content they wanted, without suffering the protests of those who disagree with their politically influenced editorial position.
But this is a misconception, just as with the funding via taxes. They will only be able to air whatever they want when they do so with their own money. The editorial shift may move from being politically influenced to being influenced by the relative financial influence of the various contributors. TANSTAAFL. It’s not just a philosophical observation. It’s simply the way things are.
I think it all comes down to the same question we have been wrestling with for the last 250 years or so, which is “What is the proper role of the US Government?”…etc.
Seems the general philosophical idea was pretty clear. The government should do the least necessary and people have the right, obligation actually, to take care of themselves and to help others. Neither of the latter belong in the government’s domain. There really wasn’t much else to wrestle with except for the slavery issue that they kicked down the road and is now effectively resolved. Yes, we may wrestle with the degree of implementation one way or the other, community vs. individual, but the philosophical ideal should not at this point be an issue. Certainly not in relation to socialism/communism which is simply a repackaging of the divine right of kings, just with committees. BO’s dismissive reference to “negative liberties”, a BS sophist term used to bias the uninformed, was not an argument regarding degrees of implementation as much as it was a dismissal of what our Constitution has stood for for the last 250 years…or at least until the so-called progressives started to muck things up.
What most of this boils down to IMNSHO is not just an argument about government. The principles apply nearly as well to any large organization, a large corporation, an army, a church, etc. etc. The bigger something becomes, the harder it is to get anything done. Stricter and stricter rules start to accumulate to try to eek out more productivity and/or reduce waste, fraud, and abuse. It’s just that government is the accumulation of all of those problems into the largest organization within its domain. But no matter the organization, government or church or corporation or social society, the law of diminishing returns eventually kicks in. This is why the creative destruction is an essential element of capitalism. To government, such a concept is abhorrent. It is to the other types of organizations as well, but when a church or corporation or society fails, so long as there is a market or need for them, new organizations will replace them. When governments fail, the consequences are much greater. Which again is why government should not bite off more than it can chew.
…that needs some editing/cleaning up but i gotta get back to work…so there’s some tax revenue…to pay Mike’s salary…
apologies for the run-away italics. Italics should end just before the “…etc”. Wish WordPress had a preview button like Typepad does.
You are correct, of course, both regarding NPR and your constitutional observations. What I meant about NPR when I said “They can air whatever they want to” is the same as my feeling about PP – that once the government is out of the picture, they will no longer have to worry about citizens objecting to how their tax dollars are spent – either in support of a liberal editorial agenda or in providing abortion services.