Monthly Archives: July 2015

Op-Eds

Planned Parenthood: If You Have to Ask Why, The Answer is Usually “Money”

2 Comments
Planned Parenthood volunteers help bring the f...
Planned Parenthood volunteers help bring the fight for health insurance reform to the Ohio Statehouse in Columbus. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Planned Parenthood pops up regularly on the political radar as “pro-choice” and “pro-life” activists wage their decades-long battle over abortion. The latest controversy is over a series of videos released by a “pro-life” organization, purporting to show that Planned Parenthood is in the business of selling what pro-choicers call “fetal tissue” and pro-lifers call “baby parts” to medical research companies. And as usually happens when such controversies arise, there’s a move on in Congress to “de-fund” Planned Parenthood.

I’m not interested in re-litigating the issue of abortion per se here (that argument will never end), but I do think it’s important for all of us — “pro-choice” and “pro-life” alike — to understand what Planned Parenthood is and how it operates.

Ideological considerations aside, abortion in America is an industry, and Planned Parenthood is a business. It calls itself a “non-profit,” but in legal parlance all that means is that it isn’t owned by individuals or stockholders who rake off its profits.

Planned Parenthood boasts more than 800 local franchises and knocks down a billion dollars a year. Its CEO’s salary and benefits top half a million dollars annually; other executives and franchise managers also earn low- to mid-six-figure salaries. It IS a business, full stop.

More to the point, Planned Parenthood is a “politically connected” enterprise which games government to subsidize it and protect its  business turf.

Of Planned Parenthood’s billion dollars in annual revenue, about half comes from the federal government as direct corporate welfare. Its supporters don’t call it corporate welfare, of course. They claim its services are good and necessary and that the payout is justified. Shoes and books are good and necessary too, but if Nike or Amazon asked for a $500 million check from Uncle Sugar, we all know what we’d call it.

Planned Parenthood claims to work on behalf of women’s reproductive health, but uses its political clout to lobby strongly against, among other things, congressional efforts to make many forms of birth control available “over the counter.”

Why would Planned Parenthood do that? Answer: Plain old economic protectionism. If a woman can just drop by the pharmacy at Wal-Mart for her contraception, she doesn’t have to go through Planned Parenthood’s clinics and see Planned Parenthood’s doctors for a prescription. That would help the woman, but it would hurt the case for continuing the corporate welfare checks. This tells us something about Planned Parenthood’s priorities.

When it comes to fetal tissue “donations” that are actually sales — Planned Parenthood charges a “processing fee” — it’s reasonable to assume that the organization’s involvement is self-interested. That’s not to say that fetal tissue research is good or bad, but rather simply to point out that Planned Parenthood doesn’t care deeply enough about it to take a business loss on the proposition.

When it comes to continuing the half a billion dollars in annual taxpayer funding, the answer should be “your corporate welfare is going away — sink or swim in the marketplace on your merits.”

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

Celebs vs. Amnesty: Do The Entertainment Elite Hate Women?

2 Comments
English: Sex workers demonstrating for better ...
Sex workers demonstrating for better working conditions at the 2009 Marcha Gay in Mexico City (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Pin it on the pimps, say the signers of an open letter to Amnesty International . “[H]uman beings bought and sold in the sex trade, who are mostly women, must not be criminalized …. However, what your ‘Draft Policy on Sex Work’ is incomprehensibly proposing is the wholesale decriminalization of the sex industry, which in effect legalizes pimping, brothel owning and sex buying.”

Prostitution probably isn’t “the world’s oldest profession,” as some like to call it — hunting and gathering likely briefly preceded it — but it’s certainly close. Anything that people value, they’ll buy and sell.

Most people value sex,  exchanging it through various barter systems. Dinner and a movie for a one-night stand. Perhaps a set of rings and commingling of property as part of a lifetime arrangement understood to include, among other benefits, physical intimacy.

Or, back to that movie, the price of a ticket for a vicarious but nonetheless titillating experience featuring the likes of Debra Winger, Lena Dunham, Meryl Streep, Anne Hathaway and Kate Winslet, all signers of the letter.

Amnesty’s critics have it backward. There’s no sex work without sex workers. Pimps can’t broker transactions in, nor can “Johns” purchase, something that isn’t for sale. And as the public-facing part of the business, the workers are the easy ones to detect and to persecute. Where prostitution remains illegal, it is they who suffer.

On the other hand, if prostitution is legal, the specter of “human trafficking” will inevitably decline.

As we’ve learned from alcohol and drug prohibition, criminalizing trade in something people want merely pushes that trade into the domain of players who are willing to risk arrest — and resort to violence — for profit.

Legal prostitution might or might not be pretty, depending on one’s personal moral views. But pretty or not, criminalizing it only makes things worse. It actively harms the women who are the vast majority of sex workers. It corrupts law enforcement. It exposes sex workers (and their customers) to unnecessary dangers. And it empowers violent pimps and human traffickers by making their way of doing things profitable.

I prefer to give the celebrities who signed this letter, and who have taken up “stopping human trafficking” as a personal crusade, the benefit of doubt. I don’t think they actually hate women in general, or even female sex workers. But if they don’t, they should support Amnesty’s call for decriminalization.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY

Op-Eds

“Defense” Spending: Time For More Than Cosmetic Cuts

Leave a comment
Military expenditure as percent of GDP, data t...
Military expenditure as percent of GDP, data taken from the CIA factbook. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The US Army is on track to reduce its size from current levels (490,000 troops) to 450,000 in 2017 and 420,000 by 2019. In a July 24 editorial, the New York Times came out in mild support of the half-measure and against “maintaining bases and a level of troops that go beyond what the country needs and can afford.”

The Times doesn’t go far enough. The cuts are, at best, a good start. By any reasonable “need and affordability” standard, military (euphemistically referred to as “defense”) spending cuts should go far deeper. A worthwhile goal would be to cut US military spending by 75% between now and 2025.

If those cuts seem unduly deep, keep in mind that military spending is the single largest item in the federal budget, and that the US has now shouldered the burden of defending western Europe and the Pacific Rim since the end of World War II.

We’ve been waiting for our promised “peace dividend” for nearly a quarter of a century since the collapse of the  Warsaw Pact. It’s time to furl the US “defense umbrella” and let Germany, France, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Taiwan and other US clients assume responsibility for (and cover the costs of) their own defenses.

Through the first half of this decade, the partisan fight over military spending has devolved from an argument over how much to increase that spending (the Obama administration proposed 10% growth by 2018; congressional Republicans referred to that proposal as a “draconian cut” and demanded 18% growth) to acceptance of actual minor cuts. It’s time to take the next step.

A 75% reduction would still leave the US in the position of, by far, top military spender in the world (the cut would have to be more like 90% to match China, the second place spender). Given the American weapons technology edge, an existing arsenal that can be mothballed and re-activated at need, a reserve and National Guard system which can deliver well-trained troops on relatively short notice, and a buffer zone of two oceans between the US and its most likely future enemies, 25% of current spending levels would remain an embarrassment of riches.

Politicians of both parties perpetually promise balanced budgets — some day. They’ll never get there without first reining in a military-industrial complex which has sucked America’s economy dry for three quarters of a century now.

Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

AUDIO VERSION

 

 

PUBLICATION/CITATION HISTORY