The two issues are different: the Planned Parenthood decision is simply one of social policy: the government is not constrained to either fund or not fund them. So it’s perfectly permissible to adopt the position that even if direct funding of abortion (not “birth control”) is stopped, it’s also a good idea to stop indirect funding. In other words, the government is free to decide, “We just don’t want to fund Planned Parenthood.”
With the church playground, there are competing constitutional commands. The state constitution says that no money can ever go to a religious entity; the federal constitution’s words have been held to require a neutrality towards religion – but also to forbid an excessive entanglement.
Those competing constitutional imperatives don’t exist with Planned Parenthood.
I have seen quite a number of arguments (and I think from you, but I am not sure) that hinged on the idea the the monies going to planned parenthood are fungible, and therefore, any money that the govt pays to fund the 97% of PP that is not abortion “frees up” monies for the other 3% of their operations, and therefore, technically violates the Hyde amendment.
I see this as the same thing. By giving them money to pay for their playground that otherwise would have come out of their budget, the government is subsidizing religious expenditures.
If they win, and get a check cut out to them, and then buy a new cross or stained glass window with the money (as they can’t spend the money on the playground, as that is already done, and the money is already spent) how is that not the government supporting religion?
Under this rationale we should cut off all federal funding to all institutions that offer subsidized abortions. Just because money is fungible does not mean it is untraceable. If the funding is earmarked for a secular purpose, then what does it matter if that leaves them with extra money for other things that the federal government cannot fund?
No, it would be more like the government gives $5000 to any couple that gets a marriage license, but does not give any money to a couple that is married ONLY in the church (without a state sanctioned marriage license).
With that said, the money is fungible argument isn’t valid in applying the Hyde amendment to the planned parenthood case as long as the money is earmarked for things that aren’t abortion. IIRC the money is mostly Medicaid family planning services.
Because the money is repaying them for money they spent on the playground that they should have gotten a long time ago.
Not under the Hyde amendment it isn’t. We already have a law in place that prohibits federal funding of abortion. What is being contemplated is ANOTHER law that specifically targets Planned Parenthood for persecution for doing things that are perfectly legal (which seems pretty fucking fascist to me but YMMV).
ISTM you are changing the analogy because you don’t like where it leads. The argument was that being presented was that being prohibited from marrying is a much more important thing than just being denied a government handout so that you can’t compare the two.
So now I am providing an analogy where the gay couple is simply being denied a government handout based on their being gay. How is that different than denying a government handout based on the non-profit being religious in nature.
And I don’t really see where you are getting the parenthetical in your revised analogy. Is there some sort of paperwork the church is not providing or filing that the other non-profits are filing? Aside from the religious nature of the non-profit, what is the difference between the church in this case and the other non-profits?
The 3% stat is correct because it is for percentage of services rendered, not percentage of revenue brought in(which is what your second stat is speculating on).
Not necessarily. Clergy can opt out of Social Security as outlined in Publication 517 from the IRS. I’m not sure if they can opt out of medicare, but I would guess so. I’d think Christian Scientists would.
But that means the government has to define what is and isn’t a religious act. Why is it religious to go and sit in a pew on Sunday morning and not to go play golf on a Sunday morning. Ultimately, you’re going to have to come down to "I know a religious act when I see it?’ type of argument and rule that country club is not a church.
But once you do that, you’re on the slippery slope to that mosque is not a church, now that synagogue, now that Catholic church, and finally nothing but this one sect over there.
No, it’s between 3% and 37% of non-government health service revenues. Since the whole point of the debate is what percentage of government funds are indirectly used for abortion services, counting only private funding doesn’t make sense at all. That’s especially true since government sources comprise PP’s largest funding source - 43% of all revenue.
PP’s actual abortion revenue as a percentage of health services alone (it provides numerous non-healthcare services too) is therefore between 2% and 28%.
I don’t know, why don’t you ask someone who brought them up last week.
So, there is no reason why you brought up marriage at all then. You are saying that it is unfair that a heterosexual couple gets money, and a gay couple does not. I would agree, to a very large extent, that that is not fair, but that has nothing to do, whatsoever, with a church not getting funds for its playground.
Think polygamy. My point is, you can be married in some churches as a polygamist, but the govt will not recognize it.
If the govt is giving away 5k to all the married happy couples, should the govt have to give away to the polygamists that were married in the church and “in the eyes of god”, but did not receive a valid state sanctioned marriage certificate.
You mean the RFRA that was held to be unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court when applied to the states in the City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)?