Conservatives Should Embrace Indiana Abortion Bill

On Friday, Gov. Mitch Daniels of Indiana indicated he would sign a law defunding Planned Parenthood in Indiana. Many are speculating that Daniels only agreed to sign this law to rebuild his relationship with the religious right after the damage done by his comment that it was time for a “truce” on social issues. That could well be. But this is a law all conservatives should support and seek to duplicate.

The law in question provides that the state may not give money to any organization that provides abortions. This will cut off funding to seven entities in Indiana including Planned Parenthood (“PP”), which is not happy about this.

There are three aspects of this law that I find particular interesting. First, this is a direct assault on yet another Democratic funding source. Just like the unions and ACORN, PP uses taxpayer funding to support Democratic candidates and lobby for leftist causes. This law, which is now being copied in other states, will cripple PP’s ability to continue doing that. Nice work state-Republicans!

Secondly, this issue has exposed that PP’s primary concern is abortion, not the other services they hide behind like a facade. Indeed, as usual, PP’s defense is not that this law will restrict abortion, but that this law will affect other services. Says Betty Cockrum (seriously) of Planned Parenthood of Indiana, this law is “unconscionable and unspeakable” and will “leave as many as 22,000 patients without access to pap tests, birth control and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.”

Gee, that sounds horrible. But it’s not true. First, let’s think about this logically. How in the world do you get 22,000 people? The state of Indiana has 6.5 million residents. So if those other 6.48 million people still have access to these services, what has gone wrong for the other 22,000? Why can’t the 22,000 go to the same places as the other 6.48 million? Do they live in a bubble? Or is Cockrum really talking about “less convenient” and just trying to spin that into “without access”?

And let’s not forget that birth control is available at every 7/11, most high schools, most truck stops and within your own mind’s ability to avoid stupid decisions. Pap tests and treatments for VD are available almost anywhere there’s a hospital, clinic or doctor’s office. So how is it that 22,000 people suddenly can’t find these services?

Perhaps the issue is one of economics rather than distance travelled? Well, no. These services would be covered by Medicaid for the poor and Mitch Daniels has specifically ordered his health department to “take any actions necessary to ensure that vital medical care is, if anything, more widely available than before.” Why would PP consider that as anything less than a step up. . . unless they only care about abortion?

But here’s the real kicker, i.e. the ingenious exposing part of this law. For while Cockrum pretends that her real concerns are these other services and not abortion, there is no reason PP can’t continue to get government funds to provide those services. . . all they have to do is spin off their abortion operations. Indeed, as Daniels points out:

“Any organization affected by this provision can resume receiving taxpayer dollars immediately by ceasing or separating its operations that perform abortions.”

So what’s the problem? PP claims they don’t use taxpayer funding to support abortions, so there’s no reason for them to insist on keeping the abortion function grouped together with the other services, is there? And certainly not if that happens at the expense of losing all of these other “vital” services. So what gives?

Well, there are two problems. The first is that PP is lying; they do use taxpayer funding to support abortion. Here’s how. When money is given to PP to cover their non-abortion costs, that frees up money for use on their abortion operations. Think of it this way. Assume a drug addict spends $200 a month on food and $200 a month on drugs. You want to help them buy food, but you don’t want your money used on drugs. They agree and spend your specific $200 on food. . . receipts and everything. You feel good about yourself. But money is fungible and the reality is that all you did was free up the $200 they had been using on food to now be used to buy drugs. Thus, while you kid yourself that you only bought their food, every dollar you gave them actually supported their drug habit. It’s the same thing here. All that money paid for birth control and pap tests went to cover overhead, rent, salaries, etc., and freed up money to be used to subsidize abortions. And without that taxpayer support, the abortion business could not survive on its own.

Secondly, right now it’s very easy for PP to lobby and to get celebrity support by hiding behind the myth that their primary function is healthcare, with abortion being only a minor, minor side-offering. But if PP broke into two companies, how many celebrities would want to be seen donating their time, money or name to the abortion portion of PP? Not many. Thus, separating out the abortions deprives PP of the cover of being able to claim that abortions are something they “kind of sort of also sometimes do” in addition to the meaningful services.

Finally, I find this law interesting, because this is an issue that all conservatives should be able to agree upon, i.e. both religious conservatives and libertarians. Why? Because it doesn’t matter what your stance is on abortion or government involvement in people’s lives, there is no justification for using taxpayer funding to support the practice.

That’s why this is an interesting law and Republicans everywhere should be emulating it.