Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Mitch Daniels helped defund PP in his state. Protests included sob stories about victims of rape and incest.

I sympathize with them as much as with their unborn children. Let's not get sidetracked; abortions for such reasons are the exception rather than the norm.

Can't afford to give abortions to poor victims, Planned Parenthood?  Are you a business or a charity?  You really want to help your poor clientele?  Give them abortions for free and raise the price on cosmetic abortions by a dollar. You should still break even.

Still can't make money?  Are you a charity or a business?  Take a note from GM and Chrysler:  they got one-time bailouts in exchange for federal meddling in what theyre expected to do in return.  Are you willing to accept a little regulation like every other industry in the country?  Everybody's doing it these days!  Don't be the last one to fascist up!

On the other hand....

The Indiana state government giveth, and the Indiana state government taketh away.
On the one hand:  PP is no longer funded there--great.  A company that performs ethically dubious medical procedures doesn't need to be rewarded for pretending to be a sort of charity that needs government support on top of donations, investment returns, and service fees to provide a necessary service.  Plenty of worthwhile charities get by without charging for services because they get donations and volunteers; I would never volunteer for or donate to any for-profit entity (the way for-profit and nonprofit entities are currently defined in the tax code) except as a college intern.  The Roe decision even says states can regulate abortion, so people shouldn't be taking it personally.  Detroit may as well complain about Lansing regulating speed limits but not giving kickbacks to the automakers.

On the other hand:  IN supreme court ruled that Indiana residents are not allowed to defend themselves against unlawful entry by police because there can be justifiable reasons for officers to enter a domicile without a warrant.  This is a non sequitir.  It has always been the case that officers of the law have been empowered to act without a court order when there is probable cause.  Would it have been appropriate to remind people of this fact?  Would it have been commendable to clarify for residents and for police departments what some of the more poorly defined criteria are that delineate unlawful entry from justifiable forced entry in pursuit of police business?  Yes to both.  Is that what happened?  Doesn't sound like it.

I await a happy correction.

No comments: