E-mail Scott
Scott's Links
About the Author
Opinion Archives
Social Media:
Facebook
Twitter
Tumblr
Google Plus
YouTube
Flickr
PhotoBucket
Monthly Archives:

January 2010
February 2010
March 2010
April 2010
May 2010
June 2010
July 2010
August 2010
September 2010
October 2010
November 2010
December 2010
January 2011
February 2011
March 2011
April 2011
May 2011
June 2011
July 2011
August 2011
September 2011
October 2011
November 2011
December 2011
January 2012
February 2012
March 2012
April 2012
May 2012
June 2012
July 2012
August 2012
September 2012
October 2012
November 2012
December 2012
January 2013
February 2013
March 2013
April 2013
May 2013
June 2013
July 2013
August 2013
September 2013
October 2013
November 2013
December 2013
January 2014
February 2014
March 2014
April 2014
May 2014
June 2014
July 2014
August 2014
September 2014
October 2014
November 2014
December 2014
January 2015
February 2015
March 2015
April 2015
May 2015
June 2015
July 2015
August 2015
September 2015
October 2015
November 2015
December 2015
January 2016
February 2016
March 2016
April 2016
May 2016
June 2016
July 2016
August 2016
September 2016
October 2016
November 2016
December 2016
January 2017
February 2017
March 2017

Powered by Blogger
Subscribe via RSS

Wednesday, June 29, 2016

Following up on corporate welfare for Planned Parenthood

Posted by Scott Tibbs at 4:00 AM (#)

As expected, my letter to the editor generated some responses, so I will address some of those criticisms here.

Here is something that needs to be addressed right away: This is most certainly not an issue that has been debated for 40 years. At most, this issue has been debated for 17 years, since the city council started funding Planned Parenthood through the social services fund in 1999. The issue did not become heavily contested in the public arena until 2002, so in reality it has been debated for 14 years. Describing this as a decades old issue is simply dishonest.

As far as the comment time, if the city is going to cast a vote to spend tax money in a way many citizens disagree with, the city council has an obligation to listen to the people speak against the handout. If they are unwilling to listen to their constituents - if they are actively silencing a number of people - they are not qualified to serve as elected legislators. Period. If they do not want to listen to people speaking against funding Planned Parenthood, they should not be funding Planned Parenthood.

My call for Councilor Granger to recuse herself was met with an absolutely absurd response, suggesting that by that standard someone who volunteers for a school should not be allowed to vote in a school board election. This is utter nonsense. The obvious flaw in the comparison is that Granger is voting as an elected legislator on sending tax money to an organization she actively volunteers for. This is not an issue of disenfranchising voters. This is an issue of a conflict of interest. Granger is not legally required to recuse herself but it would nonetheless be ethical for her to do so - especially since the subsidy will pass unanimously anyway!

At least those two issues are relevant to the topic. I was described as an "Old Testament literalist" I was called a hypocrite for (among other things) eating pork and shellfish. The hypocrisy of this accusation is glaring. In order to accuse me of picking and choosing, my critics have to pick and choose which parts of the Bible apply - explicitly ignoring the nullification of Old Testament dietary laws by Jesus Christ Himself in Acts 10:9-16, as well as the Apostle Paul describing such restrictions as a doctrine of demons in his letter to Timothy.

My letter stands. There's simply no way to defend Granger's decision to vote to give tax money to an organization where she works as a clinic escort, and there is no justification for limiting debate time. Yes, there was other legislative business (specifically a hike in water rates) but that can easily be scheduled for a different meeting. The city council knows that a bunch of people will show up to remonstrate against the subsidy to Planned Parenthood, and it is their job to listen to the people who pay their salary and pay for their health care benefits on legislation they are considering.

It is really simple: Either do your job or resign from the council so someone else who is willing to do the work of being a city councilor can serve in your place.

(0 Comments)

Note: All posts must be approved by the blog owner before they are visible on the blog.

Comments:

Post a Comment


Below are the rules for commenting on ConservaTibbs.com.

  1. A reasonable level of civility is expected. While it is expected that controversial political and social issues may generate heated debate, there are common-sense limits of civility that will be enforced.

  2. This blog is a family-friendly site. Therefore no cursing, profanity, vulgarity, obscenity, etc. will be allowed. This is a zero-tolerance rule and will result in automatic deletion of the offending post.

  3. Anonymity has greatly coarsened discourse on the Internet, so pseudonyms are discouraged but not forbidden. That said, any direct criticism of a person by name cannot be done anonymously. If you criticize someone, you have to subject yourself to the same level of scrutiny or the comment will be deleted.

  4. Please keep your comments relevant to the topic of the post.

  5. All moderation decisions are final. I may post an explanation or I may not, depending on the situation. If you have a question or a concern about a moderation decision, e-mail me privately rather than posting in the comments.

Thank you for your cooperation.