WaPo claims “cuts” on Planned Parenthood restriction
posted at 2:55 pm on March 5, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Washington Post’s Mary Ann Akers engages in a serious amount of sophistry in attacking David Vitter over an amendment he offered to the omnibus spending package. She claims that Vitter’s amendment would kill spending on family planning. However, as John McCormack points out, it does no such thing.
The Louisiana senator has introduced an amendment to the omnibus spending bill before the Senate to drastically cut funding for family planning programs.
Vitter’s amendment states that “none of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be made available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Service Act.”
His family-planning amendment is one of dozens of social-related measures Vitter has introduced this Congress as he seeks to shore up his bona fides with conservative voters.
Except that it doesn’t. As John notes, this is the entire text of the amendment:
“None of the funds appropriated under this Act shall be made available to Planned Parenthood for any purpose under title X of the Public Health Service Act.”
Vitter doesn’t propose to cut funding at all. He wants a restriction on the funds to keep any of it from going to Planned Parenthood, which would likely use the funds to give them the ability to dedicate other revenues to abortions. The funds would get spent regardless, but with other organizations.
Why block Planned Parenthood? For one reason, it’s an abortion provider, and Vitter obviously objects to that. But Planned Parenthood has proven itself as a bad actor in that industry, as Lila Rose and the Students for Life group have repeatedly proven. Given what appears to be an organizational mandate to violate state restrictions on abortions and reporting requirements for statutory rape, Planned Parenthood should get stripped of all government funding for any of its activities. Vitter’s amendment doesn’t cut off funds for family planning; it restores some long-overdue accountability for PP’s lawless behavior, supported by such funding in the past.
Akers’ post is dishonest and should be repudiated, either by Akers herself or her editors.