The problem with Planned Parenthood, as with most "social" programs, is that it is widely used by the poorest sector of our society. The consumer in this case has very little power to pay for the services they "require" and thus need someone else to foot the bill.

Am I right?

By the way........Sam, you've come a long ways from the days when you simply said "the interwebs is a stupid place to discuss politics". Kudos on joining us in our debates. : )

Sure it is a wedge issue; sure it is pandering to the social conservatives; but that is what politics is all about. Explaining why you are the one who should be voted with.

Some social conservatives are angry about being forced to fund abortions; which they consider murder. I disagree with them; but they have the right to be offended by this practice of seizing their money and using it for immoral (in their eyes) purposes.

I tend to agree with K8 here. The larger issue is that this is just one of money government subsidies of businesses that must go. But I also agree with Sam that he brought it up in the context he did to pander to the social conservatives. Kinda like saying "hey I won't ban abortions; so sorry; but at least you wont have to pay for others to get them". I think this is just normal politics; and it is in his best interest. You need to form a broad voter base to have any chance in the primary.

There is nothing wrong with explaining his policies in this matter; as long as he isn't over promising or lying; neither of which he is doing here.

Anyway; that's my take.

money = many*

"Normal" politics is the plague that has given the debacle that we call the Federal Government. It is time to demand better from our politicians.

Also ZERO Federal funds go to abortions provided by Planned Parenthood, all the Federal money supports other services. Again it is masking the real issues with pandering and that is the problem. The system is broken, and everyone should want better then to continue to operate under this travesty we call normal election politics.

a third of planned parenthood's revenue comes from the government; 37% from "health center income", 28% from private contributions.
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/files/PPFA/PP_AR_011011_vF.pdf
(scroll to page 28)
a third is a large chunk, but when you have over a billion dollars in assets i'm pretty sure you can handle running yourself without government funding.

K8:

One interest that the guys have in the abortion issue is the right of a prospective father not to have his child aborted.

The three exceptions would be rape or incest, where the father's right is forfeit, or to save the life of the mother, where her right to her own life trumps the father's right to the life of the child.

Sam I'm confused. What would you prefer Ron Paul do? Not talk to social conservatives at all? I guess I don't understand what you are talking about.

Sam, this is just a happy coincidence that social conservatives and fiscal conservatives come together on this specific issue. But the lesson here can be applied to other sources of government waste. CPB, public education, farm subsidies, basic research, oil subsidies, disaster aid, public works, welfare, medicaid, national parks. Clearly it's not the responsibility of those with money to care for those without. We aren't a socialist society. All of those things can be handled by the private sector more efficiently. You'd eliminate all of the subsidized consumers so that only those that deserve the services get them. The founding fathers envisioned it that way. It's the same with military spending. By recalling internationally stationed troops and discharging excess, we'd save billions of wasted dollars. And as per Paul's suggestion, we reinstate the Letters of Marque, we can just hire international criminals to forward our interest and no American troops have to die. See, PP isn't the exception, it's the 2 birds with one stone. Satisfy the pro-life movement AND the fiscal right. For Paul, this works great, allowing him to jive his religious views which contradict his individual rights views. Honestly, doesn't matter what his reason, if saving tax payers money is the final outcome, doesn't matter how we get there.

Well he is Pro-Life so he isn't going to do what I want him to do and that is not make abortion a national issue of merit.

In general I was more taking issue with how our politics are and the idea that what is "normal" politics should be accepted as fait accompli.