Your explanation about Federal Grant money shows a lack of understanding of how Title X grants, and Program Grants in general, work.
These grants do not insert money into a general fund, they can only be used to fund work related to that grant and there is a great deal of scrutiny over how grant funds are spent. You cannot use these funds to cover the electricity bill or rent or any other capital expenditures related to the normal day to day operations. You need to be able to show you can operate without the grant but the grant will enable you to provide currently unmet services to specific populations. You have to provide details on what the grant will pay for that you cannot in your normal operations, and your grant cannot pay for normal operations.
In short: you have to be able to operate without the grant, the grant pays for unmet needs beyond your normal operations.
Most PPH Federal funding is Medicaid reimbursement. Capital expenditures are covered by the Planned Parenthood Foundation and are not affected by any grants or Medicaid.
So no, Federal grants don't free up money to pay the basic bills of normal operations. The grant money is completely separate and goes only towards costs associated with the specific program described in the grant application. These grants and the progress reports are heavily scrutinized, especially for PPH.
Josh states the following in his attempt to refute Wendy Davis:
Either she is wildly inconsistent, or she is actually advocating for women not having laws apply to them. This is a bad, uncharitable, and extremely problematic argument within the context of ERI's stated goal to reach people within the context of "genuine friendship." It is impossible not to view Wendy Davis' comments and Josh's dismissive rebuttal through the lens of #metoo. She is not only speaking solely within the context of HB 2, but about historical hostility towards women who violate patriarchal norms and expectations. She's using judgement here to also reference the condemnation faced by women who do not passively subordinate themselves to male expectations and interests the way they are "supposed to." These women are often condemned by men who adopt a morally superior attitude, labeled in a derogatory manner and dismissed. This calls to mind other #metoo claims about judgement that are often dismissed in a similar way: No woman should be judged for the clothes she wears No woman should be judged for not immediately reporting rape No woman should be judged for not fighting back during rape No woman should be judged by the number of sexual partners she has had No woman should be judged for desiring contraception at a young age...etc. Now, I know many pro lifers strongly disagree with the above statements. It may even be that Josh is one of these people. My intent is not to debate the legitimacy of #metoo here, and that should be ERI's goal in this argument as well. The purpose is to refute arguments from a possibly biased documentary, not waste time and risk good will getting bogged down in an entirely separate argument that threatens any rapport or personal capital the interlocutor has built to that point. Its a good bet that many of the people ERI practitioners will debate on this subject will be particularly sensitive to tone deaf and dismissive arguments about women's rights. This is especially true given the contentious confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. It is not productive or helpful to validate the worst stereotypical misconceptions about pro life advocates or delegitimize and make light of someone else's lived experience, especially if your goal is to get them to agree with you.
So she's comparing abortion stigma to blaming rape victims for their assault? If so, I think Josh's interpretation is a lot more charitable. Not to mention that #MeToo wasn't around back when the filibuster took place (2013).
She’s comparing abortion stigma to the patriarchal systems of judgement and repression that continue to limit a woman’s ability to fully participate in society as equals to men. It’s quite absurd and marginalizing to imply that women faced zero repression before #me too don’t you think?
It’s the basis of democracy that you control your own body. And it’s the basis of hierarchy and totalitarian regimes that you don’t. A long time ago I read Wilhelm Reich's The Function of the Orgasm, published in 1927: http://www.wilhelmreichtrust.org/function_of_the_orgasm.pdf "The sexual process, i.e., the expansive process of biological pleasure, is the productive life process per se." "The death of millions of people in war is the result of the overt, social negation of life. This negation, in turn, is the expression and consequence of psychic and somatic disturbances of the life function." "In reality, only one attitude and only one kind of social and moral arrangement is threatened by the elucidation of the function of life, namely the authoritarian dictatorial regime of every kind which seeks through compulsive morality and compulsive work to destroy the spontaneous decency and natural self-regulation of the vital energies. However-and let us put the matter straight this time-it is not solely in totalitarian states that we find authoritarian dictatorship." In other words, totalitarianism requires sexual suppression (and perhaps is motivated partly by sexual suppression? – I don't completely remember Reich's thesis). Then there is another idea whose authorship I don't know: the idea that restriction of abortion is motivated by an anti-sex mentality. I believe that Reich's idea is still influential. Is it possible that Steinem put the above two ideas – or a simplistic understanding of Reich's idea plus the other idea – together, and came up with a theory that totalitarianism requires restriction of abortion (controlling women's bodies)? I can't really evaluate Reich's above idea, but there may be something in it. I do feel that he was brilliant in another perception which he wrote up in that book – his perception about "character armor." While there may be something in Reich's ideas, I don't have so much respect for the idea that restriction of abortion is motivated by an anti-sex mentality. I think the best response to that idea is the video "My Pro-Life Journey Began in front of This Abortion Facility" ( https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/my-pro-life-journey-began-in-front-of-this-abortion-facility/?fbclid=IwAR3JGnTI7SLjf6up5zPiYgYLGoStIWuVYLW-OtLtPrHj6tpTf9OojH9D4hQ ) Is an eleven-year-old motivated by being anti-woman and anti-sex, or by compassion for babies?
You bring up an interesting point: If the basis of democracy is that you control your own body and the basis of hierarchy and totalitarian regimes is that you don't, then what kind of system of government do you have if roughly half the population believes that bodily autonomy is being restricted? Does the justification for such restrictions matter in such a situation?
If the basis of democracy is that you don't have a tyrannical government and totalitarian regimes is that you do, what kind of government do you have if roughly half the population believes that gun regulations are a form of government tyranny? Does the justification for such restrictions matter in such a situation?
In point of fact, the basis of democracy is 'rule by the people,' that's the literal meaning of the greek word. The opposite of a democracy would be a monarchy or 'rule of one.' A totalitarian regime on the other hand would be a form of government that exercised absolute authority and control over all aspects of individual life, subordinating it to the will of the state. It doesn't seem possible to prove that one single regulation (no matter how "tyrannical") on one single aspect of public life (firearm ownership) could classify a democracy as "totalitarian." Moreover, tyranny refers to cruel and oppressive government rule. From a macro perspective, its difficult to classify firearm regulations as tyrannical, cruel, or oppressive, when considered within a wider global context. However, the legitimacy of democratic governments depends entirely on the consent of the governed, so in fact, it does not actually matter if gun regulations are in fact tyrannical. The only thing that matters is if the population believes them to be so. This would undermine the legitimacy of an elected government authority in the same way that it would if half the population believed the government was attempting to usurp ownership over their physical bodies without consent (individual liberty being one of the primary features and guiding principles of American democracy).
These grants do not insert money into a general fund, they can only be used to fund work related to that grant and there is a great deal of scrutiny over how grant funds are spent. You cannot use these funds to cover the electricity bill or rent or any other capital expenditures related to the normal day to day operations. You need to be able to show you can operate without the grant but the grant will enable you to provide currently unmet services to specific populations. You have to provide details on what the grant will pay for that you cannot in your normal operations, and your grant cannot pay for normal operations.
In short: you have to be able to operate without the grant, the grant pays for unmet needs beyond your normal operations.
Most PPH Federal funding is Medicaid reimbursement. Capital expenditures are covered by the Planned Parenthood Foundation and are not affected by any grants or Medicaid.
So no, Federal grants don't free up money to pay the basic bills of normal operations. The grant money is completely separate and goes only towards costs associated with the specific program described in the grant application. These grants and the progress reports are heavily scrutinized, especially for PPH.
This is a bad, uncharitable, and extremely problematic argument within the context of ERI's stated goal to reach people within the context of "genuine friendship."
It is impossible not to view Wendy Davis' comments and Josh's dismissive rebuttal through the lens of #metoo. She is not only speaking solely within the context of HB 2, but about historical hostility towards women who violate patriarchal norms and expectations. She's using judgement here to also reference the condemnation faced by women who do not passively subordinate themselves to male expectations and interests the way they are "supposed to." These women are often condemned by men who adopt a morally superior attitude, labeled in a derogatory manner and dismissed. This calls to mind other #metoo claims about judgement that are often dismissed in a similar way:
No woman should be judged for the clothes she wears
No woman should be judged for not immediately reporting rape
No woman should be judged for not fighting back during rape
No woman should be judged by the number of sexual partners she has had
No woman should be judged for desiring contraception at a young age...etc.
Now, I know many pro lifers strongly disagree with the above statements. It may even be that Josh is one of these people. My intent is not to debate the legitimacy of #metoo here, and that should be ERI's goal in this argument as well. The purpose is to refute arguments from a possibly biased documentary, not waste time and risk good will getting bogged down in an entirely separate argument that threatens any rapport or personal capital the interlocutor has built to that point. Its a good bet that many of the people ERI practitioners will debate on this subject will be particularly sensitive to tone deaf and dismissive arguments about women's rights. This is especially true given the contentious confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.
It is not productive or helpful to validate the worst stereotypical misconceptions about pro life advocates or delegitimize and make light of someone else's lived experience, especially if your goal is to get them to agree with you.
It’s quite absurd and marginalizing to imply that women faced zero repression before #me too don’t you think?
the basis of hierarchy and totalitarian regimes that you don’t.
A long time ago I read Wilhelm Reich's The Function of the Orgasm, published in 1927:
http://www.wilhelmreichtrust.org/function_of_the_orgasm.pdf
"The sexual process, i.e., the expansive process of biological pleasure, is the productive life process per se."
"The death of millions of people in war is the result of the overt, social negation of life. This negation, in turn, is the expression and consequence of psychic and somatic disturbances of the life function."
"In reality, only one attitude and only one kind of social and moral arrangement is threatened by the elucidation of the function of life, namely the authoritarian dictatorial regime of every kind which seeks through compulsive morality and compulsive work to destroy the spontaneous decency and natural self-regulation of the vital energies. However-and let us put the matter straight this time-it is not solely in totalitarian states that we find authoritarian dictatorship."
In other words, totalitarianism requires sexual suppression (and perhaps is motivated partly by sexual suppression? – I don't completely remember Reich's thesis).
Then there is another idea whose authorship I don't know: the idea that restriction of abortion is motivated by an anti-sex mentality.
I believe that Reich's idea is still influential. Is it possible that Steinem put the above two ideas – or a simplistic understanding of Reich's idea plus the other idea – together, and came up with a theory that totalitarianism requires restriction of abortion (controlling women's bodies)?
I can't really evaluate Reich's above idea, but there may be something in it. I do feel that he was brilliant in another perception which he wrote up in that book – his perception about "character armor."
While there may be something in Reich's ideas, I don't have so much respect for the idea that restriction of abortion is motivated by an anti-sex mentality. I think the best response to that idea is the video
"My Pro-Life Journey Began in front of This Abortion Facility" ( https://blog.equalrightsinstitute.com/my-pro-life-journey-began-in-front-of-this-abortion-facility/?fbclid=IwAR3JGnTI7SLjf6up5zPiYgYLGoStIWuVYLW-OtLtPrHj6tpTf9OojH9D4hQ ) Is an eleven-year-old motivated by being anti-woman and anti-sex, or by compassion for babies?
If the basis of democracy is that you control your own body and the basis of hierarchy and totalitarian regimes is that you don't, then what kind of system of government do you have if roughly half the population believes that bodily autonomy is being restricted? Does the justification for such restrictions matter in such a situation?
It doesn't seem possible to prove that one single regulation (no matter how "tyrannical") on one single aspect of public life (firearm ownership) could classify a democracy as "totalitarian." Moreover, tyranny refers to cruel and oppressive government rule. From a macro perspective, its difficult to classify firearm regulations as tyrannical, cruel, or oppressive, when considered within a wider global context.
However, the legitimacy of democratic governments depends entirely on the consent of the governed, so in fact, it does not actually matter if gun regulations are in fact tyrannical. The only thing that matters is if the population believes them to be so. This would undermine the legitimacy of an elected government authority in the same way that it would if half the population believed the government was attempting to usurp ownership over their physical bodies without consent (individual liberty being one of the primary features and guiding principles of American democracy).