As the state of Arizona slips ever toward the dark dystopia of Airstrip 1 and Orwellian Newspeak, I had time to contemplate (while its still legal, of course- no thoughtcrimes yet!) recent developments brought about by the Republican dominated government.
In our great Meth Lab of Democracy (TM) (aside: The GOP has some great copyrighters, no?), our legislators have not just managed to write laws based on conspiracy theories, but to also convince the masses that, contrary to popular belief, life begins before conception and that literally banning information on abortion is "giving more information to women considering an abortion" according to Cathy Herrod, President of the far-right wing Center for Arizona Policy. This link should be enough.
While some great action posts have been written (such as sending a wire hanger to Gov. Brewer), this post is not one of those. Instead I'm going to take the GOP's thought process to the logical conclusion.
Please note, though, that what is happening here in Arizona is EXACTLY what you can and should expect from the Republican party at a local or national level, regardless of what they say campaigning. In Arizona, they've just stopped hiding the cravenness.
The argument made by Herrod in the push to remove any funding from Planned Parenthood of Arizona (including Arizona's Medicaid program, AHCCS) is that any dollar spent by taxpayers for "so-called health services" like cancer screenings or well checks is another dollar freed up in the PP coffers to kill more babies. This is the "money is fungible" argument, evidenced even at the national level.
But let's say that we stick to this logic, and consider other destinations of taxpayer monies, such as TANF recipients, government employees, or grant recipients.
There's mounds of evidence suggesting that the GOP has no problems micro-managing the lives of those living in poverty, ranging from mandatory drug testing to food choice. I'll leave the reader to read up on that for background; it's all readily available in a search. There is no reason to not expect the GOP to propose at some not-far-off time (if they haven't already) the restriction of expenditures by TANF recipients that precludes abortion services.
The reasoning? Even if recipients had raised money privately for the procedure, this is money that could/should have been spent to bootstrap their rise out of poverty. Taxpayers are subsidizing the recipients' abortion by providing monetary assistance. Since the recipient is receiving a "gift" from the government, it is perfectly legal and moral to ensure that this "gift" is spent in the taxpayer's best interest, which does not include the subidizing of abortions.
For brevity (and my sanity), I'm going to stop there.
Next, we look at government employees. While legislators and executives can limit employee health plan options restricting abortion coverage, there are currently no restrictions on what a government employee can do with his/her compensation. The argument becomes then, when do monies lose their "tax-payer funds" status? If the answer is (as has been understood for thousands of years) when the monies are transferred to the individual, then no restrictions under the fungibility argument could be made.
The Reasoning? However, if the (hypocritically) big-Government religious right argues that directly paid tax-payer funds are still, indeed, tax-payer funds instead of private funds, the fungibility argument rears its ugly head. While this is highly unlikely, it is (in my mind) still viable given the current state of the Republican party.
Lastly, we turn our eye to the various government grants. In this case, we are referring to the non-comprehensive list of student grants and research grants. This situation is unique, in that it parallels the disbursement of TANF funds, but does not exist as an "entitlement". While most of these types of grants have restrictions to their usage, they are indeed "subsidies" that free up other monies of the student/researcher/institution.
The Reasoning? Consider a student who uses a grant to pay for tuition/room & board. The student gets their disbursement of grant money prior to the withdrawal of tuition fees from their account. The student also has a pending withdrawal for a health plan which covers termination of pregnancies. If the health plan withdrawal occurs first, followed by the tuition fees, which funds are used to support abortion? How is the money separable? Consider secondly a researcher who pays for this same health plan drawing a salary from their grant award, who uses a portion to pay for the plan. Is this not taxpayer support of abortion services?
Taking the Republican party's arguments to their logical end shows the danger of the legislation presented in Arizona and around the nation. Unfortunately, vast amounts of funds pass through the government, and can be influenced by the government-in-your-bedroom ideology of the religious right-dominated Republican party. The danger to a woman's right to choose, as well as a private individual's rights in general, are readily apparent.
The hope, then, lies in exposing these efforts as yet another attack on the privacy rights of individuals (which they are) and outlining in no uncertain terms that the slippery slope of fungibility and government-in-your-bedroom are the planks the GOP is planning to run on. This thought exercise, on my part, is a starting place to discuss our rights, men and women; to not just win the GOP's War on Women, but to also prepare for the new GOP war, on our basic rights of privacy and free will.
TL;DR: The GOP is batshit crazy and won't stop at defunding Planned Parenthood- they're going to take away what rights to privacy we have left.