Each day we overwhelm your brains with the content you've come to love from the Louder with Crowder Dot Com website.
But Facebook is...you know, Facebook. Their algorithm hides our ranting and raving as best it can. The best way to stick it to Zuckerface?
Sign up for the LWC News Blast! Get your favorite right-wing commentary delivered directly to your inbox!
CNN Guest Throws Down: We Shouldn't Fund Planned Parenthood, They Kill Children
Why should Planned Parenthood's federal funding be cut? Among other reasons (see Planned Parenthood Workers Admit Fetuses ARE People. Laugh About Killing Them and MSNBC Caught Lying About Planned Parenthood’s ‘Mammogram’ Services), "because Planned Parenthood kills children. That's why..." At least, so sayeth Amanda Carpenter on CNN.
Carpenter's broader point is important. Firstly, no company raking in a billion dollars should get ANY government assistance. Agreed? Okay, now let's say yes, it's illegal for Planned Parenthood to use the specific government money used specifically for abortion. The money still helps Planned Parenthood get the tools to perform abortions. It helps Planned Parenthood free up money to perform abortions, while the government money gets "spent elsewhere." Related: EXPOSED: Planned Parenthood'3% of Services are Abortion' a Total Lie.
Think of it this way. You, a private citizen, own a farm supply company. You have oxen, plows, rakes, shovels and slaves. The government is paying you X amount of dollars every year in subsidizes, but only to provide the oxen, plows, rakes and shovels, not the slaves.
Once the money goes into your bank account, it's in your account. How does the government know which dollars are being used for shovels, and which are being used for slaves?
Once the money trades hands, it's done. If I gave you ten dollars, and it goes in with the rest of your budget, and you spend ten dollars toward a collection of Beanie Babies, how do I know you didn't spend that money on heads of broccoli? I don't.
If the government doesn't want the money going toward abortion, then why doesn't the government (using the farm supply analogy) give the money to a company which provides all the regular services, without the controversial one? Doesn't that make more sense?
Of course it does. Which is why Amanda Carpenter is right.