Is Planned Parenthood a Terrorist Organization?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Once again, citing a case that happens to be about terrorism in a legal brief is not a "comparison" at all. It is simply an analogy of a discrete legal issue that's present in the instant case to a decision on an analogous point in a prior case, which is the core of how the common law system works.

^ This precisely.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Once again, citing a case that happens to be about terrorism in a legal brief is not a "comparison" at all. It is simply an analogy...

The brief is not applicable therefore the probative value does not outweigh the prejudicial value. And for the record, "comparison" is a synonym for "analogy". Your argument is semantics.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The brief is not applicable therefore the probative value does not outweigh the prejudicial value.

From the fact that you haven't cited the brief, I assume you haven't read the brief.

So how do you know this to be true?

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by RandFan

At the end of the day the AG has no evidence of wrong doing. Abortion is legal and PP must abide by laws governing public funds. The brief is not applicable and therefore unnecessarily inflammatory (even if it was innocent which I seriously doubt).

He's not looking for evidence of wrongdoing. He's looking for support in case law for the Texas law that (I guess?) prohibits public funding of anything that promotes abortion, and he's citing that case because it's relevant to the state's argument. He's defending the constitutionality of the law, not charging Planned Parenthood under it. This is just a legal exercise, while the law itself is a vivid reminder of why I don't live in Texas.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The AG cited a brief that dealt with terrorists.

No. He didn't cite a "brief," he cited a decision by the United States Supreme Court on a relevant legal issue. That's an enormously important distinction. Briefs are irrelevant and, absent a few unusual circumstances, you'd almost never cite a brief from one case in a brief in another case. Decisions by the Supreme Court, on the other hand, are the single most authoritative source of common law in the United States. Often they're directly binding, even on state courts in federal constitutional or statutory matters, and even when they aren't binding they're enormously influential. And a given decision by the Supreme Court-- HLP being no exception-- deals with discrete legal issues that bear only a tangential relationship to the parties in the case. When the Court's exposition of a legal principle is analogous to an issue raised in a subsequent case, it's both appropriate and common practice to cite the Court's earlier decision. No one cares who the parties in that earlier decision were, and certainly no one interprets a citation to an earlier case to be drawing a moral equivalence between the parties in that case and the current case. That just isn't the way it works.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

From the fact that you haven't cited the brief, I assume you haven't read the brief.

So how do you know this to be true?

It's my opinion that it is not applicable. Abortion is legal. There are strict guidelines for using public funds. Planned Parenthood follows those laws. From what I understand, terrorism is an illegal activity. Humanitarian organizations that sponsor or engage in terrorism are engaging in unlawful activities. If the AG believes that PP is engaging in unlawful activities then it should make that case. Otherwise there is no analogy to be made that I can see.

But, I will assume the null hypothesis for sake of argument. How is the brief applicable?

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

The brief is not applicable therefore the probative value does not outweigh the prejudicial value. And for the record, "comparison" is a synonym for "analogy". Your argument is semantics.

Your argument, apparently, is selective quotation. Finish that sentence you omitted and get back to me.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

No. He didn't cite a "brief," he cited a decision by the United States Supreme Court on a relevant legal issue. That's an enormously important distinction. Briefs are irrelevant and, absent a few unusual circumstances, you'd almost never cite a brief from one case in a brief in another case. Decisions by the Supreme Court, on the other hand, are the single most authoritative source of common law in the United States. Often they're directly binding, even on state courts in federal constitutional or statutory matters, and even when they aren't binding they're enormously influential. And a given decision by the Supreme Court-- HLP being no exception-- deals with discrete legal issues that bear only a tangential relationship to the parties in the case. When the Court's exposition of a legal principle is analogous to an issue raised in a subsequent case, it's both appropriate and common practice to cite the Court's earlier decision. No one cares who the parties in that earlier decision were, and certainly no one interprets a citation to an earlier case to be drawing a moral equivalence between the parties in that case and the current case. That just isn't the way it works.

I'm sorry, I'm really not interested in your semantic arguments. I make mistakes. Excuse me. Your game of "gotcha" really does not interest me.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I'm sorry, I'm really not interested in your semantic arguments. I make mistakes. Excuse me. Your game of "gotcha" really does not interest me.

The distinction between a brief and a Supreme Court decision is an important one, and I explained why at length. I also explained why it isn't the case that citing a Supreme Court decision implies a moral comparison between the parties. That's hardly playing "gotcha," though you conveniently avoided responding to the substance of my post.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Your argument, apparently, is selective quotation. Finish that sentence you omitted and get back to me.

Okay.

Quote:

Once again, citing a case that happens to be about terrorism in a legal brief is not a "comparison" at all. It is simply an analogy of a discrete legal issue that's present in the instant case to a decision on an analogous point in a prior case, which is the core of how the common law system works.

Yep, still semantics. Since terrorism is unlawful and abortion isn't the "analogy" can only serve to inflame passions.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Okay.

Yep, still semantics. Since terrorism is unlawful and abortion isn't the "analogy" can only serve to inflame passions.

No. As I've already said, HLP doesn't base its reasoning on the illegality of terrorism but rather on the simple fact that the United States doesn't like it and doesn't want to facilitate it. Exactly the view Texas takes on abortion. The legality of the two is a legally irrelevant distinction.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

The distinction between a brief and a Supreme Court decision is an important one, and I explained why at length. I also explained why it isn't the case that citing a Supreme Court decision implies a moral comparison between the parties. That's hardly playing "gotcha," though you conveniently avoided responding to the substance of my post.

One more time. I misspoke when I said brief. I'm not going to play your gotcha games. This will be the last time I humor you on silly semantics. And no, given that terrorism unlawful there is no "moral comparison". Funny, even you use the word "comparison".

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

One more time. I misspoke when I said brief. I'm not going to play your gotcha games. This will be the last time I humor you on silly semantics. And no, given that terrorism unlawful there is no "moral comparison". Funny, even you use the word "comparison".

What? Yes, I used the word "comparison" in explaining why you're wrong to claim that there is one. Would you care to respond to my main point that lawyers and courts cite prior cases for legal analogies all the time, and that doing so in no way implies, and would not be understood to imply, a comparison between the moral status of the parties in those cases?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

No. As I've already said, HLP doesn't base its reasoning on the illegality of terrorism but rather on the simple fact that the United States doesn't like it and doesn't want to facilitate it. Exactly the view Texas takes on abortion. The legality of the two is a legally irrelevant distinction.

Argument by assertion.

In any event.

• There are already laws that govern the use of public funds.
• PP was abiding by those laws.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

What? Yes, I used the word "comparison" in explaining why you're wrong to claim that there is one. Would you care to respond to my main point that lawyers and courts cite prior cases for legal analogies all the time, and that doing so in no way implies, and would not be understood to imply, a comparison between the moral status of the parties in those cases?

I said I would not respond to any more of your points on semantics. However, I would be remiss to fail and acknowledge that you are right about your use of the word "comparison". My apologies.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

Argument by assertion.

Well, go read the case yourself if you want. The illegality of terrorism is not a salient point on which the Court's decision in HLP turns.

Quote:

In any event.

• There are already laws that govern the use of public funds.
• PP was abiding by those laws.

Both true, both irrelevant. As has been explained. Texas is perfectly free to not want to expend its own funds in a way that could permit PP's legal expansion of its abortion services.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

I said I would not respond to any more of your points on semantics. However, I would be remiss to fail and acknowledge that you are right about your use of the word "comparison". My apologies.

How is this "semantics"? Your entire argument turns on the claim that citing the HLP decision in the AG's brief somehow implied a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization. The fact that no legal professional reading that brief would interpret it as making such a comparison seems highly relevant to that claim.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

Well, go read the case yourself if you want.

It's your assertion. It's not my job to prove your claims.

Quote:

Both true, both irrelevant. As has been explained. Texas is perfectly free to not want to expend its own funds in a way that could permit PP's legal expansion of its abortion services.

Evidence that PP has expanded abortion services because of public funds? That something could happen doesn't mean that it is happening. Until you show that it is the argument is moot.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

How is this "semantics"? Your entire argument turns on the claim that citing the HLP decision in the AG's brief somehow implied a moral comparison between PP and a terrorist organization. The fact that no legal professional reading that brief would interpret it as making such a comparison seems highly relevant to that claim.

My argument is that any comparison (analogy or otherwise) to terrorist organizations is likely to inflame.

Now, I'll grant that a Judge is very, very likely to view the citation dispassionately and therefore, from the view point of the court, the prejudicial value is not likely to be greater than any potential probative value. That is the reason I have said over and over that it could very well be innocent.

That said, that the facts of this case could very well inflame public sentiment is of little doubt and therefore I find the citation grossly stupid in light of the fact it doesn't really provide any probative value. It's just a game to disrupt a legal organization performing legal activities.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

It's your assertion. It's not my job to prove your claims.

My "assertion," if you want to call it that, is about what the Court's decision in HLP says. You can accept my characterization or you can read it yourself. Do you want me to read it to you, or what?

Quote:

Evidence that PP has expanded abortion services because of public funds? That something could happen doesn't mean that it is happening. Until you show that it is the argument is moot.

I said "could" permit, not "will cause" For the thousandth time, you know perfectly well I'm talking about potential expansion rather than empirically demonstrable expansion, and for reasons I've elaborated at length, time and again, I think that's sufficient justification for Texas's position. Please stop making these straw man arguments.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by OnlyTellsTruths

Still, they were the ones that picked the analogy.

I've seen this "oh but it was just an analogy" trickery before.

Next time use a different analogy!

Perhaps:

"you can't give money to one aspect of the Catholic Church without essentially funding other aspects of it"

three more pages about fungibitliy and your analogy still holds true.

Questions for those who support defunding PP. Do you also support defunding Catholic Charities and all other faith based initiatives funding because by the same fungibility argument such would be unconstitutional?

On the other side, since fungibility is ok in PP's case because federal money is not used for abortion in contravention of the law, do you now agree that funding faith based initiatives is constitutional since the federal money is used for charitable, not religious purposes?

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by RandFan

My argument is that any comparison (analogy or otherwise) to terrorist organizations is likely to inflame.

But that's simply false. Look at the list of cases I cited earlier. Decisions get cited by court decisions and legal briefs all the time for principles that have nothing to do with the moral status of the parties. I mean, think about Miranda v. Arizona, the basis of the Miranda rights that police have to read to defendants. Miranda himself was a pretty sleazy guy, yet that case gets cited all the time, frequently to vindicate the rights of defendants who are not guilty of anything but were railroaded into confessing because the cops didn't advise them of their rights. No one would ever interpret a citation to Miranda as drawing a moral comparison between Ernesto Miranda and the defendant in a particular case. It just wouldn't enter into anyone's mind.

[quote]That said, that the facts of this case could very well inflame public sentiment is of little doubt and therefore I find the citation grossly stupid in light of the fact it doesn't really provide any probative value.
Now who's arguing by assertion? What's your legal reasoning behind the claim that the citation provides no "probative value"? As I've already explained, it seems like a perfectly legitimate cite to me.

Quote:

It's just a game to disrupt a legal organization performing legal activities.

Planned Parenthood actually initiated this litigation to challenge its defunding by Texas. And the AG is somehow playing "games" to "disrupt" PP's activities by responding to its lawsuit?
Anyway, have to run to a meeting, will be gone for a while.

[JamesDillon]

Originally Posted by cwalner

Questions for those who support defunding PP. Do you also support defunding Catholic Charities and all other faith based initiatives funding because by the same fungibility argument such would be unconstitutional?

On the other side, since fungibility is ok in PP's case because federal money is not used for abortion in contravention of the law, do you now agree that funding faith based initiatives is constitutional since the federal money is used for charitable, not religious purposes?

I don't know if you're including me in the first category, but I don't support defunding PP. I think Texas's policy decision in this case was a bad one. But I also think the AG's legal argument, including the analogy to the HLP case, is a perfectly legitimate one to make on the constitutional point.

On the other hand, I totally support defunding faith-based charities, because **** religion. But that's a policy preference, not a legal argument. I don't necessarily think there's anything unconstitutional about funding religious charities' non-religious work, but I'd have to give that some more thought before taking a position. To be clear, I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about funding or not funding PP either; Texas has the discretion to expend its public funds as it sees fit here.

ETA: The more I think about it, the religious funding thing is a really good analogy. Assuming (for the sake of argument at least) that some religious charity has segregated funds for secular charitable work and religious evangelism, as well as a general fund that can be applied to either, then I would definitely not want to see public funds go to that organization's secular work because that leaves more general funds available for evangelism. There's nothing illegal about evangelism, and many people think it's a great thing to do, but I don't like it and I would prefer that public money not support it, even indirectly. That's exactly Texas's position on abortion.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

My "assertion," if you want to call it that, is about what the Court's decision in HLP says. You can accept my characterization or you can read it yourself. Do you want me to read it to you, or what?

Arguing by assertion is fallacy. Do whatever you think is necessary to demonstrate your assertion.

Quote:

I said "could" permit, not "will cause"

And that is where I rest my case. For the thousandth time, what is possible is not grounds for anything.

Quote:

For the thousandth time, you know perfectly well I'm talking about potential expansion rather than empirically demonstrable expansion, and for reasons I've elaborated at length, time and again, I think that's sufficient justification for Texas's position. Please stop making these straw man arguments.

There are no straw man arguments. So long as you keep reiterating sophistry then I'll keep pointing out that PP is breaking no law. That PP keeps detailed records. That PP conforms with the laws and subjects themselves to audits. Powerful reasons to admonish the AG for playing politics.

The many women that PP serve have the right to PP's services and what the AG is doing can harm them for no good reason.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

But that's simply false. Look at the list of cases I cited earlier. Decisions get cited by court decisions and legal briefs all the time for principles that have nothing to do with the moral status of the parties.

False? What is false?

Quote:

I mean, think about Miranda v. Arizona, the basis of the Miranda rights that police have to read to defendants. Miranda himself was a pretty sleazy guy, yet that case gets cited all the time, frequently to vindicate the rights of defendants who are not guilty of anything but were railroaded into confessing because the cops didn't advise them of their rights. No one would ever interpret a citation to Miranda as drawing a moral comparison between Ernesto Miranda and the defendant in a particular case. It just wouldn't enter into anyone's mind.

I find nothing here to respond to. It doesn't advance the discussion. This is case whereby PP is not doing anything wrong.

Quote:

What's your legal reasoning behind the claim that the citation provides no "probative value"? As I've already explained, it seems like a perfectly legitimate cite to me.

We can disagree.

Quote:

Planned Parenthood actually initiated this litigation to challenge its defunding by Texas. And the AG is somehow playing "games" to "disrupt" PP's activities by responding to its lawsuit?

Yes. Absolutely. Since PP isn't doing anything wrong the AG is reaching for anything to tar PP with to justify these actions that will harm people in Texas. One more time, Planned Parenthood isn't doing anything illegal.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

I don't know if you're including me in the first category, but I don't support defunding PP. I think Texas's policy decision in this case was a bad one. But I also think the AG's legal argument, including the analogy to the HLP case, is a perfectly legitimate one to make on the constitutional point.

What constitutional point is that?

Quote:

On the other hand, I totally support defunding faith-based charities, because **** religion. But that's a policy preference, not a legal argument. I don't necessarily think there's anything unconstitutional about funding religious charities' non-religious work, but I'd have to give that some more thought before taking a position. To be clear, I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about funding or not funding PP either; Texas has the discretion to expend its public funds as it sees fit here.

ETA: The more I think about it, the religious funding thing is a really good analogy. Assuming (for the sake of argument at least) that some religious charity has segregated funds for secular charitable work and religious evangelism, as well as a general fund that can be applied to either, then I would definitely not want to see public funds go to that organization's secular work because that leaves more general funds available for evangelism. There's nothing illegal about evangelism, and many people think it's a great thing to do, but I don't like it and I would prefer that public money not support it, even indirectly. That's exactly Texas's position on abortion.

If religious organizations kept accurate books and would allow themselves to be audited and conform to the laws that govern public funding then I would have no problem whatsoever with faith based initiatives. None. Why would anyone care? If they are performing secular work then it's not a problem. The problem is that it has been shown that many religions use the money for proselytizing and religious activities. They discriminate in hiring and who can use the funds.

Look, let me be crystal clear here, if you could show me that PP is doing what faith based initiatives are doing, I'd say yank their funding as of last year. Make them pay some of that money back. Seriously.

The fact is that there are two different standards. PP doesn't discriminate against who they hire or who they provide services to. Faith based organizations that receive public funds do.

That fact alone ought to tell you something about PP.

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

My argument is that any comparison (analogy or otherwise) to terrorist organizations is likely to inflame.

Now, I'll grant that a Judge is very, very likely to view the citation dispassionately and therefore, from the view point of the court, the prejudicial value is not likely to be greater than any potential probative value. That is the reason I have said over and over that it could very well be innocent.

To the extent that you now acknowledge the citation may have a valid purpose in legal argument, it now becomes relevant who brought up this "comparison", and why.

PP itself seized on the citation in the brief as though it were... well... exactly what the journalists are painting it as, and exactly what it isn't.

It's manufactured outrage, which as has been shown, runs directly contrary to the fact that this particular case is cited all the time without intending to "compare" anyone to terrorists.

So, PP twisted an unremarkable citation in perfectly innocent legal brief in order to play the victim. HuffPo bought it; so apparently did you.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

To the extent that you now acknowledge the citation may have a valid purpose in legal argument, it now becomes relevant who brought up this "comparison", and why.

PP itself seized on the citation in the brief as though it were... well... exactly what the journalists are painting it as, and exactly what it isn't.

It's manufactured outrage, which as has been shown, runs directly contrary to the fact that this particular case is cited all the time without intending to "compare" anyone to terrorists.

So, PP twisted an unremarkable citation in perfectly innocent legal brief in order to play the victim. HuffPo bought it; so apparently did you.

It could be that PP is using this for their purposes. Do you have evidence that they released this? Please don't unreasonably use my intellectual honesty into proof of something other than my being honest. That doesn't foster honest exchange among others.

IMO: It was wrong (actually it was absurd) for the AG to cite the case. I honestly don't know (and if you are honest neither do you) how the story got out. Given the nature of the case and the political BS being pulled on PP I find the citation of the case self-serving.

• PP is not breaking the law.
• PP provides many valuable services to poor people in Texas.
• The efforts to end PP is cynical and harmful without evidence that that PP is doing anything wrong.

[Silly Green Monkey]

As Abbott specifically referenced and accused PP in his appeal, how can PP be blamed for his wording?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by RandFan

IMO: It was wrong (actually it was absurd) for the AG to cite the case.

IMO: It was perfectly appropriate for the AG to cite the case in this context. I actually can't imagine there's a SCOTUS case closer on point than that one; the case is about as perfect of a legal analogy as we could expect.

Perhaps I missed it; did you explain how all of the other citations JamesDillon brought up were somehow not inflammatory in the way this one is?

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

IMO: It was perfectly appropriate for the AG to cite the case in this context. I actually can't imagine there's a SCOTUS case closer on point than that one; the case is about as perfect of a legal analogy as we could expect.

Given that there is no evidence that PP diverts funds to inappropriate usage the case is pointless. PP keeps accurate books and must conform to laws and subject themselves to audits.

Quote:

Perhaps I missed it; did you explain how all of the other citations JamesDillon brought up were somehow not inflammatory in the way this one is?

I don't know but I doubt that those citations were used to buttress political games. IMO: The AG is engaged in silly politics and this has nothing to do with PP breaking the law or doing anything untoward. As far as I know, no one has provided a shred of evidence in support of the proposition that PP is breaking the law. So, those could be incidences where the citation inflamed the public. It could be the case that I wouldn't care (if the evidence existed that funds were diverted for inappropriate purposes).

So long as abortion is inflammatory and so long as politicians can use that fact and then cite irrelevant court cases to further inflame public sentiment for political purpose then it's unethical, IMO, to do that.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

IMO: It was perfectly appropriate for the AG to cite the case in this context.

I want to go back to the faith based initiatives example to compare and contrast.

In the faith based initiatives example we have real evidence that money is being used outside of the scope of secular goals and that faith based initatives are not acting in good faith (pun not intended). In that instance, it would be appropriate to make the citation, IMO.

If you could show that PP was likewise acting as these faith based organizations were I would agree with you as for the citation. But, because PP works damn hard to conform with the law, because they don't act as religions do, it is for that reason I think the AG was cynical.

Can you understand that point?

[AvalonXQ]

I understand the point, although I don't agree.

[cwalner]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

Perhaps I missed it; did you explain how all of the other citations JamesDillon brought up were somehow not inflammatory in the way this one is?

Yes, every one of those quotes references acts that are intrinsically illegal (like terrorism). Nothing that PP does is intrinsically illegal. The only legal concern with the activities of PP is that it is illegal to provide public funds for abortion, not to provide an abortion.

Basically the argument in those other cases relates to funding of legal activities of organizations that also perform illegal activities (or have been charged with such).

Also none of those citations reference the word 'terrorism', but the quote from the TX AG uses it, from the OP, "First Amendment does not prohibit application of federal material-support statute to individuals who give money to 'humanitarian' activities performed by terrorist organizations" are attributed to the TX AG

[mumblethrax]

Originally Posted by RandFan

If religious organizations kept accurate books and would allow themselves to be audited and conform to the laws that govern public funding then I would have no problem whatsoever with faith based initiatives. None. Why would anyone care? If they are performing secular work then it's not a problem.

I would object to that (and as it happens, I did, in exactly the same terms being argued here). The reason is simple: if they were going to perform that secular work with private funds anyway, you've effectively just given them public money with no strings attached.

Having made that argument then, I'm bound to accept it now.

It's going to cost Texas a lot to do it, though. They've already lost federal Medicaid funding for their women's health program.

[RandFan]

Originally Posted by AvalonXQ

I understand the point, although I don't agree.

Thanks. Though I would be interested to know what you don't agree with, that's fine. I can live with disagreement.

[rwguinn]

What's being ignored, here, is that the state doesn't GIVE money to anybody--they pay for procedures and examinations, and the accompanying paperwork and admin costs (as far as I can tell, from what I read and what I know from experience).
What this is equivalent to, as far as I can see, is essentially the same as "The state prohibits reimbursement for alcoholic beverages on expense reports. Since the Mariott has a restaurant that serves alcohol, the Mariott is no longer approved for overnight stays, and no reimbursement will be made for stays or meals at that chain".

[AlBell]

Originally Posted by Caper

Shouldn't you have just named the topic... Do you think abortion is wrong or right? Isn't that essentially what you are asking? Unless your larger point is that people against something often compare what they are against to the worst thing they can think of...... then welcome to politics.... and today's society.

That, and from a rational Democrat's view: Of course they are terrorists! They've killed many millions that would have been probable votes for democrats.

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by JamesDillon

<snip>

ETA: The more I think about it, the religious funding thing is a really good analogy. Assuming (for the sake of argument at least) that some religious charity has segregated funds for secular charitable work and religious evangelism, as well as a general fund that can be applied to either, then I would definitely not want to see public funds go to that organization's secular work because that leaves more general funds available for evangelism. There's nothing illegal about evangelism, and many people think it's a great thing to do, but I don't like it and I would prefer that public money not support it, even indirectly. That's exactly Texas's position on abortion.

And yet, the TX AG didn't choose to compare withholding money from PP to withholding money from churches. Or to withholding money from any other group.

He chose to compare it to withholding money from terrorists. He went out of his way to specifically use the term "terrorist" in his motion to the court, instead of merely citing a statute or case law reference. Unlike the other examples you selected for comparison.

Why do you suppose that is? Surely the fine voters people of Texas would be equally understanding of an AG who compared Planned Parenthood to church social programs as they would to a comparison with terrorists.

Right?

[AvalonXQ]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

And yet, the TX AG didn't choose to compare withholding money from PP to withholding money from churches. Or to withholding money from any other group.

He chose to compare it to withholding money from terrorists. He went out of his way to specifically use the term "terrorist" in his motion to the court, instead of merely citing a statute or case law reference. Unlike the other examples you selected for comparison.

He did exactly what supplicants usually to when citing a case: he included a parenthetical summary. Again, nothing unusual about that. If some idiot hadn't quoted it out of context, we never would have heard about it.

That's what's so silly about these arguments that the AG was looking to send a message: in the absence of incendiary journalism, nobody in the public would have ever seen this cite. It strains credibility to believe what you're claiming was the intent.