A while back, Donald Trump decided that he wanted to take away Title X funds from Planned Parenthood. His argument was that taxpayer money should not be used in their discussions regarding abortions. Many people referred to this as a gag order.
Technically speaking, Trump's proposal was not a gag order. Planned Parenthood could continue talking about abortions all they wanted. The difference was that the federal government would no longer pay them for these discussions.
When the federal government provides funds to an organization, they have a right to impose conditions to ensure that the funds are not misused. For example, I'm sure most taxpayers wouldn't want their money to go to Planned Parenthood just for the organization to advertise the latest Disney movie. In the case of Title X, it is already illegal to use taxpayer money for abortions. This puts the government completely within its rights to impose restrictions on taxpayer funded messaging.
Since I have been discussing free speech from an ethical perspective, I have to look at government-funded dialog. Whenever the government pays someone to have a discussion with citizens, the government can use those funds to control the dialog. If the government didn't provide funds for family planning, nobody could complain that the government was trying to silence Planned Parenthood.
An argument can certainly be made that there are times when the government can help fund an organization that has important discussions with citizens. Similarly and more importantly, many government workers will likely have to talk to citizens at some point while on official business. The question is, where do we draw the line?
As I'm wrapping up my section on free speech, I want to mention subjectivity. The government's role in speech can be complicated. It's clear that the government should have at least some restrictions on taxpayer funded speech, but the government shouldn't have total control over everyone who sees federal funds. We have to draw a couple lines somewhere, but the location of those lines are a matter of opinion. When should the government get involved, and how much control should they maintain once they become involved?
There is no doubt in my mind that the government can end funds to abortion providers. That doesn't mean they should. Keep in mind that I'm looking at speech from an ethical perspective. So, should they end their funds? My personal opinion is that they should.
There are a lot of people who view abortions as immoral. I'm reluctant to say that individuals should be forced to fund something that they consider immoral. This isn't just the actual abortions. It can also be the encouragement of abortions. In all honesty, I would like to go one step further. Let's not have our government control family planning to begin with.
No comments:
Post a Comment