“Let’s be clear for a moment: I’m a libertarian, I don’t think the government should fund any corporate welfare, and that includes Planned Parenthood. If “defunding” actually saved the taxpayers money, it’d make sense to do it and I’d be happy to help.
But government does, at the moment, and from a strictly consequentialist, incrementalist perspective, I recognize that taxpayers inevitably endure “common good” expenses. Unwanted or neglected children often end up being “taken care of” by the state, and families that have unplanned children may end up on services such as WIC, food stamps or other social safety net programs. Women who don’t have the money for annual paps and other health services are more likely to delay treatment. Being hospitalized with cancer without health insurance is a far larger expense to the taxpayers than a screening and a LEEP procedure. Untreated sexually transmitted diseases can cause additional expenses to taxpayers as well.
If you want to tell me that government shouldn’t be paying for the above listed services, I might agree with you, so why aren’t you pushing for “defunding Planned Parenthood isn’t enough, let’s defund everything now!”?
But since a certain supposedly libertarian-Republican candidate is being referred to as “the most viable libertarian option” while proposing defunding an organization that saves taxpayers money while planning to divert those funds to other corporate welfare, I don’t see why suggesting an alternative incremental solution, such as defunding and refunding (to taxpayers) corporate welfare in order of actual real cost is so controversial comparatively.”
Read more at The Libertarian Republic.