Gov. Phil Scott, who supports abortion rights, says he will need more time and space to decide if he will support abortion rights.
Lawmakers and pro-choice advocates across the state are eagerly awaiting to hear whether Gov. Phil Scott will sign recently passed protections into law. As with most matters pertaining to reproductive health, the decision has come down to the whims of man.
“This is a very difficult and personal decision that should be left to me and my largest donors,” the governor said Friday. “I would appreciate your privacy at this time.”
The Republican Governors Association, a conservative “dark money” organization which helped pour millions of dollars into Gov. Scott’s gubernatorial campaigns, has also supported the governors in all the states that have recently passed highly restrictive anti-abortion laws. By challenging this anti-choice script, Gov. Scott could potentially alienate himself from some his most powerful backers.
“This is a very emotional issue for me because signing an abortion rights law could mean losing some very significant funding,” Scott bemoaned. “I need more time to decide what is right for me before deciding what I stand for.”
The Scott administration says the abortion rights bills came as a surprise this session, and that it is unfair to ask the governor to carry the burden of unplanned legislation.
“To be forced to decide whether or not to terminate this legislation in such a public, humiliating manner is highly inappropriate,” said a spokesperson for the governor. “No one should be punished for making a difficult decision that most people would prefer to keep private.”
Should Gov. Scott wait too long to decide, the legislation will be born into law just five days after hitting his desk whether or not he is ready or to accept that responsibility. In the meantime, he can be contacted at 802-828-3333.
The Parmelee Post is an occasional series featuring tough investigative reporting on news that hasn’t happened.
This article appears in May 15-21, 2019.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Gov. Scott should be thinking of the residents of Vermont who are overwhelming pro-choice and support this bill, not his puppet-masters. Laws are for what’s best for all the people, not one man’s wallet! Gov. Scott is being very unethical and no amount of monetary contribution will erase this from the voters’ minds-what really matters in an election. Do your job, Governor. Sign the bill!
Does the writer of this – what I will generously call satire – have an even basic understanding of the political donation mafia that is Planned Parenthood? Planned Parenthood of Northern New England receives taxpayer dollars from both the federal govt and from Vermont taxpayers and then they donate through their PAC exclusively to democrats and progressives.
Job Tate’s smear on Planned Parenthood is unwarranted. The organization which receives federal tax dollars is legally separate from the organization making political donations. That means its funding sources are entirely separate. If they aren’t, the IRS could easily remove their tax status.
Specifically, that means that donors to the PAC are giving money (which is not tax-deductible) specifically for political purposes, not to support the clinical and other services Planned Parenthood provides. While some donors may give to both organizations, not all do.
The fact that there are 2 closely related organizations is not unusual. Plenty of organizations maintain a 501(c)(3) branch to receive tax-deductible funding, a 501(c)(4) organization to lobby and a PAC to make political contributions. This is an artifact of American tax law
As to the allegation that the PAC supports only Democrats and Progressives, that’s because the overwhelming majority of Republican politicians are anti-choice. Back when there were pro-choice Republicans, Planned Parenthood supported them: Barbara Snelling, Jim Jeffords, and others received support from Planned Parenthood’s PAC.
John Greenberg – why does PP need tax dollars at all if it has money to spend on political donations? Are we supposed to believe that the relationship between PP’s political donations and their access to tax dollars isn’t symbiotic? And PP isn’t receiving “tax deductible funding” – it’s receiving tax dollars, and in the case of Vermont tax dollars that DOES go directly towards abortions – a court case just waiting to happen.
You say many organizations exist with the tax dollars coming into one organization, while an aligned PAC that shares many officers and direct communication with the other organization, donates to their preferred political candidates – can you cite me some examples?
The writer of this unfunny, absurd piece refers to the dark money of the RGA like it wields some sort of conservative spell over one of the most liberal governors in the country – Republican or Democrat. Where was this dark money with the gun bill, individual mandate, marijuana legalization, sancturary state bill etc etc?
If we want to talk about dark money wielding unholy power over politicians in Vermont look no further than planned parenthood and the vt nea. Look at his 3 years in office – Scott is going to do whatever he wants to do, the RGA be damned.
Answers to Jeb Tate’s questions:
1) “why does PP need tax dollars at all if it has money to spend on political donations?” Planned Parenthood has no money to spend on political donations; it is strictly illegal for a 501(c)(3) organization to make political donations. Planned Parenthood PAC has money ONLY for political purposes; it does no clinical, educational or other work. As noted previously, these are 2 separate organizations.
2) “Are we supposed to believe … isn’t symbiotic? I don’t know what your question means.
3) “PP isn’t receiving “tax deductible funding.” Yes, it is. Contributions to any 501(c)(3) organization are tax-deductible under the limits set by Congress.
4) “it’s receiving tax dollars. Yes, it is. That does not contradict the previous point.
5) “in the case of Vermont tax dollars that DOES go directly towards abortions.” That could well be true. I’m not familiar enough with Vermont law to answer that. But NO federal tax dollars go to abortions or have gone towards abortions since the Hyde amendment was passed decades ago. Planned Parenthood has received substantial scrutiny from its enemies who would love to prove that it is violating the law. All of these “witch hunts” have been fruitless so far.
6) “can you cite me some examples?” Sure: NAACP, Sierra Club, and NRA have all 3: c(3), c(4) and PAC. NRDC, ACLU, Oxfam all have c(3) and (c)(4) organizations. There are plenty of other examples
Most Vermonters, even those who consider themselves pro-choice, do not support unlimited, unrestricted abortion at any stage of pregnancy. I wonder if John Greenberg considers this a witch hunt? https://vtdigger.org/2013/11/19/planned-pa… Planned Parenthood of Northern New England routinely gives money from its 501(c)(3) tax deductible fund to its 501(c)(4) fund for lobbying and political activities. It is documented in their IRS filings.
Greenberg –
My question was: tell me of another organization with a c4 that also gets direct taxpayer funding. The NRA and Sierra Club do not. The NAACP does but indirectly through educational money (some of which must eventually be paid back)…they also don’t donate or lobby on anything near the scale that PP does. This three-headed Planned Parenthood Monster you’ve detailed is truly unique in our political landscape – their ability to reap so much taxpayer money is directly related to their lobbying and political donations. It’s unseemly. And the different organizations are not siloed. They share information, officers, resources and end goals. I reference back to the point i was making…The writer suggests that Gov Scott is waiting on word from his conservative overlords before deciding whether to sign H.57 or not. An absurd notion if you look at the liberal laws that Scott has either sought or allowed to become law under his watch. But if the writer were to ask who the true pupper masters were – who makes donations and actually calls in on those favors – he need look no further than Planned Parenthood.
Sharon Toborg notes that Planned Parenthood’s c(3) gives lobbying grants to its c(4) as shown on its Form 990 (tinyurl.com/yxeyz7lc) on page 34 (and pp 4 and 50). In addition, they spend small amounts directly on lobbying. That’s both true and perfectly legal. All 501(c)(3) organizations are limited as to lobbying (which is, in fact, why c(4)s were formed in the first place). Planned Parenthood’s lobbying is well within the legal limits.
Jeb Tate claims that the NRA does not receive “direct taxpayer funding,” but he’s wrong The NRA has received money from Departments of Homeland Security, Agriculture, and Fish and Wildlife: https://www.quora.com/How-much-funding-if-….
There are more than 1.5 million 501(c)(3) organizations in the US, doing all sorts of things. Despite these claims to the contrary, I’ve already shown that Planned Parenthood is not at all unique in maintaining related c(4) and political organizations.