This statement should be self-evident.
However, after reading last week’s post by my friend, Yvonne Larsen, on this website about a recent Texas Supreme Court opinion, I feel I must reiterate that the Greater Houston Partnership is not Planned Parenthood.
The difference between these two organizations, and between their respective financial relationships (if any) with state and local governments in Texas, is the reason why I take issue with Yvonne’s post.
Background:
The Greater Houston Partnership (like many other local “chambers of commerce” across the state) has entered into contracts with city and county governments in the Houston metropolitan area to provide specific services in return for payment for those services. However, the amount it receives from governments under these contracts comprises a minor amount of the money it receives annually.
A citizen filed a very broad request under the Texas Public Information Act (“TPIA”) to obtain documents from the Greater Houston Partnership (“GHP”), arguing that GHP was a “governmental body” subject to the disclosure regime of the statute because of these contracts. Among the items sought were the entire check registers kept by GHP for all of its activities during 2007 and 2008, regardless of whether the funds received and spent as reflected in the ledgers were related to the contracts with city or county governments.
Faced with this broad request for virtually all of GHP’s financial records, the Attorney General applied an old federal-court ruling to construe the TPIA and determined that GHP had received governmental funds, so it was a governmental body. The Third Court of Appeals in Austin affirmed the trial court’s decision in a very broad ruling, the reasoning of which could have made any private entity, that received any governmental funds for any reason, a governmental body subject to the TPIA disclosure requirements for all purposes. That is, if you get one dollar for providing a service to the state, you’re now a governmental body whose records are subject to TPIA disclosure.
This broad ruling, and the old federal-court case it relied upon, formed the basis of the review of the appellate decision by the Supreme Court that Yvonne criticized. The breadth of the lower-court opinion startled many private organizations across the state, which do business with, and/or receive funds from, state and local governments. Out of the blue all of the records created and kept by these organizations might now be subject to the TPIA if they received any funds from the state—even if they received them in return for providing contractual services. So, several organizations filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court requesting the court to review the appellate court’s broad interpretation of “governmental body” and to provide a narrow, understandable framework for determining what type of financial relationship might give rise to TPIA coverage. In fact, these filings included an unprecedented joint brief filed on behalf of the Chairs of both the Harris County Republican Party and the Harris County Democratic Party, who were concerned that the acceptance of state funds to defray costs of running primary elections, which already is subject to strict disclosure requirements, could now subject all of the internal affairs of both parties to the TPIA disclosure requirements (and, as a matter of full disclosure, I helped prepare that brief as Legal Counsel for the HCRP).
Now to the Supreme Court’s decision (which may be found here http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008506/130745.pdf, with the dissenting opinion found here http://www.txcourts.gov/media/1008507/130745d.pdf):
In a thoughtful and thorough 26-page discussion of the TPIA, a six-justice majority of the Texas Supreme Court reversed the broad ruling of the Austin Court of Appeals. In doing so, the Court did not establish any new or novel rule of law, but correctly applied existing law to the TPIA and to the contractual relationship between the GHP and other governmental entities. Specifically, the court determined
- The TPIA’s definition of “governmental body” was unambiguous;
- Because the statute was unambiguous, the Attorney General’s reliance on an old federal court case was inapplicable, because the old opinion created a standard for determining whether an entity was a “governmental body” that was not based on the unambiguous language of the TPIA; and
- That the nature of the contractual relationship between the GHP and local governments, and the amount of the funds received by the GHP in relationship to its overall operation and funding, did not subject it to the disclosure requirements of the TPIA because GHP was not “wholly or partially sustained by public funds.”
Understanding that last determination—which comprises the core of the opinion—is critical for addressing Yvonne’s concerns.
The court’s rule governing how the statute must be construed and applied in future cases by the Attorney General will still require case-by-case applications. Moreover, because no one involved in the case—the individual who sought all of GHP’s financial records, GHP, or the Attorney General—sought to limit the request to GHP’s actual work for local governments, the court’s ruling arguably did not address that portion of the statutory language that applies the “governmental body” definition to “parts” of organizations that may be sustained “in whole or in part by public funds.” Additionally, as the court pointed out, the financial records sought under the TPIA request are not beyond public disclosure requirements, because the government agencies involved in the disbursing the public funds are subject to the TPIA.
So, I go back to the statement I made at the beginning of this post.
Simply inserting “Planned Parenthood” into the first three paragraphs of the majority opinion, as Yvonne did, does not tell you anything about how the Attorney General will apply the court’s ruling to future TPIA requests directed to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is not a chamber of commerce, and some (if not most) of its services are provided under public grants and programs totally unlike the contractual relationships between chambers of commerce and local governments. Any properly tailored request directed to the activities of the parts of Planned Parenthood that may be sustained by public funds will still be evaluated by the Attorney General and could be subject to disclosure under the TPIA. All this recent opinion does is provide the proper legal basis for conducting that evaluation.
Finally, it is too simplistic and very unfair to characterize the recent opinion as being solely attributable to Justice Guzman. Six of the nine justices had to review and agree with the 26-page opinion before it was issued. Such opinions are the product of a joint effort of those justices.
We all need to be vigilant in our attention to how our elected judiciary construes and applies the law of this state. But we also have a duty not to misconstrue their decisions. Unfortunately, Yvonne’s post last week misconstrued the recent work of the court, and ended up misplacing criticism on a fine Justice of that court, as well as on her colleagues who joined that opinion.
Very simply to state Ed, you left out a lot. The Supreme Court turned down the appeal in October of 2014. But the GHP did a little arm twisting and got another bite at the apple. It is not as you are stating. GHP received funding in a broad sense and not for a specific purpose, parts, pieces, hours, labor, materials etc……, and it is not as you describe that a private business would be subject to the act unless it got literally blank checks.
The Kneeland decision was very specific. If you take any public funds in whole or in part and it is not specific, ie. parts, pieces, hours, pagers, paper and detailed, then you are subject to the TPIA. Now you have hundreds of entities that took and are taking public funds all claiming that they don’t have to account for anything anymore. This “John Roberts Court” is basically legislating from the bench and doing what the Legislature is entitled only to do. Sad you can’t see that, or that you are ignoring the facts in the case. Had the GHP kept separate books and taken specific funds for specific itemized parts, pieces, hours…..then it would be different. Instead they commingled the funds and put them in their general account, hence the request to see all of their registers…..
The Greater Partnership of Houston is Planned Parenthood. And Planned Parenthood is the Greater Partnership of Houston. Planned Parenthood has been an active partner in GPH since 1994 as both a 501 D (non profit) Charitable Medical Trust and (Barak/Hillary campaign supporting) Political Action Committee “non-profit” tax payer, corporate, and foundation (trust) funded abortion, contraceptive, sterilization, STD prevention provider. Planned Parenthood as a 501D Charitable Medical Non-Profit/PAC is identical to the Clinton’s Global Initiative. Clinton’s Global Initiative is a PAC serving as the campaign fund raising platform for Hillary’s 2016 Presidential Bid. As a non profit charitable medical 501D, Clinton’s Global Initiative has received tens of billions of tax dollars to “end AIDS in Africa via “Bubba Bill’s “brother” and Hillary’s “brother in law” GW Bush from 2000 to 2008. “Pro LIfe” GW also handed over 3.8 billion dollars to Planned Parenthood while President. In turn, Planned Parenthood has given over a hundred thousand dollars to Global Initiative while Hillary was SoS, and received billions of dollars in government contracts to promote abortion, contraception, sterilization, and the LBGT agenda internationally in return.
Simply go to Greater Partnership of Houston’s on line Membership Directory and type in Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast I-45 member since 1994 with a current executive profile comes up. This rash of expose videos clearly documenting Planned Parenthood manufacturing baby part bio products and marketing them for financial gain is not only criminal in the act, but threatens Planned Parenthood’s tax exempt status as a non-profit medical charitable 501D if they profit from the sales. Just as PP is GPH, PP, a tax exempt non profit charity, is profiting from the sale of baby parts. To cover this horrendous criminality up by preempitively shielding PP I-45, a GPH partner, from criminal investigation threatening PP I-45’s 501 D non profit tax exempt status, appears to be the ramification of Judge Eva Guzman’s Majority Decision concerning GPH and TPIA truncating.
. In the videos, Planned Parenthood doctors and high executive administrators say they sell the baby parts at cost of procedure modification to secure requested specific baby parts, say a liver. It is illegal to change the abortion procedure to partial birth in making the abortion procedure end organ retrieval, and not first and foremost a legal abortion on demand paid for by the woman having the abortion.. So whether they are compensated at cost maintaining their “non profit” status becomes irrelevant to the fact that in changing the procedure to procure organs to sell at cost, they have committed partial birth abortion (illegal abortion) and broken the legal abortion on demand contract with the woman paying for the abortion initially. .
Planned Parenthood executives in their video price versus. cost haggling beg the question, where are they procuring the aborted babies in the first place whose modified abortion procedures justify Planned Parenthood being financially compensated at costs as a “non-profit” medical charity 501D?
Not from the relatively few abortions done daily at the PP 1-45, the largest late term United Surgical Partner’s franchised out patient abortion clinic in the western world. Since 2010 PP I-45 Gulf Coast Houston has commanded less than 10{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the surgical abortion business in Houston. And yet in the most recently released video today, the PP I-45 Executive Director of the baby parts bio product secondary revenue flow division tells undercover investigators that the Third Floor Life Donation Center in the PP I-45 is the greatest supplier of baby part bio product in the nation, with product exceeding all other Planned Parenthood baby bio product providers in the nation combined.
So where does Planned Parenthood I-45 get all those aborted baby bodies if the PP I-45 does so few relative to its massive capacity to do hundreds daily. Captured on video many times are regular deliveries of “frozen” aborted babies in styrofoam beer coolers, aborted at local “abortion mills. These abortion mills, that Perry’s “United Surgical Partners”HB2 Law “outpatient” mandate aimed at putting out of the abortion business, have 90{997ab4c1e65fa660c64e6dfea23d436a73c89d6254ad3ae72f887cf583448986} of the surgical abortion market.. HB2 was intended to shut down all non USP independent abortion providers unless they paid a million and became USP outpatient doctor owned abortion clinics franchises. But HB2 has blown up both in Perry and Abbotts face, as well as PP I-45, via their mutual exoneration of USP franchised Dr. Douglas Karpen for aborting babies alive to twist their heads off. Because of Karpen’s exoneration by Devon Anderson’s Chip Davis Key Man Jury on December 12th, 2013, Karpen continues to twist the heads off of new born aborted babies..
In receiving the frozen bodies of aborted babies from non-USP abortion mills-an example of an abortion mill is Dr. Rosenfel’s Women’s Clinic which does 50 to 60 abortions from 7;30 to 10:30 daily six days a week in Houston-. PP-1-45 capitalizes on their “Mill” abortion providers dominate business share by solving their logistic problem of what to do with thousands of aborted babies. In payment, PP I-45 which has negligible aborted baby body volume through their business share, receives thousands of aborted babies from the mills delivered frozen in coolers. Usually Thursday mornings.. If the mills are also paid per body, then the mills have violated Federal Law in the selling for profit fetal tissue.
Planned Parenthood I-45 in receiving thousands of aborted baby bodies via styrofoam coolers brought in dilapidated cars by desperate poor with whom I myself have commiserated with as they claim to need the job to feed their families . (When I asked them what’s in the coolers, they reply”Baby blood for medicine,” or “baby parts.” ) is not doing the abortions at PP-I45 in the first place, and do not have the permission of the mill abortee to market her aborted child’s body.. Whats left of these children after PP I-45 has harvested their mangled bodies Stericycle representatives come and take away to incinorate. , Bain Capital’s CEO Mitt Romney made 45 million turning this human bio waste disposal company around by embedding them in the abortion industry.
PP I-45 does not abort the vast volume of the baby bodies they sell for profit.
Let GHP return tax payer funds ans demonstrate to the world that it holds to free markets, private enterprise and yes, open government. Let it stand on even greater Houston partnership principles and denounce the murder and dissection of human lives by Planned Parenthood or anyone else. Then we will know that GHP is not Planned Parenthood.
Thank you Fr. Christopher Terry for a well informed expose of GHP-PP.
I want to thank both Father Terry and Mr. Heath for your comments. You both point to the moral crisis of abortion and to Planned Parenthood’s role in enabling that crisis to continue. But your comments also demonstrate the reason why injecting Planned Parenthood into a policy discussion must be done carefully: it is the flint that can ignite a firestorm that often diverts all debate from the original issue. That is the problem I saw, and continue to see, with Yvonne’s recent post—using Planned Parenthood as the straw man by which to criticize the Supreme Court’s recent interpretation of the TPIA, and its application to the contracts between chambers of commerce and local governments, was inappropriate and would end up changing the subject away from the TPIA and toward Planned Parenthood. In the process it would smear fine people, like Justice Guzman, who have been consistently pro-life throughout their public careers, as well as fine jurists.
Whether GHP or any other chamber of commerce has enabled Planned Parenthood directly or indirectly should be a topic of conversation and possible action, but it has nothing to do with whether the GHP’s records are subject to disclosure under the TPIA. Whether there should be more sunshine focused on the contracts between chambers of commerce and local governments has nothing to do with the current language of the TPIA and it proper interpretation by the Supreme Court—or with Planned Parenthood. The way to address these issues going forward is to submit new legislation that would address public funding, and the activities, of Planned Parenthood, and new legislation amending the TPIA to address the issue of outsourcing governmental activities to chambers of commerce. This would allow full public debate of the issues. However, the conservative answer is not to coerce the court, or the Attorney General, to misread the TPIA and apply it in a way that is contrary to its language, by injecting Planned Parenthood as a straw man into the debate. The ends don’t justify those means.
Mr. Hubbard….you failed to disclose that you work for a law firm that donates to the GHP…..the question is what does GHP give to Planned Parenthood?
Also it seems that the justice writing the majority decision has a very non conservative history: http://www.constructioncitizen.com/blog/ser-houston-800-return-investment-video/1309111
Fr. Christoper Terry, O.P. says it quite well…as do the videos that have been recently released that reveal first hand what the “perpetrators” have claimed just the opposite……
Reminds me of the Tom Cruise line: “….did you order the code red?…..”
Foolme,
Yes, my law firm is a member of the local chamber of commerce, as are many law firms and businesses. In fact, we probably are a member of the local chamber in every city in which we have an office. Although I have not researched the issue, my guess is that there are law-firm members of chambers of commerce that appeared arguing for both sides in GHP case. In any event, I did disclose my interest in the issue before the court.
But this again is a straw-man issue that has nothing to do with my legal analysis of correctness of the recent Supreme Court decision. Just as Justice Guzman’s relationship to SER says nothing about whether she is conservative. She received job training from a group that was started in partnership with the U.S. Navy. As a result of being part of that program, she was a member of an AFL-CIO union at one time; remember, Ronald Reagan was not just a member of an AFL-CIO union, he was the president of the union. And she received an achievement award from SER. None of this puts in question her conservative politics or beliefs. Just as Planned Parenthood, the recent videos, and Father Terry’s comment, have nothing to do with how the Supreme Court interpreted and applied the TPIA to GHP’s contractual relationships with local governments.
I understand that you believe the majority got it wrong, and I respect your analysis and opinion though I disagree with it. But let’s keep the discussion on the merits of the court’s interpretation of the TPIA, and not dig this hole any deeper by continuing to argue about Planned Parenthood and Justice Guzman’s conservatism.
Good debate all, once again proving Big Jolly readers are the most informed readers in our community.