Yesterday, I wrote about the Susan G. Komen Foundation’s decision to withdraw its grants from Planned Parenthood. I said, “The left immediately went into spin mode, claiming the funds were used for breast screenings and without Komen’s grants, women’s health would be jeopardized.” Initially, the reasoning given was that the abortion provider was under congressional investigation. Later, the Foundation changed its explanation to indicate that the reason Planned Parenthood would no longer receive funding was because it does not provide mammograms to its patients. For the third time in two days, Komen has again changed its story, this time apparently caving to the rabidly pro-choice lobby. This morning, Komen released a statement:
We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants, while maintaining the ability of our affiliates to make funding decisions that meet the needs of their communities.
A look through social media mentions of the breast cancer organization indicate they have achieved the next-to-impossible: They have angered almost every single American. Pro-choice and pro-life Americans feel betrayed and jerked around, moderates in the abortion debate are tired of seeing and hearing their friends on both sides of the debate battle it out. The abortion question is the most contentious of all public policy, and Komen has not only reignited the debate but it has also placed itself in the firing line of both sides.
Unfortunately for those on the pro-life side, there is no choice when it comes to funding Planned Parenthood. While they can choose not to give to Komen or any other charity that gives grants to Planned Parenthood, we are all obligated to pay taxes. Forty-six percent of Planned Parenthood’s funding comes from government health and services reimbursements. That money comes from the forty-nine percent of Americans who are pro-life as well as the 45 percent of Americans who identify as pro-choice.
As if the country wasn’t fractured enough, we may have just seen the opening battle in the Abortion War of 2012. Just in time for election season.
Rabidly pro-Choice, huh…. Yes, then, I guess I am rabid in voicing the right of a woman to have destiny over her body. I am indeed rabid in that I believe rape and incest victims shouldn't have to carry to term the fetus created by their violator. Mostly, though, I am rabid in knowing that poor women have a right to make healthy choices. So if you want to wrap everything up into one, tidy bundle, I guess I am one rabid lefty. n nIf you want to take a methodical witch hunt and propose its appropriateness to cut-off funding that was indeed meant for the most needy in our society, then there is nothing anyone can say to you. However, if you want to use the term rabid to describe my political viewpoint, then understand that there is little I would ever deem worthy from such a pent up perspective. n nI've got no problem with you being pro-Life. But it's not your life we're discussing. It's the people out there whom you apparently care very little regarding. Which makes you a SAD person in my RABID world.
How about digging into your own dam' purse if you want to kill your baby?
If you're so concerned about the cost to you of abortions, how about digging into your own damn wallet to pay for the millions of unwanted and unplanned-for starving children all around the world who are already extant? Why is it that people like you are so hyper-focused on embryos and fetii and yet, like a severely ADHD child, you lose all focus and interest once that child actually comes into the world with messy needs like food, clothing, medical care and caring, welcoming parents equipped to deal with the high level of needs exhibited by most babies?
Destiny over her body?? Indeed, we all have that, in as much as we are responsible with our bodies,but the body in question in abortion is not the woman's, but the life she bears.
Yes, you are a rabit lefty. If you bothered to let a few facts invade your ideology, you'd be forced to acknowledge that less than 3% of all abortions are the result of rape or incest. In other words, 97% of all abortions are the result of consentual sex. n nI'm all in favor of women controlling their bodies. They can start by controlling their knickers.
Exactly right! Elective abortion is about getting rid of a complication in the lives of depraved women.
The choice is made before conception (the choice to take the risk of conceiving). Rape and incest victims need to get whatever they need, but they don't get to write law for the rest of us.
There is a line in the Bible where God says something like, " I knew you when you were in your mother's womb." My spiritual intuition tells me that abortion is not a very good idea at all.
There is another line in the Bible that says As you have done unto others, so shall it be done unto you. n nWhat you have done either to someone else or for them, shall come home to each human being. In Kind. (That means, "Same Seed")
Turns out Rape and Incest are no where near 3% of the abortions. Doubt if they are ONE. n nCULLING for the Marxist Agenda – demeaning and reflecting a terror of the masses.
I always think it's interesting how passionate people are over the right to dismember someone elses body while claiming holy sanctitiy over their own. It's a cruel double standard. It's not the womans fingerprints and skull left behind is it?
I always think it's interesting how passionate people (at least the totalitarian ones) are over teir assertion that they have the right to tell any other person what they may or may not do with their own reproductive organs. And yet with a consistency rate of damned near 100%, those same people almost invariably are the ones who are outraged whenever anyone suggests their taxes should be used to support any kind of social safety net that might assist any children who are born into less than ideal circumstances. Now that's what I call a double standard: meddle just enough to make mess of at least two other people's lives, then when something can't be easily fixed, wash your hands of the problem!
Im happy the Foundation has chosen to do what is right and fair by revising its policy, but Im unlikely to be a supporter of this charity again. This issue was the cherry-on-top after the Komen Foundation wasted hundreds of thousands of donor dollars suing other cancer charities for using cure and for the cure in their fundraising/marketing efforts. I think the Komen Foundation needs some downsizing if it's financial base is large enough for it to be subjected to political pressures resulting in funding policies that compromise their stated mission of saving women's lives. Being pro-life shouldn't begin at conception and end at birth. The born need care and pro-life advocacy, and when their needs are met, perhaps we'll have a world where abortion is no longer considered a necessity by some women.
Bethany, you transposed the percentages. See Gallup link again.
I don't accept the "pro-life" v "pro-choice" framing–who on either side is against life or freedom to choose? Pro-abortion people have the moral high ground. There is no shortage of reproduction–the limiting factor in how much life exists and persists on this planet is habitat. All species, as Malthus discovered to his dismay, including humans, have excess reproduction potential. Every woman discards about 350 eggs during her lifetime. Half of all fertilized eggs fail to implant and die. 20% of those pregnancies that do get started fail due to natural miscarriages. If God is anti-abortion, why does He do so many of them? More important to me are the rights of children to be cared for after they are born. That is a big responsibility that should not be imposed on anyone and any unwanted child is likely to be a victim of some sort of deprivation. And the rest of us pay the consequences of that parental irresponsibility. As a practical matter, there are too many unwanted pregnancies. Countries with legal abortion and good sex education for kids have less abortions. Why not go that route?
This is another illustration of how for too long Americans have permitted organizations and political parties who absolutely don't have their best interest at heart to manipulate and deceive them into wasting their votes and money and how when they are confronted with the fraud they back off and claim it was all a big misunderstanding. PPFA needs to take responsibility for it's own survival now that it is clear the Komen Foundation has become a self absorbed rent seeker controlled by the conservative right with out much concern for it's origional mission.
Original Mission being: destroying the lives of women and feeding Democrat operatives with pocket change, while culling the cattle.
Abortion is the deliberate termination of a human life, one genetically distinct from both mother and father. There may be valid reasons to end that human life, but any argument that would deny that abortion is exactly that ending of a human life proceeds from a vicious, vile, and disgusting lie.
Okay, maybe I'm missing something. How does abortion fit in with curing cancer? I confess I am not getting it. The Komen Foundation's earlier statement seems to mean that the purported cancer screenings weren't up to snuff. Now if I contribute to cure breast cancer and the money is used instead to fund abortions then the non profit who solicited my money was deceiving me. It really doesn't matter whether the other cause was a good cause, it wasn't the one I contributed to. Until I read this I had no idea Komen was giving money to Planned Parenthood. If the money was supposed to be used to fund mammograms, and it wasn't used for that purpose, then PPF was lying. It's that simple. It is not about whether abortion is good or bad in this case its about whether people should be truthful when they solicit funds.
You make a very good point– which is that the accusation that PPFA was diverting mammogram (and other designated funding) to other operations, not only "lying" but in contradiction of law. n nThis point seems to have been obscured in the mudslinging contest here, and (so far) I've seen no solid evidence on the point. Clarification by anyone, appreciated.
I know this isn't why you were asking how abortion fits in with lung cancer, but the philosophical answer is: by abortion advocates equating a fetus with a tumor.
this is a wake-up call to republicans. the swing voters do not like it when u pander to the tea party. abortion should never have been introduced into partisan politics. it is a non-issue. keep pandering to guns, God, and abortion, and u will lose the entire swing vote.
SGK intended to fulfill existing contracts anyway, through 2013. We'll probably just have to wait to see what they end up doing.
Do you have the right to kill your own baby? What sort of egotist puts her own convenience ahead of the life of another person?
I have long considered all Cancer Research charities fundraising efforts to be solely the opportunity to give pocket money to Democrat Marxist operatives, and nothing else. nThe Komen Foundation attempts to dress up donations to Planned Parenthood as "concern for women and women's health in the face of the reality that they are actually just telling women they are UNFIT TO BE PART OF THE BREEDING STOCK of a nation – THEIR CHILDREN UNFIT TO HAVE LIFE IN THE USA just because they are the children of the CULLED WOMEN – CULLED LIKE UNFIT CATTLE from the herd, is insulting and demeaning. n nThe mentality that says it is better for Elites to cull the people like cattle, while it is highly immoral to be teaching these women a healthy lifestyle of being CHOOSEY who and when they sleep with is absolutely on par with the same people teaching the masses that homosexuality is safe because Modern Medicine will protect them from the evils of a destructive lifestyle. n nOh, gee, that didn't work, either, did it. but it doesn't really matter – because the Marxist Message is more important than the consequences SOMEONE ELSE is paying for.
If a woman choses the lifestyle of sleeping around, she should be the one WHO PAYS to remove her child. Should not be funded by other people's money!!!!!! n I resent Hollywood's celebrities, & others, who chose to have a baby " but not be married. nShameful behavior for our young folks. n Dislike the thinking "that everything is ok" for lifestyle selection. Totally wrong message for our youth. Look at trash TV programs, i.e. 16 and having a baby. Disgusting show.
It is WRONG FOR ANYONE TO USE """OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY""" FOR THEIR PERSON CHOICES
ARE WE LOSING ALL MORALS? WHAT HAPPEN TO SHAME IF YOU ACTED STUPID???
Will anyone who ever received a mammogram from PP please stand up?