Get FREE NRO Newsletters

 

June 11 Issue  |  Subscribe  |  Renew


New on NRO . . .
Close
The Liberal Enforcers
Komen couldn’t be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion.

By Mark Steyn


About Author Archive Latest RSS Send Follow•   followers

Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richards


Text  

As Senator Obama said during the 2008 campaign, words matter. Modern “liberalism” is strikingly illiberal; the high priests of “tolerance” are increasingly intolerant of even the mildest dissent; and those who profess to “celebrate diversity” coerce ever more ruthlessly a narrow homogeneity. Thus, the Obama administration’s insistence that Catholic institutions must be compelled to provide free contraception, sterilization, and abortifacients. This has less to do with any utilitarian benefit a condomless janitor at a Catholic school might derive from Obamacare, and more to do with the liberal muscle of Big Tolerance enforcing one-size-fits-all diversity.

The bigger the Big Government, the smaller everything else: In Sweden, expressing a moral objection to homosexuality is illegal, even on religious grounds, even in church, and a pastor minded to cite the more robust verses of Leviticus would risk four years in jail. In Canada, the courts rule that Catholic schools must allow gay students to take their same-sex dates to the prom. The secular state’s Bureau of Compliance is merciless to apostates to a degree even your fire-breathing imams might marvel at.

Advertisement

Consider the current travails of the Susan G. Komen Foundation. This is the group responsible for introducing the pink “awareness raising” ribbon for breast cancer — as emblematic a symbol of America’s descent into postmodernism as anything. It has spawned a thousand other colored “awareness raising” ribbons: My current favorite is the periwinkle ribbon for acid reflux. We have had phenomenal breakthroughs in hues of awareness-raising ribbons, and for this the Susan G. Komen Foundation deserves due credit.

Until the other day, Komen were also generous patrons of Planned Parenthood, the “women’s health” organization. The foundation then decided it preferred to focus on organizations that are “providing the lifesaving mammogram.” Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms, despite its president, Cecile Richards, testifying to the contrary before Congress last year. Rather, Planned Parenthood provides abortions; it’s the biggest abortion provider in the United States. For the breast-cancer bigwigs to wish to target their grants more relevantly is surely understandable.

But not if you’re a liberal enforcer. Senator Barbara Boxer, with characteristic understatement, compared the Komen Foundation’s Nancy Brinker to Joe McCarthy: “I’m reminded of the McCarthy era, where somebody said: ‘Oh,’ a congressman stands up, a senator, ‘I’m investigating this organization and therefore people should stop funding them.’” But Komen is not a congressman or a senator or any other part of the government, only a private organization. And therefore it is free to give its money to whomever it wishes, isn’t it?

Dream on. Liberals take the same view as the proprietors of the Dar al-Islam: Once they hold this land, they hold it forever. Notwithstanding that those who give to the foundation are specifically giving to support breast-cancer research, Komen could not be permitted to get away with disrespecting Big Abortion. We don’t want to return to the bad old days of the back alley, when a poor vulnerable person who made the mistake of stepping out of line had to be forced into the shadows and have the realities explained to them with a tire iron. Now Big Liberalism’s enforcers do it on the front pages with the panjandrums of tolerance and diversity cheering them all the way. In the wake of Komen’s decision, the Yale School of Public Health told the Washington Post’s Sarah Kliff that its invitation to Nancy Brinker to be its commencement speaker was now “under careful review.” Because God forbid anybody doing a master’s program at an Ivy League institution should be exposed to anyone not in full 100 percent compliance with liberal orthodoxy. The American Association of University Women announced it would no longer sponsor teams for Komen’s “Race for the Cure.” Sure, Komen has raised $2 billion for the cure, but better we never cure breast cancer than let a single errant Injun wander off the abortion reservation. Terry O’Neill of the National Organization for Women said Komen “is no longer an organization whose mission is to advance women’s health.” You preach it, sister. I mean, doesn’t the very idea of an organization obsessively focused on breasts sound suspiciously patriarchal?

As Kate Sheppard, the “reproductive rights” correspondent of Mother Jones, tweeted triumphantly, “Overheard in the office: ‘Come at Cecile Richards, you best not miss.’”

1   2   Next >
Text  

You Might Also Like...

Symposium: Polling Life

Lopez: Taking Back Medicine

Lopez: Desperately Seeking Women

Prager: Who Is Happy?

Lopez: Rape, They Cried

Trinko: Romney: Flip-Flopping on Contraception?



COMMENTS   148

EXPAND  

bnmng
   02/04/12 07:07

Komen's explanations about why it pulled funding from Planned Parenthood don't stand up to investigation. Planned Parenthood is the only resource many woman have for screening, a necessary procedure which doesn't have to be given by an institution which also provides mammograms, and Komen should have announced multiple organizations from which it will pull funding if it was committed to stop supporting organizations which are under investigation.

As you say, Komen is "free to give its money to whomever it wishes", thus it is free to pull funding from Planned Parenthood if it doesn't want to support an organization that performs abortions. But I am free to express my disappointment with that decision as well as the dishonest series of explanations as to why it was made. That so many other citizens expressed the same disappointment represents public opinion, not the strong arm of a few "Liberal Enforcers".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Trinacria12
   02/06/12 17:13

Sorry, sport; false premise. In point of fact, there are any number of options available to an "under resourced" woman who wishes to be screened for breast cancer. Indeed, most of them are FREE, including the Center for Disease Control's free basic breast cancer screening program (External Link ) and the United Breast Cancer Foundation screening program (External Link ).

A 15-second Google search yielded complete information on these and several other programs; however, in the knee-jerk, emotional, ill informed fashion typical of liberals, you elected not to base your position on readily accessible facts, but rather on emotion and flawed logic. Please do us all a favor - argue your liberal position if you must, but do your homework first. It makes it rather more sporting for those of us on the other side.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
David Holland, M.Ed.
   02/04/12 07:46

Well, well. Another community organizer who believes her mission in life is to keep little brown people from being born. That's fabulous. Reading Cecile's bio tells you all you need to know about this leftist leech. Worked for prominent comrades like Nanzi Pelosi and Ted (I wish I was Armand Hammer) Turner. Went to Brown, hmmm wonder if she belonged to the GLBT club? Married to an SEIU thug, er labor organizer who, like many of them, has never labored a day in his life. Politically connected, between the two of them they probably make seven figures, and their on your side as long as you keep the money flowing in their direction. These pieces of detritus are paradigms of hypocrisy. All for one and all for me. No taxpayer funding of abortion? Sure.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Jacob R
   02/04/12 07:55
   02/04/12 08:03

I am tired of liberals. Tired of these statist fools. It is time to ‘storm the gates’. Does no one value freedom anymore?

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Leonard Kramer
   02/06/12 14:59

At least the "statists," as you call them, have stopped calling themselves liberal. The in vogue term now is not liberal but "progressive." It's only a matter of time before they revive the term "fascist" which was in the vanguard of "progressive" thought in the 1920 when Margaret Sanger started "Planned Parenthood" as an organization to "assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit."

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 08:05

Mark,

You're right--the culture of death is in fact a religion of its own, with human sacrifices to demons. Of course they will enforce devotion to this idolatry of the self, and of death.

In addition, they seek power and money, because they worship that too.

But there is another powerful motivator that is greater even than these--the violated conscience. As J. Budziszewski pointed out years ago in his seminal essay "The Revenge of Conscience," the violated conscience doesn't go away; it metastasizes into a cancer that turns the person's whole life into a quest to move the world to match its crazy tilt.

Who knew? While trying to find a cure for a stage four physical cancer, the Susan G. Komen foundation was consumed by a stage four moral cancer -- the anger and hatred of mothers who willfully murdered their innocent and defenseless children, and can tolerate no reminders of their awful deed.

God help them!

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 08:51

"... it metastasizes into a cancer that turns the person's whole life into a quest to move the world to match its crazy tilt."

I think this is the same thing that afflicts those involved in public education, who, like PP with regard to women's "health", are determined to to persuade us that they're actually teaching our children and preparing them for adult life, when in reality they're preparing them to be supporters of doctrinaire conformity, er, diversity, and Planned Parenthood.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 09:25

Your comment is very timely. I heard on the news this morning that a school district in Florida (in Sarasota, I believe) has decided that failing tests and homework assignments will no longer be tolerated. Children who fail will be allowed to redo assignments and retake tests until they receive acceptable grades. According to these educators (liberals, I'm sure), rewarding people who fail will make America strong when what it actually does is reinforce the false notion that there is no penalty for failing and everyone gets a second, third and fourth chance to succeed. We allow educators to give our children false hope and unrealistic expectations and then wonder why they enter adulthood disillusioned and disappointed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 09:30

Gosh, and I thought holding the student back a year gave them the chance to retake tests and redo assignments.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 10:21

I think that Jenna's point was that the allowed re-taking was in lieu of being held back, a practice that was socially perceived as punishment - and punishment is no longer allowed. Re-taking tests without that essentially dilutes the differences between those who prepare for tests and those who do not. Of course, there are those who honestly have difficulties understanding certain subjects no matter how rigorous their preparation, but then they either should learn to know and accept their limitations, and appreciate the abilites of others, or be held back for their own good.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 11:39

I have to go with fc_don on that one. Jenna may have a point, but it doesn't strike a nerve as does the Obama administration forcing Catholics to act against their core beliefs.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Spammeister
   02/05/12 18:26

Carlos, they both seem important to me, an educator. This is the dumbing down of America.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 09:43

It is ironic that these teachers that reward mistakes are part of the litigious society that then sues everyone when they make a mistake. I had a teacher in college that gave no partial credit. It was right or wrong. In engineering the bridge works or it doesn't.
I overheard the English department at our school moaning about the fact that several kids are classified as "disabled" do to minor ADHD and such. They get extra time to do their homework and can re-submit assignments. One teacher after battling with a parent said that she will have to deal with his son for a year, but the father will have him on his couch the rest of his life. She saw some justice in that. In reality we will be paying for him.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Douglas Wolf
   02/04/12 13:20

Actually, there are consequences to failing in this example. Like real life, they must return to the task until completed satisfactorily. Second, in real life you get knocked down and you must get up again. This will teach these kids that failure is a often a step on the way to success. I ask you, did you succeed at everything on the 1st try? This plan is much preferred to simply sending the failed ahead as if they had passed.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/04/12 13:41

Would not redoing assignments and re-taking the tests until a mastery of the topics at hand teach perseverance and discipline? I think that taking the time to teach subjects again until a student learns it will take extra work for teachers and the student, but explain how this shows some sort of ideological laxity. I can see just the opposite.

When in your life you have failed or missed a mark, did you try again or just give up and accept that you could never ever learn what you failed to learn on the first try?

How about "When at first you don't succeed, try try again?"

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
   02/05/12 04:49

"...what it actually does is reinforce the false notion that there is no penalty for failing and everyone gets a second, third and fourth chance to succeed."

Leave Gingrich out of this.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Bert W
   02/05/12 14:48

I thought that was the whole point of "no child left behind".

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Miles Hall
   02/04/12 11:22

Dean,

What an evincing and convicting essay. If diversity and tolerance were truly valued in our society, this would be required reading in college.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Christine Helrigel
   02/04/12 13:59

Well analyzed, Dean from Ohio. I also believe that the violated conscience of millions of aborted women and their co conspirators in death is what drove the intense hatred of Sarah Palin. Sarah's offense? She gave birth to her five children including the one with genetic anomalies and governed a state while doing it. She forever gave the lie to the 'need' for abortion. The guilty consciences of such a large proportion of our population has centered our nation in an irresolvable morass unless a revival comes which convicts and brings to repentance all of these people. The cannot handle the truth.

Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse
Load More Comments

Add a Comment

Already Registered? Log In Here.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.


* Designates a required field.
© National Review Online 2012
All Rights Reserved.
Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital

Gift Subscriptions
NR / Print
NR / Digital
NR Apps
iPhone/iPad
Android

NRO Apps
iPhone
Support Us
Donate
Media Kit
Contact