Much of the American media have been overtaken by a cancerous rhetoric in recent days: It has been suggested that the Susan G. Komen Foundation, the breast-cancer charity, should be no more. In the eyes of many, such as National Organization for Women president, Terry O’Neill, Komen has gone from being a women’s health charity to becoming “anti-woman.” O’Neill predicted to MSNBC host Ed Schulz that, within five years or so, Komen will cease to exist. And good riddance!
Komen — which had literally turned the White House pink for breast-cancer awareness, and had pink products all over the Macy’s makeup counter this Christmas — has been an overwhelming presence in American culture. It is the force behind the walks for breast-cancer education, fundraising, and memorializing. Its campaigns are everywhere. And just yesterday, it seems, it was regarded a good sister to the liberal-feminist sisterhood, endorsed by the likes of O’Neill and the political activists who keep the Democratic party singing the abortion industry’s tune. That, however, was until Komen crossed Planned Parenthood.
Advertisement
Komen announced that it would halt grants to Planned Parenthood, and was immediately accused of having surrendered to misogynistic pro-lifers. It is true that Komen has long been subject to pro-life boycott efforts as a result of its relationship with Planned Parenthood. My sense was that this was, for a long time, a disorganized, scattered campaign (it not quite being the Planned Parenthood machine). But in the last year, the shield that had long protected Planned Parenthood cracked a bit, precipitating a House vote last year to cut off federal funds for the first time.
Recently, it’s become harder to ignore the fact that Planned Parenthood is not a benign friend to women, but an institution with a poisonous, eugenic past and a distressing present. When young Lila Rose’s undercover videos flooded the web in February 2011, it raised questions about what was, at best, a failure to report criminal activity, and at worst a conspiracy to provide a “safe haven sex traffickers.” And long before her, Phill Kline, a prosecutor in Kansas, brought charges against the organization that should have set off all kinds of child-endangerment alarms. Instead, he unleashed on himself an unmistakable campaign of personal-destruction that continues to this day. (Perhaps Komen can relate a little to Kline right now?)
Even Slate — hardly a conservative or pro-life ally — admits that critics of Planned Parenthood have raised “some legitimate concerns”:
Planned Parenthood offices in California, New Jersey, New York, and Washington state have at various times been audited by state and federal authorizes and discovered to have been overbilling state agencies and committing other improper billing practices. Further, Planned Parenthood has a record of not reporting instances of sexual abuse — and I’m not talking about 16-year-old girls who come in with their 19-year-old boyfriends. The AUL report documents a case in which a 13-year-old girl was raped by an older foster brother and was impregnated — twice. Planned Parenthood is required, if it wants to receive federal funds, to comply with mandatory reporting laws.
There is a bigger hyposcrisy in women's issues than the simple abortion funding debate. Mainly, the outrage from one side of the women's movement that the PC sisterhood stance should not be questioned.
Why should any woman be compelled to fund an organization that peddles BC pills which have a known link to breast cancer and that performs abortions which may also have a link to breast cancer with money from and for the victims of breast cancer?
Perhaps it is time for the Elizabeth Cady Stanton side of the movement to exercise more vision and monetary clout, to provide new opportunities for women to promote family planning and family health, rather than the PC of PP.
Exactly! Obama is taking the choice out of pro choice.
This gives those arguing against him the high ground on 2 fronts. First, he is forcing Catholics to act against their core beliefs. And second, liberals just lost the "who is intruding on whose personal space" argument. I think he painted himself into a corner.
Facts are facts so please try and stick to them.
First the Catholic Church and Catholics in general are not being told they have to do anything that is against their faith. They are being told that if Catholic hospitals and other entities wish to receive federal money (tax payer dollars) they have they can not discriminate against Non-Catholic or Non-Practicing Catholics by limiting insurance coverage choices based on a religious belief.
Why because the Constitution prohibits the Federal government from supporting any religion. That's the law. You are free to start a Constitutional amendment to change that but until you succeed it is the law of the land. Not unlike the law that says no Federal dollars can be used for abortion.
Typical flawed reasoning. No one forces anyone to work in Catholic hospitals. If the benefits are A and the potential employee wants B, then don't accept a position there. Obama's intentions are three-fold: force Catholics to submit against their will to this mandate (a typical move to force them into Dhimmitude, something that would please our Muslim President); b) hope the Church tells him to go to hell, wherein he can unleash the government on them, or c) hope the church tells him they'll close their doors, which will provide the opportunity to take seize the hospitals, leaving more people on the government health plans, who'll in their sickly state will be culled from life by the death panels, leaving more "resources" for the elite slimebags to graft away in their lives of excess and power. MAN I'm looking forward to Judgment Day.
You are spot on with that. If you want federal funds, you're going to have to accept on their terms. Otherwise, you're on your own to provide, for example, medical coverage.
But, if that private medical company doesn't have "approval status" as per Obamacare, because the company will not cover abortions, then there's still a fine -- as well as the costs of purchasing that private insurance. This, of course, presumes that there WILL be any private insurance left.
When Obama made the crack about government health care being just another competitor, he failed to mention that that "competitor" writes the rules for the whole industry, thus affecting the other insurance companies -- and has the power to exempt itself from whatever limitations -- and has the power of the state to compel higher taxes/fines, instead of earning it like a real business. As a result, it is a very real danger that private health insurance will not be able to compete and will then fold, leaving only government health care to be the only game in town, free to dictate any requirement on any group that offers -- and would be compelled to offer -- health insurance.
Since most Komen small-dollar contributors were probably unaware of the PP connection, it's unlikely Komen will now receive much money from those who are pro-life (Macy's and the like certainly won't have Komen pink around anymore). Komen will have to rely, more-and-more, on donations from those on the other side of this issue. When Komen collapsed under pressure it turned itself, instantly, from a non-partisan to a leftist organization.
Planned Parenthood and its friends now OWN Komen. Moral: don't get involved with PP, or you will be PP, always and forever.
So, let me get this straight....you guys who want to ban abortion and only allow rich women to have them (by taking trips overseas, etc) are the "pro-choice" ones...
and people who want to give women (including poor women) the ability to obtain an abortion if they need one are the ones "taking away choice".
Excuse me, I need to go read my Orwell and study "doublethink".
Mammograms are not the end-all, be-all of breast cancer detection. For women under 40 with no family history of breast cancer, manual breast exams performed by a women herself or a trained professional are the first line of defense. Planned Parenthood performs about 5 times as many cancer screenings every year as they do abortions. Just because they refer women to a specialist for mammograms (just like every other doctor) doesn't mean they're doing nothing to screen for breast cancer.
I have a couple problems with the Komen organization. I think they are funneling much needed money out of the "cancer" research and into just breast cancer research. Breast cancer has one of the highest survival rates of all the cancers. That's why they have such a large following, many are the survivors who align themselves with the organization. A pancreatic cancer group couldn't get those numbers assembled as most die from it.
And by aligning themselves with PP they are overlooking the link between abortions and breast cancer. Neither does women in general any good. And for PP to scream bloody murder about such a small percentage of it's funding says a lot about that organization. I'll be avoiding both of them when donation letters appear.
Let's not forget that breast cancer is NOT unique to women - a small number of men get it, too. This isn't ovarian cancer, which can ONLY be contracted by women. Unfortunately, this is overlooked because the feminist movement found it a useful issue to raise funds by claiming it is a unique issue to women - which is reflected in the rhetoric you cite from PP
I completely agree with the nature of this post. At least Ms. Lopez is trying to talk to the real people who disagreed with Komen's decision, the men and women who support the pro-choice movement. They were the ones that powered the outrage that brought Komen to it's knees.
The only thing I disagree with is the thought that they never "deserved the hellish backlash" that those defenders unleashed upon it. Unless this is a call for greater civility in politics. I think that a large number of people, a larger number than pro-life supports expected or hoped for, just disagreed with the decision.
I don't think there's some conspiracy of powerful people coordinating the weak minds of the public to create such a powerful backlash. It just appears to me that more people seem to be ok with a breast-cancer organization paying Planned Parenthood to do breast-cancer screenings even though they also conduct abortions, and they seem to be displeased at that funding apparently being withdrawn over a non (or at least non-proven) breast cancer related issue - even one as important as abortion. What this proved to me is that there are a lot more people who support Planned Parenthood for their other services, even if they don't support abortion. If pro-lifers really hope to end Planned Parenthood, they'll need to convince them to change their minds not only on this issue but many other "gray" issues.
And I don't think that's done by telling people that their opinions aren't their own and that they're being manipulated into their views by powerful liberal forces. That's like saying the pro-life movement isn't really pro-life, they're just being manipulated by the church or Fox News. Maybe trying civility (even if you don't feel the other side is doing the same) is a better strategy.
Pro-choice has nothing to do with "choice." It is a code term for advocacy of unlimited abortion on demand, and has been for years. It is the political cant and herd thinking of the leftist mass media that has allowed such a canard to exist and thrive in the American body politic.
While I generally commend the Komen Foundation for its battle against breast cancer, I've had trouble understanding how Planned Parenthood's function has any relation to the purposes of this foundation. I haven't been asked to donate money to the foundation in a while, but now, I'm not giving them any money for sure after their cowardly and craven cave-in to the pro-abortion ideologues and femi-Nazis (if that term is good enough for Rush, it's good enough for me).
What matters here is the sacrament, which isn't "women's health."
Of course, pro-life women get breast cancer ... but when they get breast cancer, it's punishment from 'god' for their apostasy.
Therefore (say the PP Nazis) their lives, their children, their families, their friends don't deserve any compassion .... they're just getting what's coming to them for daring to object to almighty abortion.
Follow
