Google+
Close
The Komen Conflagration
As “women’s health” advocates shriek about Komen, their radical slip shows.

Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women

Text  


Kathryn Jean Lopez

Facts such as these expose the falsity of the simplistic women-vs.-anti-women framing of the Komen news, and anything to do with Planned Parenthood. Charmaine Yoest, whose Americans United for Life published the aforementioned reports, got personally involved with Komen when she found herself suffering from breast cancer. As a pro-life activist, she was discomfited by Komen’s close relationship with Planned Parenthood. There are undoubtedly many more women who would be only too happy to get involved with the group were it not for its unfortunate involvement.

Advertisement
Komen has been outgunned in the PR wars in recent days, but its decision (for which it has now apologized in a desperate attempt to make the public shakedown stop — perhaps a white flag is a more appropriate emblem than a pink ribbon) never deserved the hellish backlash that Planned Parenthood and its defenders unleashed on it. A fair-minded observer could reasonably view Komen’s decision as inevitable: In a day when so many of us have such unprecedented access to a vast array of information resources, it was increasingly hard for Komen to overlook the fact that Planned Parenthood is not exactly a mecca for mammograms – Planned Parenthood doesn’t do them and they don’t even have the facilities to do them. Komen’s mission to end breast cancer was thus not being directly served by Planned Parenthood, which was at best a middleman in that fight. And even with its regrettable backpedaling, Komen’s reservations about working with the organization have struck a blow to the conventional spin that women’s health and pro-abortion views are inextricably linked.

Many pro-life activists, while initially encouraged, were not deluded into thinking that they’ve would have changed the world of medicine or philanthropy if Komen had stuck with its decision to move its dollars elsewhere. But they want more research into any medical link between abortion or contraceptive pills and breast cancer and, while Komen might logically support such research, that is not likely to happen while Komen remains so close to Planned Parenthood.

The real pity of commentators looking for some kind of scandal in Komen’s even daring to make a business decision to review its Planned Parenthood grants is that there is actually a fair, non-partisan way to analyze Komen’s initial decision. That Slate item demonstrates this. Outrage, meanwhile, at both the decision and any suggestion that there are people in Komen who might oppose abortion betrays a real ideological isolation. It so happens that pro-life Republican women get breast cancer too, and their personal combat with death isn’t likely to convert them to embracing an ideology that is disturbingly comfortable with erring on the side of death.

Unlike Terry O’Neill and her friends on MSNBC, I make no predictions about Komen’s future. But it’s safe to say that the discerning news consumer might just be a little more skeptical about “women’s health” rhetoric, in the light of some of the hysterics with which Komen’s former political and media sisters turned on the organization. Actual women’s health deserves better — individual human lives deserve better — than ideological purity tests and search-and-destroy missions.  

— Kathryn Jean Lopez is the editor-at-large of National Review Online. This column is available exclusively through Andrews McMeel Universal’s Newspaper Enterprise Association.



Text