Althouse: "The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates..."

February 1, 2012

"The nation’s leading breast-cancer charity, Susan G. Komen for the Cure, is halting its partnerships with Planned Parenthood affiliates..."

"... creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women."

103 comments:

Brian Brown said...: “It’s hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying,” Richards told The Associated Press. “It’s really hurtful.”

Awwww!

Liberals shocked rules apply to them. More at 11!; 2/1/12, 9:13 AM
Scott M said...: Isn't the story basically that they can't do work with a partner that's under investigation by Congress?; 2/1/12, 9:14 AM
Triangle Man said...: @Scott M

That is the story, but the rule against giving money to groups under investigation by congress is a new one.; 2/1/12, 9:17 AM
Tim said...: "It’s hard to understand how an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives could have bowed to this kind of bullying,” Richards told The Associated Press. “It’s really hurtful.

Hurtful?

I suppose so, but it surely doesn't hurt has much as being butchered in utero.

As for saving women's lives, I don't suppose planned parenthood has an "abort only males" policy.

Yet.; 2/1/12, 9:17 AM
MadisonMan said...: Lung Cancer kills more women than breast cancer. Maybe Komen should focus on that.; 2/1/12, 9:18 AM
Tim said...: And what the hell is up with one charity donating money to, presumably, another one (notwithstanding the fact Planned Parenthood is an actual, you know, business, albeit "non-profit")?; 2/1/12, 9:19 AM
Triangle Man said...: @MadisonMan

Colon cancer and (soon) pancreatic cancer are also bigger killers of women than breast cancer.; 2/1/12, 9:20 AM
Triangle Man said...: And what the hell is up with one charity donating money to, presumably, another one (notwithstanding the fact Planned Parenthood is an actual, you know, business, albeit "non-profit")?

That is not at all unusual. Komen gives grants to researchers at non-profit Universities (i.e. charities). Komen is a fund-raising and distributing charity. Planned Parenthood is a charity oriented toward providing services.; 2/1/12, 9:21 AM
Brian Brown said...: At issue:

Komen spokeswoman Leslie Aun said the cutoff results from the charity’s newly adopted criteria barring grants to organizations that are under investigation by local, state or federal authorities.

For a majority of Komen's existence they did not give grants to Planned Parenthood.

I think Komen will be ok.

Note: after this wailing and hysteria, I expect Komen to revise this decision within a few months.
These groups are big abortion supporters and that will trump silly rules.; 2/1/12, 9:26 AM
PaulV said...: I thought the Obama death panels had decided that those exams were not economical? Have they studied any links between abortion and breast cancer?; 2/1/12, 9:28 AM
TMink said...: Planned Parenthood does not understand that there are people who want to support cancer research without supporting murder?

There is your problem right there. SGKftC is about saving lives, not ending them.

Plenty of us do not want blood money on our hands.

Trey; 2/1/12, 9:31 AM
Brian Brown said...: Susan Komen was the sister of the then president of Planned Parenthood, Nancy Brinker.

Reading the comments at the Huffington Post about how the Komen foundation is not really for women's health is fun.

Those generous liberals (*snicker*) are all going to stop donating to Komen and give the money to PP, dammit!; 2/1/12, 9:33 AM
Brian Brown said...: Oh, and the left has "uncovered" the scandal here!

Komen's new vice president, Karen Handel, had run for governor of Georgia in 2010 on an aggressively anti-abortion and anti-Planned Parenthood platform and was endorsed by Sarah Palin because of her opposition to reproductive choice.

So, yet again, Palin is to blame.; 2/1/12, 9:37 AM
MadisonMan said...: How do breast exams, by the way, fall under the umbrella of Planned Parenthood?

Sounds like Feature Creep.

Stick to your core reasons. Don't be everything to everyone.; 2/1/12, 9:37 AM
caplight said...: What the article fails to point out is that Planned Parenthood does not warn women of the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions. Many people feel that the connection between the two groups compromises the Komen Foundation's core mission.; 2/1/12, 9:39 AM
Tank said...: Tim said...
And what the hell is up with one charity donating money to, presumably, another one (notwithstanding the fact Planned Parenthood is an actual, you know, business, albeit "non-profit")?

This is totally not unusual. Charities do this ALL the time.

For those who can't understand why breast cancer gets more attention than lung or other cancers in women, ask your girlfriend or wife; they'll know.; 2/1/12, 9:42 AM
DADvocate said...: “It sounds almost trite, going through this with Betsi, but cancer doesn’t care if you’re pro-choice, anti-choice, progressive, conservative,” Hurd said. “Victims of cancer could care less about people’s politics.”

Baloney.

This woman requested to be buried in an Obama t-shirt. Obama and the lefties trumped it up too.

BTW - her outcome will become more common under Obamacare.; 2/1/12, 9:44 AM
bearing said...: I'd like to point out here, by the way, that perhaps PP does "breast exams," but they use that general term for a reason: to make you think they provide mammograms.

They do not.

Many people think they do, however, because they always use careful wording to create the impression that they do mammograms.; 2/1/12, 9:46 AM
Christopher said...: "Stick to your core reasons. Don't be everything to everyone."

If PP was honest about their core reason for existing they would have their funding pulled in no time in almost every state.; 2/1/12, 9:57 AM
edutcher said...: As far as I know, the Komen org had been apolitical, so they may be worried about donations from all those social Conservatives who ball up the works.

/sarc; 2/1/12, 9:57 AM
Known Unknown said...: What the article fails to point out is that Planned Parenthood does not warn women of the increased risk of breast cancer in women who have had abortions. Many people feel that the connection between the two groups compromises the Komen Foundation's core mission.

Bang.; 2/1/12, 9:58 AM
Thorley Winston said...: I don’t get why anyone who cares about finding a cure for breast cancer would send their money to an organization that spends less than one-sixth of the money it receives on research to find a cure when they could give the money directly to a group that does actual breast cancer research.; 2/1/12, 9:59 AM
Seeing Red said...: Seriously, linking giving birth = cancer?; 2/1/12, 10:00 AM
Brian Brown said...: bearing said...
to make you think they provide mammograms

Correct!

Guess how many mammography machines Planned Parenthood has, in the whole nation, for all those "breast exams" they perform?

Zero.

Isn't it funny how the left always has to lie about their political agenda?

Big coincidence, I'm sure...; 2/1/12, 10:01 AM
Carol_Herman said...: In basic physics: Everything that goes up, must come down.

As to charities, I remember the March of Dimes. They never gave either Salk or Sabin any grant money. Do you know why? A cure was gonna cut into their gravy train.; 2/1/12, 10:03 AM
edutcher said...: You may wanna double check that one, hon.; 2/1/12, 10:08 AM
MayBee said...: In 2014, it will be illegal for any woman to not have insurance that covers the full cost of mammograms, birth control, and cancer screenings.
There will be little need for lost-cost providers, because cost will not be an issue.

Given that, is Planned Parenthood a very good investment any more?; 2/1/12, 10:08 AM
Chuck66 said...: I wonder if MSM will describe the NRA as "an iconic institution the defends basic civil rights".; 2/1/12, 10:15 AM
Chuck66 said...: Madman says "Lung Cancer kills more women than breast cancer. Maybe Komen should focus on that."

That is a sore spot with me. Center deases are political causes, so therefore get much more funding per incidence.

AIDs funding is totally out of whack when compared to heart desease and lung cancer.; 2/1/12, 10:16 AM
Chuck66 said...: "If PP was honest about their core reason for existing they would have their funding pulled in no time in almost every state."

60% of all African-American babies in NYC don't make it out alive.

It would be like if NRA not only support gun rights and training, but also ran execution chambers.; 2/1/12, 10:21 AM
Levi Starks said...: You should see the angry and bitter responses at the NPR face book page. it's ugly. Now they're going to only donate directly to PP, which is a great idea, except for the fact that Lefties only support charities with other peoples money. And what little personal money they have set aside for charities is already being given to NPR; 2/1/12, 10:26 AM
Sydney said...: As stated before by others, Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms. They only do breast exams as part of their gyn exams. There is some controversy as to the effectiveness of clinical breast exams in breast cancer prevention:

Data from two large trials do not suggest a beneficial effect of screening by breast self-examination but do suggest increased harm in terms of increased numbers of benign lesions identified and an increased number of biopsies performed. At present, screening by breast self-examination or physical examination cannot be recommended.

It's probably better for the Komen Foundation to concentrate on funding research or mammograms for people who can't afford them (or cancer therapy for people who can't afford it); 2/1/12, 10:29 AM
Anonymous said...: creating a bitter rift, linked to the abortion debate, between two iconic organizations that have assisted millions of women.

Don't forget that while Planned Parenthood has "assisted millions of women" it has killed tens of millions of unborn girls.; 2/1/12, 10:31 AM
Triangle Man said...: As stated before by others, Planned Parenthood doesn't provide mammograms. They only do breast exams as part of their gyn exams. There is some controversy as to the effectiveness of clinical breast exams in breast cancer prevention:

@Sydney

The USPSTF recommends against breast self exam as a screening mechanism. it gets a "D" grade. In other words, it doesn't work, or the harms outweigh the benefits.; 2/1/12, 10:38 AM
Sydney said...: So, Triangle Man and I have presented two independent sources using evidence based medicine that state breast exams are not effective for breast cancer prevention. Why the liberal outcry over the Komen decision? Don't they believe in science?; 2/1/12, 11:12 AM
Michael Haz said...: The Susan G. Komen For The cure organization is in the business of raising money for the Susan G. Komen For the Cure organization.

A small amount of that money is directed to breast cancer research. Most of the money is used for other purposes, including funding a very lagre staff of self-important individuals, and donations to support Planned Parenthood.

My wife had breast cancer. It's awful. It isn't any less awful than pediatric cancer, or prostate cancer or melanoma or pancreatic cancer. Those cancers also kill, but in different ways than breast cancer.

Yet breast cancer has an exhalted position. It is somehow worse than other cancers, maybe because of the breasts. That's not right, placing one group of sufferers above others who suffer just as badly.

We don't donate to the Susan G. Komen For The Cure Organization. Too little of our donation would wind up in research. We donate to the American Canceer Society, which funds research for all types of cancer.

The Susan G. Komen For The Cure organization may have finally realized that the link between abortions and breast cancer is proven science, and therefore stopped donationg money raised to cure breast cancer to Planned Parenthood.

Or maybe their donation level has declined because of thir high overhead and political posturing. I'd bet that's the case.; 2/1/12, 11:34 AM
Joe Schmoe said...: an organization with whom we share a mission of saving women’s lives

I didn't realize getting pregnant was so deadly.; 2/1/12, 11:36 AM
Rusty said...: Here I thought that Planned Parenthood was all about the eugenics.; 2/1/12, 11:47 AM
Sydney said...: Or maybe their donation level has declined because of thir high overhead and political posturing. I'd bet that's the case.

Yes, I think perhaps it is. I know people who stopped donating to Komen when they learned of their link to Planned Parenthood.; 2/1/12, 11:49 AM
Ellen said...: I am a 37 year old woman and I have never had a mammogram. Everytime I have had a pelvic exam, the doctor has also performed a breast exam. Luckily for me, the doctor has never discovered a lump. I am not sure at what age I am supposed to begin getting mammograms, but I am glad that my doctors have at least checked me for lumps.

I am honestly curious about all of the pro-life posters on this blog. At what age did you start having sex? Did you abstain until marriage? Did you use birth control every time you had sex?

I started having sex at age 19. At first I only used condoms as birth control. My first pelvic exam was not at Planned Parenthood, but it was at a facility a lot like it. I was prescribed birth control, and I took it faithfully. I've never been pregnant.

If I had continued using only condoms, I believe that it is much more likely that I would have gotten pregnant. I am not sure what I would have done, but I honestly can't say that I am certain that I wouldn't have had an abortion. In my case, the Planned Parenthood-like facility reduced my chances of getting pregnant and possibly having an abortion. To me, that is worthwhile.; 2/1/12, 11:50 AM
Petunia said...: Komen sends less than 30% of their donations to breast cancer research, and they sue groups who try to use the phrase "for the cure" or the color pink.

There is no scientific evidence linking induced abortion, spontaneous abortion, or stillbirth with breast cancer.; 2/1/12, 11:57 AM
Revenant said...: I like breasts as much as the next heterosexual man, but I'm getting tired of seeing pink ribbons all over the place.; 2/1/12, 12:06 PM
Thorley Winston said...: The Susan G. Komen For The cure organization is in the business of raising money for the Susan G. Komen For the Cure organization.

Agreed as per my previous post, less than one-sixth of the money that they receive is actually spent on trying to find a cure for breast cancer. Most of the funding is spent on “raising awareness” which means that essentially that donors are paying for publicity not progress on a cure. The fact that they’re no longer funding Planned Parenthood (for now) does not alter this fact and it concerns me that so many people who care about finding a cure for breast cancer are still turning a blind eye to this.

If you care about finding a cure for breast cancer or any other worthy cause and you want your charitable contribution to have the most impact, IMO you’re better off NOT donating to groups like Susan G. Komen or the United Way and giving your money directly to the groups that provide the services that you want to support. It’s the only way to make sure your money goes to do the things you really want it to do and you get the biggest bang for your buck.; 2/1/12, 12:07 PM
prairie wind said...: For those who can't understand why breast cancer gets more attention than lung or other cancers in women, ask your girlfriend or wife; they'll know.

That's silly. Women care about their breasts, sure. They also care about other threats to their health. All that pink, though, takes over. Komen has done a thorough job of marketing itself. The flood of pink drowns out information about the dangers of other kinds of cancer. It is more fun--and probably sells more tv and newspaper ads--to report on a bunch of women wearing pink t-shirts that say, "Save the Ta-tas". More serious fund-raising organizations could learn from Komen.

And as for Komen raising money only for breast cancer research...why not? If you think prostate cancer or heart disease deserves more attention, have at it. Develop your own organization to raise money for your pet cause.

If a reporters were serious, someone would have already done a report on Komen and how it spends its money. The trouble is that reporters are cheerleaders, not reporters.; 2/1/12, 12:10 PM
Brian Brown said...: sydney said...
Why the liberal outcry over the Komen decision? Don't they believe in science?

They wouldn't know science if it hit them across the head.

They have been conditioned to respond emotionally (It’s really hurtful) to the idea that Planned Parenthood = "helping women"; 2/1/12, 12:10 PM
Brian Brown said...: Revenant said...
I like breasts as much as the next heterosexual man, but I'm getting tired of seeing pink ribbons all over the place.

You Misogynist!

They're just "raising awareness" you know!!; 2/1/12, 12:12 PM
cubanbob said...: Ellen said...

Hon I hate to break the news to you but long before you were 19 there were birth control pills. Also when you decide to screw you should have at least the vaguest notion that sex can result in pregnancy. Particular note to woman: sex (heterosexual) was intended by nature for the purposes of getting you pregnant so be mindful of that fact before engaging in sex.

As for taking chances, I'm sure we all have done so. What, you want a free get out jail card? What you are saying is geez officer I went to a party and was having such I good time that I didn't realize I got hammered and was driving DUI. Honestly I had no bad intent therefore you should not give me a ticket and arrest me even though I killed someone.

By the way, if you had gotten pregnant, why you have kept the child? Would you have sought child support? And if so, why was it his fault? You were the only party biologically capable of getting pregnant so why didn't you take better precautionary measures?

And if you did have an abortion, what do think really would have happened? That you had a growth removed? Is that what you would have told yourself?; 2/1/12, 12:18 PM
Brian Brown said...: In my case, the Planned Parenthood-like facility reduced my chances of getting pregnant and possibly having an abortion.

From today's news:

Pfizer said on Tuesday it was recalling about 1 million packets of birth control pills in the United States because they may not contain enough contraceptive to prevent pregnancy.

Pfizer said the birth control pills posed no health threat to women but it urged consumers affected by the recall to "begin using a non-hormonal form of contraception immediately."

Additionally, if you are willing to pay for services at, or places similar to, Planned Parenthood, knock yourself out. There is simply no reason the federal government should be giving funding to those places.; 2/1/12, 12:41 PM
MadisonMan said...: cubanbob, did you actually understand one thing that Ellen wrote, other than I started having sex?; 2/1/12, 12:42 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I'm against bitter rifts.

Look..

Its not like this interruption of money is for ever..

They are using it (this story) to fund raise.. painting anti-abortion groups as cold hearted, anti-women meanies.

btw.. good call on the part of the anti-abortion forces.. this is how you go after the abortionists.. were it hurts.; 2/1/12, 12:45 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Come to think of it.. This so called "bitter rift" is total bs.; 2/1/12, 12:46 PM
Sydney said...: Ellen,

I am honestly curious about all of the pro-life posters on this blog. At what age did you start having sex? Did you abstain until marriage? Did you use birth control every time you had sex?

I think Freeman answered this for herself earlier, but for me, I opted to wait to have sex until I was able to care and provide for a baby should it be conceived, even though I used contraceptives. There is always that chance, you know.; 2/1/12, 12:52 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Be aware that organizations and individuals who don't support abortion, and don't want to be connected to Planned Parenthood, were beginning to say, "don't give money to the Komen organization."

Which they had every right to do, by the way.

What we don't know is how much this affected Komen's bottom line; or how much they were concerned about that long-term.

After all, once they acquired the reputation of being involved in abortion, it might cost them a lot long term. They might have a long slog getting rid of that tag.

It would close the doors of a growing number of Catholic and Evangelical organizations, and involve them in controversies they didn't need to be involved with.

And all these weepy tears for saintly Planned Parenthood...besides the millions of unborn girls snuffed out (who cares about boys, right?), what about dear old Margaret Sanger's lovely views on race and eugenics. Whoopsie! Not allowed to mention that!

And how come whenever Planned Parenthood figures in these stories--or the story about Obama coercing the Catholic Church to pay for contraceptives--Planned Parenthood's obvious financial stake in all this...is not deemed relevant?

When a study debunking climate change is funded by an oil company...that's deemed relevant. And so forth.; 2/1/12, 12:54 PM
MayBee said...: If I had continued using only condoms, I believe that it is much more likely that I would have gotten pregnant. I am not sure what I would have done, but I honestly can't say that I am certain that I wouldn't have had an abortion. In my case, the Planned Parenthood-like facility reduced my chances of getting pregnant and possibly having an abortion. To me, that is worthwhile.

I think most people here who are anti-abortion would have no problem with Planned Parenthood if it didn't provide abortions. So I'm not quite sure what you are arguing in this statement.

As for me, I am pro-choice. I have actually defended PP's healthcare services before, but I really can't stand the political way they've tried to turn themselves (their brand name) into the standard-bearer for "women's health". I liked them more when they just quietly did their job and didn't ask to be government-supported heroes.

I was fine with Susan G Komen donating to them, but then I don't donate to SGK. Donating to PP doesn't seem an especially efficient way to help women deal with breast cancer, though.; 2/1/12, 1:08 PM
TWM said...: Planned Parenthood is not about planning anything. It's an abortion mill. Which is fine if you are pro-abortion, but at least be honest and call it what it is.; 2/1/12, 1:08 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: I am honestly curious about all of the pro-life posters on this blog. At what age did you start having sex? Did you abstain until marriage? Did you use birth control every time you had sex?

I think Freeman answered this for herself earlier,

That was someone else.

My answer would be to ignore the overly personal question.

Ellen, the problem with Planned Parenthood is the baby killing, not the birth control.; 2/1/12, 1:11 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: What are the chances that the abortion outfit.. Planned Parenthood's books and papers are full of holes.

Here is Walker, barely a year into his administration, and hes got a hungry DA on his back.. (that's garages story).

Meanwhile it literally takes an act of congress to look into Planned Parenthood.; 2/1/12, 1:16 PM
KCFleming said...: Roe v. Wade remains bitterly divisive.

Like Kelo, stupid to the core.

Like all Commerce clause decisions since 1930, purely socialist and therefore, like Roe, anti-human.

Which is by design, because that's what socialism is.; 2/1/12, 1:19 PM
One Particular Harbor said...: Myself and many other pro-life runners were boycotting the Komen Race for the Cure series because of their link to PP. Even magazines like Women's Running and Runner's World were feeling the backlash for promoting Komen events. I'm not sure that had anything to do with their decision, but I guess they were feeling enough pressure from enough groups that they realized it was a smart financial move to drop the PP connection going forward.

I'm not fond of Komen's perky, pink, cutesy campaigns, but I do feel a lot better about them now. I might even run one of their events, although I really do hate the color pink, and as someone whose maternal grandmother and mother both died of breast cancer in their early fifties, I'm kind of turned off by the vulgar, almost flirty rhetoric they're given to.; 2/1/12, 1:20 PM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Stop sugarcoating it Pogo.. These people are in the sanctioned killing business.; 2/1/12, 1:23 PM
Freeman Hunt said...: Myself and many other pro-life runners were boycotting the Komen Race for the Cure series because of their link to PP.

Same.; 2/1/12, 1:24 PM
Michael Haz said...: Petunia - Perhaps you haven't read the scientific research linking abortion to breast cancer.

Here's a start.; 2/1/12, 1:36 PM
Michael Haz said...: Myself and many other pro-life runners were boycotting the Komen Race for the Cure series because of their link to PP

Ditto. And also the Relay For Life events.; 2/1/12, 1:37 PM
Anonymous said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 2/1/12, 1:37 PM
paul a'barge said...: Who believes Planned Parenthood helped women?

They helped women murder their babies. That is not very helpful.; 2/1/12, 1:42 PM
Anonymous said...: I attended a Walk for the Cure at a local high school in 2004. The whole town was there: local businesses and churches, local politicians, etc. When they dimmed the lights and asked for silence as the candles were lit, it was more than moving.

But if the Susan Komen Foundation is going to take the support of main street, local banks and insurance agents, Kiwanians, Rotarians, Lions, Elks, Boy Scouts, and Baptist and Catholic churches, as well as the good will of millions of people and give it to Planned Parenthood, the Foundation is guaranteed to lose support, including mine. (SKF started working with PP in 2005 and has been losing support in the flyover region ever since.)

PP's favorite "health" projects, contraceptives and abortions, are closely tied to increased risks of cancer in women. Why would the SKF want to give to PP? Does the American Cancer Society give to the Tobacco Institute, or even to RJ Reynolds' pet charities?

Two cheers for SKF. I will give a third cheer when they get serious about cutting their expenses.; 2/1/12, 1:43 PM
Alex said...: I'm boycotting womb priers.; 2/1/12, 2:08 PM
Scott M said...: I'm boycotting womb priers.

Still waiting on your cite, Alex.; 2/1/12, 2:11 PM
Alex said...: Abortion view by religion; 2/1/12, 2:16 PM
Scott M said...: Hmm. You're going to have to help me out, Alex. I'm not sure how that chart backs up your following statement:

Scott - maybe 1% of anti-abortionists are not Christians. It's hardly relevant.

In fact, and this is where I need your help, it looks pretty damned devastating to your point.; 2/1/12, 2:21 PM
Smilin' Jack said...: Ellen, the problem with Planned Parenthood is the baby killing, not the birth control.

Birth control is baby killing. If you don't believe me, ask the Pope.; 2/1/12, 2:28 PM
Alex said...: Scott - I don't know any pro-life atheists.; 2/1/12, 2:38 PM
Sue D'Nhym said...: One helps women in the fight against cancer.

The other helps women kill their offspring (the product of the reproductive processes) before it becomes a cancer to their lifestyle.; 2/1/12, 2:43 PM
Michael in ArchDen said...: Alex, I suspect that the 5% of Jews who believe that abortion should always be illegal will be surprised to find out that they are Christians!

Jack, my reading of Humanae Vitae shows that the pope recognizes that birth control is marriage-killing, respect-killing, culture-killing, and women-killing; but I'm not seeing the part where he definitivly declares it baby-killing. Maybe you could refer to a specific paragraph? This is not to say that there are not arbortifacient properties of SOME birth control methods, just that it is NOT true that ALL birth control results in the death of a baby/person.; 2/1/12, 2:44 PM
Alex said...: Sue - so no abortion in case of incest, rape, danger to the mother?; 2/1/12, 2:44 PM
Scott M said...: Scott - I don't know any pro-life atheists.

That dubious fact has zero to do with 1) your original assertion and 2) the graph you used as your backup.

Not to mention the fact that non-Christian does not equal atheist. Maybe it does in your world, but over here in reality, where most of us live, the world is chock-full of other religions, and, as demonstrated by that chart you used, the percentage of non-Christians that are for "illegal in all cases" is substantially higher than your original "less than one percent" statement. All of which is aside from the fact that a great many people oppose abortion on personal liberty terms that have nothing to do with religion.

What's the half-life on admitting you were wrong?; 2/1/12, 2:45 PM
Love said...: Smilin' Jack said..."Birth control is baby killing. If you don't believe me, ask the Pope."

Ask the Pope? You've got to be kidding.

Hey, but while we're at it, can we also ask him what his thoughts are on pedophile priests being transferred from church to church to avoid detection?; 2/1/12, 2:45 PM
Love said...: "I don't know any pro-life atheists."

You mean..."personally."

Right?

Ridiculous.; 2/1/12, 2:47 PM
Alex said...: Love - truly I don't know a single atheist who isn't pro-choice. Show me one.; 2/1/12, 2:49 PM
Michael in ArchDen said...: Alex, is Nat Hentoff enough of an athiests for you?; 2/1/12, 2:51 PM
Alex said...: Nat Hentfoff - that old Jew? Nobody at the Village Voice will even talk to him anymore.; 2/1/12, 2:53 PM
Love said...: Alex - What in the world are you talking about..."show me."

Who are you to make such a blatantly ridiculous assertion?

The fact that you yourself don't kow an athiest who is pro-choice is irrelevant.

There are all kinds of people that you (or I) do not know "personally" that think and do all kinds of things we might not agree with.

You sound very immature.; 2/1/12, 2:53 PM
Alex said...: Love - you are the one who sounds scared! You know this nation is trending pro-choice. Just look at the young people in school - you will find it very hard to find a crazy controlling fundie types among them.; 2/1/12, 2:56 PM
Love said...: Alex - I don't know about this "trending" thing you mention, but the very graph you provide illustrates a better than 50% percentage of American already approve of abortion under most or specific circumstances.

All of this anti-abortion talk goes right out the window when a loved on is suddenly the one who has to make such a decision.

I find it hard to believe that anyone here, regardless of their beliefs, would discourage an abortion under specific circumstances relating to health, incest or rape.

Talking the talk is different and easier than walking the walk.; 2/1/12, 3:00 PM
Alex said...: Love - way to shift the argument you are losing. It's irrelevant to cite personal circumstances to decide policy. The personal is political.; 2/1/12, 3:01 PM
Scott M said...: Talking the talk is different and easier than walking the walk.

Been there, done that. Made one of each decision possible. Have you?

As far as society at large is concerned, I'm realistic enough to know that the genie isn't going back into the bottle all the way. Even if it was shoved back in there, the probable climate that would have to exist to make that happen after the bullshit of the past three decades is not really fun to contemplate, ie, greater damage to our culture and liberties than I would want me and mine to have to endure. The best case/most realistic that I can see is illegal after the first trimester except in a strictly defined parameter of circumstances that would include threat to the mother, rape, incest, etc. Society norms change over time, so no outcome is beyond the realm of possibility.

It's irrelevant to cite personal circumstances to decide policy. The personal is political.

Do you concentrate on what you're typing or do you just drift in and out.; 2/1/12, 3:10 PM
Mountain Maven said...: It's not much money, $500-700K given PP's $1 billion budget.; 2/1/12, 3:15 PM
Love said...: Scott M said..."Been there, done that. Made one of each decision possible. Have you?"

Yes, as a matter of cat I have.

I found the best way to deal with those decisions was to leave it up to the party who was most affected, that being the woman who was or was not having the abortion.

And, as I said before; talking the talk is irrelevant if you yourself or someone close to you hasn't actually had to make such a decision, and of course, what specific circumstances govern such a decision.

I'll say it again: If men were the ones who had babies there would be no debate.; 2/1/12, 3:15 PM
Love said...: Sorry about the "cat" typo.; 2/1/12, 3:16 PM
Love said...: Alex said..."Love - way to shift the argument you are losing. It's irrelevant to cite personal circumstances to decide policy. The personal is political."

I'm not entirely sure what that means.

Could you clarify?; 2/1/12, 3:17 PM
Scott M said...: I'll say it again: If men were the ones who had babies there would be no debate.

I'll assume this is snark because trying to take it seriously is impossible.; 2/1/12, 3:19 PM
Banshee said...: (In cases of incest or rape. Such a strange expression. As if incestuous rapes weren't rape.)

I am in favor of punishing all rapists, but not killing a baby and putting blood on the hands of a woman and the medical profession.

No death penalty for the unborn, when it's their fathers to blame.

No making women sweep incest's "accidents" under the rug, letting their abusers get away with more abuse.

No more murder to cover up lies, no more piling blood guilt on top of victimization.

No more.; 2/1/12, 3:42 PM
Love said...: Scott M - No it's not a "snark."

I personally do not think men would allow such a debate relating to what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

How many men do you think get their vasectomy done...versus the woman getting a tubal ligation?

It's about two to one.; 2/1/12, 4:40 PM
Love said...: Suburbanbanshee -

"(In cases of incest or rape. Such a strange expression. As if incestuous rapes weren't rape.)"

All incest is not rape.

"I am in favor of punishing all rapists, but not killing a baby and putting blood on the hands of a woman and the medical profession."

That's nice, but at least 3 out of 4 rapes aren't even reported and rapist sometimes are not convicted and can sometimes do very little time in prison.
The woman is left with the decision regaring the abortion or having the rapist's child.

"No death penalty for the unborn, when it's their fathers to blame."

That's based on your opinion that the unborn are in fact human beings.

"No making women sweep incest's "accidents" under the rug, letting their abusers get away with more abuse."

Wonderful thought, but how would you propose doing this?

"No more murder to cover up lies, no more piling blood guilt on top of victimization."

That's rather confusing at best.

"No more."

Oh, okay.; 2/1/12, 4:45 PM
Brian Brown said...: I found the best way to deal with those decisions was to leave it up to the party who was most affected, that being the woman who was or was not having the abortion.

Hysterical.

"the party most affected" is clearly not the woman having the abortion.

Carry on with your dumbass talking points now.; 2/1/12, 4:52 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Love said:

"That's based on your opinion that the unborn are in fact human beings."

Whether the entity that grows within the womb of human female is likewise human is hardly a matter of opinion; it is a matter of fact.

And, while you may not know this, but science has accomplished remarkable things, and has done quite a lot research on this! They've discovered this stuff called DNA, and lo and behold, every species can be identified by distinctive DNA--in addition to other distinctive traits.

And, well, there are other scientists working in other fields, and it all adds up to this remarkable thing: that they find that when a female mammal is bearing young--the young happen to be the same species!

So if a human being is pregnant...she's pregnant with a human being.; 2/1/12, 5:26 PM
Fr Martin Fox said...: Suburbanbanshee said:

"I am in favor of punishing all rapists, but not killing a baby and putting blood on the hands of a woman and the medical profession."

Love replied:

"That's nice, but at least 3 out of 4 rapes aren't even reported and rapist sometimes are not convicted and can sometimes do very little time in prison.

The woman is left with the decision regaring the abortion or having the rapist's child."

So what? Does it not occur to folks to ask whether getting an abortion is really helpful for the woman who was raped. (Setting aside both the question of how often this actually occurs; and also, what do you do when women claim to be raped in order to get an abortion, when that is a remaining loophole.)

There is certainly anecdotal evidence for women being further damaged by the experience of an abortion--and I suspect there are actual studies, although that's not my field so I'll make no assertions about that.

But it certainly stands to reason to say that an abortion--which is invasive and does violence within a woman's body--is going to be a trauma, at least in a lot of cases. It is hardly surprising to discover women have emotional baggage from an abortion.

So here we have a woman who is violated, she has so much to work out over that; and--let's throw in your claim that the culprit more often than not isn't caught or punished.

And our solution to all this violence and trauma...is to have the woman collaborate in a further act of violence, a further physical and emotional trauma.

A woman gets an abortion, she makes a decision that costs one human life, and which she herself has to live with ever after. I can readily accept that a woman who was raped has a revulsion against the child conceived in her; but it's far from self evident how turning her wrath on that child cures what ails her.

This point is always subsumed in an "of course for rape and incest" statement, without any argument, because the politicians don't want to argue the point. But that doesn't mean the point is made. I think that point should be demonstrated.; 2/1/12, 5:41 PM
Sydney said...: Here is one woman's story of rape and conception and to what it led. Every human life is sacred, no matter how it began.; 2/1/12, 7:31 PM
Phil 314 said...: Well Komen is into protecting breasts; breasts are for feeding babies and ...; 2/1/12, 8:15 PM
Browndog said...: Eugenics...

A critical component of the progressive movement.

Just sayin'....

That there are a lot of false statements on this thread that went unchallenged..

(In good faith); 2/1/12, 8:15 PM
Scott M said...: I personally do not think men would allow such a debate relating to what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

Love has never heard of Selective Service nor it's repercussions if not complied with.; 2/2/12, 7:01 AM
Sue D'Nhym said...: Sue - so no abortion in case of incest, rape, danger to the mother?

I am not particularly interested in having the debate over abortion be centered on a fraction of a percentage of all instances (namely, rape and incest or when the mother's life is in danger).; 2/2/12, 10:02 AM
Thorley Winston said...: Looks like they reversed their decision:
NEW YORK (AP) — After three days of controversy, the Susan G. Komen for the Cure breast-cancer charity says it is reversing its decision to cut breast-screening grants to Planned Parenthood.
"We want to apologize to the American public for recent decisions that cast doubt upon our commitment to our mission of saving women's lives," a Komen statement said.
As first reported by The Associated Press on Tuesday, Komen had adopted criteria excluding Planned Parenthood from grants because it was under government investigation, notably a probe launched in Congress at the urging of anti-abortion groups.
Komen said Friday it would change the criteria so it wouldn't apply to such investigations.
"We will continue to fund existing grants, including those of Planned Parenthood, and preserve their eligibility to apply for future grants," the statement said.
A previous version of the story on Yahoo! News said that they received a letter signed by 22 Democratic Senators.; 2/3/12, 10:49 AM