Breaking: Komen announces that Planned Parenthood eligibility for funding will continue; Update: Future funding not guaranteed, says Komen

posted at 11:29 am on February 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Remember when the Susan G. Komen Foundation cut off grants to Planned Parenthood for being under Congressional investigation — er, sorr, for not actually providing outcomes?  Good times, good times:

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.

The events of this week have been deeply unsettling for our supporters, partners and friends and all of us at Susan G. Komen. We have been distressed at the presumption that the changes made to our funding criteria were done for political reasons or to specifically penalize Planned Parenthood. They were not.

Our original desire was to fulfill our fiduciary duty to our donors by not funding grant applications made by organizations under investigation. We will amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political. That is what is right and fair.

Our only goal for our granting process is to support women and families in the fight against breast cancer. Amending our criteria will ensure that politics has no place in our grant process. 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.

It is our hope and we believe it is time for everyone involved to pause, slow down and reflect on how grants can most effectively and directly be administered without controversies that hurt the cause of women. We urge everyone who has participated in this conversation across the country over the last few days to help us move past this issue. We do not want our mission marred or affected by politics – anyone’s politics.

On a certain level, I get exactly what they mean.  I think it is a fair point that suspending grants because of investigations should come from criminal probes — although there have been a few of those as well involving Planned Parenthood affiliates — even if granting agencies have the ability to decide on that criteria for themselves.  Otherwise, any investigation in Congress for any particular purpose would get used to block legitimate charities from getting grants no matter what the motives behind the probe might be.

Still, Komen would be better off sticking with outcome-based criteria for grants.  If Planned Parenthood performs the mammograms needed for screening, then certainly it’s a legitimate action to offer a grant funding that activity.  If all they’re doing is providing referrals, though, why not just fund the organizations actually performing the mammograms that catch cancer early enough for treatment, as well as the organizations actually providing that treatment?  The objection has been that the grants look much more like a method to fund abortions while asserting that Komen is only working on breast cancer, which is why so many people objected to the arrangement in the first place — and why critics applauded the move announced earlie this week.

The statement doesn’t actually commit to doing anything differently, if it is carefully read.  All Komen is saying is that Planned Parenthood is still eligible for grants, having rescinded their suspension that was based on the Congressional probe, and that grants already approved would continue.  Komen notes that they will still develop the guidelines that will help their funding directly impact their mission, and I’d bet that means that Planned Parenthood will still get a lot less money from Komen in the future, as most of their clinics don’t provide mammograms or treatments.  This is just a more intelligent approach to the issue, and one that would not have created the political firestorm that arose this week had Komen taken it from the beginning.

Update: Greg Sargent read the statement the same way I did and contacted a Komen board member, who confirms that Komen isn’t going to guarantee Planned Parenthood any future funding:

I just got off the phone with a Komen board member, and he confirmed that the announcement does not mean that Planned Parenthood is guaranteed future grants — a demand he said would be “unfair” to impose on Komen. He also said the job of the group’s controversial director, Nancy Brinker, is safe, as far as the board is concerned.

As some were quick to point out, the statement put out by Komen doesn’t really clarify whether Planned Parenthood will actually continue to get money from the group. The original rationale for barring Planned Parenthood was that it was under investigation (a witch-hunt probe undertaken by GOP Rep Cliff Stearns). Komen said today that the group would “amend the criteria to make clear that disqualifying investigations must be criminal and conclusive in nature and not political.”

Does that mean Planned Parenthood will get Komen grants in the future?

I asked Komen board member John Raffaelli to respond to those who are now saying that the announcement doesn’t necessarily constitute a reversal until Planned Parenthood actually sees more funding. He insisted it would be unfair to expect the group to commit to future grants.

“It would be highly unfair to ask us to commit to any organization that doesn’t go through a grant process that shows that the money we raise is used to carry out our mission,” Raffaelli told me. “We’re a humaniatrian organization. We have a mission. Tell me you can help carry out our mission and we will sit down at the table.”

In other words, grants will likely be outcome-based, and that would keep Planned Parenthood on the outside in most cases.  Sargent also reports that the board strongly supports Brinker through this episode and her job is not in danger, which would also tend to support that conclusion.

Update II: Jen Rubin provides another data point that makes this policy clear:

The Post interviewed Susan G. Komen Race for the Cure CEO Nancy Brinker and President Elizabeth Thompson on Thursday. At that time, they confirmed that their group wants to stick to its core mission and not simply funnel funds through another entity that doesn’t itself provide breast cancer screening. (“We have decided not to fund, wherever possible, pass-through grants. We were giving them money, they were sending women out for mammograms. What we would like to have are clinics where we can directly fund mammograms.”) We don’t knowwhether that rationale is now null and void.

Pardon me, but this is nuts. Planned Parenthood can raise its own money (which it did in spades in the wake of the flap). Those who want to give to a breast cancer charity can donate with the peace of mind that their money will be used to fight breast cancer. (Donors did so generously as a result of the controversy.) Now Planned Parenthood’s bosses have every right under current law to do what they do and raise money to fund their organization. But shame on them for intimidating other groups that might contemplate the same move as the Susan G. Komen Foundation made.

It sounds to me like this statement was carefully crafted to underscore that policy, not reverse it, as Sargent discovered.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 8

They should have stuck with their original decision, now both sides are going to be pissed off at them. You can argue if the original decision was bad or not but..reversing is just bad.

JohnTheBaptist on February 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

PattyJ on February 3, 2012 at 11:47 AM

In my city here we have a top of the line hospital that is recognized the world over for their dedication to womens health/cancer screening/cancer treatment, etc. They have not gone national and I think is why they’ve stayed so true to their original mission.

Congrats on kicking breast cancer!

gophergirl on February 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Does this mean they will be RETURNING all those conservative donations that poured in after they made the decision NOT to fund Planned Parenthood anymore? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? (I mean, that IS the only HONEST thing they can do, right?)

DixT on February 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Sad to see yet another organization bullied into compliance by the culture of death left. I suppose I’ll just have to watch those items in pink packages and make sure I buy nothing that supports Komen.

The sadly ironic thing about all of this is that Planned Parenthood aggressively pushes many things, such as abortion and hormone-based contraception, that actually cause the breast cancer Komen is supposedly trying to prevent.

Shump on February 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Planned Parenthood is an Abortion Mill.

Nothing more, nothing less.

I will not march for Susan B. Komen again.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Komen has been politicized all along – just not in ways that annoyed the left. And frankly, if I were going to give to a cancer foundation, I would not give to one that researches breast cancer which is MASSIVELY overfunded compared to other types of cancer.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/cancer-funding-does-it-add-up/

Laura Curtis on February 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Well there we agree. Breast cancer *does* command far too much of the charitable giving, both within cancer research and in communicable diseases more generally.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

PP has said many times those funds aren’t used for abortion. 3% of their services are abortion related. However you ideologues could careless. You just want everything shut down.

Uppereastside on February 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Failing to grasp very basic concepts of economics and accounting seems to be an epidemic on the left. There’s no such thing as “abortion funding” and “non-abortion funding” in Planned Parenthood. All money is fungible, that is to say it can be easily substituted.

Hypothetically, if 10% of PP’s budget is providing abortions, there’s no problem as long as they have at least 10% of their funding that’s not restricted from providing abortions. It’s a very simple accounting gimmick that provides a very thin veil over the reality that any donation to Planned Parenthood helps them keep their abortion mills open.

If the left truly cared about contraceptive services and cancer screenings for women, they’d split the organization into an abortion-free “Women’s Health Services” and “QUICKYABORTIONS4U.” Of course they’ll never do this because no person in their right mind would want to donate to help doctors off unborn children.

LukeinNE on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

It will be seen as a cave, and the left will cluck and gloat.

There is so much else going on at Komen that even had they not caved to PP and the left I still wouldn’t donate to them. They’re too big, too corporate. Most of their money seems to go to overhead and not actual research and aid. And then there’s the demand for specific levels of contributions to take part in runs, and on and on.

Pink guns in honor of Komen?

I’m all for capitalism, free market and so forth, but the Komen organization just seems to make a mockery of the fight against breast cancer with the advertising overload.

Logus on February 3, 2012 at 11:36 AM

Yep. It has been a marketing industry for a long time. It is all about SHOWING you are against cancer and not really doing much of anything about it for a long while. What possible good does having NFL football players wear pink gloves, hats, etc. during games do? It is a waste of money that could be going to research. And don’t tell me it’s about raising awareness. Is there a human being in the US who HASN’T heard of breast cancer? Who doesn’t have a family member or friend who has battled it?

That is why they caved so fast. It hasn’t been about helping but about the pubic’s perception that they help.

And that is exactly why I never give my money to any organizaton that spends as much money on advertizing, overhead, and awareness raising as this group does.

Lily on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

So Komen pulls PPH funding after “pressure” (i.e., donations down), and immediately sees a 100% increase in donations after the announcement. Leftist meltdown ensues, and Komen reinstates PPH funding, thereby betraying donors once again.

Congrats ladies, I think you’ve just killed your organization.

Idiots.

Mr Galt on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

If they don’t refund donations made in the wake of the original decision to cut off grants to PP (they did say donations were up by 100%), they’re going to have a lot of angry donors.

They’ve already angered a bunch of supporters. All this will do is anger more.

Caiwyn on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

“Yup, that’ll definitely convince people to support giving up their legally protected right to an abortion”

I guess we’ll just have to see won’t we. It’s certainly been effective in the past and I am confident it will devestate Komman’s bottom line.

tommyboy on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

I don’t believe you were going to donate one dime.

Capitalist Hog on February 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM

One doesn’t need to spend wisely when one’s family is loaded :) (I am a Republican after all) but thanks for your concern.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

That bunk about “saving women’s lives” has been used and over-used for over 40 years! FEW women in the U.S. actually die from “childbirth”! The statistics just DO NOT support this statement by the Komen Foundation. Once again, it’s ALL politics!

DixT on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Only 3%. If it were just one baby killed per year, shouldn’t that be enough to justify righteous indignation?

The pro-life movement is ambivalent at best about childhood hunger and starvation in this country. You all are singularly focused on abortion, while living children suffer. You have a funny way of thinking about pro-life.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

I guess Westboro’s not too far out of the social conservative mainstream after all.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM

If abortion is truly infanticide and you advocate it, then I guess you know where that puts you, ideologically speaking. Or is mass murder mainstream now?

troyriser_gopftw on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

You know what sucks? You know what really sucks?

The destruction of a great charity.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

PP has said many times those funds aren’t used for abortion.

Uppereastside on February 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Their name is Planned Parenthhod. They became PP after they became unpoular as a racist eugenics organization called the Birth Control League.

Their mission is abortion, and they try to hide that by claiming they perform other services when in reality most of those services are simple referrals.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

why not just fund the organizations actually performing the mammograms that catch cancer early enough for treatment, as well as the organizations actually providing that treatment?

I’d imagine that’s what it’s donors assume they’re funding, or at least I’m sure they used to think that.

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

There is one small silver lining to this “recantation” cloud.

I’ve worked part-time for years in a pro-life ministry, and we have struggled to alert people to the fact that SGK gives piles of cash to Planned Parenthood. Time and time again, people have said “I didn’t know that” or “I don’t believe that.”

Now everyone knows. Now no one can deny it.

KyMouse on February 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Does this mean they will be RETURNING all those conservative donations that poured in after they made the decision NOT to fund Planned Parenthood anymore? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? (I mean, that IS the only HONEST thing they can do, right?)
DixT on February 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

You got played

ElenaKagan on February 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

So far the comments are a demonstration of why, while I’m not personally in favor of outlawing abortion, those who consider themselves “pro-choice” tend to cut for themselves quite a repellant image. Even more revealing are those who seem to be proud of being “pro-abortion”.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Wow, they’re really missing out on a big-timer like you who lives paycheck to paycheck.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Ah, nothing like a CT blue blood to bring the most cutting of shade *wine glass clink*

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM

But it’s Romney who hates the poor.

angryed on February 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

In April 2008 Planned Parenthood was making millions in profits. Why do they need additional funding from Komen or the government if they are making such profits?

canditaylor68 on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

And that is exactly why I never give my money to any organizaton that spends as much money on advertizing, overhead, and awareness raising as this group does.

Lily on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

A friend of mine applied for the job of Director of Communications for SGK. The job paid $180,000 a year and the department has a million-dollar budget.

Like I said, it’s a giant vanity organization for Nancy Brinker. Many more effective ways to give your money and time to actually help fight breast cancer.

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Well there we agree. Breast cancer *does* command far too much of the charitable giving, both within cancer research and in communicable diseases more generally.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Guess which ideology commands more charitable giving? I’ll give you a hint…it rhymes with funservative.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I lost my wife to cancer 6 months ago and she was as Pro Life as they come. For Susan B. Komen to reverse their decision based on what is clearly and blatantly political pressure from the left, they have, in my eyes, discredited themselves and they have insulted the memory of my wife at the same time!

I will never support them again and will now urge others not to either. They are not, by any stretch, a cancer organization anymore!

pilamaye on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

yep, cause no Americans live paycheck to paycheck. Liberals sure are compassionate.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Do you have enough to pay for internet access or are you at the library? In either case, you should stop playing online and figure out how to better yourself.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

SMOD’s priciples never shift.

Nor its trajectory, speed, or relative bearing.

CBDR!

connertown on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

Ed,

More here from the WaPo.

Trochilus on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

The pro-life movement is ambivalent at best about childhood hunger and starvation in this country. You all are singularly focused on abortion, while living children suffer. You have a funny way of thinking about pro-life.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Sometimes a child may go hungry. The answer? Kill the child before it goes hungry.

Liberals are proud of this logic.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

NOW WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO THINK WHEN I SEE NFL players running around in pink shoes for that one weekend in the Fall???

No Balls Komen?

If I had Ass Cancer would my ribbon be brown?

Scoreboard44 on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Are they planning to refund the couple hundred thou they got in donations from supporters who supported their right to make their original decision?

daddytype on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

right2bright on February 3, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Exactly! Who knew there were so many people dedicated to whole sale slaughter of girl babies in a scorched earth war to eradicate breast cancer. The $$ is pouring into the battle hand over fist now. Together, we can reduce the human race to a few healthy specimens, cancer free and ready to work for the system until termination because they are too old. It’s been like watching a fire ant hill kicked over and the fire ants come boiling up out of the darkness ready to swarm.

BrideOfRove on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Reading an article on Breitbart this AM – seems like Hollywood threw a big fit about it and threatened to quit donating.

silvernana on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Hypothetically, if 10% of PP’s budget is providing abortions, there’s no problem as long as they have at least 10% of their funding that’s not restricted from providing abortions. It’s a very simple accounting gimmick that provides a very thin veil over the reality that any donation to Planned Parenthood helps them keep their abortion mills open.

Do you even think before you type? Abortion services (that’s 3% of the services PP provides) accounts for 40% of their income. That’s right, they *charge* for abortions. There is no evidence that the money they receive from the government allows them to charge less for an abortion. Quite the opposite. Abortion revenue helps to fund their other services which they offer to the public for free. An abortion at PP is not free.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

This always was about libs fighting libs.
SGK is as liberal as PP.
Neither gets my support and they never did.
The story got splashy headlines though, and Id wager that some of this was distraction, once again, from F&F.
And once again, it worked.

ORconservative on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Are the people whining about mean conservatives no longer supporting Komen complaining when PP’s devotees vowed never to support them again? No? Okay.

JosephP on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Breast cancer *does* command far too much of the charitable giving, both within cancer research and in communicable diseases more generally.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Probably because everyone and their mom has had it. Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers, but it’s also one of the more treatable cancers.

http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/types/commoncancers

http://seer.cancer.gov/publications/ethnicity/topfive.pdf

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM

I am glad I hadn’t gotten around to donating yet today. Although, I would have demanded my money back if I had. Not one penny of mine will ever go to PP.

teri_b on February 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM

In April 2008 Planned Parenthood was making millions in profits. Why do they need additional funding from Komen or the government if they are making such profits?

canditaylor68 on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

To fund democrat candidates.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Glad they came to their senses.

mythicknight on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Sometimes a child may go hungry. The answer? Kill the child before it goes hungry.

Liberals are proud of this logic.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Heh.

Abby Adams on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

libforfreeordie – if kids are going to go hungry in this country, we ought to just kill them. Wow – you’re full of wisdom! What’s next, Mengele quotes to enlighten us all to your grand plan?

Evrviglnt on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

OK. So everyone that donated to them for their correct actions yesterday need to get a refund today. I read where their donations improved dramatically with that decision. There are other, more direct ways to donate for breast cancer research.

TerryW on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

“The pro-life movement is ambivalent at best about childhood hunger and starvation in this country. You all are singularly focused on abortion, while living children suffer. You have a funny way of thinking about pro-life.”

That is a popular but fallacious canard. Which hungry children are not part of the 40,000,000+ on food stamps in this country? Please let them know that help is available.

Abortion crushes and dismembers innocent yet unwanted human beings. Why would anyone apologize for being singularly focused on that?

Oh, and we aren’t singularly focused on that. We help the needy with our own time and money before and after the kids are born. Unlike Planned Parenthood, the Care Net Pregnancy Center where I volunteer is funded 100% by donations and largely staffed by volunteers.

eMatters on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

haha

I knew they would. Right wingers flat out hate women rights

liberal4life on February 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM
lol. Far right ideologues lose again.

Uppereastside on February 3, 2012 at 11:31 AM
Sockpuppets separated at birth?

Chip on February 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

NO! Just pi$$ed off parents, who had these two because the kind of contraception we have today, was not available back then!

KOOLAID2 on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I knew they would. Right wingers flat out hate women rights

liberal4life on February 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Nah… we just hate killing innocent females… and males.

dominigan on February 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I guess Westboro’s not too far out of the social conservative mainstream after all.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:52 AM

You sniveling liberal bastard. Defend it.

The left has tried to destroy the black community for years. We’re going to expose your liberal azzes.

We will prevail. So fark you.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM

I will never support them again and will now urge others not to either. They are not, by any stretch, a cancer organization anymore!

pilamaye on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

I would never support a charity, no matter how good they promoted saving lives, that would then gave some of their funding to a charity that takes lives.

Scoreboard44 on February 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Sometimes a child may go hungry. The answer? Kill the child before it goes hungry.

Liberals are proud of this logic.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

I’m pro-life! Until the child is actually born!

Conservatives are proud of this logic.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

eligibility for funding…

The only judicial “standing” recognized against TAX-FUNDING abortion is on religious grounds. Yet the same social conservatives that make anti-abortion their singular political issue ironically promote the dissolution of the Bill of Rights by supporting the neoconservative mutation of our Constitutional Republic into a grotesque authoritarian global entity. Vanity, vanity, all is vanity.

What Planned Parenthood won’t admit is that they would never suffer from lack of funding for abortions, with or without tax subsidies. It isn’t as if private interests would not financially keep Planned Parenthood offices open. There’s a global industry that uses aborted fetuses for research and development. Admitting an obscene observation regarding capitalist market supply/demand, the surprise is that females (not so “smart” as they’d like to appear) pay rather than receive payment for an abortion. But then, the same obscene financial arrangement applies to those supplying free blood and organs, being charged an arm and a leg (rather than a processing purification fee) when hospitalized and in need of donated blood or organ.

Yes, that’s disgusting, as if it isn’t so.

With or without taxation to fund the institution, Planned Parenthood remains in effect, abortion or no.

maverick muse on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Do you have enough to pay for internet access or are you at the library? In either case, you should stop playing online and figure out how to better yourself.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 11:58 AM

hmmmmmm…am I on the internet? Stupid questions are fun.

I think you should better your jokes son!

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I don’t why people are shocked and or surprised or angry for that matter that Komen caved. Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen is a Republican. She is a Republican, and she has done what Republicans are want to do, known do and always do. And that is bend over and touch their toes the minute Liberals and the LSM raise their voice.

Pathetic really, not surprised, shocked or angry. just pathetic.

HerneTheHunter on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

PP has said many times those funds aren’t used for abortion. 3% of their services are abortion related. However you ideologues could careless. You just want everything shut down.

Uppereastside on February 3, 2012 at 11:39 AM

Planned Parenthood is still the largest provider of abortions in the United States (in 2010, they performed 329,445 of them), and any money that is earmarked for services that are not abortion related frees up funds to be used for abortions.

So while the money for SGKF is dedicated to breast cancer screening, any funds Planned Parenthood doesn’t have to use from its own funds for cancer screening are funds that they can use for abortions instead.

Chappy on February 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Sometimes a child may go hungry. The answer? Kill the child before it goes hungry.

Liberals are proud of this logic.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Yes, would they have been glad if Stanley Ann Dunham had believed that?

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

You sniveling liberal bastard. Defend it.

The left has tried to destroy the black community for years. We’re going to expose your liberal azzes.

We will prevail. So fark you.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Hey, you’re back! I thought you left to go fight for your freedom or die or something? Seems like it all worked out.

Well Done!

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

That’s right, they *charge* for abortions. There is no evidence that the money they receive from the government allows them to charge less for an abortion.
libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Of course it does. Money is fungible.

Let’s say PP has a budget of $1000.
They get $800 from abortions, $100 from donations and $100 from the govt.
Then they take that $1000 and spend it on other services.

Tomorrow the govt decides to increase the $100 to $200. This means they can now only charge $700 for abortions and still have $1000 total.

Which means the extra $100 from the govt just lowered the cost of an abortion at PP.

angryed on February 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

I’m pro-life! Until the child is actually born!

Conservatives are proud of this logic.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

well…that made no sense. Nice job!

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

That’s right, Bob! That’ll teach those tumors!

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 11:34 AM

Why go through a middle man when you can directly donate to cancer research facilities. But I guess they didn’t teach you logic in the schools you graduated from.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

So in other words, Konen’s initial story, (which apparently none of you believed anyway), that this had nothing to do with Planned Parenthood offering abortion services), was all bull.. it had everything do to with that.

[inklake on February 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM]

That’s it, concentrate on what people believe happened or didn’t. Bottom lines appears to be a win-win:

Win for the Left: Emerges with meaningless victory by forcing Komen to change reasons for revising funding criteria, with the revisions remaining in place.

Win for the Right: Emerges with substantial change in funding criteria resulting in significant curtailing of funding to PP, from across the board to only specific offices, based on revised criteria which are staying in place.

Go celebrate, inklake. We’ll go drown our sorrows.

Bwahahahaha.

Dusty on February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

You know what sucks? You know what really sucks?

The destruction of a great charity.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

…and that is what is going to happen!

KOOLAID2 on February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I’m pro-life! Until the child is actually born!

Conservatives are proud of this logic.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

LOL. You so silly.

You have to be a fake account right? No one could possibly be this stupid.

Abby Adams on February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I though the Susan G. Komen Foundation valued life? Evidently, they value funding more. Pi-ti-ful.

kingsjester on February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

Margaret Sanger says: More abortions = Less Cancer

Libtardism is the cult of death.

Western_Civ on February 3, 2012 at 12:05 PM

I am actually a moderate. I know that is impossible to believe for most folks here.
 
Uppereastside on February 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

 
Helpful hint:
 
Moderates don’t generally join noticeably-right blogs to use terms like “far right idealogues”.

rogerb on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The statement doesn’t actually commit to doing anything differently, if it is carefully read. All Komen is saying is that Planned Parenthood is still eligible for grants, having rescinded their suspension that was based on the Congressional probe, and that grants already approved would continue. Komen notes that they will still develop the guidelines that will help their funding directly impact their mission, and I’d bet that means that Planned Parenthood will still get a lot less money from Komen in the future, as most of their clinics don’t provide mammograms or treatments. This is just a more intelligent approach to the issue, and one that would not have created the political firestorm that arose this week had Komen taken it from the beginning.

Agreed, more of a nuanced waffle than a cave, but a retreat nontheless. How could they not have anticipated the firestorm that would result from their original decision? I think they did. What I think they failed to anticipate was the phone calls from some very important people telling them to back off or else. Already, this kind of B.S was starting to surface:

Discount Gun Sales is proud to team up with the Susan B. Koman Foundation to offer the Walther P-22 Hope Edition in recognition of Breast Cancer Awareness Month. A portion of each P-22 Hope Edition will be donated to the Seattle Branch of the Susan G. Komen Foundation.

A couple of weeks from now the NYT would have had Komen linked to the Gunrunner scandal. I feel for them, but that’s what happens when you get into bed with libs.

Mr. Arkadin on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

i actually like organizations like PP. i see nothing wrong in planing the when and how you want to have children and giving information to people how to achieve this.
i dislike that tax payer money partially funds PP but that is all i have against PP.
even for prolifers, the best way to avoid abortions is to make sure women are informed and have access to contraceptives. that’s the job of PP and in the end they actually reduce the overall number of abortions.
in case of an undesired pregnancy, PP, should give informations about all options:
-adoption
-abortion
-single mother support information(religious and non religious)
maybe prolifers should make sure women that seek PP information have access to the options they prefer instead of seeking to destroy the organization just because a minor part of it is related to abortions.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

I don’t why people are shocked and or surprised or angry for that matter that Komen caved. Nancy Brinker, founder of Komen is a Republican. She is a Republican, and she has done what Republicans are want to do, known do and always do. And that is bend over and touch their toes the minute Liberals and the LSM raise their voice.

Pathetic really, not surprised, shocked or angry. just pathetic.

HerneTheHunter on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

She got disinvited to some DC and Hollywood parties. That’s all it took.

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The pro-life movement is ambivalent at best about childhood hunger and starvation in this country. You all are singularly focused on abortion, while living children suffer. You have a funny way of thinking about pro-life.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Your myopia blinds you to the fact that a significant player in the pro-life movement, churches and spiritual organizations, focus themselves far more on alleviating the problems of the poor, particularly involving hunger. Hence, many of those organizations create food pantries and others means to fight the problems of hunger. They are merely one of the segments of the charity field that address the problem, as many secular organizations do the same. All of this, while the fact of the matter is that starvation is not nearly as much of a problem in this country as it is in the rest of the world…which we also happen to be largely responsible for overseeing, as produce of American farms feeds around 2/3 of that same world.

Your mealymouthed empty whining is nothing more than yet another attempt to smear the pro-life movement, either because of your preconceived notions about those who participate, or because of your frustration with the fact that the majority of people in this country, like myself, continue to view abortion as an unfortunate and horrific procedure, regardless of our view on its legality.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

There must be something in our nations food supply that causes our spines to become jellyfied.

dmn1972 on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Screw it. I’m just gonna keep beating a dead horse.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The pro-life movement is ambivalent at best about childhood hunger and starvation in this country. You all are singularly focused on abortion, while living children suffer. You have a funny way of thinking about pro-life.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Non sequitur.

Everyone in here is well aware that “pro-life” and “pro-choice” are nice sounding ways to describe people who are against and for a woman to be able to have an abortion. By definition, those labels are exclusively about abortion.

Therefore your conclusion does not follow. It’s like saying the Sierra Club are all horrible people because they don’t care about AIDS in Africa.

Your argument goes further off the rails when you suggest that social conservatives only care about abortion. I’ve repeated this a thousand times, but numerous studies show that religious conservatives are vastly more likely to donate time and money to charity than are their secular liberal counterparts. They both want to help those in need, liberals just want to do it through government with other people’s money.

LukeinNE on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

hmmmmmm…am I on the internet? Stupid questions are fun.

I think you should better your jokes son!

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

Your reading comprehension skills are quite poor. I can see why you can’t find employment that allows you to save for the future. Better work on that.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

The left has tried to destroy the black community for years. We’re going to expose your liberal azzes.

We will prevail. So fark you.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:02 PM

It never fails, though people accuse liberals of playing the race card, conservatives bring up racial issues in almost *every single thread.* In response to your comment. You continue to be absolutely nuts. Abortion is highest amongst impoverished communities, folks who (unlike Mrs. Tebow) may not have the family support and do not wish to jump through the hoops of the welfare system to care for their child. The black community is doing just fine repopulating. I’ll add that the jerks who put those billboards in big cities have probably not spent a single minute organizing anti-poverty efforts in black communities. Its the same old conservative condescension that fuels comments like “black people who support Democrats are on a plantation” rhetoric.

If you really care about the future of the black family its time to legalize the drug trade and stop putting non-violent drug offenders behind bars for years and years. Its time to allow former felons to get federal financial aid and to vote. Those are the issues facing LIVING black communities. Communities that you, obviously, know nothing about. No one is fooled.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

America doesn’t want the govt to be in charge of pregnancy. Anything that even remotely looks like that will get lots of heat and rejected.

Nothing has changed. Even many people that call themselves pro life don’t want the govt involved. Let’s see more consistency from the people that complain about govt bring too big and intrusive.

Moesart on February 3, 2012 at 12:08 PM

I knew they would. Right wingers flat out hate women rights

liberal4life on February 3, 2012 at 11:19 AM

I just love the hypocrisy from your side. To defend the right of a unborn child is to be called an ideologue. And do you do it by changing the hearts and minds of those who do not advocate killing off innocent life because the vessel is a bar slut who jumps into any old bed on a Saturday night. Instead you wrap yourself up in a vague misleading term like “women’s health.” What about the right to live of the women killed off in the womb?

You and those of your ilk are the real ideologues.

Happy Nomad on February 3, 2012 at 12:08 PM

ObamaCare 2012

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:09 PM

I’m pro-life! Until the child is actually born!

Conservatives are proud of this logic.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:03 PM

So you don’t deny your answer to child hunger is to reduce the number of children by selective abortion in poor neighborhoods?

The answer to child hunger is stable, responsible parents. The left has worked tirelessly over the decades to ensure that answer is less and less available for children.

Lastly, liberals are always the last to donate to any cause, especially causes helping children because they see them not only as future producers of more people, but as a burden.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM

If you really care about the future of the black family its time to legalize the drug trade and stop putting non-violent drug offenders behind bars for years and years. Its time to allow former felons to get federal financial aid and to vote. Those are the issues facing LIVING black communities. Communities that you, obviously, know nothing about. No one is fooled.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:07 PM

Oh, no you did not just do that.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM

Do you even think before you type? Abortion services (that’s 3% of the services PP provides) accounts for 40% of their income. That’s right, they *charge* for abortions. There is no evidence that the money they receive from the government allows them to charge less for an abortion. Quite the opposite. Abortion revenue helps to fund their other services which they offer to the public for free. An abortion at PP is not free.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:59 AM

It actually is 10%, and most PP’s have a sliding scale for all their payments depending on the person’s income. They charge for breast exams too. They charge for all of their services unless you can’t pay and are at one of those specific locations.

But yes, abortion is expensive, much more so than an exam or a shot. It’s easily their most expensive service, so it’s no surprise that it’s 40% of their income even though it’s 10% of their services. That also explains why they care so much about abortion.

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 12:10 PM

After all this uproar, how much closer is The Cure?

Christien on February 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Hey, you’re back! I thought you left to go fight for your freedom or die or something? Seems like it all worked out.

Well Done!

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Freedom fighting ain’t what it used to be apparently. Back in the day if you were fighting for freedom at the risk of death you’d have to face Bull Connor, firehoses and German Sheps. Nowadays, apparently, all it takes is pushing the “submit” button to be a crusader for liberty against the totalitarian government that is pretty much the same as it was 3 years ago with some very minor reforms. Slavery is coming!!! Or something….

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM

Careful people. Don’t mention Margaret Sanger’s vision when a few leftist pieces of garbage are hanging out in the house. They don’t take kindly to it.

Heh, Black families are help by legalized dope. Now THAT is funny! On the other hand, though, I’m sure an ID would be required to buy that dime bag and blacks are genetically incapable of getting a legal ID, according to these same leftist pieces of garbage, so I guess legalized drugs being good for black families wouldn’t fly after all.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM

They us their tactics because they work.

Romney has brought the same tactics to the Republican party. Expunge Romney if you want to have a conservative alternative to the Democrat party.

astonerii on February 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM

The answer to child hunger is stable, responsible parents

Much more likely to occur if a woman isn’t punished for failing to use a condom correctly or just from being young and a bit stupid.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:12 PM

Your reading comprehension skills are quite poor. I can see why you can’t find employment that allows you to save for the future. Better work on that.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

tee hee. What did I tell you about being original? The ol’ reading comprehension jab…ouch :/

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Does this mean they will be RETURNING all those conservative donations that poured in after they made the decision NOT to fund Planned Parenthood anymore? Hmmmmmmmmmmm? (I mean, that IS the only HONEST thing they can do, right?)

DixT on February 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

No they won’t. I suspected they would cave as soon as they started getting heat. Glad I didn’t send them any money when I was thinking about doing so.

TulsAmerican on February 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM

Wow, they’re really missing out on a big-timer like you who lives paycheck to paycheck.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Romney supporter I suppose? Nothing like a little demonization for lunch.

Spliff Menendez on February 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Next after George Tiller on the hit list?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

I don’t advocate the murder of anyone, you slimy piece of work. btw, how’s that whole eugenics thing working out, anyway? I understand minorities are a big part of the abortion business and business, as they say, is booming. Margaret Sanger’s dream is being realized as we speak. Care to share your thoughts on that particular aspect of the pro-choice cause?

troyriser_gopftw on February 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

i actually like organizations like PP. i see nothing wrong in planing the when and how you want to have children and giving information to people how to achieve this.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Seriously, you think taxpayers need to fund an abortion mill under the pretext that people need to be told when and how to have children?

Guy: I want to have children, but I don’t know how.

Girl: Me either. Let’s go to Planned Parenthood! They know!

Guy: Good idea!

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Freedom fighting ain’t what it used to be apparently. Back in the day if you were fighting for freedom at the risk of death you’d have to face Bull Connor, firehoses and German Sheps. Nowadays, apparently, all it takes is pushing the “submit” button to be a crusader for liberty against the totalitarian government that is pretty much the same as it was 3 years ago with some very minor reforms. Slavery is coming!!! Or something….

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM

You piss ant mo fo biatch.

LOL!

Petty little boy. I spank yo azz.

/Still laughing!

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:14 PM

Maybe it’s just me but having a group that is concerned about breast cancer fund another group that may be helping cause breast cancer via abortion doesn’t make much sense. I guess Democrats are so committed to killing the unborn that they are willing to deny the science about abortion and breast cancer.

Blue Collar Todd on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

tee hee. What did I tell you about being original? The ol’ reading comprehension jab…ouch :/

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:13 PM

You’re the sad sack who lives from paycheck to paycheck. Tee hee indeed.

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Helpful hint:

Moderates don’t generally join noticeably-right blogs to use terms like “far right idealogues”.

rogerb on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

“Moderates” are however, leftists who are just too ashamed to think of themselves as leftists. An affliction that usually doesn’t affect Conservatives and Libertarians.

Kind of like abortion supporters being too ashamed of the actual term abortion, and instead have to find euphemisms.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Slavery is coming!!! Or something….

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:11 PM

I have to give you one last chance. Are you really saying this?\

Sorry, babes, I just have to ask.

Thank you for your kind reply.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM

This isn’t about breast cancer or its prevention. This isn’t about the abortion issue. This isn’t about women’s health at all. This is about MONEY. It’s always about MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY, MONEY.

Anyone who recently donated to Komen because the people at Komen “saw God” and changed their evil ways are fools who deserve to be soon parted with their money. This nonprofit money machine, like all of them, will simply say or do whatever brings in more money, period.

I never support these huge charitable organizations because of the large, expensive bureaucracy that inevitably gets created and ridiculous salaries that are always made by skimming off the top of donations by those who are running the charity. Nonprofits like this one often start out as being well meaning but ultimately end up being money machines for a few. Also, many nonprofits are created simply so the creator can make a couple hundred grand a year in salary to run it.

AttaBoyLuther on February 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Just call Planned Parenthood what they are..

Pro Abortion…

How many Mammograms do they do in a year com-paired to Abortions…

won’t even be close… The gratis mammograms are just thrown in to make things look good… so they can Claim they do something good for women..

RockyJ. on February 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 8