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 5 8

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

It says much about you that you see a baby as punishment.

Spliff Menendez on February 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM

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

Right … people can never figure out anything on their own. They’re all stupid, cannot endure hardship or challenges and must rely on the good graces of liberals to show them the way.

Drones unite! Abort on command!

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

“…..our commitment to our mission of saving women’s lives….”

Unless they’re really, really, really, really, really, really, really, young women. Then, meh… not so much. /sarc

I had no idea these people were giving money to Planned Parenthood. They’ll never see another nickel from me.

Murf76 on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Your reading comprehension skills are is 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

I fixed your grammar for you.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Next after George Tiller on the hit list?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:01 PM

Who do you all have on your kill list after James Pouillon?

Zaggs on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

They are going to have trouble with fundraising after this.

The pro life people are not going to like their money being
given to Planned Parenthood.

Perhaps the intention of the VP was to focus a spotlight on
the groups Komen is funding. If a person donates to Komen
to “fight breast cancer” they expect their money to be used
accordngly.

Amjean on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 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

I don’t know any pro-lifers who do not give a significant portion of their income to various charities. Who do you think runs the pregnancy help centers, soup kitchens, local food pantries? It ain’t the pro-choicers. Theyre idea of “helping” is killing people off who are too expensive or who they think have/will become a drain on society.

You see pro-choice people at a food pantry or homeless shelter during the holidays when they come down to slum with the less fortunate for a day to “give back” and tut-tut about how the government should be doing more to help them.

But their default position on helping the poor is always to kill them before they become a problem. And as far as they are concerned, the poor are always a problem.

Lily on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 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

What does this have to do with denying a person their right to life? By your retarded logic if all children were killed before birth all of humanities problems would be solved.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

Pilamaye ,
My deepest sympathy .
May God be with you .

Lucano on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

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

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Rather than being fixated on others’ incomes, why doesn’t trash like yourself just enthusiastically tell us what a great day it is, now that Komen is funding abortions again?

I try to be proud of what I believe in, so I don’t have to get desperate, and pretend I have a higher income than someone else in the internets.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM

Nowadays, apparently, all it takes is pushing the “submit” button to be a crusader for liberty against the totalitarian government

Or sitting in a park with your Ipad leaving messages on Facebook about how you’re standing up to the man, right before strolling down to the free food table for some balsamic rice and veggie pizza.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM

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

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

heeyaw! This dead horse ain’t movin’!

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM

If this wasn’t about abortion, the lefties would have scarcely noticed the redirection of some of Komen’s cash.

forest on February 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM

I try to be proud of what I believe in, so I don’t have to get desperate, and pretend I have a higher income than someone else in the internets.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM

It’s all about liberty, isn’t it?

Mission Accomplished!

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

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

God this tired Margaret Sanger card. Here’s what’s hilarious about you conservatives. The founders were slaveholders, some had large plantations, some had forced sex with their slaves, but all kept other humans in chattel bondage and used violent coercion to ensure their obedience. But they also had some good ideas about how a government should be run, so we tend to downplay their horrific human rights violations as a product of their time and move on.

But when it comes to Margaret Sanger, I guess we can’t do the same. Yes I’m aware of Sanger’s desire to limit reproduction amongst the poor. I’m also aware that until the 1970s many southern states allowed for doctors to forcibly sterilize black women.

http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/

Though its funny how the pro-life movement tends to spend less attention on those horrific abuses from the recent past. Perhaps because, like their movement the sterilization crowd was also anti-choice.

The uglier parts of Sanger’s ideology are plain for anyone to read, but the fact of the matter is that family planning is a key part of stopping the tide of poverty. Abstinence simply doesn’t work. People are going to have sex. I’d prefer if people chose to not have vaginal intercourse until they are ready, but you social conservatives have demonized oral sex as “dirty” and anal intercourse as “gay.” And so most people are only willing to engage in procreative sex. And the sex drive can not be contained, its been tried, it doesn’t work. So contraception and abortion are our only options if we want to promote stable family planning for impoverished people. You just can not accept that sex is inevitable.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

It says much about you that you see a baby as punishment.

Spliff Menendez on February 3, 2012 at 12:16 PM

This really is what this struggle is all about. Just as slave owners, in general, refused to recognize the humanity of slaves, pro-abortionists refuse to recognize life. They are a cruel, callous and inhumane people.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:20 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

abortion mill is prolife rethoric.
i just went to their site and they clearly present 3 options:

If you are pregnant, you have three options to think about — abortion, adoption, and parenting. Reading and learning about each one will help you get the facts and may help you decide. It may also help to weigh the benefits and risks of each one. Think about which benefits and risks are most important to you.

i click on adoption and its well detailed the adoption options.
the same for parenting and abortion.

of course, i dont like its funded by the taxpayer. but PP its not in my top list of cuts.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:21 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

There are more than 4,000 pregnancy centers in this country that help mothers after as well as before their babies are born.

One of them is Necole’s Place, part of A Woman’s Choice Resource Center, in Louisville, KY. If you go to http://www.awomanschoice.org you will see that Necole’s Place provides “life skills” classes and activities for mothers (and therefore, for their babies) in cooking, GED, and “How to Be the Mother I Want to Be,” among many other programs.

And that ministry, like many others, provides diapers, car seats and even mentoring for new mothers — sustained by volunteers, churches and other pro-lifers.

Check it out. You’ll learn something.

KyMouse on February 3, 2012 at 12:21 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

Now you’re just being a jack@ss.

Westboro is full of Dems. Al Gore campaigned out of their home when running for president and Phelps himself has run as a Democrat.

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

>Planned Parenthood is an Abortion Mill.

No, it isn’t. But if you want to see them pop up like dandelions, see what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned.

And I guess the justification that Konen was using (we don’t give to organziations under “investigation”), was a lie.

But y’all knew that all along, didn’t you?

inklake on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I try to be proud of what I believe in, so I don’t have to get desperate, and pretend I have a higher income than someone else in the internets.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:18 PM

So you’re NOT a liberal who now demands to be called “progressive” because “liberal” has such negativity attached to it?

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

They’re all stupid, cannot endure hardship or challenges and must rely on the good graces of liberals to show them the w

No, you’re right. An unintended pregnancy never happens. Problem solved

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

Komen chose at some point to touch the third rail of American politics by contracting with an abortion provider for breast cancer screening services. It was a bad bargain on several fronts, because, claims to the contrary by Planned Parenthood notwithstanding, PP doesn’t provide in-house cancer screening services except in 3 of their 81 affiliates. What Komen contracted for was a middlewoman to take as profit money which might otherwise have been used directly for cancer screening, while passing through the “customer” to other organizations.

Now, after having pissed off the pro-abortion contingent and gained, by the publicity, a new and potentially larger contingent of donors (for conservatives tend to give more to causes than liberals), they proceed to touch that third rail yet again by backtracking.

Now they have both sides pissed off, because their relationship (or non-relationship) with Planned Parenthood is public. I gave $100 yesterday on their principled stand to counter our opponents, and I’m about to claw it back. Do they really think that by trying to please both sides that they will please either?

Now that this is out in the open, most of the members of my large extended family, including myself, who used to participate in the Race for the Cure won’t be doing so any more — for the number of Racing members in favor of Planned Parenthood are far (very far) outnumbered by those Racers who find abortion repugnant.

Komen now is the Netflix of charities. They have really screwed up their business by making two decisions which would never have been necessary had they made the first decision (to have nothing to do with Planned Parenthood) properly.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

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

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Any man who gets up and goes to work has my respect as long as his job is legal. I don’t begrudge hard workers who don’t get paid that much. Rather I take issue with those who don’t want to work and those who waste money when they’re broke.

KeninCT, there’s nothing sad about honest work. It makes the world go ’round.

Capitalist Hog on February 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

i just went to their site and they clearly present 3 options:

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:21 PM

Their primary purpose is abortions. They were founded by a racist eugenecist who wanted to exterminate blacks and the weak.

That they dress up their mission with “options” and “services” doesn’t change the primary objective of PP.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:23 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

What a load of crap! Go to Africa or Haiti and see who are doing the most for the children there. Do a little homework before you spew nonsense.

foxforce91 on February 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

No, it isn’t. But if you want to see them pop up like dandelions, see what happens if Roe v Wade is overturned.

With coat hangers…and..and hooks! Yeah, HOOKS! Blood in the streets, body parts everywhere, jillions of disfigured women! Graaawwwllllrooarrrgrreeearrrr!

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

KeninCT, there’s nothing sad about honest work. It makes the world go ’round.

Capitalist Hog on February 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Awwwwwwww! thanks Hog :)

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Abortion is the worst thing to ever happen to women. Real feminists want every baby to be born, cared for, and celebrated, as THIS is what truly empowers women.

Motherhood is the only thing women can do that men cannot. Women alone have the power to continue the man’s bloodlines and give him both sexual satisfaction and family heirs. Men have envied this for centuries and sought to convince women to deny this power in the name of “women’s rights.” Women have foolishly followed the path that says in order to be equal to men we must act like men, deny motherhood, and kill our babies rather than have them and celebrate them. We are told that having babies is inconvenient, expensive, will hurt our careers, etc. etc. We have been convinced to give up the one real power that we have over men.

So now, instead of making the male-dominated workplace accommodate mothers and children, and having public policies that support new mothers and babies, we force the working or poor woman to kill the baby and say this is “supporting women’s rights.” Unbelievable.

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Fugguit all!

I’ts a brandy new thing to do.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:25 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

I run a non profit in one of the poorest counties in the nation. I refused a pay raise and additional paid hours so I could funnel more money into helping the poor. I deal with the poor every day our doors are open. I network with other conservative groups that deal with the poor every day. While the poor don’t eat Waygu Steak and argula there needs get taken care of. They may eat lots of beans and rice along with poached deer, antelope and elk meat but they don’t go hungry. As to the children they get two free meals each day monday-friday even in the summer time as the schools run a summer feeding program also. So tell me libfreeordie other that your faux compassion what do you actually do for the poor other than insult conservatives on this site. It’s time to put up or shut up.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

a funny thing i found on the PP site was this paragraph:

Family planning clinics, like your local Planned Parenthood health center, have specially trained staff who can talk with you about all of your options. But beware of so-called “crisis pregnancy centers”. These are fake clinics run by people who are anti-abortion. They often don’t give women all their options. They have a history of scaring women into not having abortions. Absolutely no one should pressure you or trick you into making a decision you’re not comfortable with.

is this true?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM

[hit submit too soon]… or go to any shelter or food shelf in the US. The majority are almost exclusively run by religious charities and churches that oppose abortion. I don’t think I’ve EVER seen your kind at one of the many shelters or food shelves that I’ve volunteered at.

foxforce91 on February 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM

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

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Man, that’s just pathetic. As many people as there are out here struggling to make it, liberal and conservative, and he says this.

We got robbed on the last open reg, too much trash got in.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM

So you’re NOT a liberal who now demands to be called “progressive” because “liberal” has such negativity attached to it?

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

No, I’m a “progressive” because “socialist” was pretty much used up by the time I co-opted “liberal.”

I wonder if those of us that have embraced Milton Friedman’s vision of the way things should be ever have the same issues that those who have embraced Margaret Sanger’s vision have had?

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Pro-lifers rail about Margaret Sanger, but it was liberals and progressives. Not pro-life advocates who brought stories like this to life.

http://againsttheirwill.journalnow.com/

And here’s the deal on Margaret Sanger. She had reprehensible ideas about poor people, particularly the black poor. This, however, put her in the mainstream of American society in the interwar period. If we’re going to judge all of her ideas based upon her racist attitudes towards blacks how should we then assess the Founders who owned slaves, who ripped the children of slave women away from their mothers and sold them down south? I guess its OK, since the kids weren’t aborted or something.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

No, you’re right. An unintended pregnancy never happens. Problem solved

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

As always, you reveal your innermost thoughts. An unintended pregnancy to you is a curse and must be removed. A child must not interfere with instant gratification … kill it.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:28 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

LMAO. Starvation? In the US? The only childhood starvation in the US is in Obama’s botched abortion closets. Hunger? LOL. ‘Childhood hunger’ was the message substituted for starvation because there was no starving children anymore and the NPO execs needed the money to keep flowing. We have a pudgy little kid problem in the US, chump, and that ain’t because of widespread hunger.

If anything it’s childhood nutrition. And the right will gt back on that issue as soon as Argula-For-You-And-Cheeseburgers-And-Fries-For-Me’s hubby is bounced from the WH in November.

Dusty on February 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

With coat hangers…and..and hooks! Yeah, HOOKS! Blood in the streets, body parts everywhere, jillions of disfigured women! Graaawwwllllrooarrrgrreeearrrr!

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

Just like liberalized CCW laws and castle doctrine laws have turned the country into the a bad Western…wait.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

foxforce91 on February 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

Billions have been poured into Haiti and Africa for years. For what? There has been no actual real change, except making guilty white folk feel better about themselves. Your model is broke, it doesn’t make anything better, just drags it all out and most of the money ends up in the pockets of the thugs running the show anyways. Everyone sees it but you.

gator70 on February 3, 2012 at 12:28 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

This is as stupid as saying Komen doesn’t actually care about suffering women cause it doesn’t set up battered women’s shelters.

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Your reading comprehension skills are is 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

I fixed your grammar.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:17 PM

what? nothing to say here? make a lame joke about REAL Americans at least.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:29 PM

foxforce91 on February 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

foxforce 91 disregard, was looking at the wrong name. My apologies.

gator70 on February 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Their primary purpose is abortions. They were founded by a racist eugenecist who wanted to exterminate blacks and the weak.

That they dress up their mission with “options” and “services” doesn’t change the primary objective of PP.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:23 PM

i think you are just slandering the organization. where is the proof of what you say?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

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

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Another lib who shows their true sense of compassion. You are ugly on the inside which is something you can control. When you have fixed that log in your eye come on back and help us remove the specks in ours.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

I wonder if those of us that have embraced Milton Friedman’s vision of the way things should be ever have the same issues that those who have embraced Margaret Sanger’s vision have had?

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM

Dude

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Research Margaret Sanger and you will have the answer.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

Two pro-life organizations that help women get breast cancer services:

The National Breast Cancer Foundation, http://www.nationalbreastcancer.org

and

Woman 2 Woman Breast Cancer Foundation, http://www.w2wbcf.org

For information about the breast cancer and abortion connection:

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, http://www.bcpinstitute.org

KyMouse on February 3, 2012 at 12:32 PM

So tell me libfreeordie other that your faux compassion what do you actually do for the poor other than insult conservatives on this site. It’s time to put up or shut up.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:25 PM

I spent my early post-college years working for Teach for America in Baltimore, while in graduate school I par-time taught for this organization; http://chicagofreedomschool.org; throughout my graduate career I tutored students in the University’s “transition” program, which helps inner city kids catch up to college level requirements in their Freshman year. I’ve spent innumerable weekends collecting and packing items for Books for Prisoner programs in Chicago. I’ve been a part of innumerable letter writing campaigns and protests concerning the death penalty and harsh sentencing in IL. My life is about social justice.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:26 PM

You should ask them, the left has to change the way they describe themselves and what they do to wedge themselves into society. It’s why leftists describe unborn children as “lumps of tissue” but would never consent to showing a late-term abortion being performed live on the medical channel.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

i think you are just slandering the organization. where is the proof of what you say?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Why don’t you read their history? You think they started as a women’s health center and only reluctantly added abortion?

They started as an organization with a mission to weed society of minorities and the weak. They’ve done everything they can to conceal that mission. They abort babies. That is who they are.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

And here’s the deal on Margaret Sanger. She had reprehensible ideas about poor people, particularly the black poor. This, however, put her in the mainstream of American society in the interwar period. If we’re going to judge all of her ideas based upon her racist attitudes towards blacks how should we then assess the Founders who owned slaves, who ripped the children of slave women away from their mothers and sold them down south? I guess its OK, since the kids weren’t aborted or something.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:27 PM

Do you take some sort of drug to make you this moronic? Are you totally ignorant of the struggle this nation went through for decades over slavery? Did we not ultimately end slavery and recognize the humanity of all?

“But, but, the 3/5 clause!”

Yes, 3/5 because slave states wanted 5/5 and non-slave states wanted 0/5 since these people were not free. Get a friggen clue about history. We are not a perfect people, but at least we struggle towards righteousness. Can a person who advocates denying a persons right to life say that?

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Billions have been poured into Haiti and Africa for years. For what? There has been no actual real change, except making guilty white folk feel better about themselves. Your model is broke, it doesn’t make anything better, just drags it all out and most of the money ends up in the pockets of the thugs running the show anyways. Everyone sees it but you.

gator70 on February 3, 2012 at 12:28 PM

Go here and educate yourself:

http://www.worldvision.org/content.nsf/learn/our-international-work

theotherone on February 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Late to the thread but wow, they caved even faster than I thought they would. I gave it a week tops. Komen has long been lefty leaning. I dont know why anyone who is moderate or right leaning politically supports them. Aside from the abortion support, they are feminist and overly commercial. When they have flipping pink tops to prescription med bottles and ribbons on NFL helmets, its clearly not about research but corporate branding. I think the worst is Safeway grocery stores having donation drives for them, asking you every time you checkout to “round up” with a donation.

oryguncon on February 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM

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

KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

Mister SNAP card!

I’ll recognize you the next time I’m in Taco Bell or McDonalds…

Oh, wait! I can’t afford fast food for myself, but the gubmint says I can afford to pay for your trips to fast food restaurants.

Okay then.

Carry on. You mooching bastard.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

You’re the sad sack who lives from paycheck to paycheck. Tee hee indeed.
 
KeninCT on February 3, 2012 at 12:15 PM

 
Please explain this. Are you laughing at him:
 
1) because he’s working to support himself or
 
2) because you make more money than him?
 
There are no other choices, btw.

rogerb on February 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 12:24 PM

I agree with that.

tinkerthinker on February 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I spent my early post-college years working for Teach for America in Baltimore, while in graduate school I par-time taught for this organization; http://chicagofreedomschool.org; throughout my graduate career I tutored students in the University’s “transition” program, which helps inner city kids catch up to college level requirements in their Freshman year. I’ve spent innumerable weekends collecting and packing items for Books for Prisoner programs in Chicago. I’ve been a part of innumerable letter writing campaigns and protests concerning the death penalty and harsh sentencing in IL. My life is about social justice.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

Good for you. Do you think all those children you helped should have been aborted?

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.” They look at Margaret Sanger and say “she was a racist, so all of her ideas were bad.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.” They look at Margaret Sanger and say “she was a racist, so all of her ideas were bad.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

^^^ The liberal mind. Go around in circles until you justify yourself to yourself.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

My life is about social justice.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

How bout you explain exactly what social justice is.

I don’t think you can.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

An entire school of sharks has been jumped when an equivalence between the Founders and Margaret Sanger is attempted.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.” They look at Margaret Sanger and say “she was a racist, so all of her ideas were bad.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

All of her ideas were bad. She had a eugenics built utopia as her ultimate goal. There was nothing she ever said or did I can agree with. Sometimes a person is nothing but vile. You may as well defend Hitler because we refuse to recognize he treated his pets nicely.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Abortion increases risk of breast cancer.

More abortion, more breast cancer, more donations to Komen.

itsnotaboutme on February 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Good for you. Do you think all those children you helped should have been aborted?

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

No. What’s your point?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Shhhht! We might find out what the term “social justicese” is. Be quiet.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

This, however, put her in the mainstream of Leftist American society in the interwar period.

Fixed, for the leftist pieces of garbage trying to state that eugenics was a mainstream thought, so it’s cool. Were other supporters of eugenics, on the world stage, also considered “mainstream”…at least outside of Germany?

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

An entire school of sharks has been jumped when an equivalence between the Founders and Margaret Sanger is attempted.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

sharks with laser beams on their heads.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

If I weren’t so cynical, I’d swear this was all a fund-raising stunt coordinated by both parties.

SouthernGent on February 3, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

It’s government handouts.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

America’s dedication to child sacrifice is sickening.

We are truly a nation in decline, Obama as president notwithstanding…

tom daschle concerned on February 3, 2012 at 12:42 PM

No, you’re right. An unintended pregnancy never happens. Problem solved

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

My first child, Katie was an unintended pregnancy. We had to break the pregnancy news to both our parents, and we hurried up and got married. This was while I was working full time and going to college full time. We struggled for years.

Today, Katie is 22 and finishing school at OSU where she has majored in Wellness, so that she can help others through her career choice. She is also a devoted Christian, and not only donates to charities, but has also talked with the homeless and fed them with her own money.

I have become older and wiser, and thank God every day for the unintended BLESSING I had the opportunity to receive.

The real question is whether your hard heart will ever melt and learn and grow and get beyond the EVIL idea that human beings are just tissue, to be disposed of when they are inconvenient.

Many on these boards think that liberals are ugly creatures with black twisted hearts. But I think that some can be redeemed, and see logic, and accept grace. Only time will tell which choice you actually choose.

dominigan on February 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Sometimes a person is nothing but vile. You may as well defend Hitler because we refuse to recognize he treated his pets nicely.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

Hitler got many of his ideas on race and eugenics from American progressives including Sanger.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.” They look at Margaret Sanger and say “she was a racist, so all of her ideas were bad.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

That hoe was a liberal who practiced the elimination of the Black race. ARe you that effing stupid? Geeze Oh Petes. Sheesh.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

“Sure, Mengele did some horrific things but…but so did Abraham Lincoln who once pushed a black guy out of his way.”

-logic bereft liberal

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

An entire school of sharks has been jumped when an equivalence between the Founders and Margaret Sanger is attempted.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:39 PM

But break out the popcorn. Looks like we finally have a leftist that seems to be pretty proud of the leftist legacy. Eugenics. Finally a subject FullRetardorDie can embrace other than Mitt Romney trolling.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

I spent my early post-college years working for Teach for America in Baltimore, while in graduate school I par-time taught for this organization; http://chicagofreedomschool.org; throughout my graduate career I tutored students in the University’s “transition” program, which helps inner city kids catch up to college level requirements in their Freshman year. I’ve spent innumerable weekends collecting and packing items for Books for Prisoner programs in Chicago. I’ve been a part of innumerable letter writing campaigns and protests concerning the death penalty and harsh sentencing in IL. My life is about social justice.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

All faux compassion. Did you spend your career in actually teaching inner city kids in their schools so they were actually prepared to go to college. Come to think of it I did. You did feel good things to make yourself feel good. Get back with me when you can talk about more than social justice.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Please be specific. What things did the Founders do that you find horrific?

dominigan on February 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Let’s kill all black babies.

Margaret Sanger on February 3, 2012 at 12:45 AM

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.” They look at Margaret Sanger and say “she was a racist, so all of her ideas were bad.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

The Founders were racist, and their legacy is a country where freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are fundamental principles.

Margaret Sanger was racist, and her legacy was an organization whose primary goal is the extermination of unwanted children.

Yeah, that comparison makes total sense.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

The real question is whether your hard heart will ever melt and learn and grow and get beyond the EVIL idea that human beings are just tissue, to be disposed of when they are inconvenient.

Many on these boards think that liberals are ugly creatures with black twisted hearts. But I think that some can be redeemed, and see logic, and accept grace. Only time will tell which choice you actually choose.

dominigan on February 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

{Hugs}

Someday, they will see. Life, itself, is a right.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

There was a bit of bait and switch going on…

I hope people can still stop payment on their donations from yesterday. Just sayin’.

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

CR@P…she caved… :(

easyt65 on February 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

Were other supporters of eugenics, on the world stage, also considered “mainstream”…at least outside of Germany?

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Teddy Roosevelt, a eugenics advocate, wasn’t a fringe character, and he continues to be highly thought of.

OptionsTrader on February 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Please be specific. What things did the Founders do that you find horrific?

dominigan on February 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Mostly likely affirming everyone’s right of self-defense and letting Conservatives have freedom of speech, horrific things like that..

Chip on February 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM

All faux compassion. Did you spend your career in actually teaching inner city kids in their schools so they were actually prepared to go to college. Come to think of it I did. You did feel good things to make yourself feel good. Get back with me when you can talk about more than social justice.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:44 PM

If your claim is that we should only listen to inner city teachers about how to best approach the problem of poverty in this country then I agree. But if your goal is some kind of charity measuring contest then count me out, I don’t have a thing to prove.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.” They look at Margaret Sanger and say “she was a racist, so all of her ideas were bad.”

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM

It’s her ideas that were racist. How do you not get that?

Hitler wasn’t all bad either. That doesn’t mean we should all read Mein Kempf.

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Research Margaret Sanger and you will have the answer.

chemman on February 3, 2012 at 12:31 PM

from wikipedia:

Eugenics

As part of her efforts to promote birth control, Sanger found common cause with proponents of eugenics, believing that they both sought to “assist the race toward the elimination of the unfit.”[72] Sanger was a proponent of negative eugenics, which aims to improve human hereditary traits through social intervention by reducing reproduction by those considered unfit. Sanger’s eugenic policies included an exclusionary immigration policy, free access to birth control methods and full family planning autonomy for the able-minded, and compulsory segregation or sterilization for the profoundly retarded.[73][74] In her book The Pivot of Civilization, she advocated coercion to prevent the “undeniably feeble-minded” from procreating.[75] Although Sanger supported negative eugenics, she asserted that eugenics alone was not sufficient, and that birth control was essential to achieve her goals.[76][77][78]

In contrast with eugenicists who advocated euthanasia for the unfit,[note 9] Sanger wrote, “we [do not] believe that the community could or should send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from irresponsible and unintelligent breeding.”[79] Similarly, Sanger denounced the aggressive and lethal Nazi eugenics program.[74] In addition, Sanger believed the responsibility for birth control should remain in the hands of able-minded individual parents rather than the state, and that self-determining motherhood was the only unshakable foundation for racial betterment.[76][80]

very nuanced position. she is not a monster as you paint her to be.

Race
W. E. B. Du Bois served on the board of Sanger’s Harlem clinic.[82]

Sanger believed that lighter-skinned races were superior to darker-skinned races, but would not tolerate bigotry among her staff, nor any refusal to work within interracial projects.[83] Although Sanger’s views on race appear archaic from a modern viewpoint, some of her contemporaries in the African-American community supported her efforts. In 1929, James H. Hubert, a black social worker and leader of New York’s Urban League, asked Sanger to open a clinic in Harlem.[84] Sanger secured funding from the Julius Rosenwald Fund and opened the clinic, staffed with African-American doctors, in 1930. The clinic was directed by a 15-member advisory board consisting of African-American doctors, nurses, clergy, journalists, and social workers. The clinic was publicized in the African-American press and African-American churches, and received the approval of W. E. B. Du Bois, founder of the NAACP.[85] Sanger’s work with minorities earned praise from Martin Luther King, Jr., in his 1966 acceptance speech for the Margaret Sanger award.[86]

believes in white racial superiority but rejects any bigotry and still gets praise from King? hard to explain this paradox.

anyway she is not the monster you paint her to be and many of her ideas were typical of her time. I really see no need to judge PP based on the long past history of its founder. proof of this, is that sanger WAS AGAINST ABORTION and the current PP allows it.

Sanger’s family planning advocacy always focused on contraception, rather than abortion.[95][note 10] It was not until the mid 1960s, after Sanger’s death, that the reproductive rights movement expanded its scope to include abortion rights as well as contraception.[note 11] Sanger was opposed to abortions, both because they were dangerous for the mother, and because she believed that life should not be terminated after conception. In her book Woman and the New Race, she wrote, “while there are cases where even the law recognizes an abortion as justifiable if recommended by a physician, I assert that the hundreds of thousands of abortions performed in America each year are a disgrace to civilization.”[98]

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

These spinless btchs just lost my contributions.

rjulio on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

The point is that conservatives look at the horrific things the Founders did and *shrug* “well they had good ideas.” They look at Margaret Sanger and say “she was a racist, so all of her ideas were bad.”

[libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:36 PM]

And the difference was that the Founders dealt with what existed at the time and had gone on for generations, had to choose between two mutually exclusive imperative and chose the one, while the long, slow struggle to end the other continued and was eventually won.

Margaret Sanger, on the other hand, dealt with what existed at the time — the miserable state of the poor, and black poor, in particular — by deciding to start a movement to kill them off.

Dusty on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

But if your goal is some kind of charity measuring contest then count me out, I don’t have a thing to prove.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Neither do pro-lifers, but that’s not how you’re acting.

Esthier on February 3, 2012 at 12:50 PM

You have spammed every thread with this comment and it still doesn’t make any sense. Who lobbied whom, and for what?

rockmom on February 3, 2012 at 11:37 AM

When Mitt signed the passage of his RomneyCare, he appointed a Planned Parenthood advocate to oversee the abortion part…his promise to not change one word or one dollar of support for abortions. That person lobbied to have state funded abortions, and it was also signed by Mitt.
Mitt did not appoint a pro-life advocate to even counter balance this Planned Parenthood appointment…get it now, it’s public record.
You may call it “spam”, but it’s truthful spam, that even people as learned as you obviously did not have a clue…now you know.
He not only verbally supported abortion and the existing liberal laws in Mass, he also backed it up with appointments.

right2bright on February 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

dominigan on February 3, 2012 at 12:43 PM

God bless you, Katie, and your family.

kingsjester on February 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

Jeez. At least the rest of us were supporting Komen before they were politicized. Looks like you only started caring when you thought they backed your pet pro-life issue. Pretty lame.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Who politicized them? The extreme-right-wing anti-choicers pro-lifers, or the United States SENATORS who sent them a threatening letter?

Your ability to divorce yourself from logical thought is uncanny.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

But if your goal is some kind of charity measuring contest then count me out, I don’t have a thing to prove.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM

What is social justice?

eventually you’ll answer the question, right?

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:51 PM

{Hugs}

Someday, they will see. Life, itself, is a right.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 12:46 PM

I imagine a day when future “social justice” morons also know nothing of history and fight hard to protect some other liberty denying construct while screaming, “You say your for such and such, but what about your ancestors who were for abortion?!?”

They will also probably be calling themselves social conservatives having co-opted the name after their evil positions could no longer be justified and they wish for the rest of us to contract a case of amnesia. But have you ever noticed it is people like this who are actually the most ignorant of history?

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

No more dropping money in the bucket at Chevron when I get gas during save the boobies month.

multiuseless on February 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

The Founders were racist, and their legacy is a country where freedom of speech, religion, and assembly are fundamental principles.

Margaret Sanger was racist, and her legacy was an organization whose primary goal is the extermination of unwanted children.

Yeah, that comparison makes total sense.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Well, that was impressive…nice job…

right2bright on February 3, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Teddy Roosevelt, a eugenics advocate, wasn’t a fringe character, and he continues to be highly thought of.

OptionsTrader on February 3, 2012 at 12:47 PM

There ya go, a Roosevelt. Our fearless President just embraced Roosevelt’s legacy, didn’t he?

“I wish very much that the wrong people could be prevented entirely from breeding.”

Although I didn’t see where Roosevelt brought race into it the way Sanger and others have. Roosevelt was big on eugenics for criminals and special needs types.

But a good example! Finally the left fully embracing their legacy. I’m loving it!

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:53 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 8