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 6 8

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Wikipedia?

Try this instead.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM

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.
 
libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:33 PM

 
Serious question:
 
Those students were the fruit of social acceptance of low standards in teachers/schools/programs/families (all historically controlled by one party, btw).
 
How did your actions help students that came after you graduated?

rogerb on February 3, 2012 at 12:55 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.
whose primary services provide reproductive healthcare to women who survive at 150% below poverty
MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Fixed that for you.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

The prog blogs lit up this morning with criticism of SGK’s rate of overhead and salaries of their executives; trying to destroy them more or less. I wonder now if they will back off.

In any case, Murder Inc. saw a pop in their own fundraising, including a donation from Bloomblob.

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Wikipedia?

Oh no, Sanger was no monster, in fact you can tell this by looking not at Wikipedia but a book she actually wrote:

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, referring to immigrants and poor people in her book “Pivot of Civilization”.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

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.

That’s true, but I think it’s also misleading.

It fails to mention that PP does foot the bill for screening when they give a referral. You can’t just walk into a radiologist’s office, ask for a mammogram, and say, “Don’t sweat it, Komen will pick up the tab later.” It makes more sense for Komen to fund popular clinics like PP and let the referrer handle the payment.

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

How did your actions help students that came after you graduated?

rogerb on February 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Yup, the transition program just ended after I graduated. LOL.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

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

actually yes… and sanger was against abortions.

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

i dont believe this. sanger biography seems clear on her early career as a nurse and her activism surrounding womans issues. her eugenics beliefs seem to be marginal.

i write more in this post:
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/03/breaking-komen-announces-that-planned-parenthood-eligibility-for-funding-will-continue/comment-page-3/#comment-5421416

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

At this point, Sanger turned her attention specifically to the reproductive practices of black Americans. She selected former ABCL director Clarence J. Gamble (of the Procter and Gamble company) to become BCFA’s southern regional director. That November, Gamble drew up a memorandum titled “Suggestion for Negro Project,” whose ultimate aim was to decrease the black birth rate significantly.

that Margaret Sanger was a saint!

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Fixed that for you.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Thanks for demonstrating your fundamental dishonesty, because even most reasonable pro-choice people would not deny that The National Birth Control League/Planned Parenthood is anything but an organization that experiences increased profits and influenced with every additional abortion that occurs.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

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

Your level of condescension towards the poor is appalling. No wonder you defend Margaret Sanger. What a contrast with Mother Theresa, who saw so much dignity in them and was their servant.

neuquenguy on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

“For the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization.”

-Sanger, 1923

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 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

Sooooo chemmen feeds children in his/her spare time, and you lobby on behalf of rapists and murderers.

el-oh-el

spinach.chin on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Win.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=1816

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

I will never ever support Komen in any way again, because I would never ever ever knowingly support PP in any way whatsoever. I wish I could take back my prior support (money and otherwise) but too late for that now.

toby11 on February 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

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.

This is good, keep it up! I wonder which “projects” were encouraged.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

spinach.chin on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Yup, every single one of the millions of Americans incarcerated today are murderers and rapists.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:59 PM

And the sex drive can not be contained, its been tried, it doesn’t work.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

It certainly works when you put compulsory sterilization by government dictate into action, a policy that Margaret Sanger, and every other pro-eugenics activist supported fervently.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

Fixed that for you.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

It slides right past you doesn’t it?

“PP, killing all them poor babies in poor neighborhoods for decades.”

Eugenics is ingrained in their DNA. It is no accident PP operates primarily in inner-cities. And it is also no accident that half of all black pregnancies end in abortion.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her scheme were immigration restrictions, compulsory sterilization, and segregation to a lifetime of farm work.

Nope, no monster there, just a young woman with new ideas to make the world a better place.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

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

The sad thing is, you’ve not done any research other than their website. It’s a well known fact from research and “sting” operations that actually going to the clinics in various locations reveals that they push FIRST and FOREMOST the abortion option.

Union websites tell you how awesome THEY are too…..

Sponge on February 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

It fails to mention that PP does foot the bill for screening when they give a referral.

Really? PP pays for all the mammograms given to the women they refer? How does that work? The radiologist bills PP?

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.” Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race (Eugenics Publ. Co., 1920, 1923)

Margaret Sanger – Humanitarian

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

You may view the following comment as an affirmation..

You are one of the most reprehensible commenters I have ever had the displeasure to notice.

tom daschle concerned on February 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

It certainly works when you put compulsory sterilization by government dictate into action, a policy that Margaret Sanger, and every other pro-eugenics activist supported fervently. mainstream anti-poverty reformer supported including Roosevelt.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

I’ve already posted about forced sterilization in this thread. It was a horrific thing that has nothing to do with a womans’ choice. It is forced.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

My professors preached social justice all the time so I know it’s super good. I just can’t tell you what it is.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

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

You write about poor people like they are cattle. You also write about them like you think you are much smarter then them.

It takes a lot of nerve to tell a person that because they are poor they should abort their child. Don’t ever do it in person. You probably wouldn’t like the response.

BoxHead1 on February 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM

“Eugenic sterilization is an urgent need … We must prevent multiplication of this bad stock.”

Margaret Sanger, April 1933 Birth Control Review.

Sanger – Mother of the century

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:05 PM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/what-planned-parenthood-actually-does/2011/04/06/AFhBPa2C_blog.html

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:01 PM

Your graph doesn’t address the fact that the true profit-producing action that they are responsible for is abortions. Now, they can certainly tout their work to combat STDs, but it rather loses its weight as a sufficient component of their activities when it largely consists of the number of times they give out free condoms to people who barely make it past the receptionist’s desk.

Additionally, I’m pretty sure the numerous videos made, exposing employees of PP and their clinics breaking federal law had less to do with cancer screening than it had to do with advising teenagers that they could get abortions and keep it secret from their parents. If abortion is truly not the central peg of their organizational dependence, you’re going to need a hell of a lot of evidence not only to back it up, but to dispel the fact of the evidence to the contrary.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:06 PM

You just can not accept that sex is inevitable.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:20 PM

For your part, you cannot accept that a culture which teaches delayed gratification and envelops the sex act within the bounds of monogamous marriage and encourages and strengthens the familial structure, since such a social model is antithetical to the liberal (read Marxist) ideal. Lenin and other practical Marxists encouraged the view of sex as a purely physical act, one devoid of emotional attachment, and viewed the traditional family unit as a threat to the development of an ideal Marxist society. For there to be such a thing as casual sex, there must be casual consequences if a child results from such a union. For one thing, we can no longer call the child a child. He or she must be considered an ‘it’, a nonperson, an unthinking, unfeeling blob of tissue.

Ultimately, the reason why pro-abortion advocates are so unyielding and uncompromising, so vociferous and shrill, so dishonest in their dealings, is because if any one of them conceded the humanity of these children, then they would be undone.

troyriser_gopftw on February 3, 2012 at 1:07 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, except for the fact that your assumption that pro-lifers don’t care about hungry children is false, you’ve got a great point there.

Keep digging that hole.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Sanger for president 2012! She’s cares more about black people than Barack Obama.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

“Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race.”

Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

“Eugenics is … the most adequate and thorough avenue to the solution of racial, political and social problems.Margaret Sanger. ”

The Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda.” Birth Control Review, October 1921, page 5.

Yessir, Sanger sure was a nice gal.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Really? PP pays for all the mammograms given to the women they refer? How does that work? The radiologist bills PP?

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

That seems reasonable, yes. That’s part of why Komen funds PP: to pay for screenings.

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 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 suspect that libreeordie is a sockpuppet of crr6

Count it.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

I’ve already posted about forced sterilization in this thread. It was a horrific thing that has nothing to do with a womans’ choice. It is forced.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

So horrific that you redefined eugenics as “anti-poverty reform”. You’re so intellectually dishonest it’s literally sickening. Again, I am not in favor of outlawing abortion, but the people like you who represent its promotion are the primary reason the majority of the population continue to view abortion as the horrific procedure that it is, and the mentality required by those that would proudly defend said promotion.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Wikipedia?

Oh no, Sanger was no monster, in fact you can tell this by looking not at Wikipedia but a book she actually wrote:

“…human weeds,’ ‘reckless breeders,’ ‘spawning… human beings who never should have been born.” Margaret Sanger, referring to immigrants and poor people in her book “Pivot of Civilization”.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

she sounds like some conservatives in HA when commenting about mitt’s , ” not focus on poor people” remark.

i disagree with her, but i understand where she comes from. dont forget that her reality was of the early 20th century, where numerous extreme poverty went hand in hand with very large families. we dont see this kind of stuff anymore and much of the reason is indeed because of easily available contraception.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

In her “Plan for Peace,” Sanger outlined her strategy for eradication of those she deemed “feebleminded.” Among the steps included in her scheme were immigration restrictions, compulsory sterilization, and segregation to a lifetime of farm work.

Nope, no monster there, just a young woman with new ideas to make the world a better place.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:00 PM

“Woman and the New Race” is the best Sanger reading, I think.

Axe on February 3, 2012 at 1:09 PM

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

This man’s seamless garb is quite torn. Those who have been sentenced to death are the outcasts of society — people whose worth has been determined by others to be zero — or less.

That he fights for these people, and yet, in another breath, says that the worth of a child — its right to life — is to be determined by another, certainly has no moral standing on the former — for said children are innocent while the majority of those on death row are far from it.

[As for me -- I'm against abortion and against the death penalty too. Don't go looking for any rents in my garb!]

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 1:04 PM

You are a mess and a half. What is social justice? For one thing social justice doesn’t exist, but its something that people can fight to achieve through grassroots social movements or political lobbying. The goals of social justice movements are to highlight/expose and oppose areas of American life where vulnerable groups/communities are:

-Singled out by the state for surveillance and punishment.

-Are exploited by capitalism.

One of the terrains where people fight is on the issue of representation, particularly within the media or in political debates. A simple example is the way conservatives demonize illegal immigrants for economic woes. That demonization can often lead to violence against illegal immigrants, “bean hunts” for example or to laws like Arizona’s racial profiling legislation. So in fighting for social justice you oppose both the causes and consequences of structural oppression and discrimination. Its not that hard if you actually thought about it. Does that answer your question?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

nevermind! Future funding isn’t guaranteed. It’s no longer a cave, it’s a clear win for Komen.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

I’ve already posted about forced sterilization in this thread. It was a horrific thing that has nothing to do with a womans’ choice. It is forced.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:03 PM

Sorry, but I have to point this out again. You relabeled compulsory sterilization as a part of the eugenics movement of the early 20th century as “anti-poverty reform”.

You are basically saying that the government seizing you at gunpoint and forcibly castrating you is an anti-poverty measure. What in the f**k is wrong with you? Exactly how much value do you place on human life, or are you one of these people who believes that the world would be much better off if billions of poor people simply “went away”?

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Excellent comment.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

I wonder how many other organizations are funding Planned Parenthood that people don’t know about.

I would have never thought Komen was.

gophergirl on February 3, 2012 at 11:41 AM

I did some basic web research during coerced giving season (aka the annual company UnitedWay drive). We had 5 “funds” to give to, each with a different mission. The CommunityShares Health fund (seems innocous enough) funnels to a place called Pro-Choice Resources. Hmmm, I thought as I googled up their site. Sure enough, abortion referrals. Another fund channels to the local chapters of Women Against Military Madness and LaRaza. They are purely political! Were there any conservative causes receiving money? Duh, we all know the answer to that. Needless to say, my contribution to any fund was $0. Wonder how many of my clueless coworkers would like to know these facts.

Nordeast on February 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

“The minister’s work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

Sanger – Always vigilant against them getting too uppity and needing straightened out. I wonder if any records of her speeches exist, from her time with the New Jersey Ku Klux Klan.

Her partner, Harry H. Laughlin had quite the client list himself, also.

This is fun. Any more quotes out there?

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 1:12 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

According to the liberals, it never ended.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

ha ha ha that is some weakass backtracking by Komen

Dave Rywall on February 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

So much fail. Apparently a teacher in the Chicago Public Schools who’s concerned that people are “exploited by capitalism.”

So much is explained.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Honey child, Margaret Sanger was all about killing black children through abortion. What about her history do you fail to understand?

Why are you not educating yourself on who this monster was and what her legacy is? Please. Educate yourself

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 1:14 PM

That demonization can often lead to violence against illegal immigrants, “bean hunts” for example or to laws like Arizona’s racial profiling legislation. So in fighting for social justice you oppose both the causes and consequences of structural oppression and discrimination. Its not that hard if you actually thought about it. Does that answer your question?

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

oh, that was perfect!

AZ’s racial profiling legislation that curiously exactly resembles federal law.

this was my favorite – For one thing social justice doesn’t exist

let me help you. Social justice is increasing government dependence in the name of compassion. Social justice is liberalism.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Wikipedia?

Try this instead.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 12:54 PM

to objectively read your biased site i would have to compensate by reading a leftist site as well. too much work and i will stick with wikipedia for now. even her most controversial ideas seem well documented in her article.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 1:15 PM

Apparently a lot about Sanger’s life sends posts to the never never land of moderation.

/sigh

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

How did your actions help students that came after you graduated?
 
rogerb on February 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM

 
Yup, the transition program just ended after I graduated. LOL.
 
libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:56 PM

 
Wow. I thought I was talking to another college graduate. Here. Let me write it one more time. I’ll bold the important part.
 

How did your actions help students that came after you graduated?

 
I wasn’t asking about a “transition program”. I was asking about your accomplishment regarding a group you viewed as needing help. Social-justice-wise, you didn’t improve the system. Worse, what you did, while helping a few students, encouraged and supported the social/educational low-standards and helped ensure the status quo was/is maintained.
 
What you did for a few individuals is commendable if it wasn’t done as a requirement for graduation. What you did as part of an organized support system (“transition program”) was simply act as an enabler. See drug or alcohol addiction if you’re unsure of the term.

rogerb on February 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

That seems reasonable, yes. That’s part of why Komen funds PP: to pay for screenings.

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

“Seems reasonable”? How about a link that proves your assertion?

My understanding was that Komen funded PP to provide referrals. That doesn’t mean PP picked up the tab for the actual screenings themselves. It could be that PP keeps a list of clinics and radiologists that do free or low-cost breast cancer screening, and forwards authorization or medical records etc. as necessary. That would represent an administrative/staff training cost at most for PP.

For example, my pediatrician provides referrals for services they provide – like speech and physical therapy. But they do not actually pay for my child to receive that therapy. They just send a signed letter from the doctor and the necessary paperwork over to the therapist’s office.

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

she sounds like some conservatives in HA when commenting about mitt’s , ” not focus on poor people” remark.

Wait…what? Are you and libfree being pulled by the same boat on your water-skis?

i disagree with her, but i understand where she comes from. dont forget that her reality was of the early 20th century, where numerous extreme poverty went hand in hand with very large families. we dont see this kind of stuff anymore and much of the reason is indeed because of easily available contraception.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Spin it all you want, taking all her quotes you can’t escape the fact that Sanger was advocating some sort of master race where the “feeble minded” and excess members of society were gotten rid of.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

AP, Tina or Ed?

Really?

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Apparently a lot about Sanger’s life sends posts to the never never land of moderation.

/sigh

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 1:16 PM

A post with multiple links it in automatically trips the moderation, not necessarily the content, just FYI.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

referrals for services they provide

Sorry, s/b “for services they do NOT provide”

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Let’s just stipulate that Sanger had abhorrent views on race and eugenics (though her views were unfortunately all too typical of the time she lived). Ok, she was a bad person. That doesn’t mean PP is a bad organization (see: genetic fallacy).

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Thank god all of the po’ folk have liberals to do the thinking for them! I wonder if they swing by and cut their meat for them for dinner? The absolute arrogance of young liberal “social justice” types boggles the mind.

gator70 on February 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM

The sad thing is, you’ve not done any research other than their website. It’s a well known fact from research and “sting” operations that actually going to the clinics in various locations reveals that they push FIRST and FOREMOST the abortion option.

Union websites tell you how awesome THEY are too…..

Sponge on February 3, 2012 at 1:02 PM

ok, so pressure on that instead of trying to bring all the PP organization down.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM

[Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM]

“The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it.”

–Margaret Sanger, Women and the New Race

Dusty on February 3, 2012 at 1:19 PM

ha ha ha that is some weakass backtracking by Komen

Dave Rywall on February 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

Heh. This coming from the “do as I say, not as I do” crowd.

You DO realize that SGK can do what they choose with their donations, right? I mean “Freedom of SPEECH” and all that stuff……

I hope I never understand the liberal mindset. I really don’t want to know……

Sponge on February 3, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Let’s just stipulate that Sanger had abhorrent views on race and eugenics (though her views were unfortunately all too typical of the time she lived). Ok, she was a bad person. That doesn’t mean PP is a bad organization (see: genetic fallacy).

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Forget Sanger, let’s think about all those children murdered by PP.

tom daschle concerned on February 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Your level of condescension towards the poor is appalling. No wonder you defend Margaret Sanger. What a contrast with Mother Theresa, who saw so much dignity in them and was their servant.

neuquenguy on February 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

“The suffering of the poor is something very beautiful and the world is being very much helped by the nobility of this example of misery and suffering,”

~Mother Teresa.

What a saint.

Pablo Honey on February 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

Let’s just stipulate that Sanger had abhorrent views on race and eugenics (though her views were unfortunately all too typical of the time she lived). Ok, she was a bad person. That doesn’t mean PP is a bad organization (see: genetic fallacy).

RightOFLeft of February 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Disconnecting an organization from its’ founders ideas and worldview, unless you can demonstrably show that PP has separated themselves from said ideas and worldview, is equally fallacious.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:21 PM

According to the liberals, it never ended.

unclesmrgol on February 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM

you have a point. but awareness at least about contraceptive methods is necessary to avoid returning to those days.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 1:22 PM

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

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 12:22 PM

And the solution to every unintended pregnancy isn’t abortion, although Planned Parenthood fights against giving women alternatives to abortion, with the full support of the “pro-choice” movement. The pro-abortion crowd also cares about women “making their own choice” so much that they fight against parental consent laws and standards for abortion clinics. Funny that, eh?

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 1:22 PM

And the solution to every unintended pregnancy isn’t abortion…

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Such an idea is “anti-woman”, according to people like libfreeordie, and organizations like Planned Parenthood. That alone tells the whole story.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Would lifenews work for you?

“When a mammogram is indicated, a patient is often referred to a local program, such as the state’s breast and cervical cancer program. In other cases, the Komen Affiliate’s grant to Planned Parenthood may include funds to pay for mammograms outright. When this happens, a local provider performs the mammogram, and is then reimbursed by Planned Parenthood using the Komen grant funds,” Komen admits.

Lifenews tries to paint this as some kind of expose, but it’s right there in their own article. I think I did speak too broadly, though. I should have noted that the funds probably only go to qualifying low-income women.

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

ha ha ha that is some weakass backtracking by Komen

[Dave Rywall on February 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM]

ha ha ha, the funding revision by Komen remains.

Dusty on February 3, 2012 at 1:24 PM

i disagree with her, but i understand where she comes from. dont forget that her reality was of the early 20th century, where numerous extreme poverty went hand in hand with very large families. we dont see this kind of stuff anymore and much of the reason is indeed because of easily available contraception.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 1:08 PM

Face it. She killed alot of Negros. That was her mission. She’s dead but she’s still killing Negros. Lilly white women support abortion and lilly white men support abortion and the only folks that have abortions lately are Negroes.

Mostly Black girls.

Conservatives abhor abortion. So, Nathor? You make a note of that.
And, pass it along to your friends in the democratic abortionmill party of doom.

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 1:26 PM

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM

AP, Tina or Ed?

Really?

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

2nd

MontanaMmmm on February 3, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Aren’t they both non-profits? It just seems kind of wrong that a non-profit is donating to a non-profit. If I donated to organization X, it’s because I want that money to go to them, otherwise I would have donated to organization Y in the first place. I don’t care if there is no doubt PP is using Komen’s money for screenings, since they support abortions I do not want my money going to their organization at all. Period. It’s not hard to understand. Anti-lifer’s have their principals, and I as a Pro-lifer have mine.

gator70 on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Thanks. It sounds like in some cases the screenings are funded, and in some cases not. Hard to know the ratio. But given the number of PP clinics and the amount of money granted by Komen per year, that doesn’t work out to a lot of money per clinic, so I’m going to that the number of screenings directly funded by PP using Komen funds is pretty low.

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

women “making their own choice” so much that they fight against parental consent laws and standards for abortion clinics. Funny that

Not funny actually. It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

And to answer your other claim. I don’t think abortion is the only solution for an unplanned pregnancy. I think women should have that option.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Jesus, Komen flip flops faster than Mitt Romney. Take a stand already and keep it for more than 5 minutes.

angryed on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I knew better than to trust Komen. It’s a money grabbing operation. Their entire mission is to raise money so that their overpaid staff get paid. Pink ribbons are a joke. Every time you buy something with a pink ribbon on it you are merely contributing to someone else’s salary. It’s worse than Red Cross. They actually occasionally do something for people in distress. With Komen you never see where the money goes. It’s a scam.

legalimmigrant on February 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM

“If Planned Parenthood performs the mammograms needed for screening, then certainly it’s a legitimate action to offer a grant funding that activity.”

No, it’s not.

Put “the Nazi Party” in place of “Planned Parenthood” and you get the picture.

WannabeAnglican on February 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Let’s just stipulate that Sanger had abhorrent views on race and eugenics (though her views were unfortunately all too typical of the time she lived). Ok, she was a bad person. That doesn’t mean PP is a bad organization (see: genetic fallacy).

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

Well sure PP is awesome. Well ok there is that little problem of the facilitation of murdering babies, but other than that I mean.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:29 PM

“When a mammogram is indicated, a patient is often referred to a local program, such as the state’s breast and cervical cancer program. In other cases, the Komen Affiliate’s grant to Planned Parenthood may include funds to pay for mammograms outright. When this happens, a local provider performs the mammogram, and is then reimbursed by Planned Parenthood using the Komen grant funds,” Komen admits.

Hmmmm….In your own quote there are some non-fact backing words included:

Often referred; may include funds.

That’s a whole lot different from “are referred” and “automatically includes.”

There’s no FACTS that show PP does ANY of that.

Sponge on February 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

No wonder Illinois school systems have the reputation they do…

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Not funny actually. It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

And to answer your other claim. I don’t think abortion is the only solution for an unplanned pregnancy. I think women should have that option.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

If that child is living under my roof, and I am legally responsible for them in every way, it most certainly is my business. You must be out of your mind.

gator70 on February 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

How many more confusingly worded clarifications are on the way?

JosephP on February 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

AP, Tina or Ed?

Really?

Key West Reader on February 3, 2012 at 1:17 PM

Why are you obsessed with me. On an earlier thread you thought that your post would cause you to be banned. That post was filled with vitriolic personal attacks towards me. I think the word “loath” and “fight to the death” were used. Why on earth would the mods ban me for engaging in spirited debate and not ban you for (albeit in the most vague and weird way ever) challenging me to some sort of duel? Though, I must admit, I am sorry you didn’t try and slap me with a cyber glove that would’ve been camp-tastic.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

Let’s just stipulate that Sanger had abhorrent views on race and eugenics (though her views were unfortunately all too typical of the time she lived). Ok, she was a bad person. That doesn’t mean PP is a bad organization (see: genetic fallacy).

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:18 PM

I don’t understand…who stipulates that Sanger had abhorrent views? The leaders of Planned Parenthood?
Could you link that please? Last I heard, they feel she is a heroin, and are proud of the word she had done for women rights. Her views are embraced by the now leaders.
If “Let’s” means “you”, that means nothing…no offense.

right2bright on February 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Not funny actually. It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Stunning.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM

Not funny actually. It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Wrong, wrong, and double wrong, pal, if that child is underage.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 1:31 PM

All I know is, if you’re ever see someone wearing a pink ribbon at a poker table, GET IN THAT GAME!

In honor of the epic fold, here’s: Hooked.

What a deplorable move. What a despicable left-wing society.

BKeyser on February 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Thanks. It sounds like in some cases the screenings are funded, and in some cases not. Hard to know the ratio. But given the number of PP clinics and the amount of money granted by Komen per year, that doesn’t work out to a lot of money per clinic, so I’m going to that the number of screenings directly funded by PP using Komen funds is pretty low.

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

I’ve been trying to find some actual numbers because I’m curious about the same things. I think it’s fair for donors to Komen to have an accurate accounting of what the PP funds are being spent on. To be honest, though, I think it’s far-fetched that PP is spending the screening money on anything but screening.

RightOFLeft on February 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Not funny actually. It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

What’s wrong with you?

kingsjester on February 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM

Not funny actually. It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

O_O

I…uh…uh….someone else want to take this, I believe I just experienced a severe disruption of the time/space continuum.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 1:32 PM

It looks like Komen is trying to muddy the water enough to get everyone off their backs by confusing the hell out of them.

Either way, I won’t lose any sleep tonight over this.

DRayRaven on February 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM

So who’s up for that “prestigious” Margaret Sanger Award this year?

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 1:33 PM

When the “walk for the cure” walks by they can just keep on walking. No contributions from me. They should have stuck with their stated mission of a cure for breast cancer rather than funding abortion under the guise of women’s health care.

Come to think of it, Komen is rather sexist concentrating on just female related cancer cures.

iamsaved on February 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Why on earth would the mods ban me for engaging in spirited debate…

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:30 PM

They ban posters more often for just being a troll, and causing a ruckus without really engaging in what the thread is about…usually liberals because they can’t carry a fight with facts…for just throwing out comments to get a reaction. That’s what liberal trolls do, not for a “spirited debate” but because they have nothing of any value.

right2bright on February 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Not funny actually. It isn’t a parent’s business if their child has an abortion.

And to answer your other claim. I don’t think abortion is the only solution for an unplanned pregnancy. I think women should have that option.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Really?

What IS the age of consent in this country? Last time I checked, you were still under the parental guardian label until you were 18…..when you’re actually considered by the legal system as an adult.

Typical “pick and choose what fits” argument poorly played.

Sponge on February 3, 2012 at 1:34 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 8