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 4 5 6 7 8

hold your breath…no wait! don’t

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM

EXXXXhales, breaths in deep thanks, I was turning blue. lol

MontanaMmmm on February 3, 2012 at 2:28 PM

Those procedures have a risk of death.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Abortion has the certainty of death. But of course you knew that already.

Naturally Curly on February 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Ohhhh the stench of hypocrisy oozes from every pore at SGK.

Of COURSE, they are fully aware of the direct link between breast cancer and women who’ve had abortions.

http://www.etters.net/cancerTP.htm

From one of the first links:

Dr. Janet Daling is a cancer researcher at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center and the University of Washington. Dr. Daling is self-described as ‘pro-choice’. On 2 November 1994 Dr. Daling and fellow researchers published an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (pp. 1584-1592) concerning induced abortion and breast cancer risk for premenopausal women. Some key findings:

Women under age 18 who had an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 150%.
Women of age 30 and above who aborted a first pregnancy increase their breast cancer risk by 110%.
Overall, women who have an induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 50%.

The Journal of the National Medical Association is a publication by black medical professionals concerned with black health problems. In the December 1993 issue JNMA published the results of a Howard University study. Key finding:

Black women of age 50 and above who had at least 1 induced abortion have an increased breast cancer risk of 370%.

Tell me Margaret Sanger doesn’t have a thrill running up her leg.

Harbingeing on February 3, 2012 at 2:30 PM

prolifers have no moral qualms in demonizing the whole organization just because of the 3% they spend in abortions, ignoring all the contraception access PP provides that is so important to prevent stories like the ones above.

What do Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, and Hitler all have in common?

Now I know your first instinct is to say that they slaughtered large numbers of people, but you would be wrong.

The correct answer is: They all made the trains run on time.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Words of inspiration by Margaret Sanger. I do believe you’re on to something. I encourage you to continue. You’ll win the thread, surely!

3%. Once again, chumplett, if you so ashamed of something you feel the need to just make up statistics, it might be time to change what you believe.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Ezra Klein? That man’s “logic” gets torn to shreds so often that I’m surprised he hasn’t been institutionalized.

Abortion procedures are a small part of PP’s service suite yet that small part provides the most money, in both actual dollars and as a percentage.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 2:10 PM

eh, if money is all they care about, then why provide contraception at all? its only hampering business.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Of COURSE, they are fully aware of the direct link between breast cancer and women who’ve had abortions.

http://www.etters.net/cancerTP.htm

Harbingeing on February 3, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Then why don’t they say something? Why do they still associate with Planned Parenthood?

I’m really asking. I don’t understand this.

Axe on February 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

Words of inspiration by Margaret Sanger. I do believe you’re on to something. I encourage you to continue. You’ll win the thread, surely!

3%. Once again, chumplett, if you so ashamed of something you feel the need to just make up statistics, it might be time to change what you believe.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM

you right, its 3% of the services, but not of the revenue, because contraception is much more cheaper.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

eh, if money is all they care about, then why provide contraception at all? its only hampering business.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM

On the contrary, it aids business. Many people and organizations profess to donate to PP because of the “other” services. If all PP did was provide abortions, PP and its donors wouldn’t have that cover.

The Komen funding is case in point. Government funding too.

Missy on February 3, 2012 at 2:40 PM

you right, its 3% of the services, but not of the revenue, because contraception is much more cheaper.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

I fixed your little grammar fart

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:40 PM

eh, if money is all they care about, then why provide contraception at all? its only hampering business.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM

Because even PP knows that a pure abortion mill would be about as popular as the Black Plague, so they provide cover for themselves by handing out helmet hoods and offering “counseling”.

329,000 abortions, 841 adoption referrals. Math.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Revenue is how you measure what a business does. Attempting to change that is once again showing shame in what you believe, which seems to be a common trait of your posts.

15% is the generally accepted figure. Own it with pride.

MNHawk on February 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I love me some Bubonic Plague.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Looks like lib(death) ran away, couldn’t take the heat or answer the questions….sets the bait

MontanaMmmm on February 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Komen is way behind the curve on their new critera. Grant funding based on outcomes is a no-brainer if you want to maximize funds and demonstrate accountability. This was the direction most funding organizations and those receiving grants were moving in, even state government, several years ago.

Funding based on outcomes mirrors the for-profit world. In other words, if the methods you use to run your business doesn’t work, like wasting dollars on anything that doesn’t increase your bottom line, you’ll fold.

Komen’s bottom line is addressing breast cancer, not all the other stuff PP does. Their donors should not have to wonder if their hard earned money is keeping PP’s lights on at the expense of fighting breast cancer.

LetsBfrank on February 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

i would simply observe that this is the huge power of the pro-abortionist industry.

When pro-lifers want their candidates to be pure, they need to recognize that the pro-abortion people have the money, political clout, the media clout to do anything they want

The apparatchik is deeply pro-abortion…one of its sacred cows. That is why they ignore large pro-life marches and focus on the pro-abortion signs, why ows can throw condoms at kids, why Andrea Mitchell was somewhere between a crying jag and a fit of rage last night on MSNBC.

This is a generational thing…pro-life people have to act in the ways of Gramsci for the next 50 years.

r keller on February 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

that baits lookin’ pretty yummy

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

My takeaway from all this is to be very very cautious what organizations I choose to support. I have at times considered supporting the Komen organization because I lost a very dear friend to breast cancer a few years ago. I never will now as it would be difficult to ever be certain where contributions are actually going or will be going in the future. It seems odd to me that an organization that is fighting breast cancer would ever give money to a known abortion provider since research has shown that abortions are actually a risk factor for breast cancer.

http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/

cheetah2 on February 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

S.G. Komen, “KEEP THOSE MEAT GRINDERS HUMMING!”

Pork-Chop on February 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

r keller on February 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

tru dat…there’s even an obscure communist. nice

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM

that baits lookin’ pretty yummy

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

Guess I’ll have to leave in my line and check back on it later.
ttfn

MontanaMmmm on February 3, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Pork-Chop on February 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

brilliant

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM

We fully support our daughter’s dreams! – S.G. Komen

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

If a hit man spends 90% of his time running a food bank, teaching inner city kids how to read and raising stray dogs, I guess we shouldn’t incarcerate him, right? After all, he only spends 10% of his time killing innocent people. Think of all the good he does!

Good Solid B-Plus on February 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM

yeah, but for people that are not prolifers, the 10% is not killing people, so your logic does not apply. now what? now it happens that I and other like me will tolerate or even apreciate PP and you and other prolifers will hate it and demonize it. however I ask you to at least acknowledge their good work and don’t slander them as many in this thread do.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

this is nuts.. you really think that is what the PP leadership thinks?

my guess is that PP people, instead of paying attention to the eugenics and racist views that Sanger had, they gather inspiration from other of her stories:

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Yes I do. Why do any liberals insist on maintaining the belief that blacks are incapable of doing for themselves. If child murder is no problem for a person and they view blacks as somehow incapable people, it is only a logical half step to think that a favor is being done for them by stopping them from breeding. What is often pointed to when people advocate dogs or cats being fixed? The less then ideal conditions strays often live under.

There is no secret conspiracy or cabal here. There is a line a reasoning that allows these people to be blind to what they are actually doing.

Although Sadie Sachs was possibly a fictional composite of several women Sanger had known…

Since anecdotes make for poor policy, I would say fictional anecdotes make for wretched policy.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

The parental notification laws are all about shaming girls into not having an abortion. If she’s pregnant than the “parenting” has already failed. She has the right to decide how her life will be and if she decides she’s not ready for a child, that is also her right. I am proud of my temporary home of IL, one of the few to not require consent or notification (along with Montana, California, Washington, Connecticut, DC, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont). Some states still value freedom.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

So would you then agree that a 15-year-old girl should be able to consent to having her appendix removed without her parents consenting or being aware of the procedure? Should she be able to elect gastric bypass surgery because she feels that she desperately needs to lose weight? Should she be able to go to a plastic surgeon and have breast implants?

Because at the moment, every single one of those items, and every other medical procedure of any sort save for abortion, requires the consent of the parents. The presumption is that a 15-year-old girl is not informed nor mature enough to make those types of potentially life-changing decisions for themselves. Thus, why we have the age of majority and place the responsibility for decision making upon parents or guardians until that point.

Shump on February 3, 2012 at 1:54 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Never mind an appendectomy…try getting your ears pierced without parental permission! Each time I took my daughters, I had to show ID that I was indeed their mom…it’s staggering to think that a minor could be given an abortion without a parents’ consent…I don’t even care if you’re pro-choice, what mom would want to think of her daughter, alone, on a table, having that kind of procedure? Sends chills up my spine.

ellifint on February 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

We’re huge douchebags – S.G. Komen

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Because even PP knows that a pure abortion mill would be about as popular as the Black Plague, so they provide cover for themselves by handing out helmet hoods and offering “counseling”.

329,000 abortions, 841 adoption referrals. Math.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

do you have statistics on how these abortions are made? i mean, are they day after pill or late pregnacy abortion.
i would like also to have statistics on the number of people advised to have have the baby and raise it as single mother. this is because adoption is quite a extreme thing to do if you do carry the pregnancy full term.
any way, i really not surprised of that number because many womans would prefer to have an abortion instead of suffering the pregnancy of a baby destined to adoption. i am not supporting of opposing the rational, i am just saying normal considering our culture.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

con. vol. uted.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Pathetic. Well, in the meantime, I’ll support the cause elsewhere, with organizations that don’t have anything to do with abortion.

Midas on February 3, 2012 at 3:06 PM

do you have statistics on how these abortions are made? i mean, are they day after pill or late pregnacy abortion.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

yeah, cause playin’ with stats is gonna close that 300,000 gap.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

do you have statistics on how these abortions are made? i mean, are they day after pill or late pregnacy abortion.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

No, just as I don’t have statistics for how many Holocaust Jews were killed by firing squad and how many were beaten to death, basically because the end result is the same.

Is there a difference I should know about, I mean between injecting liquid potassium into a baby’s skull or jamming a pair of scissors into its neck and twisting the blades around?

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

i would like also to have statistics on the number of people advised to have have the baby and raise it as single mother.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

330,000 abortions in one year. Whatever the statistics are, they don’t seem to be having much impact. Well, either that, or PP realizes there’s no profit in telling people not to slaughter their child. After all, profit incentive is used to demagogue everything from Big Oil to Big Insurance…so I think it applies nicely to Big Abortion.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

because adoption is quite a extreme thing to do if you do carry the pregnancy full term.any way, i really not surprised of that number because many womans would prefer to have an abortion instead of suffering the pregnancy of a baby destined to adoption. i am not supporting of opposing the rational, i am just saying normal considering our culture.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

WOW just WOW, your right and so sad it is that our “culture” is so devolved and selfish.

MontanaMmmm on February 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Yes I do. Why do any liberals insist on maintaining the belief that blacks are incapable of doing for themselves. If child murder is no problem for a person and they view blacks as somehow incapable people, it is only a logical half step to think that a favor is being done for them by stopping them from breeding. What is often pointed to when people advocate dogs or cats being fixed? The less then ideal conditions strays often live under.

There is no secret conspiracy or cabal here. There is a line a reasoning that allows these people to be blind to what they are actually doing.

i never knew any one like that.

Although Sadie Sachs was possibly a fictional composite of several women Sanger had known…

Since anecdotes make for poor policy, I would say fictional anecdotes make for wretched policy.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

you doubt that such stories were not common?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-induced_abortion

A study concluded in 1968[12] determined that over 1.2 million illegal abortions were performed every year in the United States, a portion of which were performed by women acting alone. The study suggested that the number of women dying as a result of self-induced abortions exceeded those resulting from abortions performed by another person. Due to estimated underreporting of illegal procedures, these numbers may not be accurate.[citation needed] A 1979 study noted that many women who required hospitalization following self-induced abortion attempts were admitted under the pretext of having had a miscarriage or spontaneous abortion.[13]

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

You have to find other sources besides Wikipedia. Anyone can write anything.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Personally, they won’t be getting another dime from me. Ever.

Not only do they apparently waiver on principle, but I just took a look at their financials. Compared to other charities they are terribly inefficient and give an awfully low percentage of their total income to the cause.

Bye. I will give to my local center. At least they are both principled and not earning million dollar salaries.

Marcus Traianus on February 3, 2012 at 3:17 PM

adoption is quite a extreme thing to do if you do carry the pregnancy full term

Awful. Imagine a child having to live with parents who are unable to conceive on their own and who are joyous to finally be able to have a youngster in their family.

Blending that baby into soup before being exposed to the hazards of love is less extreme.

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM

any way, i really not surprised of that number because many womans would prefer to have an abortion instead of suffering the pregnancy of a baby destined to adoption. i am not supporting of opposing the rational, i am just saying normal considering our culture.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

of course that’s the saddest comment of the thread.

How many women are taken to PP by their boyfriends and told to get an abortion? How many women have gotten pregnant, the man disappears and they feel they have no choice?

The pro-abortion thing is a godsend for men. There are always the philanderers, the louses, the ne’er-do-wells that knock women up then want to magically make things disappear.

But, nathor, it is a dirty business you are talking about. PP may have been borne of eugenics and continued by the elite need for population control (Malthusians all)…but the grimy truth is that men knock up girls and the girls are stuck

r keller on February 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM

The Susan G. Komen Foundations “cure” for cancer must be that if you abort the child, it won’t grow up to have cancer.

That’s the only way I can figure out their reasoning to fund PP.

Sterling Holobyte on February 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

If only republicans were this forceful and rabid about conservative and fiscal principles as democrats are about their social and hideous programs. Democrats fight, lie, cheat, and connive until they get their way. Republicans roll over, appease, try to get along, nominate moderate/liberal candidates as pushovers, and the liberal ideology just keeps advancing slowly creeping into and polluting our society, planting roots, and getting stronger. It’s happening with the assaults to religion now slowly chipping away at our morals with social experiments and in the name of not being mean or discriminatory. We have to stop this NOW! or else it will be way too late.

mozalf on February 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

WOW just WOW, your right and so sad it is that our “culture” is so devolved and selfish.

MontanaMmmm on February 3, 2012 at 3:10 PM

i do agree, but what human culture is not like this?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:24 PM

We have to stop this NOW! or else it will be way too late.

mozalf on February 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Already too late.

Midas on February 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

i never knew any one like that.

Every liberal you hear talking about the need for affirmative action is like that.

Midas on February 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Already too late.

Midas on February 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I’m afraid you’re right.

mozalf on February 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM

You have to find other sources besides Wikipedia. Anyone can write anything.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 3:16 PM

i once wrote many articles in wikipedia, so i know the process. its usually more informative and more balanced that other sources although far from perfect.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Every liberal you hear talking about the need for affirmative action is like that.

Midas on February 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Willful blindness. The soft bigotry of low expectations never occurs to them.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

wikipedia’s the best source for information…ever

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:34 PM

The soft bigotry of low expectations never occurs to them.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

how is that soft bigotry? Seems to me it’s just plain bigotry.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM

I classify that a medium, or semi-hard bigotry.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

The parental notification laws are all about shaming girls into not having an abortion. …

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Parental-notification laws are good for many reasons. One is (as others have pointed out here) that girls cannot consent to other invasive surgical procedures without their parents’ consent. In many schools, they can’t even get an aspirin without a parent’s say-so!

Another is that abortion hides the crimes of forcible rape, statutory rape, and incest. If a man impregnates a girl, he will take her to the nearest abortion mill in order to kill the evidence of his relationship with her — the baby.

Requiring a parent’s approval before killing the baby can help bring such offenses to light, and the guilty to justice.

And the baby can be placed with an adoptive family, if the young mother or her family is unwilling to raise him/her.

KyMouse on February 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM

how is that soft bigotry? Seems to me it’s just plain bigotry.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Soft bigotry in the sense that it is not an actual action taken to deprive a person of liberty or equal treatment under the law.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 3:41 PM

do you have statistics on how these abortions are made? i mean, are they day after pill or late pregnacy abortion.
i would like also to have statistics on the number of people advised to have have the baby and raise it as single mother. this is because adoption is quite a extreme thing to do if you do carry the pregnancy full term.
any way, i really not surprised of that number because many womans would prefer to have an abortion instead of suffering the pregnancy of a baby destined to adoption. i am not supporting of opposing the rational, i am just saying normal considering our culture.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Yes, we do have some of the statistics.

Emergency Contraception Kits 1,461,816

That is the morning after pill. That is separate and away from the abortions. They don’t consider the morning after pill an abortion, they consider it “contraception”.

Abortion Procedures 329,445

This is all available directly from PP.

I provided it earlier.

But here it is again.

ButterflyDragon on February 3, 2012 at 3:41 PM

If a hit man spends 90% of his time running a food bank, teaching inner city kids how to read and raising stray dogs, I guess we shouldn’t incarcerate him, right? After all, he only spends 10% of his time killing innocent people. Think of all the good he does!

Good Solid B-Plus on February 3, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Well said. I support abortion in some cases (morning after pill and first trimester in cases of rape or incest) but late-term abortions (especially if there is no threat to the mother) can simply not be considered anything other than murder.

MisterPundit on February 3, 2012 at 3:41 PM

i would like also to have statistics on the number of people advised to have have the baby and raise it as single mother. this is because adoption is quite a extreme thing to do if you do carry the pregnancy full term.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Sorry, forgot to put this in my previous post.

Prenatal Services 31,098

Less than 1% of everyone they see they provide prenatal care to.

Considering 10% have abortions, I’m pretty sure the culture within PP’s walls is geared towards abortion services.

10 times as many abortions. Think about that.

ButterflyDragon on February 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

As usual, the lefties have distracted the conversation from the core issue. Does a association have a right to not send PP money?

The hysteria over PP implies that lib/left believe the answer is no.

So too all you lefties, if Komen spend the money in other mammography venues for poor women and all women (say Vans) would you be happy. Would you support Komen’s right to spend their money the way they want? Hopefully you’ll all say yes…so everyone agrees that Komen can spend their money like they want

r keller on February 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

I classify that a medium, or semi-hard bigotry.

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Well, I didn’t invent the phrase. I did a quick search and the earliest reference I can find to the phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations” is from Bush speeches credited to Michael Gerson, one of his speech writers.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

of course that’s the saddest comment of the thread.

How many women are taken to PP by their boyfriends and told to get an abortion? How many women have gotten pregnant, the man disappears and they feel they have no choice?

The pro-abortion thing is a godsend for men. There are always the philanderers, the louses, the ne’er-do-wells that knock women up then want to magically make things disappear.

sure, many situations are like that, but not all.
and… it all could be avoided if those womens actually read the information about contraception that PP provides.

But, nathor, it is a dirty business you are talking about. PP may have been borne of eugenics and continued by the elite need for population control (Malthusians all)…but the grimy truth is that men knock up girls and the girls are stuck

r keller on February 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM

its a distort of the real history:

n 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters.”[19][note 3] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, coined the term birth control as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as family limitation[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22]

reading this, what shocked me was no that Sanger was once an anarchist, but that information about contraception was forbidden because of a federal law against obscenity. early activism of sanger had nothing to do with racial issues, it had everything to to with feminism.
painting Sanger and PP as racist eugenists is really a slander of a person, that despite her faults, broke ground for things that today we take for granted in america.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:48 PM

Considering 10% have abortions, I’m pretty sure the culture within PP’s walls is geared towards abortion services.

10 times as many abortions. Think about that.

ButterflyDragon on February 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

PP probably counts referrals as “providing services”, so the abortion ration is probably much higher.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM

The backlash against this backlash is going to be backlash-tastic. Boomerangs are like that. Planned Parenthood won this battle, but they are in a war now. That means the truthiness of their operation will become front and center — something they’ve tried to avoid for a long, long time. Slappin’ around women with breast cancer to advance your abortion agenda will have consequences for Planned Parenthood that they cannot even imagine as they spike the football today.

Rational Thought on February 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Well, I didn’t invent the phrase.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

hehehe…I know, I was just playin’

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

the earliest reference I can find to the phrase “soft bigotry of low expectations” is from Bush speeches credited to Michael Gerson, one of his speech writers.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 3:47 PM

it’s very well done. Gerson must have thought – how do I call them bigots w/o calling them bigots?

DHChron on February 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Sorry, forgot to put this in my previous post.

Prenatal Services 31,098

Less than 1% of everyone they see they provide prenatal care to.

Considering 10% have abortions, I’m pretty sure the culture within PP’s walls is geared towards abortion services.

10 times as many abortions. Think about that.

ButterflyDragon on February 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

but womans that decide to have the baby(or abortions) might not have the service in PP.
the statistic that is really needed is, of the womens that seeked PP for pregancy advice(if they did not have their made already made up), how many choose abortion, motherhood or adoption.

but lets assume the number are right. does this reflect PP policy or instead the culture of the nation?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM

I don’t even care if you’re pro-choice, what mom would want to think of her daughter, alone, on a table, having that kind of procedure? Sends chills up my spine.

ellifint on February 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Then the Democrats own that child. Her quiet shame will result in her voting Democrat so as not to be a hypocrite.

I’ve met grown women, in their 50′s, who feel they cannot vote Republican because they made a regrettable but very real and shameful “choice” back in college in the 70′s. I was never more taken aback.

They line up 99% with Republican/conservative beliefs but they feel it would be hypocritical to vote against abortion. This is very insidious indeed.

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

They line up 99% with Republican/conservative beliefs but they feel it would be hypocritical to vote against abortion. This is very insidious indeed.

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

Wow. Very interesting psychology that. Never heard of such a thing.

NotCoach on February 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM

so as not to be a hypocrite.

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 4:00 PM

… It doesn’t have to be that way.

I can’t seem to make myself type anything else.

Axe on February 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I can’t seem to make myself type anything else.

Axe on February 3, 2012 at 4:07 PM

I know. I felt that saying “I forgive you” would be patronizing and inappropriate. I just told them, “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM

Had SGK quietly never sent money to PP, this would not be an issue, and money would continue to flow to SGK from donors on both sides of the politics.

The lesson for other charitable organizations is that PP is radioactive, and dealing with them can cause you to lose roughly half of your donors.

That’s still a worthwhile outcome in the big picture.

slickwillie2001 on February 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM

PP probably counts referrals as “providing services”, so the abortion ration is probably much higher.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 3:49 PM

There was a thread some time back about PP where some statistics were given about their services provided.

It seemed that PP was counting any abortion related services (preganancy test, pre-op, abortion, post-op) as one single abortion service. However, other services were being broken into small segments before being counted. For instance, if you went in for a subscription for birth control pills and saw a doctor (1), received a pelvic exam (2), took a urine test to ensure you weren’t already pregnant (3), got the prescription (4) and bought 3 packs of discount pills (5,6,7) it would be counted as 7 different services.

I can’t find that thread now, so, I’ve got nothing but memory to back me up (which should definitely not be enough) – perhaps someone else can remember and find a link to that data.

JadeNYU on February 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Hunh. Wonder if they’ll be giving back all those prolife donations…

Book on February 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM

Those procedures have a risk of death.

libfreeordie on February 3, 2012 at 1:58 PM

Abortion has the certainty of death. But of course you knew that already.

Naturally Curly on February 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

libfreeordie only seems to know what the pro-deathers have told him/her. They talk about abortion as if it’s completely without risk, and it’s no more complicated than having your toenails clipped.

The truth is a bit different. Abortion has the same risks of any invasive surgical procedure. One common one is infection, which can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease (PID) and often sterility. While spending 10 years as an RN, I had probably cared for half a dozen women who were hospitalized with PID from botched LEGAL abortions.

libfreeordie apparently thinks that a “child” going in to get an abortion is the equivalent of getting a band-aid put on a boo-boo. But I guess that’s pretty much what abortion is to a lot of people, isn’t it. Oops! I made a mistake and got pregnant!

~~ SNIP! ~~

Oh, there you go, dear. All better now.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 4:17 PM

but womans that decide to have the baby(or abortions) might not have the service in PP.
the statistic that is really needed is, of the womens that seeked PP for pregancy advice(if they did not have their made already made up), how many choose abortion, motherhood or adoption.

but lets assume the number are right. does this reflect PP policy or instead the culture of the nation?

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 3:58 PM

329,445 abortions performed.

841 women referred for adoption services.

I think even you can figure that math out.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I know. I felt that saying “I forgive you” would be patronizing and inappropriate. I just told them, “I’m sorry you feel that way.”

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 4:14 PM

A woman that is very close to me grew up thinking abortion was no big deal. A fetus was a clump of cells or a parasite and there was no issue with having it removed. It was surgery and nothing more.

She had 3 abortions in the early years of her marriage because she and her husband believe in zero population growth (hippies, what can you do). Although not pertinent to the story, I should mention that one was while using an IUD, one was while on the pill and on was the result of a broken condom.

While in the office for the last abortion, she had started to feel that it wasn’t right. She was on the table and had been given a sedative but nothing else had been done (as far as she knows). She told the doctor she didn’t want to do this any more and was told it was too late and that she had already made the right choice and not to worry.

That feeling that it wasn’t right turned into a full blown conviction years later that abortion was absolutely wrong.

She carries the guilt of those three abortions and four babies with her to this day, but, instead of letting that guilt lead her to support abortion since “it’s not fair that she utilized it but doesn’t want others to” she is an ardent pro-life advocate because she doesn’t want abortion to result in any more deaths and guilt.

If it’s that they really think that the option should be available for other girls, this wouldn’t apply to them, but, if it’s truly guilt over what they did, they should know that allowing others to do it doesn’t make anything better.

JadeNYU on February 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM

329,445 abortions performed.

841 women referred for adoption services.

I think even you can figure that math out.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

please see some more posts above, this was already discussed.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM

329,445 abortions performed indoctrinated liberal voters created.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Sadly…

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM

JadeNYU on February 3, 2012 at 4:26 PM

That makes more sense to me. I guess some people are more brave and bold than others. I did lose some respect for these friends who would allow abortion to define them.

Fallon on February 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Remember when the Susan G. Komen Foundation Republicans cut off grants to Planned Parenthood for being under Congressional investigation boycotted the Super Bowl for the player union opposition to Indiana’s right to work law and also for this entertainment — er, sorr

Me neither.

Did the Dem base threaten to boycott Komen? I think the other side is more serious than the wingnuts.

kunegetikos on February 3, 2012 at 4:48 PM

Thanks for voting with your dollars and supporting the Hollywood and “music” types who are funding your opposition, too.

kunegetikos on February 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM

I almost sent them $100 last night. Glad I put it off.

disa on February 3, 2012 at 4:52 PM

No, just as I don’t have statistics for how many Holocaust Jews were killed by firing squad and how many were beaten to death, basically because the end result is the same.

Is there a difference I should know about, I mean between injecting liquid potassium into a baby’s skull or jamming a pair of scissors into its neck and twisting the blades around?

Bishop on February 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I think you are missing the main point which is that millions of people and the generations that would have followed them will not ever have to grow up facing the horror of being Jewish poor or black thanks to Hitler Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

And for that I am sure they would have thanked Hitler Margaret if only they were available for comment.

Lily on February 3, 2012 at 4:54 PM

please see some more posts above, this was already discussed.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Excuse me?

It is what it is. Planned Parenthood and their affiliates have gone to court to force Crisis Pregnancy Centers to provide abortion referrals, and they’ve fought against providing adoption referrals. They also consistently fight against laws requiring ultrasounds prior to abortions.

You can not deny that 329,445 abortions were performed, vs. 841 referrals for adoption. It’s quite logical to reach a conclusion based on those two numbers. Planned Parenthood promotes abortion because Planned Parenthood gets INCOME from abortions. They have no incentive to refer women to adoption agencies or Crisis Pregnancy Centers.

The statistics listed reveal exactly what Planned Parenthood’s idea of “choice” is. That choice is money generating abortions. The fact that they provide “other services” is just a smokescreen for their money-maker. Truth. Deal with it.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 4:54 PM

The statistics listed reveal exactly what Planned Parenthood’s idea of “choice” is. That choice is money generating abortions. The fact that they provide “other services” is just a smokescreen for their money-maker. Truth. Deal with it.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 4:54 PM

i already discussed it. lets move on. does any one want to comment on these 2 posts?:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/03/breaking-komen-announces-that-planned-parenthood-eligibility-for-funding-will-continue/comment-page-6/#comment-5422353

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/03/breaking-komen-announces-that-planned-parenthood-eligibility-for-funding-will-continue/comment-page-6/#comment-5422207

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM

No donations, no supporting the relays, and no buying of products with the pink ribbon

If I want to support cancer research, I will send my donations to MD Anderson.

What about March of Dimes? Do they fund abortions, (or do they still exist?)

jazzuscounty on February 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

please see some more posts above, this was already discussed.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Please learn capitalization, grammar, punctuation, sentence structure, and take an extra class or two in the English language.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:03 PM

i already discussed it. lets move on.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM

You don’t end the discussions here, weasel. You’re in our house now.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

I think you are missing the main point which is that millions of people and the generations that would have followed them will not ever have to grow up facing the horror of being Jewish poor or black thanks to Hitler Margaret Sanger and Planned Parenthood.

And for that I am sure they would have thanked Hitler Margaret if only they were available for comment.

Lily on February 3, 2012 at 4:54 PM

slander….

Historian Rodger Streitmatter concluded that Sanger’s opposition to abortion stemmed from concerns for the dangers to the mother, rather than moral concerns.[99] However, in her 1938 autobiography, Sanger noted that her opposition to abortion was based on the taking of life: “[In 1916] we explained what contraception was; that abortion was the wrong way no matter how early it was performed it was taking life; that contraception was the better way, the safer way — it took a little time, a little trouble, but was well worth while in the long run, because life had not yet begun.”[100] And in her book Family Limitation, Sanger wrote that “no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable but they will become unnecessary when care is taken to prevent conception. This is the only cure for abortions.”[101]

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Forget that abortion and abortifacients are causing breast cancer, how about the other effects of abortion on a women’s health?
http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/ASMF/index.html
Abortion is a very invasive, complicated and potentially dangerous procedure with significant short-term and long-term effects. But yet many underage girls can leave school, get this surgery, return to school, then home, without her parents knowledge or consent.

But, yeah, for teh cure or something.

quiz1 on February 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

i already discussed it. lets move on. nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:01 PM

And I debunked it, and you have no comment.

Yeah, I can see why you’d want to “move on.”

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 5:08 PM

slander….

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Not quite…and that’s already been discussed. Your previous claims were debunked by sources other than Wiki, the one you insisted was the only source you would read. Let’s move on.

Defend the destruction of over 324,000 unborn lives a year through Planned Parenthood, if you can.

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 5:11 PM

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

Don’t quote Wikipedia at me you moron. I’ve read her books.

Lily on February 3, 2012 at 5:12 PM

slander….

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

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

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Sanger was a racist and eugenist.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

You don’t end the discussions here, weasel. You’re in our house now.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:04 PM

My conclusion is that is hard to judge PP with a pro abortion bias without having some kind of statistic or study(independent, not from prolife source) of their policy and behavior.
But I recognize that painting PP as an abortion mill, looks like a slander of the organization and its founder. Regarding Sanger, I actually read the biography today, concluding that Sanger was in many ways, quite an admirable person.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Sanger.

“EACH of us has an ideal of what the American of the future should be. We have been told times without number that out of the mixture of stocks, the intermingling of ideas and aspirations, there is to come a race greater than any which has contributed to the population of the United States. What is the basis for this hope that is so generally indulged in? If the hope is founded upon realities, how may it be realized? To understand the difficulties and the obstacles to be overcome before the dream of a greater race in America can be attained, is to understand something of the task before the women who shall give birth to that race.

“What material is there for a greater American race? What elements make up our present millions? Where do they live? How do they live? In what direction does our national civilization bend their ideals? What is the effect of the “melting pot” upon the foreigner, once he begins to “melt”? Are we now producing a freer, juster, more intelligent, more idealistic, creative people out of the varied ingredients here?

“Before we can answer these questions, we must consider briefly the races which have contributed to American population.

“Among our more than 100,000,000 population are Negroes, Indians, Chinese and other colored people to the number of 11,000,000. There are also 14,500,000 persons of foreign birth. Besides these there are 14,000,000 children of foreign-born parents and 6,500,000 persons whose fathers or mothers were born on foreign soil, making a total of 46,000,000 people of foreign stock. Fifty per cent of our population is of the native white strain.

“Of the foreign stock in the United States, the last general census, compiled in 1910, shows that 25.7 per cent was German, 14 per cent was Irish, 8.5 per cent was Russian or Finnish, 7.2 was English, 6.5 per cent Italian and 6.2 per cent Austrian. The Abstract of the same census points out several significant facts. The Western European strains in this country are represented by a majority of native-born children of foreign-born or mixed parentage. This is because the immigration from those sources has been checked. On the other hand, immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, including Russia and Finland, increased 175.4 per cent from 1900 to 1910. During that period, the slums of Europe dumped their submerged inhabitants into America at a rate almost double that of the preceding decade, and the flow was still increasing at the time the census was taken. So it is more than likely that when the next census is taken it will be found that following 1910 there was an even greater flow from Spain, Italy, Hungary, Austria, Russia, Finland, and other countries where the iron hand of economic and political tyrannies had crushed great populations into ignorance and want. These peoples have not been in the United States long enough to produce great families. The census of 1920 will in all probability tell a story of a greater and more serious problem than did the last.

“Over one-fourth of all the immigrants over fourteen years of age, admitted during the two decades preceding 1910, were illiterate. Of the 8,398,000 who arrived in the 1900-1910 period, 2,238,000 could not read or write. There were 1,600,000 illiterate foreigners in the United States when the 1910 census was taken. Do these elements give promise of a better race? Are we doing anything genuinely constructive to overcome this situation?

“Two-thirds of the white foreign stock in the United States live in cities. Four-fifths of the populations of Chicago and New York are of this stock. More than two-thirds of the populations of Boston, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee, Newark, Jersey City, Providence, Worcester, Scranton, Paterson, Fall River, Lowell, Cambridge, Bridgeport, St. Paul, Minneapolis and San Francisco are of other than native white ancestry. Of the fifty principal cities of the United States there are only fourteen in which fifty per cent of the population is of unmixed native white parentage.”

… it goes on and on and on.

Axe on February 3, 2012 at 5:21 PM

My conclusion is that is hard to judge PP with a pro abortion bias without having some kind of statistic or study(independent, not from prolife source) of their policy and behavior.
But I recognize that painting PP as an abortion mill, looks like a slander of the organization and its founder. Regarding Sanger, I actually read the biography today, concluding that Sanger was in many ways, quite an admirable person.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

329,445 human lives will never get to debate with you about this. All destroyed by Planned Parenthood, JUST LAST YEAR, and there are many more that have been destroyed in the name of “choice.”

841 adoption referrals.

Lawsuits to force Crisis Pregnancy Centers to provide abortion referrals. Refusal to allow standards at abortion clinics. Refusal to allow women to see an ultrasound before they get an abortion.

Nope. No reason to conclude there’s a pro-abortion bias at Planned Parenthood.

This is absolute idiocy that you’re spouting, but I am clearly wasting my time, because the only response I will get is “la-la-la I can’t hear you!”

JannyMae on February 3, 2012 at 5:24 PM

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

On sterilization & racial purification:
Sanger believed that, for the purpose of racial “purification,” couples should be rewarded who chose sterilization. Birth Control in America, The Career of Margaret Sanger, by David Kennedy, p. 117, quoting a 1923 Sanger speech.

On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was “to create a race of thoroughbreds,” she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)

On the rights of the handicapped and mentally ill, and racial minorities:
“More children from the fit, less from the unfit — that is the chief aim of birth control.” Birth Control Review, May 1919, p. 12

Sanger was a racist and eugenist.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 5:13 PM

yikes, i cannot defend this, but looking at her early career:

n 1914, Sanger launched The Woman Rebel, an eight-page monthly newsletter which promoted contraception using the slogan “No Gods, No Masters.”[19][note 3] Sanger, collaborating with anarchist friends, coined the term birth control as a more candid alternative to euphemisms such as family limitation[20] and proclaimed that each woman should be “the absolute mistress of her own body.”[21] In these early years of Sanger’s activism, she viewed birth control as a free speech issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel, one of her goals was to provoke a legal challenge to the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception.[22]

aren’t you happy that someone 100 years ago fought to remove the federal anti-obscenity laws which banned dissemination of information about contraception?

Sanger supported the cause of free speech throughout her career, with a zeal comparable to her support for birth control. Sanger grew up in a home where iconoclastic orator Robert Ingersoll was admired.[90] During the early years of her activism, Sanger viewed birth control primarily as a free-speech issue, rather than a feminist issue, and when she started publishing The Woman Rebel in 1914, she did so with the express goal of provoking a legal challenge to the Comstock laws banning dissemination of information about contraception.[22] In New York, Emma Goldman introduced Sanger to members of the Free Speech League, such as Edward Bliss Foote and Theodore Schroeder, and subsequently the League provided funding and advice to help Sanger with legal battles.[91]

Over the course of her career, Sanger was arrested at least eight times for expressing her views during an era in which speaking publicly about contraception was illegal.[92] Numerous times in her career, local government officials prevented Sanger from speaking by shuttering a facility or threatening her hosts.[93] In Boston in 1929, city officials under the leadership of James Curley threatened to arrest her if she spoke — so she turned the threat to her advantage and stood on stage, silent, with a gag over her mouth, while her speech was read by Arthur M. Schlesinger, Sr.[94]

by no way I agree with everything she said, but she was a person and she broke ground in things that today we take for granted and she deserves credit for it.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:26 PM

My conclusion is that is hard to judge PP with a pro abortion bias without having some kind of statistic or study(independent, not from prolife source) of their policy and behavior.

330,000 abortions last year sounds about right, as does the pitiful amount of prenatal counseling sessions and adoption referrals in comparison. But then, you actually described adoption as “extreme”…while recommending the alternative, abortion, which means f**king killing the child. I think you’ve got the most warped view of the word “extreme” that is possible for a human being to hold.

But I recognize that painting PP as an abortion mill, looks like a slander of the organization and its founder.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

You think that, not recognize it. Recognition means you’re observing a proven, accepted fact. It is not a fact that PP is not an abortion mill. It is a fact that they are the central organization for the pro-abortion movement. It is a fact that their success is dependent on a large number for abortions. It is a fact that they promote abortion as if it’s a safe, healthy procedure. It is a fact that abortion is not a safe, healthy procedure.

It is also a fact that I would not vote to outlaw abortion. I assume that you would not, either. Neither of those facts contradict the others I listed. You need to recognize that, and you also need to realize that you are a twisted, sick individual when you consider adoption “extreme” and abortion other than “extreme”.

MadisonConservative on February 3, 2012 at 5:32 PM

My conclusion is that is hard to judge PP with a pro abortion bias without having some kind of statistic or study(independent, not from prolife source) of their policy and behavior.

nathor on February 3, 2012 at 5:16 PM

Look dude … Margaret Sanger, the American Birth Control League and it’s offspring Planned Parenthood all had and have as their primary mission population control. Population control includes minimizing groups or races of people deemed “inferior”. This is a primary goal of the left, and abortion helps fulfill that goal.

darwin on February 3, 2012 at 5:33 PM

Anyone who gave money in light of SGK’s announcement yesterday should be able to stop payment in light of today’s flip flop.
Planned Abortion destroyed SGK and SGK set off the final bomb themselves.

BedBug on February 3, 2012 at 5:38 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7 8